I am getting some buzz that Nikon will be releasing some leaks/rumors/official news in the next few days as a response to the freshly released Sony A900. It makes sense to use the momentum of A900 and throw us some bones (Sony and Nikon are sharing sensor technology). Canon has already been teasing its fan base for the past few weeks.
Army of NR readers – keep your eyes open (I will do the same)!
Related posts:
73 Comments
those are heavy
Can they trow us cameras instead of bones? i’m not a dog…
Is there something new in this link?
http://press.nikonusa.com/2008/09/nikon_podcast_10_recent_announ.php
I look forward to seeing Nikon’s responses(s) to the Sony A900. Hopefully there will be two cameras forthcoming. A D3x or D4 and a D?00. I like the fact that Sony did not integrate the battery pack into the A900. I really do not like the large professional model cameras that leave you no choice but to lug that extra size and weight around even when you don’t need it. . . I am much more of a D300 D700 kind of guy.
I thought the whole point of the 35mm film format was to provide a relatively compact camera. Today’s top level professional cameras are anything but compact or lightweight. Even the D300 is a tad larger than I would prefer to have to handle. I guess I am really a Nikon D90 or Pentax K20D kind of guy in the end.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing…
I read some details in DPReview’s hands-Preview of the new Sony 24 MP A900 DSLR
They also put some photo samples, and look Really nice at 6048 x 4032!!
It’s Worth to mention that the NEW (AND FIRST in the World at this moment) 24,6 MP FULL Frame DSLR Camera estimated price is (just) USD 3,000.
Much cheaper than some Nikon with less resolution FX sensors, although they have different features, sure, but this Sony DSLR doubles (at least) the resolution of EVERY Nikon until today..
——————————-
THIS IS for Nikon:
Review your Prices when releasing cameras..
It IS time to get DSLRs more affordable to people. Specially because the market is growing up Fast, (competition too), and times between new models are getting shorter
(that’s my point of view, as it’s being happening with every electronic device since many years ago)
Besides the high-tech behind a camera, and there are also some people who can pay it, it has no sense/need for a DSLR to be at $5.000 wheter it is the “most Pro” DSLR or not.
I know the 1st “Pro” DSLR was much more expensive, but MANY Years has passed, Millions of people use digital cameras today, and Now It’s almost 2009…
yes, the rumor is 3 new DSLRs from Canon
“Nikon have already said there coming with a spin-off of sony´s 25 megapixel sensor” – where? I don’t think Nikon have said something like that. NikonRumors has said it many times, but not Nikon.
I could be wrong.
$3000 for a 25 megapixel slr with a growing stable of good quality glass and good performance at iso 800 to 1600 – forget Nikon’s pricing – If I’m Mamiya or Phase One, I’d be pretty concerned right now.
yes, i shoot with nikon, but could really use some larger images. lets see a D400 with 18mp, or something like that. I understand it might be a year off, but I hope nikon moves in that direction.
Also, with the whole DX,FX,MX format mystery, I wish Nikon would give us some clue as to which glass to invest in if we want to shoot Nikon in 5-10 years. I bought a FX lens to stay ahead of the curve. If I have to sell that for MX in 2 years I’ll be very disappointed.
That’s the point. Despite it’s high-tech, the electronic world becomes “obsolete” faster and faster with time, so the “investment” of people in new DSLRs should be lower.
I have some Nikkor zoom lenses for my 35mm film Nikon SLR (thus, “Full frame” lenses).
But if a different brand offered a Good DSLR with high Resolution sensor, low noise, etc, with good lenses, at a more reasonable price than Nikon, I would consider it SERIOUSLY.
- People get bothered and dissapointed spending thousands of dollars in a camera that is seccessed soon with another model with better specs. and features
So it would be more logical to sell cameras at a lower price.
Then people would buy them, and replace with new models more Often too, without so high impact in their budgets.
(Unfortunately, or not, it is how electronic marketplace is doing today)
Well, I hope a D800 is released soon, as “response” to Canon and Sony High Res Sensors, at a Good Logical price (I know I am asking a lot to bussiness men..but it has sense what I said)
I don’t consider a D3x or D4 due to the reasons I wrote above.
no, I listen to it already – they don’t even mention the D90… old
I think Canon will soon have 3 new FF DSLR
You should all know by now that Nikon has never been one to let others influence their product releases. Think about the gap between the F3 and F4 and F5, between D1 and D2 and D3. Even when they finally announced the D3 it was not what everyone expected. Nikon will do what they think is best when they think it is good and ready. What Canon does will not have much influence. If they really were that concerned, there would’ve peen a high MP FF DSLR 2 years ago. But I’m sure that when they do come out with the next surprise, it will be a good one.
Don’t forget that Canon is on the verge of announcing at least one new full frame model too. These are exciting times for dSLR shooters. This added competition, including rumors of a possible Samsung / Pentax full frame, will benefit us all.
canon should come with two and hints of a third maybe ( 3D , 7D and 1Ds iV ).
Nikon have already said there coming with a spin-off of sony´s 25 megapixel sensor so it is logical to put it in a D3 body and call it D3X or D4( possible D900 aswell ) ..only worrying thing here is the increased noise levels if the sample pictures from the A900 are anything to go by..The A700 had cleaner images than the D300 .
In short I do not think nikon are being influenced by it , it is just the correct timing for them to release there high-end unit/s.
Japan 2007 August ..will try to find the link
thanks – I will try to look for it too
Ads reveal Sony’s 24.6 megapixel A900 full-frame DSLR {Engadget}
Sep 4th 2008 12:13PM
“Sony designs and makes all sensors in Nikon dSLRs with the exception of the D700/D3 sensors (which are Nikon designed but likely Sony fabricated). Also, Nikon uses LCDs and image processors for Sony as well (their Expeed is a rebranded Bionz). This 24.6MP sensor is also rumored to be in the Nikon D3x as well,but this Alpha-900 should be priced closer rival to the Canon 5D/Nikon D700.”
found that while searching for link to nikon /journalist quote
ok – here is the link again: http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/09/sony-launches-the-a900-full-frame-dslr/
bythom also states :
” Using a variant of Sony’s new CMOS sensor”
“So my comments here are based solely on released information from the press conference and a few brief conversations with those who were invited to the announcement in Japan.”
the dates fit 23rd august 2007 so it seems he has also had this info from sindai
http://www.bythom.com/D3comments1.htm
http://www.engadget.com/profile/641156/
Huh???
Be careful for what you wish for.
Nikon may have to drop prices to keep up with competition but then say goodbye to cameras assembled by hand (D3/D700), say goodbye to the cameras even being manufactured in Japan (not that China and the Philippines are bad but there IS more sample variation in products from those countries.
I like the thought of the D3 and D700 being manufactured and assembled (by hand) in Japan.
I’m not sure how I would feel spending more than 2K on a body not made in Japan. I used to work in camera repairs (as a manager not a tech) and have a good sense for repair rates.
I think the big question is: Will Nikon’s spin off be anywhere near the same price range as Sony’s A900? An equal camera at twice the price (say a D3x) is a really poor alternative.
No all the sample images I saw are quite moderate — and the lens struggles to keep up with the hi-res sensor at near the edges. They are no comparison to, say, the Phase One P45/P45+’s excellent files with full pixel level details — remember the P45/P45+ has no AA filters and no microlenses as well. So Mamiya/Phase One has nothing to worry about, seriously.
Also check out the Luminous Landscape review — the 1DsIII’s 21MP sensor resolves more details than the Sony 25MP.
honestly, i know its enevetable, but i sincerely hope Nikon AVOIDS the 24mp sensor! honestly! WHY??? what use does ANYBODY really have for more than 12? at some point it just starts to degrade the image quality! didn’t Canon learn their Lesson once with the Mk III’s? when you put too much emphasis on MP the camera and image quality suffer! this is why Nikon has managed to stay successfull with the D3 over the more expencive 1DsMk III!
Nikon doesn’t need to “go after” anybody else’s sensors! no, they need to put emphasis on Processor! the EXPeed processor was a GREAT start for Nikon! but it can still be improved!
I cant believe how many MP suckers are there, I am sure samsung will release a cell phone with 14-18 MP this year, SOOOO WHAT???? I dont think the new sony is close to the D3 in terms of ISO performance, maybe Nikon needs to release a sucker camera with 40MP to please you, but anything pro with lesser IQ and dynamic range for the sake of PIXEL suckers is not acceptable…. if you need a 24 MP camera than go buy a medium format or something for now and blow the pictures on your big plasma, seriously if you need so much pixels then you must be shooting wall to wall posters for living and you need something else other than a sucker enhanced nikon….
I read a full hands on review of the A900 and the reviewer said that above ISO200 the noise was noticeable, as such I really, really hope that Nikon are using their own designs for the FX camera that everyone is hoping for because as such the D700 and D3 are well out performing the A900 for image quality at high ISO’s.
If the next FX from Nikon does have 24 plus pixels then as long as they are of the same high quality as the current FX cameras that will be fine.
Douglas, the run of the mill consumer does not need more than 12 MP, but there are many, many semi pro and pro photographers whose work benefits from the higher MP otherwise no one would need or buy a MF camera from Phase One or Leaf etc.
Here in the UK it is known as “horses for courses” or to be in plain english,the best tool for the particular job.
Sony cameras are the ugliest things ever!
NIKON POWER
Really, Dpreview has a picture comparing the 3 full frames D-SLRs, d700, 5d, and this “camera” the a900.
i fully agree with your top statement… but i cant believe your bottom statement directed at my original post…
5 years ago professional’s where making billboard images out of 5 and 6 mp camera’s. i am a professional photographer and am quite happy with the size of my 10mp D200’s files. i can easily interpilate them to a 20×30 poster size if i like and with the right software i can take them WELL beyond that if needed. i will Fully concede the point that the MF camera’s like the Mamiya or Phase One’s do hold a distinct advantage, but that is for portrait photographers and the detail that the physically larger sensor can capture, not the in the resolution! i repeat my above statement, there is NO need for ANYBODY to have larger than 12mp is a 35mm format body.
I think you are confusing some terms. First of all the last time I checked 24 was twice 12 or a doubling of the mathematical number. Here is where I think you confusiion comes from.
In real terms, sharpness and resolution are different items. Resolution is a one dimentional parameter and sharpness is a two dimentional parameter. Twice the picture forming elements (all other things being equal) yields twice the sharpness to the observer’s eye (given the proper size of the photo and ability of the lens to outresolve the sensor). You couldn’t tell any difference in a postage size print but large prints show the differences. You have to remember resolution and viewing sharpness are not interchangeable terms or concepts. In this case there is a doubling of the pixels and that will yield the quality of twice the sharpness when looking at the photo. A 24 MP sensor is inheritantly 4 times as sharp as a 6 MP sensor in final prints.
To prove that point figure how many sharp 6 MP photos you could squeeze onto a 24 MP sensor. So twice the resolution yields 4 times the sharpness – meaning that a full 6mp image could be reproduced 4 times from a 24 MP sensor.
Its time to dispell with the old wives tales and stop parroting the misconceptions of others.
It is amazing to me how few people get the resolution/sharpness concept correct. Those misconceptions are mainly touted by people who want to justify not upgrading.
Mal
I was thinking about this, 7d, 5d mk II, 3d? Full frame for everyone, right?
I want the D700, it’s out of my budget, hopefully it comes down.
Do you think everybody has the same needs that you do in a camera? Advertising photographers do need lots of pixels and not all of them can afford a $40.000 MF camera. I’m tired of these so called “advanced amaterus” thinking the if they don’t need something nobody will. I know plenty professionals that doesn’t care about high ISO and do care about being able to crop a picture so he can use it on several different media.
Sorry for the awful english, not my native language.
Some people do shoot wall to wall posters for living you know… They are called “Professionals”
There are other photography fields beyond sports and weddings. Realy!
im sorry, but im a 10 year professional photographer! and i shoot mostly sports where i DO crop into an image quite a bit of the time because i cant afford a 300mm 2.8 Lens! i am FAR from an “Advanced Amature” as i am a former Brooks Institute of Photography student and again, have been a professional Photographer for 10 years! i understand that not everyone can afford a MF camera, Hell, i CANT afford one! and if i did… honestly i’d get a FILM MF camera to shoot just Studio with! and why in the hell do people keep comparing images from a 25mp camera to that of a MF camera? thats LUDICRIS!
Being a pro you should know that not everyone soot sports and need high ISO and 10fps. If Canon users have a great 21mp camera why the hell couldn’t Nikon? Try doing a double page magazine spread from a cropped 12mp image and tell me what you got. There are cameras for every class of professional and I can’t see how a high MP version of the D3 would hurt anyone.
And come on… Buying a film MF??? Are you nuts? It’s 2008 you know…
I would be a very happy buyer of a 25mp nikon.
MF digital cameras are not only expensive, but heavy, slow, have a terrible user interface and an AF that remembers me th F4 era (i do use a rented Hasselblad H3D from time to time and apart from the great IQ, it’s an awful camera).
what did i just get done saying… i crop into my 10mp D200 images all the time and make Great 11×14 prints, and that isn’t even using true interpilation software! please tell me that you people have learned SOMETHING from Canon’s Mistakes with rediculously high MP counts!
i understand that some people’s needs are different than my own… and i still dont see where ANYONE’s needs will outperform the performance of a 12mp D3… how many sports photographers used a D2Hs 4MP camera and made the images cover a section of an outfield wall in Baseball? or a Freeway Billboard? seriously people!
I understand your point of view, and I share it mostly.
I have a Canon made in japan, and is solid. Also have a Nikon made in japan.
We all trust more in japan-made electronics than those made somewhere else..
I didn’t know D3/D700 were made by hand
In that case I guess I would trust more if made by robots, and checked by robots, And by humans.
I suppose humans hands have more chances to make a mistake assembling than a robot
But I still prefer a “made in japan” camera, of course…
I’m one of those who doesn’t care too much in High-iso but Do care about more pixels, as I don’t shoot sports.
I also DO care about noise..
As you said, lot of “Pro” or “Prosumer” (I don’t like that term) need different features, cause they work in different situations.
And IF I CROP a 10MP image, well.. I won’t be able to print at the size I need (not brochures, nor magazines, btw)
I need low noise, of course, but also high MP and Image Quality.
I print large, large images… But I can not afford a Mamiya or whatever in such category (and I wouldn’t like to carry it on when shooting outside either..)
If we check DSLR history, we can clearly see that noise has been lowered a LOT in the sensors, and the resolution has grew up a LOT too.
So BOTH things are possible, it’s just a matter of Balance according on what technology allows at the moment…
I respect your oponnion, but I don’t agree with your last statement.
Many photographers could need or take benefits of higher resolutions in a FX sensor, if (of course) the Image Quality and Noise level is kept.
As I said, resolution & noise level has been managed in balance over the DSLR history. And has been improved a LOT, so they could keep doing so a bit more in FX size, thee is “room” for it.
I love FX 12MP quality, but would like higher resolution at the lowest possible expense of noise increments, OF COURSE.
If I check CAREFULLY an image shot by D300 and D700, both taken at ISO 200, there are noise differences, that’s why I like FX sensor, even when I don’t shoot at high ISO, but I DO need more detailed images, not interpolation.
It’s called landscape photography. And when you can’t pack a MF / 4×5+ system, it’s called adventure photography. 24 megapixels would be a dream…
=Matt=
yes, technology grows steadily… but not with a leap that doubles! if you read the review on the A900 you can see that there is noticible grain as low as ISO 200! seriously… a jump that big without a significant advance in the processor will not end with a clean image.
and again, with my D200 i can crop into 1/4 of the total image and still make a good 8×10 and probably push it to an 11×14 if i needed to with only processing in Photoshop not using any other Interpelation software!
Nikon is not ouf the marketplace, nor the planet, and not isolated from what other brands do…
Despite “they don’t have to do anything”, they need, sooner or later.
Business are business…
What we can get in our benefit from this competition is High quality DSLRs at better prices.
We all hope the IQ, and Camera’s quality will not be compromised in this path.
At least, until now Nikon has kept its quality very well.
Photokina will be an important event for the companies.
Hopefully we can get good news too
I’m sure Nikon will do something, they don’t like to “keep behind” anybody
im sorry to say, but you have missed entirely what Resolution is… Resolution is ALL interpolation… higher resolution =/= more detail… it just means a larger file size… you cant capture more detail untill you have more surface space to capture more detail! this is what made the 5D such an AMAZING portrait camera, not the resolution, but the FF sensor…
ugh… im tired of fighting the MP bandwaggon wars here… when you people finally figure out exactly what a pixel is and what it does for your image, ill talk… untill then, i lurk…
the weird thing is that the page says:
“Posted on September 9, 2008 11:00 AM”
( how could it be? )
The problem of MP and large or huge prints, is when you get closer.
Low resolution (and/or interpolation) are really different from High resolution images.
For a wall or freeway bilboard it could make no difference, no body get close to them, nor stop to appreciate any kind of details
But for Artistic world, the details can make a huge difference in big prints, when people get much closer to see them than usual in wall or similar prints.
Is not “war”, it’s just different use of digital images, in different jobs.
Ok, I have no intentions to a discussion.
But I guess, and do know, that it’s a matter of balance, both things matters: Size of sensor, and Number of pixels capable to receive light and transform it to a color dot.
If it wasn’t that way, then a FF sensor with just 1 MP would be enough, and all would be really happy
Keep in mind that a FF sensor with 24 megapixels has LARGER photosites than a D300.
If you were to use those dinky D300 photosites, you could fit 28 million of them on an FF sensor.
You realize that a 24mp sensor is only a 25% increase in megapixels over a 12, and is NOT double as you suggest. double the amount of MPs would be 48.
It’s the other way around. The D3 isn’t close to Sony in terms of ISO performance. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=29264391
Right, I didn’t say it clearly:
the Sony A900 doubles the ammount of pixels, 25% more in image size when printing at a given dpi (or viewing in a screen)
Sorry, I got started on the wrong foot: ACTUALLY, I jumped for joy when Nikon made the D3, D300 and D700 “only” 12 megapixels. It is overkill for 50% or more of the work I do, (I frequently output print files at 2.8 megapixels even…) and perfect for even the largest bridal portraits and wedding album spreads. I LOVE Nikon for NOT going past 12 megapixels. The 12 MP FX sensor is a pinnacle, and I will stock up on D700’s the day that Nikon decides to “leave” 12 and make a higher res the norm… I hate the megapixel bandwagon just as much as you do!
However, I ALSO shoot landscapes. I’ve seen full-wall prints from 4×5 and 8×10 film, and the resolution is breathtaking. But sometimes you can’t pack a whole 4×5 setup, or a Hassy etc. into the crazy, far-away places… Up until today, people like Galen Rowell were limited to the resolution of 35mm film for their kind of photography… But now with new lenses that can easily resolve 24 megapixels on FX, we are stepping into a whole new world… If Nikon made a D700 sized camera with a 24 megapixel sensor, I’d buy one for my landscape photography as soon as I could afford it…
=Matt=
FF for everyone sounds really good. But, will really everyone buy such a camera? This cameras are heavy and you have to carry a lot of huge an expensive lenses with you… I can’t imagine that everyone will do this.
Yeah, also in 2008 there a lot of people shooting with film. Buy the newest issue of «Monocle» and look at the photos. A lot of them are shot with film. Tyler Brulé himself approved that in an interview with the swiss weekly periodical «Das Magazin». He don’t like this soul- and characterless pixelcrap. And he is not alone: Take a look at magazines like «Paradis», «Purple» or «Fantastic Man».
Here in Europe, especially in Switzerland, you have to shoot with MF if you are a serious lifestyle or fashion photographer. No one of them cares about these high-res Canons and upcoming Sonys and Nikons. Because the image quality of 35mm FF is miles behind of MF. If you can’t afford a Hassie or Phase One, rent one, enlarge your network and improve your skills to be a better photographer to stay easier in competition!
Sony A900:
- Rescaled from 24 to 12 mp
- NR is ON
I don’t wondered about the result.
Yes and this professionals are working with medium or large format cameras – and not with 35mm FF! And this exactly is is the reason why Nikon and Leica are working on Rangefinder MF systems. How difficult is it for you to understand?
ok… why is everyone panicking about buying d3 or d700 then feels stupid cause sony a900 have twice as much as the cameras they already have?
nikon d300 d700 and d3 are perfect for dark condition shooting but not for insanely high resolution work so just use what you already have!
According to the poster there is no NR. I don’t think having the image rescaled diminishes the result at all. That’s the only way to compare the two and as it stands the comparison would indicate that, at D700’s level, the A900 performs better.
Not 25% (1.25) times either
its square root of 2, ie around 1.4. Photographers are familiar with 1.4 (and 2.8, and 5.6) as the numbers between 1, 2, 4 and 8 right?
LOL if Nikon use the A900’s sensor
More rubbish NR from Nikon to come to fix all that horrible horrible noise.
While I agree that if you shoot FF on FX (meaning no cropping) as I do 12Mp is more than enough to pull off a very large print. For wildlife shooters that may not have the luxury of getting as close as they need to be for their lenses focal length are forced to crop. Not a big deal if your not printing too big but as soon as you do even with the interpolation software out there you will still wind up with a compromised image (if viewed by pixel peepers or the image is displayed in the wrong location and someone is standing too close).
I always try to shoot full frame (in terms of capture area) to maximize the smoothness of the across frame gradation so for the likes of you or I we’ll never get to a point where we need more MP but there are allot of folks who will (mostly wildlife and landscape pixel peeping shooters) which although we may not agree with them, they have a right to pursue the photography that turns their crank and Nikon will at some point make a camera to suit them. Hopefully in a future follow on to the D3 nikon will not go to too much of a higher MP count (I’m betting 18Mp post bayer design like Thom Hogan talks about) but if they do you can bet it will not be at the expense of high ISO quality. Not so for a future D700 or D800? type camera which is more towards the consumer end.
Sony have just released a firmware update for the A700 so u´you can turn off the noise reduction .. the pictures from a A700 now look very , very similar to the D300 pics with it turned off.. turned on the A700 pics had less noise than D300 equivalent ..The NR in the D700/3 is by no means rubbish and requires the minimum of post sharpening to be crisp.
Now this is weird math. 12*1.25=24. You’re talking about linear resolution, obviously, but still got the maths wrong (41% is the right number).
Canon 1Ds MkIII doesn’t have noise issues in low ISO, so it is possible. Just because the new Sony is not that good doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
I bet in Europe and USA everybody uses top of the line tools. Unfortunately I live in a third world country (Brazil). This means that I have to pay 2 times more for the equipment and that i get half the money for my pictures.
Just as a reference, the D3 here costs about U$10.000. For the price of a Hassel H3D with just basic lenses I could buy a decent apartment.
I am making good money with my new D700 (I used a D200 until few weeks ago) in advertising, but these cameras are just not enough. If I didn’t have 10 years of investment in Nikon glass I would already bought the 21MP Canon a long time ago.
bet it, I completely understand that situation…
That’s why I said DSLRs should be cheaper at this time of growing expansion (and shorter time between new models releases)
Despite the near off-topic comments about high-res sensors, noise, etc., this blog received more attention than usual, I guess ?
Many of us are really waiting to see what Nikon has to offer soon
Some others are happy with what they already have, and that’s great too
The most important: if someone know any new about upcoming DSLR, please share it
It’s not difficult at all for me to understand. I just don’t agree. If it is possible to make a good 24MP Nikon, with comfortable size, decent AF and relatively cheap glass (compared to MF) why the hell should I pay a small fortune for a MF System? I do rent one when I think i need it, but with a 24MP+ Nikon i think i wouldn’t need to do it anymore.
Why would I have to jump from a U$5.000 camera to U$30.000 to get bigger pictures? I would love a U$8.000 option on the middle.
MF Cameras a awful to use. F4-like AF, big, heavy ant terrible interface. Its not just the price.
An I am one of these pros that should have a MF System. But I am also a third world citizen that struggles to buy very expensive equipment.
we are getting a lot of discussions here – should I add a forum to this blog?
I was observing and comparing the A900 sample images with some others taken by a D700
The feature I love the most of the D700/D3 sensor is the purity of its image colors, total absence of noise at low ISO.
I use to compare shots (or part of them) of a deep blue sky at ISO 200.
In that situation the A900 shows a little noise, while the D700 does not.
If Nikon can’t handle a 24MP sensor without that noise (or chroma noise) at ISO 200 I would prefer a lower resolution sensor, for instance 18 MP that could offer (hopefully) the same image quality of the actual D700/D3 in terms of noise.
I also read somewhere that the sensors Nikon use in some DSLRs are made by Sony (D700, D3 ? )
I find Nikon’s high ISO pictures to lack quite a bit of detail. Oh it might get rid of noise, but it’s too aggressive. Which confirms my suspisions it is just a marketing gimmick. They should’ve capped the D3/700 @ 3200, with two stops additional in options (so 12800 max)
I use 12 800 for black and white street photography and find it perfect ..almost like an old hassey.
agree 25 600 is gimmickey but even there marketing men need something to play with !!
6400 with positive EV ( .3-.7 ) holds more than enough detail for 95% of needs.
Interesting at the moment is a D300 + a D700 costs exactly the same as a D3 …
The gap is so small between a D700 and a D3 .. what price for nikon coming with a D3X + sensor upgrade for present D3 owners ? maybe not but would be nice ….