bmxdad said:
So a 12MP D90 FX ;>)Pete
Yes as backup for your 4mp D200H
Would you want a D90 size FX camera for $ 1500, but only 12MP
(108 posts) (16 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
It's not an "X"
Posted 3 years ago # -
Or is it...
Posted 3 years ago # -
S per chance then?
Posted 3 years ago # -
What—hey?!
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
-
Hay is for horses ;^)
Hey, -->*H*<--ey!
Oh—I know! Hey everybody, Niko has a D700H!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Nooo I said I have a D70S ;^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Do you really? I though you had a D70!
Ha! In your face! I have an original D70! You got the S crap! :^P
Posted 3 years ago # -
Back to the original... $1,500 FX at 12 MP, D90 with bigger finder. Since the Nikon D3s is still at 12 MP, I wouldn't expect more. Besides no one complains about the D700's image quality. The lack of a compatible mid-zoom is the real problem. One of the reasons I want a D300s rather than a D700 is that I'm spoiled with my 16-85.
If I could get a 24-105/4 VR for less than $1,000 that was optically excellent, then the FX-D90 would be a no-brainer. A lot would also depend on how well it worked with AIS lenses.
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Well the only problem is that there's already a 24mp full frame for $18-1900ish. So $3-400 more gets you double the pixels. I think Nikon would be wasting time with such a "small" mp sensor when the market is about to get flooded with higher mp cameras.Imagine if Nikon would have used the more advanced D2H's 4mp sensor in the D200!
I agree with what Ted is saying. Maybe it would be marketed to people who care more about IQ than MP, not to mention all of the Nikon users who wouldn't jump ship to Sony.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Plus, both bodies I'm looking at - D700 and D300s (plus the D3s fantasy) are 12 MP. My D90 is 12 MP and I'm thrilled with it's image quality. I would also create room in the line-up for the D700 replacement at higher MP.
Side question: I hear people talking about changing systems from one brand to another, I would never consider it. I've used Nikon's for years and it would be nearly inconceivable for me to change. I just got too much F Mount-Glass, it would be almost divorce level painful for me. (trust me, I know about that)
Posted 3 years ago # -
they could do, and I certainly think they SHOULD given the market trends (and my three FX lenses that I could use on it!!), but they will cripple it with the following:
1. 90% view finder, or maybe 95%
2. 4.5 fps
3. Single CF
4. No intervalometer
5. 12mp diluted FX sensor from, at that point, dated D700/D3 milieuThis will keep the D400 or D300s still a better choice for the semi-pro that needs speed and viewfinder, but cripple them with DX and noise.
Sigh. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
if Nikon is really using a new sensor in d3s, then putting the old sensor from d3/d700 into d500 (or whatever it's gonna be called) is a great solution for them. as they will go into empty niche.
as for 12mpx, does anyone really need more (for amateurs), I doubt.shivaswrath - I think Your specifications are very possible to implement
let's just keep our fingers crossed for price and specs
Posted 3 years ago # -
shivaswrath said:
they could do, and I certainly think they SHOULD given the market trends (and my three FX lenses that I could use on it!!), but they will cripple it with the following:1. 90% view finder, or maybe 95%
2. 4.5 fps
3. Single CF
4. No intervalometer
5. 12mp diluted FX sensor from, at that point, dated D700/D3 milieuThis will keep the D400 or D300s still a better choice for the semi-pro that needs speed and viewfinder, but cripple them with DX and noise.
Sigh. . .
1. 95% possible, but it is not percentage but size that matters
2. 4.5 fps, no way for 1500$ price tag, 3 is more likely
3. No CF whatsoever, one SD and that is that
4. OK
5. OK
Do we really need more?Posted 3 years ago # -
Actually a D700 or D3 sensor doesn't sound all that bad to me. My D90's hand-me-down D300 sensor's terrific for the price. FPS isn't likely to be an issue either, since almost anyone buying it could also choose the D300s, a very fast and capable sports/nature camera. The less expensive FX body would be great for landscapes.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Wait the Sony a850 has 24mp, 98% view coverage, 5fps, and cost only $400 more and you guys would be OK with a 12mp Nikon with 3-4fps and less than95% coverage?!
Wow, So none of you would have complained if Nikon would have put the D2's 4mp sensor in the D200 or rather in the D80 then.
Posted 3 years ago # -
ted2001 said:
Actually a D700 or D3 sensor doesn't sound all that bad to me. My D90's hand-me-down D300 sensor's terrific for the price. FPS isn't likely to be an issue either, since almost anyone buying it could also choose the D300s, a very fast and capable sports/nature camera. The less expensive FX body would be great for landscapes.That is what I wanted hear in this thread, Yes you make a D90 FX with higher MP but it would cost more, No I want a app $1500 12MP FX compact camera, it can be done if Nikon want to, and would sell, I would love to have one together with my D300, and it would be easy to upgrade future cameras like with higher MP sensor when it can be done at same or lower cost. This would also create a demand for new and better FX lenses
Yes you could properly make one with 16 - 18MP for close to $2000, but it would not draw the same amount of attention, like the low cost FX camera would
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Wait the Sony a850 has 24mp, 98% view coverage, 5fps, and cost only $400 more and you guys would be OK with a 12mp Nikon with 3-4fps and less than95% coverage?!Wow, So none of you would have complained if Nikon would have put the D2's 4mp sensor in the D200 or rather in the D80 then.
That's what I'm saying, Niko. The D3/D700 sensor is plenty for me for a looooong time, and if it could keep the price to $1500 (which sounds like a lot less than $2000 even if it's not that different), it would be worth it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
jonnyapple said:
That's what I'm saying, Niko. The D3/D700 sensor is plenty for me for a looooong time, and if it could keep the price to $1500 (which sounds like a lot less than $2000 even if it's not that different), it would be worth it.Niko you talk like the D700 is not able to take pictures, last time I checked it actually can, yes the Sony A850 might be better, anyway I would like the small FX camera to be priced at $1500 and I think the only way is with the old D700 sensor, and it is not like using the D2H in the D200, absolutely not. Just like I would love to get the only 12MP D3s
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
So then why are so many "crying" for a higher mp D700? Five years ago 4mp was just fine for a lot of people too. I think Nikon has done such a good job with low light at 12 that nobody thinks it's possible at higher megapixel.
Regardless I doubt the D3/D700 sensor would be put into a "cheap" full frame. Look at canon. Although it's reversed senario, the high end 1Dmk4 didn't get the low end 5D's 21mp sensor as many had hoped even though the 5D is "cheaper".
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
So then why are so many "crying" for a higher mp D700? Five years ago 4mp was just fine for a lot of people too. I think Nikon has done such a good job with low light at 12 that nobody thinks it's possible at higher megapixel.Regardless I doubt the D3/D700 sensor would be put into a "cheap" full frame. Look at canon. Although it's reversed senario, the high end 1Dmk4 didn't get the low end 5D's 21mp sensor as many had hoped even though the 5D is "cheaper".
OK Niko you might be right, but they did use the 12MP DX sensor in the D300 > D90 > D5000, so I don't see a problem with low end FX 12MP camera, "cheap" just does not sound the same. So I get you answer to the post is NO ;>)
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm probably one of the people you're referring to. I'm going to go full frame when the D700 replacement comes out (or next July, whichever comes last), but I might end up with the D700. If it's a simultaneous D700s/D700x release, I'd probably get the D700s. If it's D700x/D800, I'd wait to see its low light performance before deciding.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Reply »
You must log in to post.
