Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000?

In article <1ju3d255u9ob1oelacgm9ioha0jpko580m RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
Dave Lotek <Dave_Lotek RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> A local camera sales person told me Nikon is about to release a 12+MP
> SLR this month. It will sell for under $1000. Has anyone heard
> similar rumors?
>
> Still Shopping



Its on Nikon's website, at least a teaser is....word is its a Nikon
D80..10.2mp to replace the Nikon D50. If the speculation is correct,
then it'll be a 10 mp sensor in the D50 body. It will use SD cards not
CF cards and it will be under $1000.

JR
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

On 3 Aug 2006 09:14:15 -0700, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665.DeleteThis@aol.com>
wrote:

>>Dave Lotek wrote:
>> A local camera sales person told me Nikon is about to release a 12+MP
>> SLR this month. It will sell for under $1000. Has anyone heard
>> similar rumors?
>
>
>Haven't heard any rumors but the Sept camera show is coming up when
>many new product announcement are made and, because the 12 Mpix sensor
>in the D2x is the same size as the lower pixel count sensors in the
>consumer models it makes sense Nikon could put it in a cheaper 1.5x
>body and still make a lot of money.
>
>Bill

Immediately, yes.
But what would they do next year, after Canon puts the 5D's sensor
into the Rebel XT? Canon still has someplace to go, but Nikon couldn't
follow there.
Marketing is about more than making money NOW! In the DSLR market,
there has to be a plan for upgrading.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

Dave Lotek wrote:
> A local camera sales person told me Nikon is about to release a 12+MP
> SLR this month. It will sell for under $1000. Has anyone heard
> similar rumors?
>
> Still Shopping

Rumors aplenty. Just wait a month and see. Want a huge pixel count at
affordable prices today? Get a 2nd hand film camera and a slide scanner.
You'd have to shoot A LOT of film to make up the price difference
between that and for example a Nikon D2Xs set. You'll get 12MP easily
out of good slide film combined with decent glass and a tripod. IMHO
there's way too much emphasis on questionable metrics like pixel count.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

Bas van de Wiel wrote:

>
> I agree with you totally that there's a time and place for both film and
> digital. Right now however there's an enormous price gap between
> exceptionally good film bodies (in the lower hundreds of $$) and the top
> of the line digitals (ten to twenty times the price of a film body).

Yes, and I doubt that changes much, until digital tops out at whatever
low-noise, high ISO full size sensors the market brings about.

>
> I'd say you'd save around $7000 if not more. That's a whole lot of cash
> to get parity with slide film. I'm certain this will improve and digital
> cameras will overtake film. Just not anytime soon.

Leaving aside economic comparisons, many photogs have satisfied
themselves and others that HQ digital outperforms 35mm slide or neg. film.

> I'm pretty convinced
> that my F90X will still be around and in active use after I replace the
> replacement of my D70.

Very likely.
>
> Everybody seems so hung up on pixel count that it's sad.

Everybody? Hardly.

> The CCD still
> suffers from noise, why not reduce that first? I'll take a D70 with a
> noise-free ISO 1600 over the current top of the line any day.

There's no such thing as a noise free ISO 1600, not even from Canon.

--
John McWilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

? "Bas v.d. Wiel" <beetjebrak78.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:44d20543$0$4522$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Dave Lotek wrote:
> > A local camera sales person told me Nikon is about to release a 12+MP
> > SLR this month. It will sell for under $1000. Has anyone heard
> > similar rumors?
> >
> > Still Shopping
>
> Rumors aplenty. Just wait a month and see. Want a huge pixel count at
> affordable prices today? Get a 2nd hand film camera and a slide scanner.
> You'd have to shoot A LOT of film to make up the price difference
> between that and for example a Nikon D2Xs set. You'll get 12MP easily
> out of good slide film combined with decent glass and a tripod. IMHO
> there's way too much emphasis on questionable metrics like pixel count.
That's technically correct, but digital cameras provide much more
flexibility and better quality than equivalent film cameras.That's why
everybody has switched to digital;include in film cameras a wet darkroom and
that puts the last nail in the coffin for film.The (large) pixel count is
important for making big blow-ups, the least of most film users want to do,
there are also the processor of the camera,its technology, glass and sensor
nature beyond pure pixel count.With film you would get the same apparent
pixel count, but you wouldn't get auto white balance correction, erasure of
not-so-good shots, storage of hundreds of photos on a stamp-sized card, no
need for expensive developing (just before I switched to digital, one of my
last transparency films processing cost 10 euros...I used to pay 1000
drachmas<3 euros>)and easily distribution of the originals on cds or dvds or
even email for a few, and easy print with a 136 euros printer or at a
digital lab.


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering,freelance electrician
542nd mechanized infantry batallion
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

>> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>Dave Lotek wrote:
> >> A local camera sales person told me Nikon is about to release a 12+MP
> >> SLR this month. It will sell for under $1000. Has anyone heard
> >> similar rumors?
> >
> >
> >Haven't heard any rumors but the Sept camera show is coming up when
> >many new product announcement are made and, because the 12 Mpix sensor
> >in the D2x is the same size as the lower pixel count sensors in the
> >consumer models it makes sense Nikon could put it in a cheaper 1.5x
> >body and still make a lot of money.
> >
> >Bill


>Bill Funk wrote:
> Immediately, yes.
> But what would they do next year, after Canon puts the 5D's sensor
> into the Rebel XT?

Nikon can realistically put the 12 Mpix D2x sensor in a cheaper body
like the D70 and sell it for under $1,000 because the D2x sensor is the
same physical size as the current D70 sensor and most of the sensor
cost is due to the die size.

Canon can't put the 5D sensor in a Rebel body and sell it for under
$1,000 because the 5D sensor is a lot more expensive to manufacture due
to the chip size. The yield data I saw indicates that on the same size
wafer Canon gets 10-12x as many good die for the 1.6x sensor size than
for the 1.0x sensor size (4-5 good chips per wafer for full frame vs ~
50 good chips for 1.6x sensors for the same 8" wafers), so it will be a
while before Canon offers full frame sensors at this price point,
regardless of how cheap the body.

> Canon still has someplace to go, but Nikon couldn't
> follow there.

Actually Nikon could "follow there" by bringing out a camera utilizing
a full frame sensor But it won't be under $1,000 ... and your point
that Canon has more room to grow with their current product line is
well taken (I have 1.3x and 1.0x Canon bodies myself).

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

>
> That's technically correct, but digital cameras provide much more
> flexibility and better quality than equivalent film cameras.That's why
> everybody has switched to digital;include in film cameras a wet darkroom and
> that puts the last nail in the coffin for film.The (large) pixel count is
> important for making big blow-ups, the least of most film users want to do,
> there are also the processor of the camera,its technology, glass and sensor
> nature beyond pure pixel count.With film you would get the same apparent
> pixel count, but you wouldn't get auto white balance correction, erasure of
> not-so-good shots, storage of hundreds of photos on a stamp-sized card, no
> need for expensive developing (just before I switched to digital, one of my
> last transparency films processing cost 10 euros...I used to pay 1000
> drachmas<3 euros>)and easily distribution of the originals on cds or dvds or
> even email for a few, and easy print with a 136 euros printer or at a
> digital lab.
>
>
> --
> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios

You're totally right here. Just the way I see it, to get your huge pixel
count you can buy a used Nikon F100 + basic glass for $300 these days,
slap in a Coolscan V and you're set. Compare that to a D2Xs that'll get
the same pixel count and you have a heck of a price difference.

The difference in quality simply isn't there in digital, as far as I'm
concerned. I own two Nikons, an F90X and a D70. Just a week or so ago I
bought a coolscan to sort of rejuvenate the F90X. I went through all of
my old negatives and slides and the quality is awesome! The scans the
Coolscan produces run circles around the D70 both in terms of resolution
and image quality. Slide film, notorious for blowing out highlights,
does so much more gracefully than the D70's sensor. On my digital shots
small sparkling highlights often look as if they were burned into the
sensor with a really nasty colour fringe around them. This fringe is not
there when I put the exact same glass on my F90X and shoot a slide of
the same scene.

So for anything that has to look good and be blown up big, I use my
F90X. I also had the opportunity to take a Canon EOS 1D Mark II for a
short spin. Now that's what I call a monster digicam, blows my D70
straight out of the water. Admittedly: no nasty fringing in the
highlights but at that price.. I'll stick with my F90X for now. I'm not
a professional, this is a hobby for me. Those thousands of $$$ are
better spent on actually taking great pictures than on a camera body
that will probably be completely obsolete in 5 years.

Bas
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

Bas van de Wiel <beetjebrak78.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You're totally right here. Just the way I see it, to get your huge pixel
> count you can buy a used Nikon F100 + basic glass for $300 these days,
> slap in a Coolscan V and you're set. Compare that to a D2Xs that'll get
> the same pixel count and you have a heck of a price difference.
>

10 day turn around on developing slides though ... unless you care to scan
negatives or happen to have a fast, reliable and suitably cheap E-6 developer
locally and handy. Also, compare the scan and processing time and you will
probably wish you paid for the digital camera. Having said that, I own an
F100 and a D70.

> The difference in quality simply isn't there in digital, as far as I'm
> concerned. I own two Nikons, an F90X and a D70. Just a week or so ago I
> bought a coolscan to sort of rejuvenate the F90X. I went through all of
> my old negatives and slides and the quality is awesome! The scans the
> Coolscan produces run circles around the D70 both in terms of resolution
> and image quality. Slide film, notorious for blowing out highlights,
> does so much more gracefully than the D70's sensor. On my digital shots
> small sparkling highlights often look as if they were burned into the
> sensor with a really nasty colour fringe around them. This fringe is not
> there when I put the exact same glass on my F90X and shoot a slide of
> the same scene.
>
> So for anything that has to look good and be blown up big, I use my
> F90X. I also had the opportunity to take a Canon EOS 1D Mark II for a
> short spin. Now that's what I call a monster digicam, blows my D70
> straight out of the water. Admittedly: no nasty fringing in the
> highlights but at that price.. I'll stick with my F90X for now. I'm not
> a professional, this is a hobby for me. Those thousands of $$$ are
> better spent on actually taking great pictures than on a camera body
> that will probably be completely obsolete in 5 years.

Yes, I have the D70 and F100. I can't say that I have seen the issues you
mention with the D70 and highlights, but still, I have been having a lot more
time shooting slides than digital lately.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

Bas van de Wiel wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> > Well no, you'll get something like the equivalent of decent 6MP (the
> > rest will simply drown in all that grain and noise; not to mention the
> > extra effort required to scan the negative).
>
> I have a shot from my scanner right here that's way above the 6MP
> resolution that I get from my D70. And that's not just pixel count, I
> mean real detail that's actually there. Not noise and grain.
>
> http://www.kompasmedia.nl/fileadmin/crop0004.jpg
>
> As far as I'm concerned, this closes the discussion indeed.

Oh no it doesn't. (O: I'm sorry, Bas, but I beg to *strongly* differ,
and would laregly agree with Alfred. That image is lacking any detail
down to pixel level. Just look at the almost illegible lettering on
the dial, for example. A 12Mp digital image, using good technique and
a decent lens, will show better and certainly much cleaner resolution.

To argue that point by demonstration, here's an actual pixel size clip
off a lowly Fuji S9000 - a 9Mp prosumer, right next to a section from
your image. The eye is from the fuji, the number 100 is off your
image. Are you suggesting that your image is sharper/cleaner? Can you
perhaps supply a better crop from a sharper area of that image, or some
other image? I couldn't find any detail better than this.

http://www.marktphoto.com/resolution/scanvdigi.jpg

Zoom it up - you'll see that the eye (fuji) is showing detail at the
2-3-pixel range despite the jpg compression. As it should. The film
scan is showing detail at the 4-6-pixel level, and it is further
clouded by grain effects.

Even though the Fuji is a prosumer and *well* short of the 12Mp DSLR
being compared here, it clearly outperforms that film scan in terms of
clean pixels and actual real detail. (And for the record, that crop is
part of a sample JPEG image (including over compression!) from one of
the camera review websites, so it can easily be verified.. and a RAW
image would be better again.)

If you claim to have better 1:1 actual crop samples, please post them!

My experience with 6-8 Mp DSLR's and prosumers and a range of film
scanners from 2400ppi through 4000ppi suggests that, when scanning an
extremely sharp transparency:

2400 ppi film scan = roughly equivalent to a 4Mp image
2700 ppi film scan = roughly equivalent to a 5Mp image
4000 ppi film scan = roughly equivalent to a 6-7Mp image

Those figures seem to be in line with most websites that discuss this
issue, eg Roger Clark's excellent work at clarkvision.com. If it isn't
quality that you want, just more pixels, then go with the film scanner,
but you might as well just interpolate... (O:

If what you want is real enlargable detail, then many factors come into
play.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

Bas van de Wiel <beetjebrak78.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Everybody seems so hung up on pixel count that it's sad. The CCD still
> suffers from noise, why not reduce that first? I'll take a D70 with a
> noise-free ISO 1600 over the current top of the line any day.
>

Your scanner uses a CCD, so you are not free of noise using that route either.
Digital noise is comparable to analog film grain and it is up to you whether
you prefer to view one over the other. Your above comparison doen't seem
valid. Compare digital cameras for noise at the same ISO [with proper
exposure] against a quality film of the same ISO ... not that is a real
comparison in my opinion.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Bas van de Wiel <beetjebrak78 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Everybody seems so hung up on pixel count that it's sad. The CCD still
>> suffers from noise, why not reduce that first? I'll take a D70 with a
>> noise-free ISO 1600 over the current top of the line any day.
>>
>
> Your scanner uses a CCD, so you are not free of noise using that route either.
> Digital noise is comparable to analog film grain and it is up to you whether
> you prefer to view one over the other. Your above comparison doen't seem
> valid. Compare digital cameras for noise at the same ISO [with proper
> exposure] against a quality film of the same ISO ... not that is a real
> comparison in my opinion.
>
If the OP is really into comparisons, he could easily do a controlled
shoot: Same subject, same lighting, distance, ISO, settings, lens, etc.
etc. with his dSLR and SLR.....

--
John McWilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

"Dave Lotek" <Dave_Lotek.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ju3d255u9ob1oelacgm9ioha0jpko580m@4ax.com...
>A local camera sales person told me Nikon is about to release a 12+MP
> SLR this month. It will sell for under $1000. Has anyone heard
> similar rumors?
>
> Still Shopping

It's probably the D80, but I didn't hear anything about 12+MP. It was more
like 10. Nikon has always had a habit of taking a wait-see attitude as far
as the competition goes. "Usually" makes for a better product, although not
cutting edge.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000?