Comments on: Nikon MX ad #4 http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/ where there’s smoke there’s fire Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:00:06 +0000 hourly 1 By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-506 Blog Admin Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:29:38 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-506 all of those links point back to NR and use our material, nothing new all of those links point back to NR and use our material, nothing new

]]> By: Mr. X http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-505 Mr. X Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:51:18 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-505 I am currently in GERMANY and a friend of mine has seens the rumors on german websites. Here are the links:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread.php?t=373941" rel="nofollow">http://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread.php?t=373941</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.photographybay.com/2008/09/04/nikon-mx-format/" rel="nofollow">http://www.photographybay.com/2008/09/04/nikon-mx-format/</a><br />(english site for the megapixels)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mactechnews.de/forum/thread.html?id=265191" rel="nofollow">http://www.mactechnews.de/forum/thread.html?id=265191</a> I am currently in GERMANY and a friend of mine has seens the rumors on german websites. Here are the links:

http://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread.php?t=373941

http://www.photographybay.com/2008/09/04/nikon-mx-format/
(english site for the megapixels)

http://www.mactechnews.de/forum/thread.html?id=265191

]]> By: Pablov http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-504 Pablov Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:17:30 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-504 I'm starting to get concerned about MX<br /><br />If the ad #4 is real, and plausible to be a future MX sensor, then it would be 16:9 aspect ratio<br /><br />Why am I concerned?<br />Because I (as many other photographers/artists/movie makers) expect an affordable DSLR with GOOD HD Movie capability.<br />And if Nikon is putting all "Movie" efforts in just MX formats, then maybe the FX cameras wouldn't carry Real Good HD Movie quality.<br /><br />And that makes a BIG (...) problem to some people, letting only one choice (until today at least) for getting an affordable DSLR with good quality Still images and HD video: Canon EOS 5D Mark II<br /><br />And... I wouldn't like to switch to Canon.<br /><br />I hope Nikon do its BIG project, but also implement "decent" good HD Movie quality (24fps is too low, and the IQ itself is still too poor. The EOS 5D Mk II seems much better, and has MIC-IN Stereo jacks too)<br /><br />Let's see what NIKON Engineers and designers realize and have in mind... I’m starting to get concerned about MX

If the ad #4 is real, and plausible to be a future MX sensor, then it would be 16:9 aspect ratio

Why am I concerned?
Because I (as many other photographers/artists/movie makers) expect an affordable DSLR with GOOD HD Movie capability.
And if Nikon is putting all “Movie” efforts in just MX formats, then maybe the FX cameras wouldn’t carry Real Good HD Movie quality.

And that makes a BIG (…) problem to some people, letting only one choice (until today at least) for getting an affordable DSLR with good quality Still images and HD video: Canon EOS 5D Mark II

And… I wouldn’t like to switch to Canon.

I hope Nikon do its BIG project, but also implement “decent” good HD Movie quality (24fps is too low, and the IQ itself is still too poor. The EOS 5D Mk II seems much better, and has MIC-IN Stereo jacks too)

Let’s see what NIKON Engineers and designers realize and have in mind…

]]> By: NikonMan http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-503 NikonMan Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:58:18 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-503 There will always be a limit as to the amount of light any size photosite can gather, new technology can make small photosites more efficent but apply the same new technology to a larger photosite and the results will be better still.<br />We saw this with the D300 being better than the competition of the time because of new technology, the same technology in the D3 with larger photosites gives even better.<br />MX allows more resolution without reducing the size of each photosite.<br /><br />Taking this to extremes: if you make an FX sensor with the pixel density used in the sensor of the Coolpix P80 you would get 309.74MP and the noise/dynamic range etc of the P80 (not good when compared to DSLRs) There will always be a limit as to the amount of light any size photosite can gather, new technology can make small photosites more efficent but apply the same new technology to a larger photosite and the results will be better still.
We saw this with the D300 being better than the competition of the time because of new technology, the same technology in the D3 with larger photosites gives even better.
MX allows more resolution without reducing the size of each photosite.

Taking this to extremes: if you make an FX sensor with the pixel density used in the sensor of the Coolpix P80 you would get 309.74MP and the noise/dynamic range etc of the P80 (not good when compared to DSLRs)

]]> By: NikonMan http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-502 NikonMan Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:38:47 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-502 oops sorry, my bad you are correct oops sorry, my bad you are correct

]]> By: Pablov http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-501 Pablov Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:36:01 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-501 weird, because many sources seem to point that the MX is going to be square or something like that, not so "wide"....<br /><br />I really do Not think Nikon (other brands either) is going to keep the pixel pitch in future cameras' sensor.<br /><br />I guess as technology improves them, the sensors will increasse a little in pixel ammount, thus decrease in pixel size. (when keeping the sensors' size)<br />Not big jumps, but some little weird, because many sources seem to point that the MX is going to be square or something like that, not so “wide”….

I really do Not think Nikon (other brands either) is going to keep the pixel pitch in future cameras’ sensor.

I guess as technology improves them, the sensors will increasse a little in pixel ammount, thus decrease in pixel size. (when keeping the sensors’ size)
Not big jumps, but some little

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-500 Blog Admin Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:24:00 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-500 ah - I got it now - thanks ah – I got it now – thanks

]]> By: au-id http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-499 au-id Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:57:56 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-499 Just a thought because i like to think about things to long. Could it be that the "Big" Announcement is actually something in the small range. With all the hype going on about micro four thirds maybe nikon is working on a similar project. If with look at these recent adds there is nothing that I have seen that means bigger (I know the circular viewfinder but for the sake of the theory maybe its just a circular EVF. The larger sensor in the recent add could actually be the existing FX then DX and then MX for Micro.The Lens mount in the first picture looks bigger because the handgrip is just smaller. I also saw no mirror in the picture either. New lenses because the sensor is closer to the mount. Also, if you think about it wedding photographers are always trying to be more discreet and less invasive. Maybe Nikon is going to fool everyone and come out with the best compact silent shutter camera ever. Just a thought I'm sure someone can refute. Just a thought because i like to think about things to long. Could it be that the “Big” Announcement is actually something in the small range. With all the hype going on about micro four thirds maybe nikon is working on a similar project. If with look at these recent adds there is nothing that I have seen that means bigger (I know the circular viewfinder but for the sake of the theory maybe its just a circular EVF. The larger sensor in the recent add could actually be the existing FX then DX and then MX for Micro.The Lens mount in the first picture looks bigger because the handgrip is just smaller. I also saw no mirror in the picture either. New lenses because the sensor is closer to the mount. Also, if you think about it wedding photographers are always trying to be more discreet and less invasive. Maybe Nikon is going to fool everyone and come out with the best compact silent shutter camera ever. Just a thought I’m sure someone can refute.

]]> By: Anonymous http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-498 Anonymous Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:53:35 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-498 See the mountain in the "ad" you posted? Buh. See the mountain in the “ad” you posted? Buh.

]]> By: au-id http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-497 au-id Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:06:24 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-497 I think it has to be. not that it means anything just thought it was interesting to know I think it has to be. not that it means anything just thought it was interesting to know

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-496 Blog Admin Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:16:29 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-496 I can guarantee you that I haven not made up any of the rumors on this site. I can guarantee you that I haven not made up any of the rumors on this site.

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-495 Blog Admin Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:08:14 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-495 where did you see this - can you give us the link - email me if you want privacy where did you see this – can you give us the link – email me if you want privacy

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-494 Blog Admin Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:04:51 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-494 Kuri is correct - I was 4 hours late in posting one of the ads - sorry! Kuri is correct – I was 4 hours late in posting one of the ads – sorry!

]]> By: Andrew http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-493 Andrew Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:04:40 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-493 I too cropped, perspective-controlled and measured in Photoshop.<br /><br />My measurements gave a 1.5 "crop factor" between baby and mummy sensor, both of which have a 3:2 aspect ratio. This is, indeed consistent with DX and FX.<br /><br />The really interesting thing about the daddy sensor is that its aspect ratio is 16:9 – presumably HD video is the justification for this.<br /><br />I calculated daddy to be 52x29.5mm. If the pixels have the same density as a D3 this equates to approx. a 21.5MP sensor, but if they are as densely packed as on a D300 it equates to 47MP I too cropped, perspective-controlled and measured in Photoshop.

My measurements gave a 1.5 “crop factor” between baby and mummy sensor, both of which have a 3:2 aspect ratio. This is, indeed consistent with DX and FX.

The really interesting thing about the daddy sensor is that its aspect ratio is 16:9 – presumably HD video is the justification for this.

I calculated daddy to be 52×29.5mm. If the pixels have the same density as a D3 this equates to approx. a 21.5MP sensor, but if they are as densely packed as on a D300 it equates to 47MP

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-492 Blog Admin Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:03:40 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-492 thank you! thank you!

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-490 Blog Admin Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:01:10 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-490 what is the link between this picture and the MX format? what is the link between this picture and the MX format?

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-489 Blog Admin Fri, 03 Oct 2008 06:59:51 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-489 I answered this question already:<div>This is a "second hand" rumor - it originated in Japan and was submitted to me by another person. I do not know the original source directly.<br></div> I answered this question already:
This is a “second hand” rumor – it originated in Japan and was submitted to me by another person. I do not know the original source directly.
]]> By: Aslak Johansen http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-488 Aslak Johansen Fri, 03 Oct 2008 06:33:16 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-488 I did some primitive perspective correction and got the following sizes:<br /><br />DX: Crop 1.55 compared to FX<br /> Aspect 1.39<br />FX: Aspect 1.42<br />MX: Crop 0.72 compared to FX<br /> Aspect 1.64<br /><br />The aspects indicate the error in my perspective correction. It seems pretty big.<br /><br />DX is clearly reasonable (crop 1.55 is close to 1.5). The MX sensor would then be about 52x30 mm (15.9 cm^2).<br /><br />They seem to have forgotten the Phase One P65+ sensor of 54x40 mm :) I did some primitive perspective correction and got the following sizes:

DX: Crop 1.55 compared to FX
Aspect 1.39
FX: Aspect 1.42
MX: Crop 0.72 compared to FX
Aspect 1.64

The aspects indicate the error in my perspective correction. It seems pretty big.

DX is clearly reasonable (crop 1.55 is close to 1.5). The MX sensor would then be about 52×30 mm (15.9 cm^2).

They seem to have forgotten the Phase One P65+ sensor of 54×40 mm :)

]]> By: NikonMan http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-487 NikonMan Fri, 03 Oct 2008 06:12:18 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-487 Remember the price break the D1 gave against the competition of the day?<br />I hope Nikon does it again, affordable MF Digi..<br />BTW 36x48mm sensor would give a focal length conversion of:<br /> DX multiply FX by 1.5<br /> MX divide FX by 1.5 Remember the price break the D1 gave against the competition of the day?
I hope Nikon does it again, affordable MF Digi..
BTW 36x48mm sensor would give a focal length conversion of:
DX multiply FX by 1.5
MX divide FX by 1.5

]]> By: MarkDphotoguy http://nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-486 MarkDphotoguy Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:47:00 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/10/02/nikon-mx-ad-4.aspx#comment-486 That also fits in with what Thom Hogan has been speculating on in the last little while. Two D3 sensors mated together to give an entry level MF camera with outstanding low light capability.<br />Fingers crossed. That also fits in with what Thom Hogan has been speculating on in the last little while. Two D3 sensors mated together to give an entry level MF camera with outstanding low light capability.
Fingers crossed.

]]>