not about fx!
:-)
So when do you think there will be a new crop of nikons?
(87 posts) (15 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
alphanikonrex said:
And a whole new line of lenses?! Are you crazy?! :^PI agree with you however, it doesn't mean a whole new line of lenses. They could use FX lenses and make ONE special wide angle zoom for that crop..
some 12-20 or 12-24 f/2.8 zoom that works for FX (with huge vignette under 14-15mm I guess) and that will be made for the 1.2x crop.
That said, I think they should just stick with FX.
Posted 3 years ago # -
jbl said:
I agree with you however, it doesn't mean a whole new line of lenses. They could use FX lenses and make ONE special wide angle zoom for that crop..some 12-20 or 12-24 f/2.8 zoom that works for FX (with huge vignette under 14-15mm I guess) and that will be made for the 1.2x crop.
That said, I think they should just stick with FX.
I must be missing something but what exactly would be the benefit of introducing this new crap factor?
Posted 3 years ago # -
jbl said:
I agree with you however, it doesn't mean a whole new line of lenses. They could use FX lenses and make ONE special wide angle zoom for that crop..some 12-20 or 12-24 f/2.8 zoom that works for FX (with huge vignette under 14-15mm I guess) and that will be made for the 1.2x crop.
That said, I think they should just stick with FX.
What's wrong with the 10-24? In theory the 1.2 crop should work without vignetting like crazy.
Posted 3 years ago # -
mb said:
I must be missing something but what exactly would be the benefit of introducing this new crap factor?1) High ISO - There is a 2-3 stop diff between dx and fx at the moment. the RX 1.2 crop would provide a niche in between.
2) would provide near FX performance for current top range DX prices.
3) DX may be leaning towards DXXXX style cameras. so RX crops could be in the DXXX and even DXX style cameras.
4) besides the new price/performance niche that RX provides.it makes near fx capabilities available to prosumer dx owners and makes the move to FX smoother.
5) It would be a Nikon only sensor. it wont be a sony sensor !!Posted 3 years ago # -
1. I want the best high ISO performance so that means FX why would I want to pay for something that's in between? Just get the best.
2. Want happens when the price of FX falls down to DX prices? Your "RX" would be a waste of $$$! Not a good long term investment at all
3. Why would I want "RX" to be in a D700 or D90 camera when the D700 is already FX and hopefully the D90 will be too soon.
4. I don't want near FX performance. I want FX performance, lol.
5. Where is the proof that Sony sensors are so horrible? You're not complaining about the sony inside your D70 are you? Besides if Nikon made this "RX" sensor all by themselves it will turn out worst than the LBCAST they tried before.By the way I don't think you should call it "RX" hearty. It makes it seem like your RX camera is sick and needs a prescription, :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
heartyfisher said:
Say the new 1.2 crop camera is a bit over 12MP then the dx crop in this camera would be a bit under 10mp, still very useful!
If they up the MP a bit to say 14.5MP then the DX crop is about 12MP. I would use that !! esp with higher FPS.Facts:
I believe you have your crop calculations wrong.
A DX sensor has a nominal area of 384 sq mm.
A RX sensor would have a nominal area of 600 square mm.
A FX sensor has a nominal area of 864 square mm.
12 MP / 600 * 384 = 7.68
14.5 MP / 600 * 384 = 9.28Musings:
As far as cost is concerned, the marginal cost of a sensor is dependent on silicon used, period. Therefore a RX sensor would cost 69% of a FX sensor and 56% more than a DX one.If we, for sake of academic navel gazing, presume the only difference in price between a D300 and D700 (~$900) is the larger sensor and the hardware needed to accommodate it (larger prism, etc) we get a cost of $1.88 per square mm.
This would place the Dxxx RX body at a street price of ~$1900.Posted 3 years ago # -
Good ol' Soap doing the calculus for us ;^)
I stick with Niko—I don't want near-FX, I want FX. If I don't want FX for whatever reason, then I want DX. End of story.
Posted 3 years ago # -
What would make the upgrade from DX more affordable is a Canon-like selection of f/4 lenses. A bastardized middle format only serves to muddy the waters, and that helps no one.
Posted 3 years ago # -
alphanikonrex said:
I think 1.2x will be available on FX bodies "just-in-case" you need extra tele.Using less of the sensor does not give you extra tele, it gives you less FoV, and the two are not interchangeable concepts.
The current crop of DX sensors "give you extra tele" because they have more pixels per degree. Cropping a FX sensor will not increase your PPD density, therefore it is not giving you "extra tele".
Posted 3 years ago # -
alphanikonrex said:
Thank's Jonny :^)Doesn't look bad at all to me. Doesn't look great, but I don't think it looks terrible either.
Yeah, I think it goes down to 8 megapixels.
I'm going to say it again:
What's the Point?
You give up megapixels for what? Nothing. If you want the extra range then crop it later, when you can actually make more intelligent decisions about what you want cropped in and what you want cropped out.
DX crop makes sense to me because at least you get a higher FPS. But with the 1.2x you don't get anything.
Yes, but if Nikon made a specific 1.2x crop camera, it would be a physical difference, not a hardware one, thus no MP loss.
Posted 3 years ago # -
soap said:
Using less of the sensor does not give you extra tele, it gives you less FoV, and the two are not interchangeable concepts.The current crop of DX sensors "give you extra tele" because they have more pixels per degree. Cropping a FX sensor will not increase your PPD density, therefore it is not giving you "extra tele".
I know, I know, that wasn't a true statement. And I take it back anyway, I would never use a 1.2x crop mode—no advantages.
PB PM said:
Yes, but if Nikon made a specific 1.2x crop camera, it would be a physical difference, not a hardware one, thus no MP loss.But like soap said, all it would do would be muddy the waters :^D
Posted 3 years ago # -
Soap : thanks for checking the maths !! i went through the numbers and you are spot on !
.. I still want the 12MP RX !! :-) LOL..
It would be in my price range ... The D300S specs were just slightly below what I wanted for me to upgrade. and the D700 price was beyond my budget. The FOV works for me and would be really handy with the lenses I currently have.Posted 3 years ago # -
-
-
-
And I like BB King too, but it would not make 1.2 crop viable.
Nikon is currently missing models to compete with 7D and 5D not yet another sensor size.Posted 3 years ago # -
Please, no new sensor size, that would definitely give me the blues. Ooop, sorry, I already have the blues, but with my Gibson's not Nikon's.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Who says it would another sensor size, maybe a 1.2x crop could replace DX, as part slow move to phase out crop sensor bodies in the mid range (aka D200/300 etc)? Cameras in the DX range will no doubt at some point be the first to go mirrorless anyway.
Posted 3 years ago # -
PB PM said:
Who says it would another sensor size, maybe a 1.2x crop could replace DX, as part slow move to phase out crop sensor bodies in the mid range (aka D200/300 etc)? Cameras in the DX range will no doubt at some point be the first to go mirrorless anyway.No offense, but this makes little sense.
1 - Many DX lenses do not have an image circle large enough for a 1.2 sensor. "Phasing out" DX via RX will break compatibility for many - defeating the purpose of a phased withdraw.
2 - Cameras in the DX range will never "go" mirrorless. There is no point in using back-focusing F-mount lenses on a mirrorless system. A full half the advantage of a mirrorless system is not needing that style lens.DX will either be dropped eventually or it won't. Regardless, there is not going to be a phased withdraw of either above mentioned type for DX. You would need to introduce so many kludges to do a phase out that you're defeating the purpose.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I never said, that mirrorless DX crop camera would use the same lenses did I?
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
What doesn't make sense? It makes perfect sense to me. Entry level camera bodies, like the D3000/5000, will most likely become mirrorless bodies before any others, simply because consumers want smaller, lighter cameras, but ones that have improved image quality over compacts. If you don't think Nikon will do that at some point, then you are living in a dream world. It will be cheaper for Nikon in the long run to make cameras that do not have complex mirror systems, and thus as they mature, will become less expensive for the consumer.
Posted 3 years ago # -
LOL, Soap's got a new picture! What happened to your dog? ;^)
Sorry PB PM, I have to say I agree with Soap, I can't see DX being phased into "RX" or 1.2x.
But I can agree with you that Nikon will make the entry levels "EVIL" first to cut down cost, size, and weight—after all, isn't that what consumer's love? :^D
Posted 3 years ago # -
I actually think Nikon will create a new COOLPIX segment and not change the low end DSLRs. Perhaps in the future there will no longer be low end DSLRs and only high end COOLPIXes.
I still have yet to hear a convincing argument FOR heartyfisher's "prescription" crop.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
