Who's going to pay $3500 for a 4.0 megapixel camera?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You are, according to Nikon.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/ [...] n_d2hs.asp
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1117mrv61q0i3d5@news.supernews.com>, not@real.address
says...
> Brian C. Baird wrote:
>
> > You are, according to Nikon.
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/ [...] n_d2hs.asp
>
> It can buffer 50 shots at 8 frames per second. I think this is
> camera is aimed at sports photographers. ;-)

Yes, but the 1D Mark II can do 40 at 8.5 FPS... at 8 megapixels.

"Yeah, but it costs $1,000 more!"

Sad, sad.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:

> In article <1117mrv61q0i3d5@news.supernews.com>, not@real.address
> says...
>> Brian C. Baird wrote:
>>
>> > You are, according to Nikon.
>> >
>> > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/ [...] n_d2hs.asp
>>
>> It can buffer 50 shots at 8 frames per second. I think this is
>> camera is aimed at sports photographers. ;-)
>
> Yes, but the 1D Mark II can do 40 at 8.5 FPS... at 8 megapixels.

True.. but if you already have an investment in fast long Nikon
glass, it would make sense to stay with Nikon.

It is pricy for a 4MP camera though.. I'm also wondering if
Nikon took advantage of the larger sensor sites to produce
a sensor that has very low noise at higher ISOs. ?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1108599786.001393.245630@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
scharf@hotmail.com says...
> > You are, according to Nikon.
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/ [...] n_d2hs.asp
>
> It's weird. It's almost as if Nikon did this in order to claim that the
> D2Hs is a semi-professional camera, so they can then claim that the new
> D2x is a professional model. I don't know how to even classify the
> D2Hs. It's like a prosumer camera, at a semi-professional price.

Well, it's a pro camera without pro output. I know the D2H did fairly
nice photos... but there's only so much detail you can capture with 4.0
megapixels. While 8 megapixels on the 1D Mark II don't quite equal
twice the resolution, certainly the extra pixels do make a difference if
you need to crop or blow up the image. Additionally, the noise
performance of the 1D Mark II is so good, I don't know if Nikon will
even be able to justify the price of the D2Hs.

> I guess the attraction is the frame rate, but a sports photographer
> could always use the $5000 D2x in the 6.8 megapixel "High Speed
> Cropped Image" mode that has a shooting rate of 8 frames per second,
> for 35 frames.

Yeah, but I'm waiting to see the noise performance of a 12.1 megapixel
APS-C sensor. Methinks it won't be great.

> They might have a market for this camera if they priced it around $800.

I think they would be able to sell it at around $2,000 body-only as a
niche camera. Still, 4 megapixels!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <geadndpd8IeeYY7fRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net says...
> I was very excited about the new camera, until I saw the megapixel county.
> Tons of features, and I don't understand the combo of the camera along with
> the low count. I guess you've have to ask a buyer why they would want it.

I think they're shrugging too.

> Of course, megapixel count isn't everything. It's possible, and I've seen
> in some reviews, for a camera with a lower megapixel count to produce better
> images than one with a higher count. And you don't need many pixels for
> newspaper work.

It's true that if the camera has poor noise performance or too much of a
high-pass filter before the sensor, the extra megapixels won't mean
much. However, the 1D Mark II already has great performance and
delivers a lot of detail. With twice the photosites, it's a hard act to
follow.

To the matter of printing in the paper... sure, you don't need a lot for
the front page, or any page. However, if you get that stunning shot
it's going to be sold to the wires, magazines... it might end up in a
book at some point. Wouldn't you rather have more detail for detail's
sake?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

These subjects always come down to what it is that you need to do with
the equipment.

For example, this is one of the camera in our test labs:

http://www.visiblesolutions.com/phantomv7.html


What you're paying for here is its burst capability: 19,200 full frame
images in 4 seconds.

FWIW, the 2 microsecond shutter speed is only what the manufacturer
guarentees: the software supports a 1 microsecond shutter speed and in
our experience, it works.

If you're building up a total system from scratch, your purchasing
budget should assume around another $25K in imaging equipment, plus
another $25K in lighting, plus whatever facility cost you'll need for
the grid power for the above lighting. Finally, the effective ISO of
the Black&White version gives you two stops more than the color
version, so forgoing a color image will reduce your lighting needs.


-hh

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d099111eidrc4pspu9me2rch6fe2qmofen@4ax.com>,
nulldev@rongsted.dk says...
> >It's true that if the camera has poor noise performance or too much of a
> >high-pass filter before the sensor, the extra megapixels won't mean
> >much. However, the 1D Mark II already has great performance and
> >delivers a lot of detail. With twice the photosites, it's a hard act to
> >follow.
>
> If you are talking about the anti-alias filter then it's a low-pass
> filter not a high-pass filter.

D'oh! You are correct sir.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:r-WdnevoloidfonfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tsudnW_IkYfWLonfRVn-vQ@wavecable.com...
> > Personally, I think Nikon's announcements so far have been very
> > disappointing.
> >
> Nikon has always had a habit of taking a wait-see attitude and letting
> others pave the way -- then coming out with something that "usually" one
ups
> the competition, often at a higher price.

I have to agree, but the D2Hs hardly fits that mold -- it doesn't one-up
anything but one of Nikons own oldest and most obsolete models for a price
that is absolutely ridiculous, and the me-too point and shoots are nothing
special. Nikon is going to have to come out with something in the next six
months, though, if they want to be taken seriously in the digital world. It
will have to be spectacular and truly worth the wait, too.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:

>Brian C. Baird wrote:
>
>> In article <1117mrv61q0i3d5@news.supernews.com>, not@real.address
>> says...
>>> Brian C. Baird wrote:
>>>
>>> > You are, according to Nikon.
>>> >
>>> > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/ [...] n_d2hs.asp
>>>
>>> It can buffer 50 shots at 8 frames per second. I think this is
>>> camera is aimed at sports photographers. ;-)
>>
>> Yes, but the 1D Mark II can do 40 at 8.5 FPS... at 8 megapixels.
>
>True.. but if you already have an investment in fast long Nikon
>glass, it would make sense to stay with Nikon.

And that's who's going to be buying the D2Hs: Long-time Nikon shops that
have a big investment in Nikon glass. Newspapers being the prime
example. Even some relatively small newspapers have dozens of bodies and
even more lenses. You can't switch over gradually because of
compatibility issues and you can't switch over all at once because it's
prohibitively expensive (unless you're a real big-budget operation like
the Washington Post, who made a total switchover to Canon a few years
ago when Nikon pissed them off somehow).

In the end, they aren't so much worried about whether the D2Hs is better
than the 1D-II but whether the Nikon can do the job they want it to do
as well as they want to do it.
If it meets that requirement then the bean counters get their way and
the shop stays with Nikon. Ever try to explain the concept of "pixels"
to an accountant?

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <LZSdnSEsy6NbgIjfRVn-gQ@wavecable.com>,
christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
> > Let's not forget the D2X hasn't had a chance to sink or swim yet,
> > either. If it sinks... well, so do Nikon's dSLR prospects.
>
> Well, more like if it sinks, then maybe some heads will finally roll.
> However, I think the D2x is likely to be a pretty good seller if they
> managed to keep the level of digital noise down. There is a lot about Nikon
> that reminds of Motorola of 10 years ago, when that company lost its market
> dominance. Motorola did not fail, but the CEO finally had to be axed before
> they began to make a comeback.

> Unlike Motorola, Nikon actually still makes good products, arguably as good
> or better than any of its principle rivals. It is the marketing that is
> atrocious.

Yes, let's not forget the fact Nikon does make some excellent equipment
and has a history of doing such. But you have to wonder about their
commitment to leading edge technologies in a field that is changing
faster than they seem to be able to catch up.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cv3o45$spi$1@nnrp.gol.com>, davidjl@gol.com says...
> For the record, I think you guys are dead wrong about the D2Hs. IMHO, 4MP is
> more than enough for a lot of PJ and sports work. And the smaller file size
> will be appreciated when slinging around large numbers of frames (and at
> 8fps, these things create a lot of frames (twice the frames per CF card
> isn't something to be sneezed at for those guys)). D2Hs pixels are larger
> than 1Dmk2 pixels, so the noise may be lower, and that will be important for
> PJ types, who will find a somewhat cleaner ISO 1600 (if the camera coughs
> up<g> ) valuable.

4 MP might be fine, but 8 MP is certainly better. Especially if you
want to use the image outside of a newspaper.

> As long as the thing is rugged, fast, ergonomic, and as low noise as the
> pixel size implies, it'll be a great tool for its market.

You see, they didn't change the sensor from the original D2H. That's
why I'm skeptical of any supposed "lower noise" of the D2Hs.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <6K-dnQ0GPZ3PYojfRVn-rA@rogers.com>, "Darrell" <dev/null>
says...
> > You see, they didn't change the sensor from the original D2H. That's
> > why I'm skeptical of any supposed "lower noise" of the D2Hs.
> >
> But they could change the rest of the circuit, or change the anti-noise
> algorithim...

They didn't indicate any such redesign.

I don't think they're trying very hard, personally.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/