Nikon to announce new products on Sep. 1

In article ,
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
Just saw an invitation to a press conference on Sep. 1 where
Nikon is going to announce several new products. No details
yet - just the assurance that this will be interesting.

Hence, the field is open for speculation, which is probably what
Nikon wants. Just a new flash, lens or yet another P&S after
Canon's 5D announcement would be lame - rather than interesting.
The D100 is overdue for a replacement, and the D2x is not, so my
money is on that the main event will be the D200.

The $64000 question (although I hope it retail for less than that)
is whether it will be FF or not.

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

The D200 will be positioned against the EOS 20D, at a price point
I'd guess somewhere around $1200 - certainly no more than $1500.
You can't sell a 'FF' sensor at that kind of price. Well, not
for long, anyway. I suppose it's just conceivable that we'd see
an APS-H (1.3x crop factor), but even that is unlikely; having
a smaller sensor on your top-end model than on a midrange body
seems a rather unlikely strategy.

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
Just saw an invitation to a press conference on Sep. 1 where
Nikon is going to announce several new products. No details
yet - just the assurance that this will be interesting.

Hence, the field is open for speculation, which is probably what
Nikon wants. Just a new flash, lens or yet another P&S after
Canon's 5D announcement would be lame - rather than interesting.
The D100 is overdue for a replacement, and the D2x is not, so my
money is on that the main event will be the D200.

The $64000 question (although I hope it retail for less than that)
is whether it will be FF or not.

I sincerely hope they do provide a full-frame camera at some point in the
near future - all this using large and bulky 35mm bodies and mounting toy
sensors in them which limit wide-angle capability has gone on for too
long! G (I don't think they will do that on September 1st, though).

On the ZLR front, I would like to see a move from the 8MP sensor down to a
less-noisy 7MP sensor or something which gains low-light capability, with
an improvement to the telephoto aperture on both the Coolpix 8400 and
8800, and the addition of image stabilisation to the 8400.

David

In article ,
David J Taylor wrote:
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
The $64000 question (although I hope it retail for less than that)
is whether it will be FF or not.

I sincerely hope they do provide a full-frame camera at some point in the
near future - all this using large and bulky 35mm bodies and mounting toy
sensors in them which limit wide-angle capability has gone on for too
long! G (I don't think they will do that on September 1st, though).

I wonder how far the resolution of 1.5 crop sensors can be pushed without
seriously compromising dynamic range.

Suppose that Nikon creates a camera with interchangeable sensors: one
24 Mpixpel sensor that only works at ISO 200, and a 6 Mpixel sensor that
goes up to ISO 1600 or higher. (and a B/W sensor, and an IR sensor, etc.)

That may be cost effective as long as full frame sensors remain at least
twice as expensive as APS-C sensors.

It would make for an interesting shoot out if Nikon announces a 12 Mpixel
D200 for less than $2000.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
SNIP
I wonder how far the resolution of 1.5 crop sensors can be pushed
without seriously compromising dynamic range.

Since Dynamic range is determined by potential well depth and noise,
the well depth limitation of/by small sensor elements seems to be the
issue to me (noise reduction can only be improved to a point). And
well depth is limited by design to roughly scale with sensel
size/area.

Bart

In article ,
Bart van der Wolf wrote:

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
q.phicoh.net...
SNIP
I wonder how far the resolution of 1.5 crop sensors can be pushed
without seriously compromising dynamic range.

Since Dynamic range is determined by potential well depth and noise,
the well depth limitation of/by small sensor elements seems to be the
issue to me (noise reduction can only be improved to a point). And
well depth is limited by design to roughly scale with sensel
size/area.

I know how it scales, but are current designs at the limit?

Another thing (I have no idea if that would work), as far as I understand,
you get photon shot noise when photons are turned into electrons. What
happens if you use the CMOS circuitry to store just 1 electron for
every 10 'photon-related' electrons?


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:14:55 +0200, (Philip
Homburg) wrote:

In article ,
David J Taylor wrote:
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
The $64000 question (although I hope it retail for less than that)
is whether it will be FF or not.

I sincerely hope they do provide a full-frame camera at some point in the
near future - all this using large and bulky 35mm bodies and mounting toy
sensors in them which limit wide-angle capability has gone on for too
long! G (I don't think they will do that on September 1st, though).

I wonder how far the resolution of 1.5 crop sensors can be pushed without
seriously compromising dynamic range.

Suppose that Nikon creates a camera with interchangeable sensors: one
24 Mpixpel sensor that only works at ISO 200, and a 6 Mpixel sensor that
goes up to ISO 1600 or higher. (and a B/W sensor, and an IR sensor, etc.)

Wow. I still do film and I carry either two or three bodies, K64,
Ekta pushed to 3200 and a print film at 100 or 400. One of the
reasons for me to go digital is that I would need only one body. Now
I would need two!

I have to imagine that changing the sensor out in the (dusty) field is
a great way not to keep your sensor dust-free.

It's a nice idea, though, as long as the rest of the electronics is
upgrade able to accommodate larger files from future hi-res sensors.


Vater Kodak

That may be cost effective as long as full frame sensors remain at least
twice as expensive as APS-C sensors.

It would make for an interesting shoot out if Nikon announces a 12 Mpixel
D200 for less than $2000.

In article ,
Father Kodak wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:14:55 +0200, (Philip
Homburg) wrote:
Suppose that Nikon creates a camera with interchangeable sensors: one
24 Mpixpel sensor that only works at ISO 200, and a 6 Mpixel sensor that
goes up to ISO 1600 or higher. (and a B/W sensor, and an IR sensor, etc.)

Wow. I still do film and I carry either two or three bodies, K64,
Ekta pushed to 3200 and a print film at 100 or 400. One of the
reasons for me to go digital is that I would need only one body. Now
I would need two!

But this may happen anyway. Dedicated high speed dSLRs for sports already
exist. Why not build dedicated high ISO dSLRs (assuming there is enough
demand for them)?

I have to imagine that changing the sensor out in the (dusty) field is
a great way not to keep your sensor dust-free.

One of the advantages of removable sensors is that they are easier to clean...

It's a nice idea, though, as long as the rest of the electronics is
upgrade able to accommodate larger files from future hi-res sensors.

I guess that the limits of resolution will be reached soon (though there is
the 'Bayer' factor). If you compute DoF using the size of a single sensor
element in a 16 Mpixel camera as CoC, you get close to nothing.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

It's a nice idea, though, as long as the rest of the electronics is
upgrade able to accommodate larger files from future hi-res sensors.

I guess that the limits of resolution will be reached soon (though there is
the 'Bayer' factor). If you compute DoF using the size of a single sensor
element in a 16 Mpixel camera as CoC, you get close to nothing.


Are you saying that the circle-of-confusion size is much smaller than
a single sensor element, or the other way around?

Father Kodak wrote:


Wow. I still do film and I carry either two or three bodies, K64,
Ekta pushed to 3200 and a print film at 100 or 400. One of the
reasons for me to go digital is that I would need only one body. Now
I would need two!

Doesn't matter if you're doing film or digital, two bodies is a good
idea because Murphy was an optimist.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:46:40 -0400, no one
wrote:

Father Kodak wrote:


Wow. I still do film and I carry either two or three bodies, K64,
Ekta pushed to 3200 and a print film at 100 or 400. One of the
reasons for me to go digital is that I would need only one body. Now
I would need two!

Doesn't matter if you're doing film or digital, two bodies is a good
idea because Murphy was an optimist.

Film bodies make a great backup. Especially if you already own them
and you already have a scanner.