< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon D4 with 32MP, D400 with 24MP sensors from Sony?

Pin It

I received a tip about Sony's new a920 full frame camera with a 32MP sensor to be announced this August. If this turns out to be true, there is a good chance that the Nikon D3s replacement (D4?) will also use this 32MP sensor (given that Nikon continues to use Sony sensors).

On the APS-C side, Sony is expected to release a 24MP a77 camera in July. This could become the base of the Nikon D300s replacement (D400?).

FYI: Nikon announced the D3x three months after Sony introduced the 24MP full frame sensor in the a900. Sony announced their 16MP a580 camera on August 24th 2010, Nikon released the 16MP D7000 on September 15th, 2010. The Nikon D7000 has a tweaked Sony sensor where the D3100 had a Nikon developed sensor (see more info on Nikon/Sony sensors here).

This entry was posted in Nikon D4, Nikon D400. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • ghyz

    humm :)

    • Ban

      I certainly don’t want 24MP on my crop camera. Not until my monitor can display more than 6MP native.
      And suren I don’t want 32MP on my D800 either.
      Nikon’ll need an sRAW mode if they join the MP race. Or are we joining Canon’s race for low fps?

      • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

        Great, then… leave to buyin’ to me!

      • The invisible man.

        Why do you have to look at your picture on a monitor, did you have a monitor on your film camera ?
        :)

      • R R

        Pictures are NOT meant for monitors, only tourists and Flickr photographers use a DSLR image to end up in a monitor, Pro Photographers PRINT, in magazines, billboards, posters etc..

        people need, (that is) WE need high megapixels sensors. And yes a D800 with 24 to 32 MP would be outstanding and vey useful.

        • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

          The last billboard image I created was for a sign that measured 48 feet in width. Of course, with the space being so large, I’m sure you can understand my needing the highest quality camera in order to produce an image which would be acceptable for viewers. So naturally I decided to buy this camera.

          Clearly, then, I was not unfounded in my unbridled anger when I found out that this camera was wholly inadequate for the job! After all, to create an image suitable for such a large space, I’d no doubt needed something in the range of 9,500 Megapixels. How could a camera company sell me a camera with such inferior specs for SO MUCH MONEY when they KNEW I needed something more capable for this billboard job I had coming up? They made it sound like 160MP was the cat’s meow when in fact it wasn’t even a single gigapixel. Lame!

          I decided that the reckless behavior of this company warranted a prompt and aggressive lawsuit, so I had my attorneys file suit against them immediately. I am sure I will win, what with their blatant disregard to my needs and all.

          So I cannot agree with you. In order to get a native image at the proper resolution we need, 32mp is chump change. I will also include Nikon in this suit if their next cameras are anything less than 3 gigapixels, and will not be buying the next round of cameras if they are anything less than 5. I’m sick of playing these games of “let’s screw the photographer by holding back the REAL tech.” I think it’s high time we all stop taking pictures at all until cameras can AT THE VERY MINIMUM match human eyesight (after LASIK and while wearing binoculars). Less than this is just selling ourselves short, and playing the stupid games all these mega corporations think they can play with us because they’re above the law.

          Let’s stand together!!!

          • RR

            I understand what your saying in a way, but I think that most so called “photographers” that complain about high MP cameras or sensors are mostly photographers that never publish anything, printing in magazines and catalogues , that is what I do mostly, does requiere more than 12 megapixels. I think 24 is sufficient though, but I have read here and there that 32 is just about the limit in terms of resolution for the lenses too, do in my opinion if we get a sensor that does take full advantage of the optical quality of the lenses , thats fine with me. I simply love the images on my D3x and my camera is now just a bit over 200,000 shutter cycles and in the country where I live getting another D3x is out of the question, but since Nikon only offers this camera model that has more than 12 MP , I sincerly hope for the D800 to have 18 or more MP at a decent price in order to compete in the photographers market that Im in. ( mostly fashion catalogues and advertising), so I am tired about “monitor photographers” complaining about high MP cameras , they should stick to their D200 then.

            Magazine printing demands cropping, not only for graphic desing purposses , but simply because a magazine is more square like, than a 35mm digital sensor is, and also two page spreads also demand for more than 12 MP cameras.

            Im sure wedding photographers that mostly print in LED printers and upload to the web 12 MP will suffice but not for Fashion or sports photographers that publish regularly on magazines.

            One of the things I do in my line of work is cover fashion shows and I mostly do that with ny D700 and I can see how some magazines can bearly crop, or if they do crop for a medium shot, then pixels are almost visible, but I certainly dont use my D3x to cover events like these cause I would kill the shutter in one season.

            So I agree , lets stay together and DEMAND Nikon a good high MP camera and NOT crazy expensive as the D3x.

            • Discontinued

              I am in a similar field of work and I couldn’t agree more. I am just sick and tired of writing it here.

              Funny enough, some of the MP-ain’t-it-and-12MP-is-already-doing-it-all-preachers here have already adjusted very well to Nikons D7000 and changed their tone slightly.

  • Banned

    How exciting, why don’t we just buy Sony cameras? The innovation hurts.

    • Mike

      Because Nikon is a great Camera & Lens company, but not so great with semiconductors and software?

      • Piero Mauro

        Nikon main core business is the manufacturing of Stepper machines that are used (probably by Sony too) to manufacture semiconductors and sensor elements.

        • Alan

          Sony doesn’t use Nikon lithography tools.
          (I work in the semiconductor industry in Japan…)

        • http://www.bythom.com Thom Hogan

          Nikon’s main core business is cameras and lenses. They comprise 66% of their total sales numbers.

        • Mike

          but Stepper machines are optical tools, which is only loosely related to chip design.
          Sorry, can’t come up with a meaningful car mfg comparison :)

    • Cantwell

      Because Sony cameras don’t get as good quality results as the Nikon bodies that use the same sensors. You have to remember that there’s a whole slew of components that affect what your image looks like. The sensor is just a part of that.

      • Disinto

        Sorry but that’s not true anymore. Sony is leading the sensor race and its last cameras are not better and worse than the other brands using the same Sony sensors.

    • Kevin

      because we should let companies do what they do best at?

      would you consider sony TV’s an inferior television because it uses samsung lcd panels?

      would you consider macbooks an inferior computer because it uses an intel processor?

      the list goes on…

      • Nicolás

        Are you implying macs are in any way superior to any other computer?

        • padlockd

          I think he was saying that Macs might not be inferior because of the Intel processors… Are you implying that Macs suck?

          • texasjoe

            gentlemen, gentlemen. Mac doesn’t suck. Mac and PC computers both have pro’s and con’s. Now each of you do 10 Hail Steve Jobs then we can talk about how osX Lion is going kick pc butt!

            • Ramon

              Due to the fact that the trucking company I work for has gone through 6 Mac desktops that are less than a year old this year alone, a total of 15 machines in the 6 years I have worked for them, I cannot think of the Apple corporation as a company that makes computers. Apple assembles phones and creates operating systems and large expensive paperweights … computers…. I don’t think so.

    • Global

      Sony is an excellent company, which has many manufacturing strengths.

      Nikon users have benefited tremendously from their innovation and that of Nikon itself. Remember that the key to all boats rising is the willingness to support the strengths of one another and compensate for each others weaknesses.

      This, by the way, is where Apple often fails — as they will against Android, eventually.

    • http://picasaweb.google.com/roger.ethan.moore Roger Moore

      Because a Sony won’t be able to use all my very nice Nikon lenses. Nor is it likely to match a pro-grade Nikon camera in build quality, autofocus, metering, or signal processing. That stuff matters. I don’t particularly want Sony’s “not really RAW” files, either.

      Also, the Nikon sensor is unlikely to be exactly identical to the Sony one. They’ve always been allowed to tweak and customize the basic Sony designs to suit their purpose. For example, Sony apparently still doesn’t think photographers need 14 bit A/D, so Nikon has to add that to Sony designed sensors.

      • Spoon

        You’re living in the past. Sony RAW files have been RAW for a while now (ever since the A700 V4 upgrade years ago. Nikon continued messing with RAW files longer than that (D90 and D5000).

    • Mim

      because, mr troll, every time Nikon/Pentax has used Sony sensors, their DSLRs have trumped the Sony version on every single front and by no small margin either.

      Nobody knows how to use Sony sensors like does.

      • Spoon

        Nonsense. The only camera that did that without doctoring RAW files through NR, was the D3X. All other cameras carrying Sony sensors perform similar or equal to their Sony equivalents. Objectively measured (for example DXO). And the main area where the D3X peforms better than the A900 is noise (between half and 2/3 of a stop) due to different CFA’s. In return, the A900 has much better colour accuracy, due to those different CFA’s.
        Even today, the A580 does as well as the D7000.

  • R

    Anyword on a d700 replacement? I hope it’s not the same 32mp sensor…

    • Discontinued

      Why is that ? ? ?

      • PHB

        The only good reason to not want the D800 to be 32MP is that would mean it would be 2012 at the earliest before it came out.

        If you want low noise resolution you are actually better of starting with a high resolution sensor and downsampling with intelligent software (e.g. Photoshop) rather than rely on a lower sensor resolution to give you a higher measured ISO setting.

        Now that video has gone solid state there are plenty of flash memories out there with high enough throughput for most applications.

        Even the press photographer is probably going to find a 32MP camera that can be switched to a 12MP DX camera for long shots better than an 12MP FX camera that can only get long reach with enormous lenses.

        Its not like the existing D3s cameras will disappear when the D4 comes on sale. If there is demand, Nikon may even continue to sell the D3s alongside the D4. But I can’t see why Nikon would not go for at least 24MP on the D4 and D800.

        And the ‘Sony’ sensor idea is pretty whacky. The only data we get from the news that Sony is planning those sensors is that the Sony fab is capable of making the sensor chips. Which is something we knew already since they already make sensors of far higher density for other applications.

        It is indeed quite possible that Sony and Nikon have agreed to produce a single 24MP DX sensor for the high end model in both their ranges. But if Nikon was going to agree to that, both companies would want the chip to be as good as possible so Nikon would be agreeing to allow Sony the use of its IP portfolio and vice versa.

        It is even possible to use one set of masks to produce two sensors with different characteristics. A typical mask set is 10 or so separate masks, only one of those masks needs to differ to change the characteristics.

        32MP sounds like a good resolution for Nikon to shoot for, but the next big breakpoint in applications is actually 48MP. That is the resolution that old style medium format film used to deliver and thats what some high end print mags require.

        I think it rather more likely that the D4 will be a 24MP body and that there will be a companion D4x with a spec that is equivalent to that of the low end ‘blad – 48MP, ISO 1600, etc.

    • KT

      And what’s wrong with a sensor good enough for the D4 making its way to the D700 replacement?

      • Global

        Nikon won’t likely follow that pattern again, due to pricing gaps. I really hope they come out with a D3x higher MP-esque D800 sensor + D3s ISOs + video + dual slot memory + 100% viewfinder.

        12MP is not enough, but 32 is going to kill our computers.

        18-24 is fine, especially if we can squeak out that D3s ISO.

        • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

          LOL… the D3x’s ~25 MPx is perfectly fine on my older C2D iMac but 32 is gonna ‘kill our computers’? How so, please?

          • Ronan

            Try shooting in RAW :)

  • minivini

    A D4 is certainly inevitable. A D400 is a high likelihood. Nikon – put us out of our misery already and leak some D700 replacement specs!? PLEASE!?
    My 700 is a well worn, magnificent machine that I’m going to want to supplement with a new body sooner than later. It’ll likely become the backup to whatever I get next. I won’t (probably) be able to afford or justify the cost of a D4 (and the D3/D3s aren’t likely to take a value dive) and I have no real desire to go back into DX.
    Throw us a bone, Nikon…

    • The invisible man.

      D3/x is too big, I think D700 is the perfect size.

  • The invisible man.

    The best jet fighters don’t have the turbines made by the same compagny that make the plane.
    If Sony is the best at making sensors, I don’t have any problems Nikon using Sony sensors !
    :)

    • Ronan

      Exactly!

      • Global

        Exactly!

        In fact, Canon users should be demanded that Canon license its AF-system from Nikon! ;-)

        • Ramon

          ooooh…if Canon and Nikon joined forces to make Pro and Semipro cameras …. Imagine the awesome!

          • The invisible man.

            Yes !
            Nikanon !
            But what about Pentaminolsonynikanonleichasselfuji ?
            (maybe a little too long on front of the prism)
            :)

            • Ramon

              They could just call it “$$$$”. lol

          • Tonny

            It must be scary, monopoly. Price is going sky high in a few year then!!

    • ZoetMB

      Actually, the best jet fighters have engines made by the lowest bidder.

      But it’s a bad analogy in any case. There’s no comparison to items made for the military and paid for by Governments by only one or two bidders and products made for the consumer market.

      • Ronan

        Wrong.

        • Common Sense

          Wrong? NO, sir……….ZoetMB is right!

          The Military & Government contractors are the LOWEST bidders NOT the highest bidders!

    • elliot

      And what’s to say that as Sony approaches the #2 position in DSLR sales that it doesn’t start reserving some better APS-C/FF sensors just to itself?

      Do you really want Nikon to be dependent on a competitor?

    • Rahul

      Gas turbine companies don’t make entire aircraft, aircraft companies don’t make engines ( or more appropriately, design ). Pratt & Whitney makes engines, not aircraft. General Electric makes engines , not aircraft. Ditto Garrett , SNECMA , Rolls-Royce, Klimov , Lyulka , Soloviev , Tumansky.

      OTOH, Boeing-McDonnel-Douglas,Northrop-Grumman, BAe, Dassault manufacture aircraft, not jet engines.

  • Federico

    As the D3 , the new D4 will use a Nikon sensor , not a Sony one
    Sometimes the rumors are just noisy….

    @Banned: a camera sensor is just the base
    If you think that the D3x and the Alpha 900 are the same camera , go and live happy with the Sony
    But accept this suggestion: don’t use a Nikon D3X , there could be some unexpected results

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      the Nikon D3x used a Sony sensor

      • PHB

        But the D3x was a stopgap model.

        Performance of the D3x was significantly down on the D3, it loses two stops, not just one. And its three down on the D3s.

        What is significant is that Sony has a fab that can make such sensors in volume. But Nikon has never been as aggressive in playing the MP game and their market needs are different.

        Agree that the D400 might well have the same sensor as a Sony body. But if so that would have been a decision taken a long time back and likely planned as a joint venture ‘best of’ sensor from the start.

        24MP for the D400 sounds right to me as this is likely to be the last professional DX body. Not that DX format does not have its advantages. Its just that the mirrorless is going to be even smaller and even lighter and the mainstream FX format is going to hit 24MP which means that an FX body is also a 10MP DX body. Since either end of the sensor size range will be completely satisfactory for at least 90% of shots, there really isn’t going to be a good case for a format that is much larger than mirrorless, has compromised wide angle lenses and offers slightly better noise performance in low light.

        Since it will take mirrorless a good three or four years to gather a good lens selection and FX is still going to be pricey, there is going to be demand for a D400.

        • Spoon

          Utter nonsense. The D3x performs equal to the D3 in the noise department at equal printsize. The D3X trumps in in dynamic range though. Not only measured by DXO, all objective visual tests (for example Imaging Resource) confirm it.

  • http://photo.plantae.sk miso

    oh no, who needs such a big files, too many megapuckles for me. dynamic range and color sensitivity – that´s space to be better.

    • AnoNemo

      Perhaps you will be able to reduce the resolution in one of those menus that come with the camera. So you can 2MP

      • Global

        18min – 24max. 32 is just a computer killer.

        D3s ISO + D3x resolution for the D800, please.
        + 100% viewfinder, video, and dual card. Thanks.

        • http://www.flickr.com/photos/garyngo Gary Ngo

          I’ll be first in line when they do make one like that! :)

    • Craig

      This.

    • Stephan

      +1

  • http://www.zinchuk.ca Brian Zinchuk

    I realize the trend is always more megapixels, but I need more megapixels like a hole in the head, especially if it’s nearly 3x the D700. My shoots are often 2,000 frames in a day (weddings, hockey tournaments), and that much data eats up hard drive space like crazy. Going to 32 MP would grind my quad-core processor to a crawl, and swallow Western Digital hard drives for breakfast. I would prefer something 18 MP and with even better low ISO than the D3S, along with more dynamic range. Indeed, if it could get the dynamic range of an HDR shot without HDR bracketing, that would be more valuable by a long shot than gazillion quintillion pixels.
    Zinchuk
    http://www.zinchuk.ca

    • http://eleventhphotograph.com elph

      I lol’ed.

      I tend to delete/convert my unused RAWs personally.

    • Kevin Johnson

      I could not agree more. Keep the D3s successor as the image quality champ. Leave the higher resolution sensors to the studio-oriented cameras, like the D3x.

      • AnoNemo

        Kevin I guess it did not occured to you that
        1) you can set the camera in lower resolution
        2) you can just buy a D3s right now and the problem is solved
        :-)

        • Kevin Johnson

          That’s a big

          HUH?

          • AnoNemo

            yep. I think the new D4 will provide better flexibility compared to the D3s.

        • http://www.shortfingerphoto.com Nubz

          If that were the case, I’d own a D3s right now. Unfortunately, they are not available anywhere without a big mark-up

        • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

          As has been said by others on this thread, there is no current option for saving lower MP images while shooting NEFs (without cropping the frame).

  • http://www.adampadgettweddings.com Adam

    Too many megapixels. I don’t want to buy even more memory cards and hard drives.

  • Mario

    C’mon Nikon .. get a gip! You will make Millions with a 24MP full frame Sensor in a D800 body at a 3.000 USD pricetag!

    • The invisible man.

      and full HD video at 30f/s ??
      oui ! oui !

      • Craig

        30fps won’t cut it. Some of us was to do slo mo.

      • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

        There is no less practical, less beautiful, or less professional frame rate than 30fps. 30fps is to video as QVC is to TV.

    • benedictus

      +1000!
      Just broken (accidentally) my old D80 yesterday.

      If no d700 replacement, I sell my lenses and buy Canon. And if I become rich (uh), better a Pentax 645 then a bigger and more expensive D4…

      • The invisible man.

        Years ago I had a store and sold thousands cameras, believe me, you can’t get more for your money than Nikon.

        • benedictus

          What I need (am I alone?) is something like D700x with reasonable price.
          Nikon could make it when D3x was out.
          Nikon made nothing. I was waiting.

          And if Nikon wants to make cameras only for D3100 and sport newspapers markets, I will no more wait…

      • elliot

        Bye! Have fun on canonrumors.com

        • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

          :)

  • HonzaXXXXX

    Higher MP count on chip is always better (bayer mask and so on). You can always set smaller file size and maybe Nikon can introduce something similar to Canon’s sRAW.

    • The invisible man.

      AAAAAAAAAA+++++++++++++

  • black dog

    woohoo !!
    Finally some news ! May this be the beginning of a wonderful week of good news. We all deserve some after waiting forever for it. No word on the d700 replacement though ? My guess is that Nikon will be very careful with their new announcements due to the delicate situation they are still experiencing in some of the plants.

  • AnoNemo

    Easy sport, there is one thing Nikon annouces something and the truth is that it may take ayear for Nikon to put these great products on the store shelves. :-)

  • AnoNemo

    NR Admin, what your take/rating on this rumor?

    I think the D400 with 24MP can be close to true but I think 32MP for the D4??? Hmmm, we never know what canon brings so this could be interesting.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      The question is whether Nikon will be using Sony sensors in their future FX models. I am pretty sure than Sony will release a new 24MP DX and 32MP FX sensors, even though the timeframe of the 32MP sensor may be different.

      • AnoNemo

        I think the 24MP DX with sony sensor is plausable. Look the D300 has also sony sensor

        The D3x also has sony sensor. The question is what resolution will the FX line have? and more importantly when will these hit the stores?

      • http://www.bythom.com Thom Hogan

        It’s certain that Sony has produced 24mp DX and 32mp FX sensors. However, “release” is another story. The 24mp DX sensor will be released. At least two companies, and I believe three, will use it. The FX sensor is another story. It appears that Sony Imaging is preparing for the ability to release another FX body in 2012, but it’s not a certainty like the 24mp A77 is. Without another release partner, the sensor becomes an economic issue, and Sony is already fighting internal management battles about the viability of FX.

        • nobody

          “The 24mp DX sensor will be released. At least two companies, and I believe three, will use it.”

          And you believe Nikon is the second or third company to use this sensor, i.e. the D400 will have it?

  • A.Lwin

    I thought Nikon only used Sony sensors in their lower end DSLRs and that pro-consumer and pro DSLRs used sensors designed by Nikon (but perhaps manufactured by a third party if Nikon doesn’t have semiconductor production plants).

    • Darkness

      Indeed, I also heard that (arguably) Nikon’s best sensor in the D3/D3S is not made by Sony.

  • MG

    D4X, not d4.
    that’s obvious, isn’t it?

    • Kevin Johnson

      Agreed (see my comment below).

  • UA

    24 megapikkels is enough for 35mm sensor. Take a look at D3X images at the pixel level and very few optics can draw with finer resolution than the sensor is capable to record. Only way to get more sharpness out is to go medium format, where optics have larger area to draw on. This was the case back in the film days, although even 35mm film has something like gigapikkels of resolution in theory.

    I’m pretty sure there will successor for D700. Nikon might even drop the professional DX format camera out (D400) considering their recent pro lenses, which most have been for FX format. And they brought even those cheap plastic lenses on FX format like 24-120/4 and 28-300. Maybe they introduce a cheaper FX version some day for consumers?

    5dmk2 has been such a success for Canon and I guess D700 and D3/x/s have not been bad for Nikon either. So do not worry.

    • JED

      And yet lenses on a D7000 which has an even higher density sensor work perfectly well…

      • MJr

        No it doesn’t. There is plenty glass that gets soft with the d7000 at 100% but was perfectly fine on the d90.

        • JED

          Your mistake here is ‘at 100%’…

          If you view the images at the same output size then the images will look equally sharp – with the D7000 probably resolving a little more detail.

          Lenses don’t suddenly become softer because the sensor resolution increases. If you believe this you might like to explain how?

          • Ronan

            Higher MP will show flaws in the glass/lens.

            Why do you think theirs such a big fuss about it?

            • JED

              If you are printing your images out to the same size (say A3) then why would a higher resolution sensor behind the same lens suddenly start showing up a horrible flaw in the lens???

        • elliot

          There is plenty glass that gets soft with the d7000 at 100% but was perfectly fine on the d90.

          A) Name 3.

          B) Who gives a sh}t what something looks like at 100% on a screen? The best proofing for printing is at 50%. Don’t be a pixelbator.

  • Kevin Johnson

    This does not make sense to me. The D3s is all about high ISO first, megapixels second. The D3x is the megapixel champ meant for high-res studio work, but not as good at high ISO. For this reason I’d see a 32MP sensor be a good fit as a replacement for the D3x, not for the D3s.

    Frankly, if the D4 (or whatever is meant to replace my D3s) compromises high ISO quality in any way compared to the D3s, I will simply stick with my D3s.

    • The invisible man.

      What if Sony designed a NEW sensor with more pixels with a very low noise ?
      Sound good to me !
      Mecanics have limits, electronic don’t (look at the computers’s memory how it double every 2 years)
      :)

      • Kevin Johnson

        Perhaps. But a nearly 3 times jump in resolution (32MP vs 12MP) seems highly unlikely to be able to also meet or exceed the current 12MP sensor’s high ISO quality, at least based on any known/current technologies.

        • Merv

          Nikon could always keep the D3s in production with a different camera for this 32 MP camera

          • Kevin Johnson

            I’d more likely expect the D3s to be replaced with a model featuring a modest increase in sensor resolution, say perhaps around 16-18MP, possibly even 20-24MP (but that seems like a stretch). I’d think that kind of jump would be able to maintain the high ISO image quality that the D3s is known for.

            For me, a 16-18MP upgrade for the current 12MP D3s that manages to meet or exceed D3s image quality standards would be a hands-down winner.

            • Global

              + 1
              + dual card, video, 100% viewfinder.

            • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

              I am both hopeful and confident that Nikon will not sacrifice image quality for megapixels. They have been the reigning champs for High ISO, Low Noise, highest quality image output.

              They get harped on for being behind on certain aspects such as MP or video, despite holding the advantage over the competition in the end results of pretty much every aspect you can test.

              MP are lower, yet images are sharper and have higher color fidelity. Nikon video has slower frame rates and lower resolution, and yet it looks far more “filmic” and is definitely more pleasing to the eye than Canon’s video from any of their DSLRs.

              Nikon is about results. Not numbers, results. The MP race is a zero sum game, and I think Nikon figured that out 5 years ago. They realized that they either didn’t want to or couldn’t compete on the MP front and maintain the high quality standards they are constantly seeking. Instead of play second fiddle in the camera market, they took a step back and asked “what can we do with our ‘weakness’?” That one wise question has had Canon (and every other camera maker) on their toes playing catch up ever since.

        • benedictus

          3 times count in pixels count is 1.7 times EVOLUTION in resolution…
          and for HD video is 2 Mpix sufficient !!!!

        • http://istudio.isaacalonzo.com Makatron

          remember resolution is a linear function so it only takes 40% more space to double the megapixel count

          but i agree with you that we want/need a +20mp full frame camera with D3s comparable ISO performance

          if they can meet those specs i just dont care who makes the sensor

          • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

            It’s called the D3x. By all accounts, it’s a great contender.

            But I think it’s a common misconception that “we” “need” 20+ MP. Would it be nice? In some cases, yes. Is it a “need?” Not a chance.

    • http://lamarfrancois.wordpress.com lamarfrancois

      +1 – 32MP D4X would make sense but not a 32MP D4 – I’d be quite happy if they kept it at 12MP if you could shoot at ISO 51200 without worrying too much about noise ;)

      Very curious to see what this 24MP DX sensor is like if I’m honest – Sony seem to be specifying up to a max iso of 102400 for their A777.Seems too good to be true…

      • PHB

        I don’t think a 32MP D3x would make any sense. It would have to be at least 50% better than the D4.

        Which is why I can’t see the D4 being more than 24MP. Nikon has to know that it is going to be up against a 40-48MP Canon in the very near future. Canon has had much much higher resolution chips in the research lab for years now.

        Going for 32MP would add a while lot of extra cost to the camera for not a huge return. And it would raise the bar for any -x model. People are not going to be paying $12K for a 48MP D4x when the $6K model is 32MP.

        Sony has a very different marketing consideration. Most people thought that they had quit the full frame game and so there is going to be a big question mark on their commitment to the market. They have to go for MP and something nobody else offers to be credible.

    • elliot

      This does not make sense to me. The D3s is all about high ISO first, megapixels second. The D3x is the megapixel champ meant for high-res studio work, but not as good at high ISO. For this reason I’d see a 32MP sensor be a good fit as a replacement for the D3x, not for the D3s.

      Welcome to 2011. Were you one of the people making that same type of argument about the D2X in 2004 too, or did you allow for technological improvement as time progressed? ;)

      • Kevin Johnson

        Why, thank you, it’s nice to be here in 2011! (Too bad the welcoming committee is so, uh, snarky.)

        As a matter of fact, yes, my comments do take into account “technological improvement as time progresses”. And, to my reading, the industry is indeed making steps towards allowing sensors with higher resolution that still equal or better the image quality of current technology. But steps of evolution, dude, steps. Not X-Men-style quantum leaps. At least, not that I’ve heard of for the near future.

        Which is why I personally would expect to see the D3s’ current 12MP sensor evolve into a predictable and believable 16-24MP sensor, not transmutate into something not yet achievable at the same or better image quality specs of the D3s.

        Honestly, I’d love to be wrong here as I’d be among the first to buy the fantasy product others are describing here. 32MP with high ISO and dynamic range equal to or better than a 12MP D3s? My credit card is standing by.

        Seriously, I’d love for you to show me links to where you’ve been reading of the afore-mentioned quantum leaps in technology, where it is clearly stated that, along with higher resolution, high ISO and dynamic range are being maintained or improved. Rub my nose in my lack of awareness. Otherwise, please turn down the snark.

  • http://www.jackypoonphotography.co.uk Jacky

    wow could be good news guys! Could possibly a break through if they’ve sorted out the noise on a 24mp sensor… 24mp D400 that has better noise handling then D7000… so much crop with so little noise! Perfect for wildlife capture! :D
    O and of course the 60fps @ 1080p… ACE!

    • inginerul

      24 is bad news mate, did you see the latest reviews for nikon glass on photozone ? did you notice the quality and associated rating drop for most of the glass tested on the D7000 ? if the jump from 12 to 16 mp did so much damage, i can’t imagine how an allready modest lens would behave on the new 24 mp sensor. you would crop chromatic aberration and softness in spades.

      • Global

        Those using the D3x don’t have the same complaints as the D7K crowd.

        The D7K is a cropped sensor. A full-frame D800 24MP with the care and attention of the D3x & D3S will be fine.

      • The invisible man.

        Lens’s quality have nothing to do with sensor resolution.
        I need to send you one of my TC.
        :)

        • inginerul

          I’m talking about the same lens tested on the 10 or 12 mp camera that performed visibly worst on the D7000.
          lenses behave differently on different sensors, and sensor technology has a great deal to do with a lense’s behavior.

          • JED

            Which examples on Photozone???

            • inginerul

              take a look at the 18-200 review, before and after.

            • JED

              Done. And what is your point? At every focal length the lens resolves more detail on the D7000. If you are referring to the subjective ‘good, very good’ scale then it merely indicates the lens is resolving a slightly lower percentage of its theoretical maximum on the D7000 – but it is still easily outresolving the D200…

      • http://nikonandye.wordpress.com NikonAndyE

        2 factors are most often the cause for suboptimal D7000 review results:
        1) the standards settings of the JPEG engine (a software setting issue)
        2) the lower quality of the filter layers in front of the basic sensor (AA, Bayer, microlenses). Similar t othe difference between the D90 and D300 series.

        (1) can easily be mitigated, (2) is harder to solve, but occurs in fewer scenes (esp. night shots)

        Andy

  • inginerul

    D4 is not going to be 32 mp, no sport or press shooter will ever buy one, and that is exactly the targeted audience.

    the 32 mp sensor is going to be used in the D700 succesor, if they decide to go 5Dmk2 way, or in the next D4x.

    • Global

      You’re not thinking line-up — Nikon generally makes line-ups.
      These could very well be possible within a few years:
      D4 (24MP)
      D4X (32MP)
      D4S (18MP)
      D800 (18MP)
      D800X?? (32MP)

      • PHB

        Or just keep on making the D3s which is what they used to do in the film days.

        The F3 was superseded by the F4 in 1988, Nikon stopped making it in 2001.

        If there is a demand for a 12MP full sized pro body, Nikon will continue to make them. It is also quite possible that the D3s sensor will reappear in a D700s and/or a D9000.

        I can’t see Nikon not supporting the 12MP pro DX market for as long as there is demand. But just as those of us who preferred DX over FX found, that might mean having to switch from the full sized pro body to the compact or buying second hand if there aren’t enough of you for Nikon to continue making the full sized body.

        Since one of the main arguments for having a full sized body is to have a counterweight for huge lenses, I can’t see why you wouldn’t also want to have as many pixels as possible so that you can stop down to DX mode and get that lossless 1.5x telephoto effect.

        • MJr

          Still selling some Ai-S lenses too =)

          • IanZ28

            Computers may perfect absolute image quality in complicated lens design. Unfortunately, the computers don’t necessarily create the unquantifiable traits a few of the classics possess.

            Love a few of those old AI/AI-S classics!

        • IanZ28

          I’d go for this. I want to go FF and I’ve had my eye on the D700 for a couple of years now.

          I’d be perfectly happy with the amazing image quality of the D700/D3s. At 12mp it truly is an amazing balance of image quality, resolution, and ISO performance.

          Just let a little bit more of that magic filter down from the D3s to the D700 and I’ll have my next camera. Would be nice to have video in my $2500 camera too (even if I don’t use it).

  • http://galleries.gorji.com Gorji

    I’ll buy both.

  • broxibear

    As others have said going from 12MP to 32MP is a massive jump. A D3 RAW is around 15mb, a RAW from a 32MP camera would be around 40mb…I think we’re going to need a bigger boat ?
    My impression was that Nikon were not going to go down the more MP road, but instead would be concentrating on high iso/low noise and better dynamic range… maybe they changed their mind ?
    Thom Hogan’s posted an interesting piece called “Pixels” it’s worth reading.

    • Global

      How can you say they changed their mind? They went with 16MP with the D7K, when everyone expected 18-24MP. Please try to use evidence in your thinking. Nikon might even make the D800 and D4 16MP cameras (same as 12MP was across the board previously).

      That would be bizarre, in my opinion, but based on the D7K and past evidence, I wouldn’t put it past Nikon to focus more on ISO jumps. (That being said, I personally hope for 18MP, slightly sharper than the D3X, but with D3s sensitivity).

      • broxibear

        I’m pretty sure I posted “maybe they changed their mind ?”

      • Ronan

        You should try reading the post again Global.

  • padlockd

    Pretty big megapixel jump, if I’m honest. I’m with the “noise performance and dynamic range” group on this one. Not that I’ll be getting that kind of camera any time soon, but they’re always fun to drool over. =P

  • Harpo

    Slow down a little…Sony A77 will be announced in July and ship in October. Nikon won’t be in a positon to ship a Sony sensored camera before Sony does. The a920 is doubtful as Sony has already said they would be moving to SLT with their FF bodies and not to expect it until 2012. This rumor is saying claiming an SLR body and a sooner release. Will see, but I doubt it.

    • http://eleventhphotograph.com elph

      I doubt Sony shipping 1 or 2 new cameras will having a major impact on Nikon’s pro-end DSLR line-up release schedule…

      • Harpo

        My point was Sony will be the first to release a camera with it’s 24mp. Others will have access after Sony is underway with the release of the a77.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      Sony did say that all of their future models will be SLT:

      http://photorumors.com/2011/02/24/all-future-sony-alpha-models-to-have-translucent-mirror/

      but I don’t remember them saying their full frame camera will be released in 2012

  • ericnl

    yes! finally a proper rumour!!!

    now I just have to wait for the rumour (and announcement) that I want to hear..
    (cough*D800*cough)

  • Arthur

    Ok, I’m getting a D700 tomorrow (not joking). So Nikon, you can relax and easily develop a killer-D800 to be released in 12-24 months!

    • Discontinued

      Where are you located? There is a special offer going on here. You get a free pair of flints with the purchase of any of the following cameras: D300s, D700, D3s, D3X.

      I think it’s rather tempting.

  • George Washington

    I am so sick of the megapixel race. 32MP and were still stuck with the same mediocre 8-9 stops of dynamic range. It’s almost like shooting slide film (remember that?). Where the hell is my sensor with a reasonable amount of resolution and 14 stops of useable range? I’m looking at you Sony/ Nikon.

    • The invisible man.

      That was the same race with the film technology, more sensitivity with smaller silver dots.

    • JED

      In what possible way does this rumour mean only 8-9 stops of dynamic range?
      D3X and D7000 already far surpass that.

      • Discontinued

        >… already far surpass …<

        Very true. And I am pretty confident that the next generation of FX will give us even more (maybe not quite 14 stops, but much closer to 14 than 8. That's for sure).

  • http://www.truphotos.com gnohz

    Finally, juicy rumours start to surface! :D

  • Anna Seed

    I certainly don’t want 24-32mp versions of the D400 and D800/D4.

    I always archive the RAW files so even if I output smaller files I will still have to process and store huge files.

    To keep everyone happy I hope they bring out
    D400 16MP
    D400x 24MP

    D800 / D4 18MP
    D4x 32MP

    • PHB

      So you archive your RAW files so you don’t risk losing a single pixel but you are willing to lose 1/3rd of the pixels you could have had by deliberately choosing a lower resolution sensor.

      There are audiophile nuts who do the same, insisting on use of a ‘lossless’ recording method even though it means fewer samples for the same bandwidth and thus a result that is measurably worse than the ‘lossy’ alternative.

      I just bought a 2Tb drive for $80. Storage is cheap.

  • Bastien

    you can always choose how much MP you want to shoot if it’s really 32MP, just don’t select the maximum if it’s too much. They can’t really ask like that, ” hey humm let’s make it with less MP (even we can do it right now) and boost the ISO (than we can’t for now) ” You can’t expect ISO performance to jump steps, technologies are not evolving by magic !

  • http://galleries.gorji.com Gorji

    Nikon is not after more megapixels. I think the new pro cameras will have some pleasant surprises for us waiting. D1 to D2 did it, D2 to D3 did it and I expect D3 to D4 will do the same. (Same for F to F2, F2 to F3……) I think its logical and will happen. The only question is when.

  • Alex

    Everybody wants 32mp with D3s’ high ISO as if D3s cannot already shoot in the dark. What the hell are you people shooting with 6 digit ISO?

    Am I the only one who wants Nikon to expand on the lower end of ISO? I’d love to shoot wide open with my primes in daylight.

    • The invisible man.

      I lost my flash few months ago.
      :)

  • chris

    too many megapixels…they will not make that huge a jump…maybe the d4x but not d4…most pro shooters, whether event/wedding photogs or photojournalists do not want to be processing files of that size, nor do they need them. nikon is not going to force 36mp upon photojournalists, sports shooters, etc who need speed…this is why we have a d3s and d3x, and had a d2h and d2x…

    also an aps-c with 24mp would likely have poor high iso performance, and if you can print a billboard with 12mp why do you need 24? remember that to double your image size you need to quadruple your megapixels so would you really sacrifice low light performance for a 25% larger print?

  • The invisible man.

    It’s FUNNY how everybody was complaining about the “only” 12MP Nikon sensor, and now we could get a 24 or 32MP and people are complaining AGAIN !

    Look, you don’t like too many pixels get a D700 !

    I LOVE 24 or 32MP
    :)

  • Marc Holmes

    All this complianing about the megapixels vs dynamic range war must be realy depressing for nikon having to make a camera which cant be the best in both. I realy hope they bring that interchangable senor design, nikon have. Then every one could have the same great body with a choice between high res or high dynamic range (or what ever favour sensor nikon thinks people want).

    • inginerul

      If they bring out interchangeable sensors then the camera would either need an interchangeable logic to process the output, or a more complicated board circuitry in order to be able to work with all sensors, right ?

      • PHB

        Interchangeable sensors may make sense now that CPU technology has got to a point where advances are unlikely to render current bodies obsolete.

        The attraction to Nikon would be to allow them to meet the demands of a large number of niche markets without having to carry a huge additional inventory. So people who do Infra Red photography could buy a purpose designed Nikon conversion for the first time. There is also the possibility of specialist sensors for black and white or for ultra-low light photography or (my favorite) a purpose designed video sensor. Or ultra high resolution but really slow sensors for microscopy work.

        But any option of that type is going to be a dealer installation at minimum and most likely a return to Nikon event (like configuring their tilt-shift lenses still is). And the price of doing to is going to be quite significant.

        I tend to think it may well make more sense for that type of feature to be on the compact pro model than the full pro since most people with that type of specialist need are going to have it as an occasional need.

        I can’t see it as a solution to upgrading an old camera to higher resolution though. Higher resolution demands higher CPU or performance is going to really suffer. And since this is not going to be a cheap option you are likely to find that the non-pro FX model is better and cheaper than upgrading an older pro body with a new sensor and that selling your old body on EBay and buying the latest pro version is best of all.

  • Sam Waldron

    I don’t see Nikon sacrificing noise and DR for more pixels.

    The D7000 is Nikons most ‘pixel dense’ sensor. It is also got the best dynamic range and very good high iso noise to boot.

    The lenses don’t appear to have an issue with it either – its still a ‘pixel sharp’ sensor and there is more scope to have a weaker / low AA filter as resolution rises.

    A full frame version of the D7000 sensor plus a generation would a fine all-round machine. Hard drives are cheap.

    Technology marches on…

  • http://www.alldigi.com/ Geoff

    I currently have a D700 which is a great high ISO camera.
    I would love a 24MPixel DX Camera as an option in addition to the D700, for birding if the ISO is good up to 4000ISO.

  • S

    I hope someday higher dynamic range and better iso performance could lead the DSRL race. IMHO megapixels are no longer the parameter that gives best improvement over image quality for consumjer and prosumer sectors, any DSRL has enough MPix in the consumer and prosumer fields for 95 % of printing needs.

    • Disinto

      Along with higher MP, new sensors brought higher dynamic range and better noise control. I therefore don’t understand your comment. The 14 MP sensor in my NEX-5 outclasses the 6 MP one found in my D5D in all criteria.

  • Zeckson

    Actually I’ll be very happy if I can have a Nikon FX body with 8 MP. Having only 8 MP on a FX sensor means larger photosites which is able to capture light so much better. That translates better dynamic range and ISO performance? I don’t usually print my photos but occassionally I do require to print them.

    I realize that I can obtain a pretty decent A4 size print with just 3.5 MP printing at 240 dpi. When I took on some small time commercial assignments, my photos are usually magazine size but not all are printed at full. Only 2 or 3 are at full size. Most of them are half page or smaller. So magepixel is not much a concern for me. I would want some really good clean images though.

    Higher megapixels will definitely slow down the computer. This is especially so when doing processing on Photoshop as the amount of data to handle becomes larger. If computer RAM is not large enough, Photoshop will crawl. And if one uses plugins, it makes things worse. I am already feeling the pain with a 16 MP picture on my computer, I cannot imagine what a 24 MP or a 32 MP picture would make my computer cough…

    On a side note, I wish that Photoshop would have a brush size of over 2500. High megapixel images really need that. :)

    • JED

      Why then does the D7000 – and APS-C sized sensor – have much better dynamic range than all the full frame sensors that have much larger photosites????

      How does a larger photosite capture more light than 4 smaller ones with the same total size?

      • Zeckson

        Obviously better technology in place I guess. To me, it doesn’t matter who has a better dynamic range. I do portraits most of the time. I am fine with what my D700 can give me. D7000 may could have it better but that makes no difference to me.

        But the ability to capture clean images in low light matters! For all I know, larget photosites captures light better in dim conditions whereas smaller photosites will need to have a higher voltage charge to it in order to do the same level and with that, more digital noise is brought out? Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

        You see, I don’t want to worry too much about all these rumour specs and stuffs. I would rather be spending more effort in getting my images right and creating visually stunning stuffs. Afterall, a camera is just a tool which we use to create pictures. The camera only makes the image. WE are taking the pictures. My take for the camera, as long as they serve me well and give me what I want, heck the specs talk! :p

        Rumors are just rumors. They are just unofficial releases. One can take it and believe it or brush them aside and wait for concrete announcements.

      • http://www.split.hr/Default.aspx Željko Kerum

        Does D7000 have a better dynamic range at ISO 1600 than D3s or D700?

        • JED

          No – and why should it?

    • http://lightisallaround.com Miro Bartanus

      Good point! Just imagine 32MPix chip that could produce (maybe simultaneously) 32MBix high-res RAW and downsampled high-ISO 8MPix sRAW. Each on different CF card. It really makes sense for me. The idea is not bound to FX. Think 24MP+6MP on DX. We’d got best from booth words…

  • http://eos.ef-specialist.canon EF specialist

    24MP on a crop? I LOLed. 18MP on my 7D is more than adequate. Hell, think about diffraction and pronounced chromatic aberration? If you consider, that diffraction comes at f/6.8 on 18MP APS-C sensor, when it will come at 24MP? I don’t know how about you, but sometimes, I’m quite disappointed with f/16 IQ due to diffraction. Calling all camera manufacturers: stop the megapixel race, we already have enough! Improve DR and noise/signal ratio please!

    • JED

      How does increasing the number of photosites on the sensor increase the amount of chromatic aberration?

      If you print an A3 f/16 7D pic and then print the exact same pic using the same lens on a say a 20D then the 7D pic will still look superior. If it doesn’t then your 7D is broken.

      • http://eos.ef-specialist.canon EF specialist

        That CA thing is simple. Since CA is physically constant, yet pixels are smaller, more pixels are affected, thus it appears like more CA affects more pixels.

        • JED

          Well yes but that does not make the CA worse!

          • PHB

            Actually the opposite since bigger photosites means that it is harder to correct in software.

            And bigger pixels does not improve light collection either. It merely causes the camera to only detect the average over what would be two pixels on a camera with double the resolution.

            Less information only ever means worse pictures. There is no way that you can throw information away and end up with a better result other than if you are bandwidth limited (storage, camera to chip etc.).

  • wiseman

    Such the high resolving sensors need 2 steps faster shutter speed, at least. And what lenses do you have to cover such the sensor? 14-24, 300VR, what else? Come on, guys, is there any pros, ah?

  • R R

    Thanks admin, this Rumor is a NICE ONE. Crossing my fingers.

  • Yee

    All these complains about big file size don’t quite make sense to me.

    While the image file size increases “tremendously (according to someone above)”, your storage size increases proportionally as well.

    In 2007,
    Standard hard disk = 320GB
    D3, 12MP RAW file = 15 mb file

    In 2011,
    Standard hard disk = 2000GB (6.25X than 2007)
    D4, 32MP RAW file = 45 mb file (3X more 2007)

    So, you actually have extra 3.25X space in 2011 ( as 6.25-3 = 3.25) !!!

    • benedictus

      … and please do not forget:

      you can THINK before moving your index finger!
      and Trash is the first and best (near perfect, one click only since 80s) tool of numeric photographer !!!

      2 excellent large prints are better than 2 TB of things in a hard disk…

      • Yee

        Yep!
        So please make only 2 excellent prints of 2011 45mb file (45 x2 = 90mb in total), instead of making equivalent size (90mb) of 6 crappy images of 2007 15 mb file!

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/shigzeo/ shigzeo

    Cannot wait for the D700 replacement. My D200 is taped round by gaffer’s tape, and has lost some life thanks to a recent downpour. Another year, no problem; by that time, I’ll have the dosh to spend on a 24megapixel D800.

    I don’t want to waste time with fewer mp’s.

    It’s been proven quite well that more megapixels when done aright are perfectly fine. A 24 megapixel image from a good-performing camera will easily stomp a D700.

    In fact, the current D7000 resolution per square mm when multiplied for a larger 35mm sensor, will result in 36 megapixels. The D7000 is already far ahead of anything in the DX range. Bring on 32 megapixels or more for 35 mm sensor format.

    If the same sort of IQ can be had around 24 megapixels on an aps-c, so be it. I know, however, that my zooms will not be sharp enough.

    As for the poster who thought the D3x outresolves lenses: it is not even close. My D200 and the D3x are pretty much neck and neck for pixel density and the D3x with larger sensor size absorbs a hell of a lot more light. It is sharper and less noisy by far. 32 would be no problem. 36, who knows?

  • Eric Pepin

    All the idiots complaining about high resolution (oh noes its tooo much megapixel) are really starting to wear on my nerves. Any modern computer has no issue with high res files , I work with 1gb scans of 4×5 film on my macbook pro with little issue, and these are much higher res and detail then any digital camera that ive ever used. On top of that 1tb drives are about 60 bucks. High res does not mean bad low light ability, and scaling an image down can always improve that. I dont NEED 24 megapixels on my next camera but if its there ill damn sure take it.

  • disiderio

    I can say with confidence that the longer we wait, the higher the expectation is that Nikon will deliver a groundbreaking product!!

    • gd

      I can say with confidence that the longer we wait, the higher the expectation is that Nikon will deliver a product that most people on this site will complain about.

  • Bip

    So many experts in this post who know best.

    I was hoping to find someone who wish for a customisable DSLR with a “pay for play” option (e.g., Sensor size: FX, DX, Micro 4/2; MP: 16, 24, 36; FPS: 7, 11, 15; Dynamic range: 11 stops, 13 stops, the list goes on…..), just like buying a car or notebook…. the more/better the options, the more expensive it is…. but everyone is happy… lol

    • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

      I can’t see how adopting Microsoft’s, Sony Electronic’s, or GM’s (to name a few) business methodology would help you and I, the end photographers. Personally, I think Nikon is on the right track, and will be happy to make the best of the best tools they can offer me.

      • Bip

        I’m just being sarcastic, just in case you didn’t sense the tone.

        With people wanting so many different things, there bound to be unhappy people irrespective of what Nikon introduced.

        Customisable DSLR is meant to be a joke because it seems to be the only way to make everyone happy [with the specs, though not necessarily the price].

    • benedictus

      Excellent idea, but not sufficient….
      How about an (or two, one for middle-format) ISO lens mount ???

  • dan

    What makes you think this would be the D4? Not doubting, just wondering why this wasn’t posted as a D800/general FX update.

    • gd

      Depends what you mean by a D800. If it is going to a “mini-D4″ in the same way the D700 was the “mini-D3″ then Nikon will release the D4 first.

      If the D800 is a mini-D3s (or effectively a D700s) then it could yet arrive at the table sooner rather than later but I don’t think that is going to happen.

      Personally I don’t see a jump to 32MP for the D4. Storage is cheap but high frame rates on files of that size would be a challenge. More likely a max of 24 MP D4 (and quite possibly less) with a 32 MP D4x for studio work.

      • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

        At this rate, it’s hard to know what Nikon’s plans are. I think it’s highly plausible that the Tsunami shook their plans up pretty good. I do think there’s a good chance of getting a D800 before (or at the same time as) the D4, though if it is released at the same time I would expect the specs to be different between the two bodies.

        I, too, disagree that a D4 is likely to see a 32mp chip, unless Sony unleashes something that is DRAMATICALLY better than what they’re shipping now. Could happen, but I’m not holding my breath. Instead, I see the D4 having somewhere in the neighborhood of 16-24mp (max). That said, I think a 32mp D4x is a fairly modest gain, and can see body’s sensor reaching resolutions closer to 38-48mp. Time will tell….

  • blueproto

    Hopefully it’ll have Thunderbolt to make the transfer of such large images faster.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/shigzeo/ shigzeo

      No matter the speed of the transfer, you still need to have a receiving end that is fast enough. The bridge (Thunderbolt) may support 10 gbps or whatever it is, but the harddisk will bottleneck more than before unless everyone is using super quick solidstates.

  • henry

    32MP FX sounds too good to be true.
    Next step up from 24MP D3x will be higher FPS not higher MP.
    D4 will need to shoot at 9 FPS at the least.
    Higher MP and higher FPS will be like trying to shoot two birds with one stone.
    Why kill two birds when one will suffice?

    24MP for D800 at 5FPS – Same as D3x but for third of price!
    24MP for D4 at 9FPS – Same as D3x but for third less of price and 9 FPS!
    24MP for D4s at 11FPS + more dynamic range – Faster and better!
    32MP for D4x at 5 FPS – Even more MP!

    Basically, same strategy as before with 100% more MP.
    If they could do 32MP at 9FPS for D4, I would be really impressed.
    But I just don’t think they can do it at production level, not at 9FPS.
    Even if they could, I don’t see why they would skip the easier 24MP market.

    That said, I dare Nikon to do 32MP at 9FPS at 5k for D4.
    They would have me a loyal customer for next four years.
    Just my guess.

    • henry

      Nix that, 48MP for D4x.

    • henry

      2011 August – D4 – D3x mastered
      2012 July – D800 – Trickled down D4
      2012 December – D4x – The new horizon
      2013 October – D4s – D4 mastered
      2014 – Lens: 200mm Micro please.
      2015 August – D5 – D4x mastered
      and so on…

      Again, just a guess.
      I hate this MP game, but I still want more MP.
      I want 36MP, but I would settle for 24MP.
      Of course, Nikon marketing knows this already.

  • Back to top