New 18 mp Nikon coming in Sept.

These rumours seems trustworthy and believable. Now Canon's camera division is more than twice the size of Nikon's and close to ten times as profitable. It is not a matter of 'right or wrong' regarding sensor sizes; you simply sell what you have. What is best can be discussed; Canon has shown the world what is the most profitable.

Canon has a huge product development budget - far larger than Nikon's. Nikon is in no possition to develop their own sensor. That they will be applying a Sony sensor seems reasonable. That several D-SLR's will be launched with this sensor is likely, but they will all have a hard time winning back the close to 80% market share of Canon among pro's today.

It has been so quiet from the Nikon camp now, that if they don't launch something new they just might dissappear. And Full Frame is the only way forward. With Canon combing home close to 80% of the camera industry's profit there is no longer doubt about that.

Don't expect that this Nikon model (or the Sony equaliant) is going to be cheap. It's for the pro's. A cheaper model might come later. What will Canon do? A new 1Ds III is expected. A Canon camera with 21 mill. pixels was tested at the Olympic Games in Athens, two years ago. So they have some thing up their sleave too.
 
Harry Lime said:
Actually it's about speed, isn't it?
Click to expand...

No, Moore's Law is about the number of components on a chip which can be produced for a given amount of money.

This sums it up quite well, or better, this fits my understanding 🙂

Moore's law is not about just the density of transistors that can be achieved, but about the density of transistors at which the cost per transistor is the lowest[1]. As more transistors are made on a chip the cost to make each transistor reduces but the chance that the chip will not work due to a defect rises. If the rising cost of discarded non working chips is balanced against the reducing cost per transistor of larger chips, then as Moore observed in 1965 there is a number of transistors or complexity at which "a minimum cost" is achieved. He further observed that as transistors were made smaller through advances in photolithography this number would increase "a rate of roughly a factor of two per year".[1]
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_law
 
I just bought two fast fixed focal length lenses for my D200, both are compatible to full frame cameras, it will be great if a full frame digital Nikon is coming, it can prove my investment is correct.
 
I don't like the current situation (canon dominating the market), too, and I hope Nikon and Sony will come up with something interesting.
 
Ken Ford said:
Huh? The first generation of Nikon DSLRs *are* compatible with AI and AIS glass including metering. I use mostly MF Nikkors on my D1.
Click to expand...

Their pro cameras were compatible but not their consumer ones until the D200 appeared. They really dropped the ball there and it maybe too late to pick it up again.

Bob
 
And what does all of this mean for the Leica M8? If Nikon and Canon come out with cameras that knock the pants off the quality of current digital cameras, does that make the M8 obsolete less than a year after its release?

/T
 
Tuolumne said:
And what does all of this mean for the Leica M8? If Nikon and Canon come out with cameras that knock the pants off the quality of current digital cameras, does that make the M8 obsolete less than a year after its release?

/T
Click to expand...


On that note, no, the m8 would not be obsolete because it's completely different to an SLR....
Also, I doubt that canon could bring anything out not that could "knock the pants off the quality of current digitals"... I think they've reached a bit of a plateau, where the technology advancements that have a direct contribution to image quality will be much less drastic as time progresses than in previous years... The 1dmkIII is a good camera, but really, besides the iso 6400 thing and the slightly better noise control, none of us would be able to tell between a picture taken between the mkII and the mkIII at the same settings with the same lens...


Although I was thinking last night on a long drive - How great would it be if canon released a full frame digital rangefinder.... Just imagine - the canon 7sD with the full frame 12.3mp sensor from the 5d, in a classic all metal body with m mount capabilities and a new smallish line of canon L m mount primes. I bet they'd sell a lot of 24 1.4 L's!!!

That rangefinder IMO would make the m8 obsolete.
 
fdigital said:
Although I was thinking last night on a long drive - How great would it be if canon released a full frame digital rangefinder.... Just imagine - the canon 7sD with the full frame 12.3mp sensor from the 5d, in a classic all metal body with m mount capabilities and a new smallish line of canon L m mount primes. I bet they'd sell a lot of 24 1.4 L's!!!
Click to expand...

Many moons ago on RFF I proposed that to make rangefinder cameras really viable again beyond their current loyal niche (which includes myself, of course) the M-mount "standard" would have to be discarded, in favor of a mount shared with some existing brand of DSLR camera.

Getting rid of the M-mount, with its short back focus, would immediately solve the vignetting and rim-ray problems that have forced M8 users into compromise solutions including IR-cut filters and software vignetting correction.

Then the only remaining problem would be the necessarily high cost of the precision-machined optical components and hand-cut coupling cams needed to make an interchangeable-lens RF camera work at high accuracy. I postulated that this problem could be solved the same way it has elsewhere in camera design: substitute electronics for mechanics.

I theorized that an RF optical system actuated by a precision stepper motor, controlled by a digital distance encoder in the lens, could achieve just as much accuracy and usability as a mechanically coupled RF, while making the system usable with a much wider range of lenses. (LCD framelines or a real-image zoom viewfinder system would handle the varying fields of view.)

I proposed that the only company with the technical know-how and marketing clout to make this happen would be Canon. They've already got the high-performance 24x36 sensor that the photo-nostalgists demand, they've got an all-electronic lensmount, and they've got a big enough user base to make a "niche" model viable. All they'd really need to do to make the idea work would be to add high-precision distance encoders to the lenses that would appeal to RF users (24/1.4? 35/1.4? 50/1.2? 85/1.2?) And the really cool thing would be that these lenses would still be fully usable on Canon SLRs.

I figured that serious Canon shooters who already have a big investment in DSLR bodies and lenses wouldn't hesitate to add a specialized RF body to facilitate work in the areas in which an RF camera excels: low-light documentary shooting, stage and theater work, street photography, etc.


Did other RFFers get excited by this fantasy? No, basically I got flayed alive for suggesting that it might be worth trading off the RF camera's traditional compact size, classical form, and multi-vendor lens compatibility in order to get better technology, higher performance and more flexibility.

I'm sure the major manufacturers have already learned by market research what I found out the hard way, so I doubt if we'll ever see a high-volume manufacturer develop a genuinely modern digital RF camera -- even though technically it would be perfectly feasible to do so.
 
Tuolumne said:
And what does all of this mean for the Leica M8? If Nikon and Canon come out with cameras that knock the pants off the quality of current digital cameras, does that make the M8 obsolete less than a year after its release?
Click to expand...
There are lots of languages spoken in the world that are not English. I don't think they make English obsolete, nor the other way around. They're different.
 
jlw said:
Nikon has made such a big investment (financial and psychological) in its DX format and lenses that I just can't believe they'd change course now and revert to a 24x36mm-format sensor.

It would be like admitting that Canon was right and they were wrong, and also, as time goes by, fewer and fewer photographers care about having a sensor the same size as ye old filmme that Grandpa used to use...
Click to expand...

if the rest of the world is not going on your way, you can keep on swimming against the current or change the course.
fire the manager who married his name with DX, and act like nothing ever happened. thats what Microsoft has done for years 😀
 
jlw said:
Did other RFFers get excited by this fantasy? No, basically I got flayed alive for suggesting that it might be worth trading off the RF camera's traditional compact size, classical form, and multi-vendor lens compatibility in order to get better technology, higher performance and more flexibility.
Click to expand...

Once you trade off all of those factors, what are you left with? A focusing system? Big whoop. No large manufacturer would do this when AF systems are getting better and better and there's no real market pressure to develop modern MF cameras.

As you obviously realise, if you build a RF for SLR lenses, then the dimensions will be that of an SLR, just without a RF instead of a mirror mechanism. Who would buy this (probably expensive) niche camera whose only advantage is better manual focus? Since it would be almost as big as an SLR (no prism housing) and it would look like one, it would fail. Bear in mind that it wouldn't have the raw sex appeal or the ancestry that the M8 trades upon.

Matthew
 
Matthew Allen said:
Once you trade off all of those factors, what are you left with? A focusing system? Big whoop. No large manufacturer would do this when AF systems are getting better and better and there's no real market pressure to develop modern MF cameras.
Click to expand...

That was another thing I learned from the lambasting I got from my original post. I use rangefinder cameras primarily because of the rangefinder. The absence of mirror blackout, the ability to see outside the frame boundaries, and positive manual focus even with very dim light and/or overlapping subject planes are critically important in the kinds of photography I do. A combined range/viewfinder is still the best instrument ever devised for sighting and focusing a camera under these types of conditions.

What I was surprised to learn from the reaction to my original post was that most "rangefinder" photographers actually care very little about the benefits of rangefinder focusing and viewing. What attracts them to rangefinder cameras is compact size, or all-mechanical feel, or old-timey craftsmanship, or whatever. As for the rangefinder itself, their reaction is, as you say, "Big woop."

For me, if some manufacturer introduced an autofocus DSLR that was as compact and solid and had the same tactile qualities and visual elegance and so forth as, say, a Leica M3... well, I still wouldn't be interested in the thing, because SLR focusing and viewing just don't work as well for me as rangefinder focusing and viewing.

But I was surprised to find that this is a minority viewpoint here on RFF. It seems that many of our members are actually frustrated SLR users, who would actually rather be using a flippy-mirror camera if only they could get one as small and as pretty and as nice-feeling as their favorite RF.

Weird, but as you say, the manufacturers probably have already figured this out.


(I have to say, though, that in view of the fact that our ranks include Mamiya 6/7 users, Fuji GX690 users, and even Speed Graphic users, that small size must rank as a "big woop" feature to at least some rangefinder-using photographers...)
 
Canon Digital Rangefinder

Canon Digital Rangefinder

Well last year I was also predicting a Canon Digital Rangefinder. I believe they will make them. Why? To keep expanding their market growth. As DSLR's sales level off the DRangefinder would allow for continued 35mm growth. New lenses as well. New markets. More money and prestiege.
I also said another reason why they will make a DRangefinder is that eventually a high up Canon person will want one to use. After they have used the RD-1 and M8 they will come to the conclusion that DRangefinder cameras are very nice and now they will want their own Canon model.
Remember the Nipponese love photography and they really do lead the world in camera inovation and electonics. Canon's DRangefinder will be much better than Leicas. Also much more affordable.

It will say "CANON KWANON No. 1 in the World" right on the camera. It will be made in their New Factory in Kanagwa near Tokyo. I will buy one with several lenses.
 
Last edited:
jlw said:
What I was surprised to learn from the reaction to my original post was that most "rangefinder" photographers actually care very little about the benefits of rangefinder focusing and viewing. What attracts them to rangefinder cameras is compact size, or all-mechanical feel, or old-timey craftsmanship, or whatever. As for the rangefinder itself, their reaction is, as you say, "Big woop."
Click to expand...


Yes and no, the viewfinder is fine, the size with lenses is great! For what I do, f8 and zone focus is ok. Since I like 35 and 28mm, even seeing outside of the frame is not an option.
 
jlw said:
That was another thing I learned from the lambasting I got from my original post. I use rangefinder cameras primarily because of the rangefinder. The absence of mirror blackout, the ability to see outside the frame boundaries, and positive manual focus even with very dim light and/or overlapping subject planes are critically important in the kinds of photography I do. A combined range/viewfinder is still the best instrument ever devised for sighting and focusing a camera under these types of conditions.

What I was surprised to learn from the reaction to my original post was that most "rangefinder" photographers actually care very little about the benefits of rangefinder focusing and viewing. What attracts them to rangefinder cameras is compact size, or all-mechanical feel, or old-timey craftsmanship, or whatever. As for the rangefinder itself, their reaction is, as you say, "Big woop."

For me, if some manufacturer introduced an autofocus DSLR that was as compact and solid and had the same tactile qualities and visual elegance and so forth as, say, a Leica M3... well, I still wouldn't be interested in the thing, because SLR focusing and viewing just don't work as well for me as rangefinder focusing and viewing.

But I was surprised to find that this is a minority viewpoint here on RFF. It seems that many of our members are actually frustrated SLR users, who would actually rather be using a flippy-mirror camera if only they could get one as small and as pretty and as nice-feeling as their favorite RF.

Weird, but as you say, the manufacturers probably have already figured this out.


(I have to say, though, that in view of the fact that our ranks include Mamiya 6/7 users, Fuji GX690 users, and even Speed Graphic users, that small size must rank as a "big woop" feature to at least some rangefinder-using photographers...)
Click to expand...

I think I came across as excessively negative about RFs. My "big whoop" comment was supposed to be an expression of the market's reaction to the camera you propose, rather than necessarily my own. Personally I think most formats have their place, but products with specialist interest have to establish their own niche or they sink without trace. Leica seem to have done remarkably well in selling their digital RF, but their product is packaged as the continuation of a century or so of camera development. A completely new RF design based on an SLR system would lack this advantage.

Matthew
 
Finder said:
Well, having worked in the camera manufacturing industry, he either has some lose mouth friends in Nikon (not likely as they all sign confidentiality argeements), or he has simply tapped into the rumour mill.

I don't know why you would want to protect his identity. He could have betrayed the trust placed in him by a Nikon employee if his claim is true. If it is not true, he is not credible anyway.

But I will go out on a limb and call it a hoax. If the release in really in September, the press release should be out now (or soon). Nikon should know by now if the camera is going into production and they are not going to benefit by surprizing us when the product hits the shelves. This is going to be a big investment and they need to get the sales.
Click to expand...
Finder,

This sounds a lot like the many many comments you had on the M8 debut!
Hey, let the man spread some rumors,it's about time Nikon updated the D2 and Full frame is the logical next step for them.
Manufacturers seem to be letting loose some rumors on upcoming stuff themselves, the latest advertising tactic?

I say Nikon will keep the camera under $5000 and Kick some Canon butt!

Kiu
 
Humm, RD-2 with this new sensor?

Hasn't this FF nikon been vapor/rumor ware for like two years now?

Someone said d200 prices are down. It would really be a kick in crotch if Canon gets lapped again with the 30D (20D mk II) still out there.

I still love my 20D and scanning film out of my CL is ok.

Maybe more interesting is the comment on DPreview that Canon is expanding CMOS sensor prodcution for P&S cameras. Maybe a decent APS-c P&S is in the works.

By the way, Nikon doesn't have much invested in DX lenses, their customers do.

Mark
 
Socke said:
Moore's law is about getting more into less, i.E. smaller chips with more tranistors.
Making bigger chips is not covered by this.
Click to expand...
Quite right. It is certainly possible to cram more pixels into a smaller sensor, but it does not make sense from image quality point of view. There are now 12 MP P&S digicams, but their image quality as a whole is not superior to their 6-7 MP predecessors, even if they have a higher resolution. So, in fact Moore's law has very little to do with image sensors.

People also often forget that having a significantly higher resolution requires more than two time the megapixels. Twice the megapixels only gives you about 40% more linear resolution, which is really not that much ,especially after you go beyond certain limits. Therefore, for most purposes a 12 MP digital camera does not even have a 40% better image quality than a 6 MP camera, even if it has no more noise and the same dynamic range.
 
Olsen said:
Canon has a huge product development budget - far larger than Nikon's. Nikon is in no possition to develop their own sensor. That they will be applying a Sony sensor seems reasonable. That several D-SLR's will be launched with this sensor is likely, but they will all have a hard time winning back the close to 80% market share of Canon among pro's today.

It has been so quiet from the Nikon camp now, that if they don't launch something new they just might dissappear. And Full Frame is the only way forward. With Canon combing home close to 80% of the camera industry's profit there is no longer doubt about that.
Click to expand...
A huge part of Canon's success comes from the fact that they are a very significant factor in the high volume P&S business, whereas Nikon's P&S market share is about the same size as Olympus' and way behind Canon and Sony. Recently even Samsung as been overtaking Nikon in that sector. Canon was much bigger than Nikon even in the 'film age', so that is really not anything new. Even then the main reasons were Canon's big P&S business and the fact that Canon's SLRs have always been very popular among tech enthusiast amateurs, which is also a a significant segment of the camera market.

Now, I do agree that the Canon's FF sensor cameras probably have taken some market share from Nikon among the pros. How much really is difficult to say and the market shares between the two have always varied in any case. Before the Canon EOS Nikon owned the pro press photograper market, which is by far the most important pro camera market segment. EOS-1 changed all that, but Nikon did not 'disappear' and was able to take some back with the D1 and D2, since Canon's digital offerings were two years late in that segment.

So, does Nikon really need FF sensor camera? The answer both yes and no. The D40(x), the D80 and the D200 have been quite successful, so Nikon does not have any immediate problems with its overall DSRL market share. However, if they do not provide a FF sensor camera or an equivalent quality DX sensor camera the non-press photographer pro market will continue to slide towards Canon.

Still, I believe Nikon's biggest immediate concern is to counter the 1D Mark III in the press and sports photographer market segment, not the Full Frame 1Ds Mark II and the D5. It is also possible the Nikon's (or rather Sony's) answer to the Canon FF cameras may not be a FF camera but a DX sensor that can effectively rival with Canon's FF sensors. It should not be theoretically impossible and there are lots of room for improvement in the APS-C sensor class for both lower noise and better dynamic range. Sony knows that they need to develop lower noise sensors and have most likely been working hard on that. And Sony does have huge R&D budget, even if Nikon does not. Some more pixels too perhaps, but in the difference between 12 MP and 18 MP is only 22% in linear resolution, which is hardly worth mentioning. And by now the pros should know that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom