# Cameras in the next 3 years



## ScottWy (Sep 2, 2009)

Technology is moving very fast these days.  In some ways, that is making better products more affordable.

I was reading about the Nikon D700 the other day.  Here is a full frame sensor camera that, while not exactly affordable at 3k, is dramatically lower in price than a D3.  I do not know if that's true about other brands full sensor models.

What I am most interested in right now is high ISO capability. 

Where do you see the market going in the next few years, especially in full frame models?  The new lens development, at least in the case of Nikon, is not compatable with that array. 

Also, is there more that can be done developing the smaller sensors ISO capabilities?  

Perhaps other manufacturers are ahead of Nikon in this area.  Any thoughts there?


----------



## HeY iTs ScOTtY (Sep 2, 2009)

> Where do you see the market going in the next few years, especially in full frame models? The new lens development, at least in the case of Nikon, is not compatable with that array.


 
what do you mean by this?


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 2, 2009)

It's hard to know where they/we are headed.  Case in point is the just-released Canon 7D.  Discussions are going on all over the place about what is and what wasn't included...and if the technology level is where it should be....bla bla bla. :roll:

I that what Photographers have wanted for a long time, are cameras with an improved dynamic range and lower noise at higher ISO levels.  These things are getting better, especially the ISO issue...but they are also fighting the MegaPixel wars...giving us more than we need, at the cost of ISO performance.

Personally, I think the D700 may be one of the best overall cameras available right now.  It's not cheap, but it compares well to cameras that are much more expensive.


----------



## ScottWy (Sep 3, 2009)

"Where do you see the market going in the next few years, especially in full frame models? The new lens development, at least in the case of Nikon, is not compatable with that array."


What I was getting at is the newest lenses are the DX format, and not compatable with a full frame sensor.

Also, I was wondering about price, and if something such as the D700 would ever be in my price range, which would be at least half of what they now cost.

Poor ISO performance with my D50 is what is limiting me now.  I like the camera, and feel 6.1 mpx is adequate for my purposes right now.  I have used it for 4 years, and doubt if I know how to get all it offers out of it yet.

I can't do anything about a new camera yet, and probably not for 3 years, hence the time frame I put up.

With what I know is now on the market the D90 would suit me right now.  However, I know next to nothing about anything but the Nikon line.


----------



## KmH (Sep 3, 2009)

Nikon is building the lenses that have the highest demand. They sell a ton more DX cameras than FX cameras. Just smart business.

It's the same reason drug companies haven't produced a new antibiotic in 40+ years. It's more profitable to develope a drug people take everyday for the rest of their lives, than a drug they take for one 2 week period.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 3, 2009)

Sony's new a850 Full Frame d-slr is going to be priced at under $2,000, at $1899 if my information is correct. Canon's upcoming 7D, and 18MP crop-frame body is trying to undercut Nikon's D300s by being priced at $1699, which makes FF cameras look 'expensive' to those who have never had a FF body and have drunk the crop-body Kool-Aid for so long.

As far as Nikon's new lens development not supporting FF, you're totally,totally off on that. Nikon has introduced a number of lenses for FF over the last few years, probably ones you're unaware of, and they are all designed for FF. The professional Nikkor lenses you're unaware of will be in the lineup for a good number of years,because they are world-class lenses. 200-400 VR, 200 f/2 VR, 300,400,500,600 f/2.8 VR models,all superlative. The 105 VR Micro-Nikkor, the 60mm VR Micro-Nikkor, the new 50/1.4 AFS-G,oh,and let's not forget: Nikon has designed and built what most experts consider to be the single BEST wide zoom, the 14-24 AF-S. And there's also the 24-70 AF-S, and of course the newly-announced 70-200 AF-S VR-II model. THere are also something like 50 *additional* FF-capable Nikkor lenses, plus around 35 million manual focus Nikkors on the planet.

The idea that the newest lenses are DX lenses is quite simply not correct; the newest CHEAP lenses are for DX shooters. Nikon already has in place superlative,often class-leading, FX format Nikkors that are less than five years old, and which will be superlative performers for two decades or more. You just are not aware of that fact.

As far as the 3-year time frame on FX: I expect that in three years, you'll be able to buy used D700's and used D3's at very affordable prices,and that Sony and Canon will have an entry-level FF camera priced as low as $1699. I think Sony is pushing the boundaries on lowering prices. Canon has shown a willingness to slap a FF sensor in a cheap $350 class Elan body, with the 5D and 5D Mark II being great sensors in very cheap bodies (I own a 5D-it's a doggy body),whereas Nikon has built upon the F100-class body for its FF and better APS-C cameras,so I am not convinced that Nikon will go with the lowest price in the FF class, the way Sony is doing--but then Nikon doesn't have to cut prices to get people into its system, they already have a user base.

Right now the D700 is available for $2,400 from a few discount retailers and in three years, I expect the used price of a D700 will be $1,000--maybe even less.


----------



## icassell (Sep 3, 2009)

KmH said:


> It's the same reason drug companies haven't produced a new antibiotic in 40+ years.



Huh?  Where did you get this information?


----------



## ScottWy (Sep 3, 2009)

Wow, Derrel, I did not dig very deep about Nikons new lenses.  I did realize there are millions of older ones floating around.  Being able to use some of those to their full ability makes a body such as the D700 (as well as the D300) more attractive.

I had assumed they were concentrating on DX , because that's all I ever heard about.  I did not go out looking for the info you present.    

Thanks for clueing me in!!


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 3, 2009)

you guys do realize that higher megapixels = less noise at higher ISOs, right?  not that the total amount of noise is less, but when you have more pixels, the noise becomes so small that you can't see it.


----------



## Garbz (Sep 4, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> you guys do realize that higher megapixels = less noise at higher ISOs, right?  not that the total amount of noise is less, but when you have more pixels, the noise becomes so small that you can't see it.



You are running the assumption that people view their files in a reasonable size. Say like a print. This definitely the wrong assumption in a world of pixel peeping people who get greater joy of ****ing at their low noise pictures than producing something with excellent composition. What you say is true, but there will always be people who zoom in then complain.



ScottWy said:


> "Where do you see the market going in the next few years, especially in full frame models? The new lens development, at least in the case of Nikon, is not compatable with that array."
> 
> What I was getting at is the newest lenses are the DX format, and not compatable with a full frame sensor.
> 
> Also, I was wondering about price, and if something such as the D700 would ever be in my price range, which would be at least half of what they now cost.



You see what you want to see. You say DX sensors. I say they they just released new 50mm f/1.4, the new 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, the slightly less new 24-70mm f/2.8 or 14-24mm f/2.8. In lens terms these are all "new". Lenses are probably the slowest moving developement. Nothing has fundamentally changed in lenses ... ever, except for VR and silent wave motors, and neither of those concepts are new either. 

The fact is there is a lens for everything right now. What will happen in 3 years? Nothing. Lenses will be the same. Maybe with slightly better VR, but optically what more can they do?



For the original question Of course! Every camera advance includes better noise. As for what will happen in 3 years? I estimate Nikon will release a camera that can shoot at ISO10000000, and Canon will have a 100mpx APS-C sensor.


----------



## pharmakon (Sep 4, 2009)

icassell said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > It's the same reason drug companies haven't produced a new antibiotic in 40+ years.
> ...


 
There hasn't been a new _class _of antibiotics in about 40 years, with one exception (cubicin, not really popular right now) but there have been plenty of "me too" antibiotics, where a company makes a slight change to an existing drug to create something "new" as far as patents are concerned. Sometimes the new drug has slightly better coverage or less frequent dosing, so it's a small advantage with minimal research on the part of the manufacturer. 

Long story short you are both right, just in different ways.

Ok sorry for the interruption, now back to your regularly scheduled photographic discussion...


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 4, 2009)

lol @ ISO onebillion


----------



## Sleepy_Sentry (Sep 4, 2009)

I'd like to see full frame cameras get less expensive. Maybe in three years they will be available for under $1k.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 4, 2009)

lol doubtful.  How about we wish for something more realistic like a decent crop sensor camera for under 1k in the next 3 years.


----------



## KmH (Sep 4, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> lol doubtful. How about we wish for something more realistic like a decent crop sensor camera for under 1k in the next 3 years.


 Many think there already is one....the Nikon D90.


----------



## Antithesis (Sep 6, 2009)

Yeah, and the D300 will be available for under $1k, possibly even new like they did with the d200, sooner than you'd think. It is an awesome performing camera that gave people what they asked for: Decent High-ISO noise in a borderline professional grade body at a decent price point.

The good thing about the fast pace of digital is that the price drops like crazy on bodies. If you wait a couple years, you will be able to get that D700 for under a grand, or close to it. But the latest and greatest will so far surpass it, that you might second guess the purchase. I see things getting a little absurd when we can hand-hold a camera in relative darkness, and take pictures of stuff we can barely see with little noise.

I'm more curious to see what next race will be. ISO is already getting exceedingly good, so maybe dynamic range?


----------



## KmH (Sep 6, 2009)

Figure the D300 to drop to $1000 new, about a year or so after the intro of the D400. That's about when Nikon will be wanting to shed the remaing stock of the D300.


----------



## DScience (Sep 6, 2009)

KmH said:


> Figure the D300 to drop to $1000 new, about a year or so after the intro of the D400. That's about when Nikon will be wanting to shed the remaing stock of the D300.



That will be nice. My D90 can be the back up and i'll pick up a D300.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 6, 2009)

Derrel said:


> The professional Nikkor lenses you're unaware of will be in the lineup for a good number of years,because they are world-class lenses. 200-400 VR, 200 f/2 VR, 300,400,500,600 f/2.8 VR models,all superlative.



So do these 500mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/2.8 lenses really exist? This is like the 10th post I've seen in the last year mention such lenses. I know I've never seen any information on them.



robertwsimpson said:


> you guys do realize that higher megapixels = less noise at higher ISOs, right?  not that the total amount of noise is less, but when you have more pixels, the noise becomes so small that you can't see it.



You're backwards. Lower megapixels at high ISO = less noise. One of the reasons the 1D Mark III is 10mp. Also the reason why D3, D700, D300s and D90 all remained 12.1 and 12.3 mp.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 6, 2009)

Sorry, that was a typo on my part: the 300 and 400 are the f/2.8 VR models, the 500 and 600mm models are the f/4 VR models; the reason you have probably seen 500 and 600 lenses referenced as f/2.8 is that MOST people group the super-telephotos as 300/400/500/600 and in 10 years you've probably seen that many people make typos...and you're just the kind of guy who probably keeps track of such mistakes.

Nikon has updated its super-telephotos as a "set" for many decades now; like the Ai series, then the Ai-S series, then the AF versions,  then the AF-i models with the first in-lens AF motors, then the AF-S models, and now, finally, the super-telephoto lineup is is ALL unified with AF-S G VR mounts;200-400 f/4 zoom, 200 f/2, 300/f2.8, 400/f2.8, 500 f/4, 600/f4, and all  designated as AF-S G, with Vibration Reduction across all six lenses. NO f/stop ring on any of them.

As for your comment, "You're backwards. Lower megapixels at high ISO = less noise. One of the reasons the 1D Mark III is 10mp. Also the reason why D3, D700, D300s and D90 all remained 12.1 and 12.3 mp."

Well, that's a common theory that doesn't take into account advances in microlens design and image processing hardware and software; the original Nikon D1 and D1h models both had a 2.7 MP sensor, but it later became possible to get to 12 MP with LESS noise and higher resolving power. Also, noise tends to be sublimated when printing, and the higher-MP cameras also produce VASTLY larger images; today's upcoming 18 MP Canon 7D has a BIG image that measures 5,184-pixels on the long axis,while a 2.7 MP D1h produced a 2,008 pixel image on the long axis; if one takes the image from the new, ultra-high MP 7D and down-sizes it to match the size of the image from the 2.7 MP D1h image, or a 1D 4.2 MP image, or an EOS 30D 8.2 MP image, the actual, visible noise in a PRINT from the 18MP camera's file will be visibly better,and more pleasing, than the noise level from a camera that has a lower MP count but much older technology.

If one pixel-peeps and looks at huge,high MP images on-screen, yes there is noise, but there is also more real,actual resolved detail,and if one actually makes prints, or down-samples the images, the noise with high-MP sensors is pretty bearable.

Improvements in the image processing can make a high-MP sensor look good,or great. The sensel (sic) shared by the Sony a900 and the Nikon D3x is the same sensel, but Nikon's additions to the sensel and their proprietary image processing hardware and software yields images with lower noise and better image quality than the Sony camera yields. The 1D Mark III's 10.3 MP APS-H sensor is a very good sensor, and it yields a nice file,perfectly adequate when the camera can manage to focus properly. But the reason it's 10.3 MP is that newpaper and magazine screen printing makes higher MP counts prety much useless--the halftone screens used in today's magazines cut in-camera resolution so much that I'd challenge anybody to go through back issues of Sports Illustated and look at the double truck that were shot with the 4.2 MP 1D or the 8.2 MP 1D Mark II or the 1D Mark II, or the increasingly numerous Nikon D3 spreads--newspaper and magazine halftone reproduction makes it virtually impossible to tell if the capture file was 4,6,8,10,or 12 megapixels. Even on a two-page spread in Spots Illustrated.

As a former newspaper shooter, I'm familiar with prepping and transmitting images for halftone reproduction; the 2.7 MP of the D1h was quite adequate,and halftoned, one can barely tell the difference between 2.7 and 12.2 MP captures. A 10 MP file transmits via FTP a LOT faster than a 24.6 MP file,and the halftone issue and the transmission via e-mail or FTP is the reason PJ/sports cameras range from 10 to 12.2 MP. Many sports guys shoot 700 to 1,000 frames at a football or baseball game, and a smaller file size helps with card swaps, editing,archiving, and transmitting and until Nikon invented 4-channel readout, smaller MP count sensors helped with image buffer AND card write speeds, leading to higher Frames Per Second rates on sports cameras. Getting 10 FPS at 10.2 MP was about all Canon could muster in terms of throughput off the card with adequate buffer for long sequences when they engineered the 1D Mark III to run at 10 fps.

The 1D Mark III also has a very good per-pixel level image quality. Great microlens array ,perfect AA-filter, big pixels wells for high sensitivity and resistance to overexposure,and a file that writes and flushes and transmits perfectly well for newspaper, or PJ uses. 10.3 MP is a perfect compromise.

If anybody needs a high-resolution camera, Canon is over 21 MP, Nikon and Sony at 24.6 MP. The 5D Mark II at 21.7 MP shoots a better file at 3200 than the original 5D at 12.8 MP did.


----------



## Antithesis (Sep 6, 2009)

Whew, novel and a half. Your high MP argument is pretty damn sound. Though, I hate large files.


----------



## KmH (Sep 7, 2009)

Another issue related to noise performance is the quality of the S/N ratio of the amplifiers between the image sensor pixels and the A/D converter.

After all the heart of a digital camera, the image sensor, is an analog device.


----------



## Garbz (Sep 8, 2009)

If you want to get into the nitty gritty than everything up to the digital conversion affects noise performance. 

The parallel read out of data, the layout of amplifying transistors under the sensor pixel, the grounding within the sensor, the quality of the grounding in the electronics, etc.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 8, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > The professional Nikkor lenses you're unaware of will be in the lineup for a good number of years,because they are world-class lenses. 200-400 VR, 200 f/2 VR, 300,400,500,600 f/2.8 VR models,all superlative.
> ...



ok let me qualify.

higher megapixels means less noise when you keep your picture at a reasonable resolution.  if you zoom to 100% (which there is never a reason to do) yes, you will see more noise.  if you frame a picture exactly the same on a 1dmkIII 10.1 mp and a 1dmkIII 21.1 mp, and look at the whole picture, guess which will have less noise...  hmmm... let me think...


----------



## itznfb (Sep 8, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



That's apples to oranges. I have to assume you meant 1ds since the 1d doesn't come in a 21mp variant. You're comparing Full Frame to APS-H. Apples to oranges.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 8, 2009)

regardless, more pixels = more area to distribute noise over, which = less noise if you don't zoom to 100%


----------



## Garbz (Sep 8, 2009)

The only problem is that a lot of software doesn't work like that, and noise is random.
The former comment is for example most image viewers will revert to nearest neighbour interpolation or something equally basic when displaying a zoomed out version. The simple reason is when me (the user) is flicking through 200 photos, I don't have the patience to wait for the image to resample. That was the biggest complain with Windows Picture and Fax Viewer. When scrolling backwards it's even worse. The Windows Picture Viewer in Windows 7 is faster but still slow compared to ACDSee even with colour management enabled in ACDSee. So you still end up with noisy pixels.

The noise is random issue is that while if you take the average of two adjacent pixels the noise is halved, but those two adjacent pixels will rarely follow this perfect ideal world. They may both be hot and thus no noise saving is gained from reducing the picture size by zooming out.

So yes it works, but it's not as good as having a much larger area to capture photons (such as with the D3). It's a question of signal conditioning to reduce noise while reducing definition, vs just simply increasing signal to noise at the source.

Oh just thought of something else too. There's a gap between pixels. It's small, but on a high pixel density sensor this further handicaps it in noise comparisons.


----------



## schumionbike (Sep 13, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> regardless, more pixels = more area to distribute noise over, which = less noise if you don't zoom to 100%


 
That's true but something like a Nikon D3 have less noise to distribute to begin with even though it does have a smaller area so there's two sides to it.  You won't know which camera give better result  at hight ISO until you see the prints from them.  But you're right, it's not fair to compare the noise level of a 25 megapixel camera to that of a 12 megapixel camera if you're going to zoom in to 100% on both.  That say, I think the Nikon D3 performed better than the D3X at high ISO level at most print sizes.


----------

