Rumored new Nikon D3 at PMA

Monday came and monday went and another rumour evaporated

Did somone mention what Monday? / Month?

Well one good thing about this rumor, I guess I will wait on buying the 17-55mm for my trip next month and go beg and burrow my friend's lens instead. So now I will actually have money to fix my leaky bathtub instead

Not that I am likely to buy a D3X unless it is the same body as D2X and actually quite a bit cheaper than the rumored price!

So now I will actually have money to fix my leaky bathtub instead

Better a leaky bathtub or a leaky housing I don't which is costlier

Better a leaky bathtub or a leaky housing I don't which is costlier

Leaky tub for sure since my D2X has flood insurance but not my tub

Personaly, I'm not yearning for FF although I think it will come eventually. I've been using cameras with 1.5x sensors for about 4 years now and I'm very used to the way my lenses perform with that crop factor. Like Alex said, I like the way a 15/16mm FE reacts on a 1.5x.

Noise is not much of an issue for me either since I never shoot above ISO 200 underwater but I probably would switch to a FF if it gave me a significant improvement in DR and was available at a reasonable cost. Not likely in the near future

If and when that happens you'll probably hear me (and others) whining that they wished their lens performed like they did back in the "good ol' days" of 1.5x.

...., I guess I will wait on buying the 17-55mm for my trip next month and go beg and burrow my friend's lens instead. .........

I see free beer in my future!!

If and when that happens you'll probably hear me (and others) whining that they wished their lens performed like they did back in the "good ol' days" of 1.5x.

Yeah, we'll all be using 1.5x TCs to get our lenses to work like they used to on DX.

Alex

What might be interesting would be a square format using the 23.7mm. All the DX lenses should work. Not everything need rectangular croping.

What might be interesting would be a square format using the 23.7mm. All the DX lenses should work. Not everything need rectangular croping.

indeed a square sensor would be interesting but specialized. What would be better is if nikon came out with a modular sensor system camera, meaning you could choose one of, say, 4 sensors: a 1.5x 3:2, a FF, a 23.7mm square or maybe a fuji super ccd depending on your needs & budget, then upgrade (at a service center) to a different sensor (with new firmware) if your needs changed or new technologies came out. Of course, there may then be less demand for new cameras, which nikon are more than happy to sell you along with a new sensor.

I don't pretend to know anything about the inner workings of dslr's if that would even be feasible, but I'll throw that out there while everyone's speculating.

Chris

I used to care about frame size when I shot film because I held it in my hand afterwards and 10x8" was clearly 4x bigger than 5x4" and 6x6cm was clearly bigger than 35mm. However, since I don't need to see the sensor if I don't want to look inside the camera - who cares what size it is. It's the result that counts!

(Anyway, I've sold all my big format and medium format lenses now!)

What might be interesting would be a square format using the 23.7mm. All the DX lenses should work. Not everything need rectangular croping.

They'd just need new hoods to prevent vignetting on the top and bottom of DX lenses. I think.

Chris in Red Stick

I used to care about frame size when I shot film because I held it in my hand afterwards and 10x8" was clearly 4x bigger than 5x4" and 6x6cm was clearly bigger than 35mm. However, since I don't need to see the sensor if I don't want to look inside the camera - who cares what size it is. It's the result that counts!

(Anyway, I've sold all my big format and medium format lenses now!)

An interesting perspective. And for once something original in the endless FF debate.

Sony have what is assumed to be a FF prototype in Vegas. This is likely to be the same sensor as the D3 will have.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=22368065

Alex

Now for a little more speculation; a D3 and a D200x upgraded with a FF like the D40x upgrade. Then it will work in my housing.

Hmmm... I chitchated to my usual Nikon source today who were very reliable about all kinds of things in the past and they say that so far, they have not heard anything about a D2X replacement at all, even when I threatened them that I won't be buying their 17-55mm DX until I know for sure one way or another If it is real, it looks like it is going to be awhile yet! Hmmmm.. time to replace a leaky tub with something nicer now that I won't need to spend any

cash on camera for awhile

For fisheye lenses where 180 degrees FOV is a significant milestone, sacrificing to 170 degrees (or whatever it comes out to) will never be close enough. I don't see the feasibility of developing yet another set of lens standards--esp with all of the heritage of existing FF lenses.

 

This rumor may be true, but I think its a bad move. I don't see this as a permanent solution. Eventually it will have to be FF. Forget the blurry-dark corners issue, if photographers don't like the edges they can still crop in PS. What are you going to do with those 20MP anyway? PS won't let you expand FOV that's not there.

 

So there you have it. If Nikon is bent on larger sensor formats, that is my criteria for upgrading. I will upgrade when Nikon releases a true FF (not 1.1x) version of the D200. That would be a significant step.

This doesn't mean much except at the very widest end. 180 degrees (diagonal) is a magic number however, and any system should be capable of providing a true fisheye. It would be a shame to need a new (14.5mm FE or whatever) fisheye to cover this yet again. 1.1x is so close. And I see them going to a true FF as inevitable anyway if only for competitive marketing. 1.5x had some advantages. It was significant on the long end and different enough to warrant all new lenses. Plus it had close parity with other systems (APS size) so 3rd party lenses could use common designs. To me 1.1x is too close not to push it to FF and be done with it.

I wouldn’t worry about 1.1 not being full frame in terms of theoretical numbers. In real life shooting it is. Just think of slides. Framing slides crops edges. Think of your lenses. Manufactures love to round. Better don’t be too sure about all fisheyes providing exactly 180°. You wouldn’t notice if it’s just somewhat 175° or whatever. Think of dome ports. Especially an Ikelite 6†fisheye dome. You can definitely subtract more than a few degrees from your 180° fisheye. But I never heard someone complaining that it’s noticeably less than 180° and calling for 100% hemispherical dome ports because it would be such a huge loss of field of view.

By the way, there are some slight differences among some Nikon DSLRs in terms of sensor size (not all exactly 1.5 crop) too. But again, I haven’t heard someone complaining “my Nikon xy has 4° less with this fisheyeâ€.

I think a 1.1 sensor would be a nice addition to the Nikon system. Beside DX lenses there are still many wonderful Nikon 35mm lenses out there and I am sure there are people who could use the image circle of those 35mm lenses.

Julian

You wouldn’t notice if it’s just somewhat 175° or whatever.

A 1.1x crop would knock the ('supposed') 180deg FOV of a fisheye lens down to 163deg, though - I think you would notice a disparity of almost 20deg.

Yes, especially side by side. If I was a Nikon shooter, I wouldn't be too worried about shooting a 1.1 sensor underwater if that's what they offer. I didn't work it out by numbers, but I would expect many domes out there already knock down 180° fisheyes in a quiet similar ballpark. Many of them just have 120° curvature.

Maybe the Sigma 15mm is a good choice for a 1.1 sensor as the Nikon fisheye has 16mm

Julian

I always thought a 1.41x crop made more sense than 1.52x or 1.6x. 1.5x is totally arbitrary and works out closer to 4/3 stops than 3/3 like you'd want. Teleconverters would be closer matches. Truth be told, the only sensible crops (photographically) are 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0 etc. Odd that only Olympus and Sigma got that right. I guess the fabrication people has no appreciation for the square root of 2!

I always liked the 1D's 1.3x crop, although it was really 1.25x and 1.28x now, and wouldn't mind seeing more of that. 1.19x (1/2 stop) and 1.12x (1/3 stop) would be better mathematically. A 1.19x crop would yield 63% more pixels so at the current pitch a D3x would be 20+ MP.

I'd take 1.2x or 1.1x just as well as 1.0x. It's a simple tradeoff of edge performance vs photosite size. I realize that 1.2x starts to waste a bit much of the wide end on Nikon's lens lineup. Perhaps that's where the 1.1x rumor comes from. Who knows if it has anything to do with Nikon at all.

I guess the fabrication people has no appreciation for the square root of 2!

I bet they don’t have appreciation for it. I guess it’s just what best matched for their production. Whatever factors (efficient use of wafer size, etc.) have led to the final size.

Well, as long as my exposure programs appreciate the square root of 2 ...

Julian

I agree. I think crop factors were chosen to match the manufacturing processes that were available at the time and photographic concerns were secondary. Nikon was more concerned with going bankrupt at the time. DX has been good for the industry; it's just not the only crop that makes sense or even the most sensible crop. ;-)