[Moogs]

Not of the mind to spend $5000 on a D2x, Nikon just intentionally leaked and then pulled the info for this camera. Can we say F100 with very nearly the same innards as a D2x? I love this fucking camera and I haven't even ordered it yet. As Steve once said, so good you want to lick it.

SWEET.

[onlyafterdark]

Ya Moogs, I have been reading a lot of stuff about it over in the dcresource forum as of late. It certainly looks like one amazing camera.

I wont be able to afford it though.

But hopefully it might cause a drop in price of the d70s or the d50 as I would like to get into the whole SRL thing sometime in the future.

Keep us updated if you do end up getting one in the future.

[Matsu]

I had been considering the olympus offerings, since you can get an essentially self-contained 2 lense kit for a good price. If good, can always get more lenses later, or just move to something else entirely.

However, this camera changes things...

Different price bracket, I know, but at 1699, quite decent for:

10.2MP APS-C *CCD* it should have a DR advantage, and possibly noise, over its CMOS cousin/competitors
5fps
magnesium alloy body
compact dimensions

I have manual focus 28, 50, and 70-210 for my film nikon... tempting, very tempting...

The question becomes, what does one make their first af zoom? 12-24, what does the 17-55 fetch? And why does no one make a 16-90 for APS?

this could get expensive...

[Bill M]

Matsu, CCD having noise advantage over CMOS? Isn't it the other way around?

[Matsu]

It all depends. Canon is the state of the art when it comes to CMOS, but it is only in the last generations where this advantage has come about: the EOS 300D, the 20D and Rebel XT, and then the pro cams with their FF and 1.3x formats. Prior to this, the Sony and Fuji CCDs were clearly superior. Canon's first FF 35mm camera had a CCD, remember the 1Ds? While it was Nikon's DCS-14n that had a CMOS chip. The Canon had the superior noise performance.

It turns out that Canon just has the superior signal processing when it comes noise. However, if you look at CCD's, they typically enjoy a sensitivity advantage over CMOS. Implemented properly, this can translate into a quieter sensor. Advantages can include better dynamic range, and dark current noise. There are other variables, of course, but for maximum photon detection, CCD is superior.

In the end it's all relative, what matters is how the devices work. Clearly, Canon's CMOS works very well at controlling noise, Sony's less so. However, we've not seen a new Sony CCD (APS size) in quite some time. I'm willing to bet that the D200 has superior high ISO noise performance compared to the D2X at the very least. Likely comparable to the 20D...

[Moogs]

afterdark: I'll definitely keep you posted. As Matsu says I think this camera should have at least as good if not better noise algorithms as the D2x and probably comparable color performance. Meantime it is at a great price point for the specs. Not cheap but definitely competitively priced compared to other pro DSLRs.

Meantime, I can heartily recommend the D70/D70s. Very nice color rendition, good noise under 800 and it's a cinch to use / carry / setup. Very very good camera for the money. Probably the best you can buy around $1000 IMHO. In the right hands it can produce professional quality images without any problem. Shoot RAW to get the most out of it, if you get one.

[Matsu]

Rumor reads ISO 100-1600 plus 'boost 1' (ISO 3200), which is one stop better than the D2X ISO100-800 plus 'boost 1 and 2' (ISO 1600, 3200)

Further rumor reads the CCD may be a fuji product. Interesting, if this is not an SCCD product, more interesting if it is -- albeit a standard dynamic range version. Some people are hoping for 14 bit color depth -- which if you shoot RAW can give a real advantage...

Last but not least, and this is not really rumor, as there exist leaked photos, a new stabilized zoom lense:

18-200, AF-S VR, f/3.5-5.6

This thing should help sell a ton of consumer cams (D50, D70) It's a 27-300 equivalent zoom, but it's fast enough to autofocus at the long end. Lots of people will want one as a walk about lense.

I like the wider end of things personally. Given that APS cameras are here to stay, someone needs to make a 16-90 (24-135 equivalent) or at least a 16-80 (24-120 equivalent)

[Moogs]

I don't buy the Fuji sensor thing. If that were the case, Nikon would've leaked it as part of their "flash goof" the other day. It's true that they are partners in some sense, and I'm sure Fuji is working hard on a new Super CCDII that is more than 6MP native (the current S3 chip)... I dunno. If it's a native 10MP Super CCD with the extra DR, that would be stellar but I really doubt it.

Either way, excellent noise performance at ISO 100 would be great all by itself, being that most of us are stuck at 200 all the time.

[Matsu]

There are two Fuji possibilities of varying liklihood.

One is that this is a Fuji CCD, but NOT an SCCD! They do also make conventional sensors for smaller cams. If it is a Fuji, I would be inclined to believe this possibility -- Fuji and Nikon collaborate, they share technologies, but Fuji keeps the signature SCCD design for their own flagship models.

Two is that it is actually an SCCD HR. That is, with an octagonal layout, but no highlight sensitive pixels. This would indeed be a 10MP camera, but you could always get a pretty easy 20MP file out of a simple one-step bicubic interpolation, and Nikon could just hide it somewhere in Nikon Viewer... I agree though, not likely.

The original SCCD in the S2 was of this (one photsite per pixel) design. It too had quite decent dynamic range given the 14 bit AD converters. It seemed that even that camera could produce quite decent dynamic range, and there were different favorite tools for extracting this depth via RAW...

A third possibility, and the least promising one, is that the flash page leak we saw two days ago was a work in progress, and that D200 has NOT a CCD, but rather the 10.2MP CMOS used in Sony's new R1. Noise performance and dynamic range do not seem very impressive in that camera, and the sensor is actually slightly smaller than Nikon's DX format (23.7x15.6). The Sony is only 21.5x14.4, but it is the only sensor in Sony's catalogue that fits the gross description, apart from being a CMOS, not CCD, design... I don't like this possibility -- I suspect a lot of people would be dissapointed if that turned out to be the case

Of course it's probably a CCD, we just haven't had a chance to spy the supplier/part number yet...

All in time I guess...

[Moogs]

Indeed. I hope for CCD (of one variety or another) as well. Meantime I was out today shooting fall foliage. Probably will go out tomorrow morning too before some rains come later in the day.

[Matsu]

Hey moogs. My Nikon Gear is an antique inheritance. All manual focus, I can put the 50 f/1.8 to work, but it appears that the aperture is stuck on the 28. A manual focus 70-200 doesn't seem like something I'd use much -- I'll have to see what sort of results others have acheived with this lens on DLSRs. Anyway, I got some questions for ya.

Which nikon (or 3rd party glass) would you recommend to equal the focal range/quality of Olympus' two mid level zooms -- the 14-54 (28-105 equiv.) and 50-200 (100-400 equiv.) both are f/2.8-3.5 designs. I don't find their cameras thrilling, but that lense combo does stand out. I kinda sorta wanna wait for the next E camera or panasonic body to see if 4/3rds might be worth a real serious go, but I want to see what sort of camera bag can be assembled to just about equal those two lenses in Nikon.

For the former, the 18-70 looks pretty close (27-105 equiv) and it's f/3.5-4.5 and generally praised as a good performer. It's within a half to full stop, so basically equivalent performance out of either kit when factoring in sensor size.

There are some pretty fast 70-200 lenses out there, but they're not quite the same reach. Next step up is a 70-300, but tend to be a little slower...

The rumored 18-200 VR sounds cool, but it's be a shame to hang one super-zoom on there for 90% of the time.

[Moogs]

I have the older version but there is an 80-200 AFS (std 35mm lens) with ED glass. Very nice lens that will work well with either a film SLR or DSLR. To get down in the wide angle range, you could get a 28-70 AFS (std 35mm), which is roughly 42-105 equivalent. Very nice lens also. My workhorse for most purposes.

[Matsu]

I remember mentioning to a friend once that it seems a very useful lense would be a FAST 50-100. Normal-Portrait, basically, and that's exactly what the 28-70 becomes (42-105). Hadn't though about that before, thanks. Nikon 35mm version costs big bucks, though -- $2K in Canada. Sigma is much more reasonable -- I wonder about the performance...

[Moogs]

The whole Sigma - Tokina - Tamron triad is a mixed bag. Each has good and bad lenses for use with Nikon stuff. Never really seemed to be any pattern to it. I would check digitalphotoreview's user reviews for each lens you're considering and then go by price.

[stevegong]

you guys should be careful about old lenses. Not all of them will be very sharp. Film was more leniant but you'll notice that a lot of lenses are just not very sharp when mounted on digital.

I would recommend the Nikons over the Canons in the D70-D200/ rebelxt-20D range because the Nikons just are better in this consumer range. Much better battery life, interface, and the CCD is sharper than the CMOS. (I used to own a Canon rebel 200D and I assure you it's a piece of shit)

I own the D70 and absolutely love it. You can take a look at what pictures a D70 is able to produce on my site: http://gong.smugmug.com

[Bill M]

Matsu, thanks for your insight on CMOS/CCD technologies.

I am not a Pro by any means, but I do know the huge difference between a point and shoot digicam and a DSLR. My Canon 20D + 17-85mm IS + 50mm f1.4 gear has consistenly achieved high marks at the photolab and with "real" photographers alike. Even my Pro neighbor down the street, who owns Nikon gear, borrowed mine for a weekend and told me it ate his D70 for breakfast. The only thing preventing him from jumping to Canon being the huge investment he has made over the years on Nikon lenses and accessories.

Having said that, I think it is all a matter of personal preference. Stevegong seems to like his D70 better and my neighbor craves for a 20D. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, both being excellent products, IMHO.

[GSpotter]

Originally Posted by Matsu Which nikon (or 3rd party glass) would you recommend to equal the focal range/quality of Olympus' two mid level zooms -- the 14-54 (28-105 equiv.) and 50-200 (100-400 equiv.) both are f/2.8-3.5 designs.

I have a D70 with the 3.5-4.5/18-70 and the 4.5-5.6 80-400 VR (which is a 120-600 equiv.). The VR (Vibration Reduction) feature is great, you can still make sharp hand hold pictures at 400mm... Unfortunately, it isn't really small and lightweight, and the autofocus isn't very fast, too. But you can still get some nice action shots (as you can see in the
pets thread when the conditions are good).

[Matsu]

It's certainly an interesting time. Cameras just undergo steady improvement. It was not long ago that the Canon 1Ds was a top of the line, $8K, 10MP CCD camera. Won't be but a month or two, when we'll have essentially the same performance for $1699 !

In any case, my real concern is the ability to construct a killer lense bag, for not so much coin, up to about 200mm (35mm equivalent) with some emphasis on the wide end. Street and portrait.

The Olympus set is appealing because a kit of 11-22 (22-44), 14-54 (28-108), and 50-200 (100-400) gives reasonable speed and a by all accounts excellent sharpness and contrast, for a comparatively reasonable cost. Those first to zooms make a lot of sense to me. The cameras, however, are a little behind, and the smaller sensor suffers a bit noise wise, gives up about 1-2 stops compared to APS and 35mm. You end up giving back the lense speed advantage. It's not always a bad trade though. Pity we can't spy the next E-x (or Panasonic) camera to see if it might make more of Olympus' very good glass.

Nikon and Canon? Depends what you want. I think it won't be too long before Canon moves all but the Rebel line to 35mm sensors. Cost arguments against larger sensors are oft ill-informed and over-stated. Just like HUGE LCD panels got a lot cheaper than anyone ever dreamed, so too will huge chips. The lenses, OTOH, will not. A quick browse of the online catalogue at Henry's is enough to make you cry.

I don't think that Nikon will eschew 35mm for too much longer. But they're likely to offer a different blend of APS and 35mm cameras. The 35mm glass will still make you cry, but the APS options are slowly growing a little faster over there.

I guess it all depends on what you want to put in your bag. With Nikon you have the 12-24DX, which costs about 1K Nice lens, a little wider than I need at the wide end. A 17-35 or 17-55 might be better (though less wide), but these cost. The 17-35 will fit a 35mm camera as well, turning into an ultrawide, if and when...

The 17-55 costs a whole lot for a DX image circle, I feel, at any rate. The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is a fast constant zoom at a reasonable price...

Specialty primes look to be no problem to buy in 35mm size, just move everything down one rung for APS -- Get a 35 instead of a 50, get a 50 instead of a 75. Have a careful look out for 60-70mm to get you into the 85-100 range... An answer for the 85 is not immediately present in the AF Nikkor line.

I think there's always a bit of a hedge involved in that you may some day move your glass over to a 35mm sized camera, though if you buy a lot of APS glass (EF-S or DX) that won't move over 35mm...

Man, did I mention this can get expensive?

[GSpotter]

Originally Posted by Matsu I think it won't be too long before Canon moves all but the Rebel line to 35mm sensors. Cost arguments against larger sensors are oft ill-informed and over-stated.

I've seen reviews where the D2x holds quite good against a Canon 1Ds Mk II (FF). I think the APS-C sensors are already very good. To really use the advantages of FF, you'll need very high end glass and blow up your prints to poster size. AFAIK, one problem with FF is vignetting at wide angles. APS-C has also advantages for sports shooters - they love the crop factor ... So I would expect that both sensor variants will coexist in the future.

[Eugene]

Heh Matsu, I think you're dead wrong about 35mm vs APS-C sensor sizes.

People who hold the 35mm frame size dear to their heart are going to continue to cling onto film. Most other photographers, especially the PJs who Canon has a monopoly over, could give a rat's ass about it.

[Matsu]

You think? I'm not 100% sure. Let's put it this way. Right now the chips are still more expensive, they always will be more expensive, but at some point the difference won't really matter, and building the 35mm camera will probably only cost a few dollars more than building an APS camera. But building the lenses? Look out! For a given size, weight, zoom range, and APS imager can employ a lense that is either smaller, cheaper, or faster (about 1 stop). Thus, where an APS imager has to cover the same focal range as a 28-80 f/2.8 for example, it is possible to build either an 18-55 f/2.0, which would be the same size as the 28-80 on 35, or to build a 18-55 f/2.8, which would be smaller and lighter than the 35mm equivalent.

No one system is right. However, I think that any manufacturer will try to provide bodies that make the most of their lens catalogue. Canon has only introduced 2 EF-S lenses, both being slower stuff, and there's no reason to own both of them. Most shooters of their 1.6X cams will own only one, and use 35mm glass the rest of the time. I would be surprised if in the next 5-7 years, the 20D level camera did not also sport a 35mm imager, and the 1.6 retired exclusively to the Digital Rebel series.

Nikon OTOH, has provided a different mix of consumer and pro grade DX glass. The intention appears to be to fully support DX format cameras at all price points. However, you still need a selection of 35mm glass to round out your digital kit, or for film shoooters. It's not absurd to say that Nikon will also offer 35mm digital, albeit into a higher end market. It would remain easy to support both -- all you need is a few specialized DX lenses, and the 35mm overlap takes care of the rest.

People who hold 35mm film really dear probably ought to move to a 35mm digital camera (discontinued Kodakor current Canon series), there are some shooters for whom this may be a better option with current glass.

Me, way out of my price range, and I'm too new to have any really 35mm habits... I'll take any of Canon's or Nikon's offerings, with any imager... I'll buy something affordable, but will spend a littler more for something that prints larger. The D200 sounds good to me, but so to do the 20D, XT, D50 and D70...

[Moogs]

Any film that is not a specialty film, is nearing the end IMHO. There is less and less advantage to using any type of film, with each successive generation of new cameras and chips. The notion that digital has to be better than film in every respect, before replacing film at the mass market level, is not correct.

Kodak has made commitments that point to the end of their mass-quantity film making days. Fuji is doing the same, while trying to concurrently develop new, high-end films for pros (there's now a Velvia 100 I think). Even that won't last however. Those same pros Fuji is targeting, will start walking away from film in larger and larger numbers until there's no financial justification for developing and manufacturing new films. Hell, even today there's very little justification for putting any R&D into film. The companies are just trying to make money on what they've already invested.

The only film products we're going to see in two or three years, are for disposable cameras (because disposable digital is not ready for prime time yet), and view cameras. And movie cameras .

[Matsu]

http://www.fotomagazin.ro/tmp/NikonD200.mht

Check the above link. The D200 is most certainly really a CCD camera, the Nikon Italy press release is spied and mirrored here. Someone at DPReview caught it and put it up. The original site is down now, of course, but anyway, there it is.

It gives ISO 100-1600 natively, and just shy of 3900x2600 resolution. Personally, I find that 200dpi will create a very nice photo, so i would say this camera will print big, about 18.5x13, and with good post, should give great 24" wide prints as well.

5fps, and if you can't get the shot with 5, you likely wouldn't get it with more. Nice deep buffers, 22 RAW, 37 JPEG fine.

A new 11 area AF system.

An accessory grip that takes two batteries. Would that make for 3600 shots on a full charge, or perhaps just faster focus drive on some of the heavier glass...

[Matsu]

Picking throught he Italian release, Dust and weather sealed.

Looking to be a very nice camera, especially for the money...

[Moogs]

Mm...must resist urge to s s-spend money. M m-must SAVE....

[DMBand0026]

If you buy that camera, you will get syphilis.

I figured that would keep your wallet in your pocket.

[Moogs]

Whew... I thought you were going to say Herpes. The doc can cure a case of syphilis with a shot right? Where's my credit card?

PS - Seems a bunch of the Nikon brochures for other countries have been leaked and the sensor is Sony CCD (not the same one that's in the DSC-R1 or whatever TF it's called). Nikon is playing the hype game here. The leaks aren't even subtle. They are no longer in Apple's class when it comes to being secretive bastards.

[Matsu]

Well, it's officially official, and the camera looks to be quite impressive, essentially a D2X minus a couple of features and a couple of MP, but smaller and promising better high ISO noise performance and more dynamic range...

Damn it, must resist urge to... think of Moogs and syphilis, there, that's better...

[Moogs]

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...roductNr=25235

[Matsu]

That viewfinder might actually compare to 35mm viewfinders?

High frame coverage, and high magnification 94% and 95%, but what does this mean in APS versus 35mm terms.

I know that looking through the viewfinder of my old manual focus Nikon w/50mm, the world is bright and easy to see. I can put it up to my right eye, keep my left open, and shoot and frame, basically without taking the camera off my face, both eyes open. I picked it up from a how to with a guy who shoots a mix of rangefinders and SLR for PJ work. And I can do it with my glasses on: really nice eyepoint. It appears that not everyone can do this though, and some people think I'm crazy and bound to go cross eyed.

In any case I find this next to impossible to do with either of the D70 or D100, and absolutely not possible with the D50. My eyeglasses don't help at all here. And of course the diopter adjustment wouldn't be useful for this sort of technique anyway, not that I could use it (too blind, been an eyeglass wearer since my primary grades)

It's my primary reason for not buying an Olympus E series camera already. The view is almost universally described as tunnel like, and despite the intrigue over the lenses, could be really frustrating for me.

What I don't quite understand is how we might compare viewfinders between APS and 35mm. Given that the measurement is based on a view thorugh a normal lense (50mm, actualy 44, but it's been considered 50 for most practical purposes)

Do they then use a 30 or 33 to establish the viewfind numbers on an APS camera? If so, we get a true reflection of image size at normal length and viewfind magnification. If instead they're slapping a 50 on there, we're getting the sense of magnification at 75 (short telephoto), and/or a seriously cropped coverage.

Ouch, my brain hurts. Can someone explain this to me...

Naturally, the world looks different through every viewfinder, but the brighter and bigger, the better. Would love to be able to shoot a normal with my both eyes open method -- it's really a great way to track subjects if you can get used to it. Only works (for me) in the 35-70 range (35mm)

help