weight and tele

The Man From Mandrem said:
Also curious what Black Silicon is?

If productizing it is "all" it takes to make a better sensor, I'd like to look into how hard that is to do.

Black silicon is to normal solid state detectors kind of like what black velvet is to black silk as far as light absorption is concerned. It has silicon fingers instead of just a solid block, which gives it very low reflectivity (hence, black) and it is very efficient at converting incoming light into the electrical signal that is recorded.

It would be very specialized because of the cost of manufacture.

Also curious what Black Silicon is?

If productizing it is "all" it takes to make a better sensor, I'd like to look into how hard that is to do.

I just got my D7000 and would say I would vote for FX as the format to get if you can.

Don't take that as disappointment with the D7000- It is amazing camera I am so far happy with (No--Haven't checked video yet and haven't found the sharpness setting to really see still image quality).

But on the lense side you really don't have the optimal lenses for portraiture.
I have now 105/2.5 and will really enjoy this focal length on DX (though I may keep it on my film camera more), but I do find 50mm is too short for portraiture (have to move closer to the subject than I would have liked) and >=85mm too long. I would say this is just my personal opinion if a half-century of lense refinement hadn't converged at a similar angle of view for portraiture.

I will keep using my Tokina 28-70mm between 60 and 67mm for portraits, trading off in image Q, Bokeh, and weight. For those who like zooms and are okay with 2.8 that's fine. For those of us who like primes for their compact (less intimidating) size and wider aperture, that's a problem.

I also find the 35mm a very well made lense with a plastic smoothly touching plastic feel I've never experienced before. If all inexpensive DX primes are going to be like this, FX is not going anywhere.

I don't see myself needing a better camera than the D7000 EVER and hope to see a few more "plastic" DX primes, but I don't see how FX could possibly go away.

shivaswrath said:
JA - seriously man, didn't mean for it to come out that way. I'm not making fun of you e-bro. It's just funny how we've been bantering about FX forever and then the D7k comes and screws it ALL up. You're getting the D800/900, right? Did you order the D7k?

I'll stop crying now, then.

I know exactly what you're saying about the D7000. I still might buy the D700 replacement when it comes out. Or I might buy the D700 when it gets replaced (I know that's easier for me to say now than when I've got the specs for the new shiny thing in front of me on the NR blog). Some of that depends on my real job situation.

In the meantime, I did preorder the D7000 again on 17 Oct after cancelling my first order. It looks like people who ordered the day of the announcement are starting to get shipping orders. Like I say, maybe I'll get it before Christmas.

PB PM said:
You do realize that the D700 has the ability to program up to 6 user presets right?

well the user presets on the D7k are a little easier to access, right - you just turn a dial!

I can see the D4 have 3 presets. . .

Willis said:
The D7000 has really complicated the whole DX\FX debate for me. I was pretty much sold on the D700 as my next camera, but the D7000 has some features I'd really like to have (User Presets being a biggie).

You do realize that the D700 has the ability to program up to 6 user presets right?

jonnyapple said:
I'm not sure if you're making fun of me, shivas, but I still think I'll get an FX body eventually. For now, the D7000 will do nicely.

There's no question that the FF nikons handle noise better. The fact that the test shots look the same as the D90 at 100% doesn't mean the noise handling isn't improved, though. At equal print sizes the 16MP image will look better than the 12MP image (from the D90, not the D3). ;-)

Don't forget the native ISO 100 that the D7000 adds, too. I'm still looking forward to getting that camera. I preordered it from Amazon again and I'm hoping to get it before Christmas.

Edit: By the way, I just saw a very prominent stuck pixel in the pepper grinder in the D3 image. Send it back, imaging-resource!

JA - seriously man, didn't mean for it to come out that way. I'm not making fun of you e-bro. It's just funny how we've been bantering about FX forever and then the D7k comes and screws it ALL up. You're getting the D800/900, right? Did you order the D7k?

Yeah, had the D7k come out before I purchased the D3, I would've actually probably not purchased the D3. Why? The D7k cleans up the noise with VERY little loss of sharpness detail, is smaller, and is 50% cheaper than the D3 I bought.

With that said, I'm still ok with the D3 and how it's served me thus far. . .(lol)

Willis said:
The D7000 has really complicated the whole DX\FX debate for me. I was pretty much sold on the D700 as my next camera, but the D7000 has some features I'd really like to have (User Presets being a biggie).

I'm sure they will find their way into the next FX body, its just a matter of when that happens.

I'm still really leaning toward the D700, but it sucks making that kind of investment this late in the product cycle. Hope we get a D800 soon :)

Its also complicated things for me but from a different perspective. I guess I am primarily a DX shooter so the D7000 is great news. However, it does show that the old FX sensor in the D3 and D700 at High ISO are still significantly better than even this latest D7000 sensor. I think I will now be getting a D700 when the next price drop happens, and can wait for a "good deal" for D700, since I am a DX shooter. Roll on D800! so that I can get a D700 cheap !

shivaswrath said:
I love that Jonny wrote this 10 months ago. . .how things change in 10 months, lol!

I'm not sure if you're making fun of me, shivas, but I still think I'll get an FX body eventually. For now, the D7000 will do nicely.

shivaswrath said:
bleh! They look the same when shot with Noise-Reduction off. . .

...(that's why I switched to FX btw; the way the noise is handled just looks better to me)

There's no question that the FF nikons handle noise better. The fact that the test shots look the same as the D90 at 100% doesn't mean the noise handling isn't improved, though. At equal print sizes the 16MP image will look better than the 12MP image (from the D90, not the D3). ;-)

Don't forget the native ISO 100 that the D7000 adds, too. I'm still looking forward to getting that camera. I preordered it from Amazon again and I'm hoping to get it before Christmas.

Edit: By the way, I just saw a very prominent stuck pixel in the pepper grinder in the D3 image. Send it back, imaging-resource!

The D7000 has really complicated the whole DX\FX debate for me. I was pretty much sold on the D700 as my next camera, but the D7000 has some features I'd really like to have (User Presets being a biggie).

I'm sure they will find their way into the next FX body, its just a matter of when that happens.

I'm still really leaning toward the D700, but it sucks making that kind of investment this late in the product cycle. Hope we get a D800 soon :)

jonnyapple said:
I'm actually not looking to switch for a year or two (I'm loving my D90), but I'm curious to know what, if anything, would keep people using DX.

My thoughts: a 50-150 f/2.8 DX VRII would make me very tempted to wait for a D400 instead of a D700 update.
Of course, even that would be nixed if there was something like the FF D90 (D700 sensor) for ~$1500 that has been discussed around the forum lately.

I love that Jonny wrote this 10 months ago. . .how things change in 10 months, lol!

BTW, anyone see the imaging resource noise tests for the D7000 vs. D90:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D7000/FULLRES/D7000hSLI06400_NR0_DCR.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D90/FULLRES/D90hSLI6400_DCR.HTM

bleh! They look the same when shot with Noise-Reduction off. . .

Just for fun reference, an LX5 at 6400 ISO (like above):
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LX5/FULLRES/LX5hSLI06400.HTM

And a D3:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/FULLRES/D3SLI06400_NRO.HTM

(that's why I switched to FX btw; the way the noise is handled just looks better to me)

To answer the original post, yes. And having already gone to FX I can say that the only thing that is going to convince me to buy another DX camera is if the DXOmark numbers for ISO come back anywhere near where the D700/D3 sensor ranks.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/664%7C0/(appareil2)/441%7C0/(appareil3)/614%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon

I would imagine that its somewhere in between, but the samples I keep seeing really make me curious about where it ranks. If it misses the mark then the only other reason to go back to DX for me would be to get a cheap deal on a D3100 for video.

What sells me on the full frame is the minor things. The brighter viewfinder is something I need with all of the night shooting I do as well as the ISo capacity. Other than that I miss the 17 mm on my 17mm f2.8 but I can wait on that. I fully agree with Davey Jay on the one note "I think one of the fun things about NR is that we can each look over the data, the facts, the tests, and the upcoming cameras and lens and get a heads up so we don't spend the $2,500 and up on a bust!"

@TaoTeJared: Totally agree with you here! A 2,500 body to a $5,000 body every 2-3 years would be a disgrace in terms of resources, etc. A friend just did the movie about world ocean over fishing titled "The End of The Line". I have worked for much of my 66 years in the effort to overcome our impending crashing of world fish stocks from Blue Fin Tuna, King and Red Salmon, etc. Photography has been my primary tool in that conservation effort and I have witnessed some very grand things and places. I just pray that this all stays that way. I would rather take photos with my former D70 Nikon than with a D800 or D4 with far less to photograph. I think my D300 will be taking pictures with me for the rest of my life. Maybe I'll get some of the new ones with new features. Way more likely a D800 than say a D4. Without what I have spent on environmental protection....I could have bought one of the first D4s probably.Also we KNOW what a Nikon D300s will do. The D7000 is still to me an unknown and if when I ever get to photograph some of the Kyoto Gardens in Japan or the Great Wall in China......I have photos my friends like you have taken, or people I will never even write to.....but when the day comes I make that next trip of a lifetime I hope i am ready for the best image capture I can get. In the meantime a D90, or a D300 or D300s will work just as good as some brand new camera. I think one of the fun things about NR is that we can each look over the data, the facts, the tests, and the upcoming cameras and lens and get a heads up so we don't spend the $2,500 and up on a bust!

It's fun to see that even on cusp of a D800 & D4 being released 10 months later, how many of the arguments have not changed much if at all.

Everyone has their price points that they will spend and DX serves many price points very well. The DX line is here to stay for at least 2-3 more series upgrades if not forever. Smaller bodies, small lenses, quality equal or surpassing to Pro DX lines of the past.

All pros had to shoot with DX for many years and did so with superb results which shows that it is not the sensor size but the mastery of the person using it.

I shoot DX because I simply I can not afford a $2,500-$5,000 body upgrade every 2-3 years. I also do not get wrapped up in marketing hyped numbers and focus on MY needs and not what they tell me what I need. This is my hobby and I will be doing this for the rest of my life. Racing after the "newest" and "Greatest" is just a race against myself.

When FX becomes more affordable, I will be there. Until then, I will focus on creating and capturing images rather than thinking a new camera will give them to me.

@kyoshinikon: I also see a lot of D300s in the field in the spots where there are really wonderful wildlife to photograph. At those rare and amazing spots DX seems to be live and kicking. I have a D300, D90 (and D100,200) and then a D700. When it is telephoto the D700 often never comes out at all that day. I look forward to my D7000. In terms of tele work I don't get excited about FF. When it comes to wide angle scenery, the D700 with the right glass is amazing and in very low lighting. I also think I will stay with DX for video work as I have yet to decide that DSLR video is something I want to invest my life savings in. That makes my D700 pretty much what I use now for wide angle scenery when in years past I used a 8x10 or 617 Fuji GX 617. Given what I know now the D700 is great, but NOT for wildlife and tele work in a real field environment is not conducive to FX big tele glass. Those huge long lenses are the province of tripod users shooting from platforms or land rovers and they are not hand holding and wading, and hiking unless it is a special deal and the effort is acceptable for some production or promotional reason. Basically like has been posted here on this thread, there is a place for DX and FX for each photographer. Only you can decide which format is yours on a given day. But locking myself out of DX for FX is not something I am going to do. I have lenses for both, and needs for both. Frankly if I HAD to chose one......it would be DX for the practicality. My view camera days are over. When a smaller camera like a D7000 will do it all.......I guess that is what I will use. I do very much like my D300 which with the 70-300VR has taken some amazing shots. I also like the 12-24DX Nikkor. I own wide zoom Nikkors for FX but I do not see them as vastly superior to the 12-24DX Nikkor. On the other hand I would never put a DX lens on my D700. I also find it easier to justify buying a Nikkor that will do DX and FX BOTH.

kanuck said:
I agree that the DX crop is great for telephoto lenses so that was a point I had to weigh before I finally caved in an went FX. If Nikon were to release a new DX body with a high resolution I'd consider it as a second body to my D700. Only if the D700x is not released first though.

Theat crop factor is the reason many sports shooters use the d300(s). At every sporting event I go to the majority of amateurs and many pros pair up the d300(s) with a super tele..

Cameras like the D7000 won't make me switch to FX anytime soon!

As long as my DX lenses are serviceable and usable, why not stick around a while?

They're on the main NR blog (three flickr photo streams), another was from a Czech site posted here on the forum yesterday, also the chase jarvis samples posted shortly after the release.

The LR3 noise handling is really impressive, JJump. They changed their RAW bayer demosaic routine, which actually seems to increase the sharpness/noise, but then the detail once noise reduction is applied is better than it used to be. You ought to download the trial and try it out because I guess you might not see the same improvements I do. My experience has been about 1/2 stop to 1 full stop of improvement over the noise reduction in LR2 (not bad as it's saving me a lot of money on my camera).

What's the big improvement with noise handling from LR3 that wasn't available on LR2?

Also, what D7000 samples are you basing this great low light performance on? I'd like to see some.

This is fun to see my thoughts 10 months ago. There were two other things that I didn't anticipate that have kept me from switching (indefinitely now):
-release of Lightroom 3 with its improved noise handling.
-release of the D7000 with nearly D700-like low light performance (and base ISO 100, which I'll definitely take and use).

Funny the way it is that you can't see the future...

settle said:
DX or FX, cameras are just tools. What is your vision?

I have a D200 and it has a place in my toolchest. When I need to reach out and touch, and the sensor is adequate, it still gets used.

I also have a D3s. When I need wide angle or fast or high ISO, out it comes.

I have not switched. I have availed myself of the tools that best match the job. At least as much as my budget will allow.

Mysteriously, my wallet seems to levitate out of my pocket when at the camera store. They have a D3x in stock. So far I have successfully grabbed it and put it away. So far.

Oh, and I only buy FX lenses.

nioce. ..

jonnyapple said:
I'm actually not looking to switch for a year or two (I'm loving my D90), but I'm curious to know what, if anything, would keep people using DX.

A 16mm/1.4 prime would be absolutely nice. Or a 18mm/2.8 with decent sharpness at f/2.8.. or faster focusing tele primes (a "cheap" 400/5.6 is still lacking from Nikon glass - Canon has an excellent and affordable 400mm/5.6 L USM)

I am truly tempted to buy the FX 24/1.4 and use it on a DX body for night shots (because I cannot afford the *$ FX bodies. I hear D3S talking to me at night)
Shoot me for heresy, but I need all the light a lens can get.

I agree that the DX crop is great for telephoto lenses so that was a point I had to weigh before I finally caved in an went FX. If Nikon were to release a new DX body with a high resolution I'd consider it as a second body to my D700. Only if the D700x is not released first though.