Nikon preparing a new monstrous image processing engine

The current Nikon EXPEED image processing engine (credit: Nikon USA)

Nikon has a new image processing engine (maybe called EXPEED 3?) that will be able to deliver some insane frame rates and video capabilities. This new processor (or a light version of it) will be included in the new Nikon mirrorless camera. No word of possible implementation in a new DSLR camera yet, but obviously the D700/D3s replacements will be good potential candidates. It is interesting that Nikon decided to first introduce this new chip with their mirrorless camera (unless there will be a new full frame camera announced between now and September 21st).

You can read more about the current EXPEED 2 processor here and here.

This entry was posted in Nikon 1, Nikon D4, Nikon D800. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Jo

    you mean “chip” instead of “ship”, right ?

    • “cheap”

      • “Shit” is for you, Del-Uks!!! lol.

      • Sports


        • “shop”

          Gonna come with a whole store.

          • flownlead

            “shenanigans” yeah i took it dare..

            • Del05


    • Rob Ueberfeldt

      Monster chip, mother ship.

  • KT

    Ahhh, finally, bring on the good stuff, enough with the Coolpix

    • Just A Thought

      The P7100 got a new processing engine, making it a great camera for shooting Concerts and other stage performances, Weddings, Baseball, Football – American and European versions, Motorsports you name it. Low cost, so even cheap photogs can buy a backup camera. Plse note that I’m not so sure about using the P7100 for shooting food, but that’s a specialized market…

      • Pseudonikions

        I would never, ever remotely consider a P7100 for a wedding, backup or otherwise. Enough with the amateurs and cheapies thinking they can do photography!

        • Geoff

          I would be a little worried if a wedding photog showed up with a P7100.

          • Just A Thought

            “I would be a little worried if a wedding photog showed up with a P7100.”

            So would I. Any good photog would have also brought a backup P7100…

            • +1 ๐Ÿ™‚

              Overall it’s not the camera, it’s the eye. If someone can’t shoot beautiful images with a P7100 they won’t be able to with two D3x’s, either.

              That said, hopefully it wouldn’t be too dark in that reception hall, etc. where high ISO and wide apertures are required ๐Ÿ™‚ Equipment can’t make a good photographer but it does provide the same photographer more flexibility, ruggedness, features, etc.

            • Bob knows best

              -1 ๐Ÿ™‚

            • Nathan

              +1 ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • Pat

          I know a lady by me that uses a d40 and an sb600 as her main and a p100 or p500. She likes to tell people that she uses only the latest “pro” equipment and then slams the rest of the photographers in the area for charging “OUTRAGEOUS” prices.

          She also has a habit of using other photographer’s work in her online portfolio.

          I hate these types of wedding photographers.

          • flownlead

            I agree with some of your comments but not completely.

            Recently I’ve had a few couples ask me if I could work a cheaper price for them in anyway.. Examples.. showing up just for an hour or two to capture just the important photos etc…

            By doing my research about them i.e asking them many questions etc.. I found out that they really can’t afford an expensive wedding photographer. But they were so kind and loving to others and with each other and to myself, and they loved my work, I decided that I would do a full day for them for a very cheap price ( just to pay the cost of a few hours work plus travel and hotel)( and i wasn’t booked for that day. A day at the beach can come another day)

            With that said I also decided that you know what.. They didn’t care to ask about what gear I used if it was pro or not ( and I have over 10,000$ plus in gear) they just loved the moments I am able to capture, the honesty in people faces and body language etc. The photos tell a story all by themselves.

            So I decided to leave the pro gear at home and bring a G10 and an old olympus om1 and a couple flashes with stands.

            I used my same techniques and experience and intuition that I have learned over the years of being a photographer.

            It felt amazing for me to not need to lug around pounds on pound and pounds over pounds of gear.

            End of the day.. Which by the way was another amazing wedding. Treated like on of the family members. We ended having a massive party at the beach ( haaha.. I guess I do get my beach day after all)(And we are still in contact with each other to this day as friends who are becoming closer friends.)


            The photographs came out just as good as my previous work.
            They loved them. Their family members loved them. And so did their friends. So much that they all went to my smugmug account and bought tons of extra prints which brought my pay check back up close to my usual fee.

            The other thing that I loved about doing this.. Was that the other circles that had nothing to do with them also thought that this was up there with some of my best work. And low and be hold these circles were the ones that asked.. what camera did you shoot with? what lenses did you use.
            haha you should have seen their faces when I said.. G10 and Om1 b&w film + 501.8 sigma lens. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            So if you are knocking anyone’s photography equipment because you think you need two d3s and 85 1.4g+70-200 2.8vrII etc to shoot anything more then an amateur..

            then you Sir…

            Are an amateur gear head who can’t take shit all for quality work.

            Go work at Mcdonalds as you will be more appreciated there.

            Art is not in the equipment you use.

            • pics or it didnt happen.

            • heart warming?

              What a heartwearming story lol….

              I am all for good deads but your story still comes back to the gear.

              If art is not the equipment you use then why did you change your equipment for this occasion? and if it is just as good then why did you change back?

            • flownlead

              I would have posted the links but I may get hit with shifty liers who will use my kindness for cheap work.

              And also previous and future clients may get jealous or even mad that I did this favor for a couple couples and not them.

              So then with your words Harold.. It didn’t happen. ๐Ÿ™ But I could careless. ๐Ÿ™‚


            • flownlead

              I started my career with cheap equipment many years ago.
              That Om1 was actually my most used camera back then.

              The reason why I decided to use this “cheap gear” was because of an eye opening I got from this couple.
              I came to a realization.. after they had not one question about the equipment I use.

              Most of my clients always ask.. You must use pro gear for the price you charge.. ? or you get the comments. You must be really good at what you do.. That camera and lens look very expensive, and to boot you have another one with a bigger lens around your back just hanging there.

              We all know this very well. People with money to burn dropping 6000$ on camera and lenses and they don’t even know what iso or wb is.. or golden ratios etc..

              And I never said I switched back. I just said I decided to use something different.
              Don’t get me wrong though. I love my equipment that I use or I wouldn’t have spent the money on it. And they too have limitations.

              but at the end of the day.. Ansel adams , Vivian Maier, Irving Penn and so many others didn’t have d3s with iso 25,600 etc. They just knew the limitations of what they had and made the best out of it.. Which to this day is still a focus in school where you learn this art form.


            • Pat

              I’ll agree that your gear doesn’t make you a better photographer. Usually, I’m the first to say such things in my local area. I am certainly no gear head. I shot with a d70 until mid-2008, I’ve only bought one piece of equipment new in my entire career and most of my lenses are from the early 90’s or older. (I don’t own the 85 1.4 or 70-200 VR). My bodies are d300, d200 and an d70 as back-up. I’m not exactly living the dream in terms of equipment. On top of that, I build almost all of my studio equipment.

              That said, I would ask that if this wedding was not at the beach and was instead, in a dimly lit church, would you have used the same equipment? If you had all sorts of restrictions placed on your movement (i.e. not being able to move from the back of the church), would you have taken the same equipment? Probably not. That’s the main difference between you and people who view those cameras as perfectly acceptable gear for wedding photography, you knew what you needed and planned accordingly.

              Lots of craigslist photographers would show up to a church wedding with now windows, a kit lens, and a crappy flash. That is not an acceptable load for a “professional” photographer.

              My issue with people that are claiming to be photographers is that they are claiming that they are professional grade (which they aren’t, check your local craigslist for examples of these people). Then, they claim to have top-shelf equipment, which I’ll agree doesn’t make you a better photographer, but try shooting in a church that has literally zero windows and very few lights with a crappy kit lens. Finally, in order to seal the deal, they knock every other photographer on the block because we charge so much (I charge $1500 and that includes just about everything anyone would want, her base price is $750).

              There are lots of different levels of photography available to in every market. The issue now is that people are just going out and buying a kit camera and claiming to know everything about photography. When I was younger, I charged $450 because I knew I had more to learn. Too many fauxtographers think they know everything and believe they have reached the top of the game.

              I have no problem with cheap photographers who recognize that they need more experience and are interested in gaining that experience. I’m basically training my competition every time I hire my assistant who also shoots weddings and portraits. She even borrows my gear to go and shoot other people’s weddings.

            • Ren Kockwell

              Puh-lease. It’s not about whether you can, it’s about whether you should. You can take a great shot with any camera, but when your livelihood depends on it, do you want the most reliable or consumer grade? It’s not elitism, it’s respect for the client and the event. Weddings and major events happen once. No re-shoot. You miss, you fail. I think it makes good sense to have the very best in those situations. If you can’t afford it, that’s okay. Not everyone can have a wedding photographer.

              This type of approach, and non-trained designers with a Mac in their basement debase their respective industries and legitimate professionals as a whole.

            • MJr

              Great story.

              Even tho i know you’re absolutely right flownlead, i’m still always gonna be a gearhead on the side anyway =P. I suppose one can be a gearhead AND a photographer right.

            • flownlead

              I do agree with what you guys are saying again in a way.

              But you are kind of flip flopping back and forth and not reading what I’m writing.

              “Weddings and major events happen once. No re-shoot. You miss, you fail. I think it makes good sense to have the very best in those situations.”

              Duh obviously..

              So an amateur who doesn’t know how to photograph comes in with the best of the best gear.. You think he will be able to catch the unexpected.? That he won’t missfocus because the auto focus on a d3s is probably one of the best systems out there in dslr’s? yes i know I’m going extreme her.. but you’re saying the same thing.

              Another extreme for the fun of it..

              Let’s say.. A formula one racer is in a race with a some everyday work/home driver..
              But the twist is the formula one driver is in the everyday car. and the everyday driver is in the formula one car… Who do you think will win?

              I’m pretty sure the f1 racer will, may it be an f1 track or a city street.. Why? because he’s worked his way up to f1 racing over years of training.
              he knows what limitations a everyday car has.. And knows what limitations an f1 car has

              And obviously the everyday drivers as no clue about an f1 car. Because he’s never driven one. nor anything remotely close. Good luck turning it on.

              By the way.. the reason i’ve bought this new equipment is because yes i’m able to do more with less then i was able to back many years ago with old film gear. And i spend less time in the darkroom/lightroom ( I’m a fanatic about getting it right the first time..

              But no matter because back then I took the same quality photography.. Wedding is emotion, moments.. And NOT how noise free your images are.

              Onto the next.

              “That said, I would ask that if this wedding was not at the beach and was instead, in a dimly lit church,”

              Did I say the wedding was on the beach in day light? No it actually wasn’t. They had yurts set up for the wedding because it was expected to rain. and true it was decent lighting. very yellow because of the fabric and the very broad light shinning through the overcast sky.
              And no it was not pitch black.. But who in their right mind would want a wedding in a pitch black room?

              At the end of the day.. When night showed up they had a beach party. With torches all around the beach for nice ambient light. Which gave enough light for great soul filled 400iso pushed to 800 b&w prints.

              I’m not afraid of OMG he’s got noise (grain) in his photos.. because the photos speak for themselves.

              So go ahead and be a consumer.. companies love it.

              And leave the art for the rest of us. Who don’t care about the latest and greatest.

              Oh.. just for giggles.. I’m putting my aluminum cap on for this one.. What will happen when your electronics shortout … jk

              Anyhoo.. It’s great Nikon is releasing new equipment.
              It makes my job easier.. as ya’ll wil go spend all your hard earned money on the greastest.. while we will continue perfecting our techniques with what ever we can get.

            • Pat

              We get it…you’re an artist.

              You’re missing the technical argument here. Let me simplify it for you:

              Would you rather shoot a wedding in a dimly lit church with a p7100 at 3200 ISO at f5.6, a d40 with an 18-105 DX, or a d3s with a complete line up of nikon lenses and flashes?

              This isn’t an “I’m an artist so I could use whatever was handed to me” sort of question.

              To boot, what do you think other people in the room would think? Do you think they would see you as a professional carrying around a p7100?

            • Art

              How about a T-Shirt? If you don’t have the t-shirt, it either didn’t happen or doesn’t exist. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • Mock Kenwell

              Ugh. The race car analogy is fatally flawed. The proper question would be, “Would an F1 driver show up at Indy in a Ford Festiva?” No! That driver would beat the everyday driver and then cone in second to last. A client’s wedding is their Indy 500—their big day. Leave the Festiva at home. Otherwise, no matter how good you are, you’re just playing games with their memories and taking unnecessary chances.

              And I think the Festiva/7100 analogy is spot-on. ; )

            • Worminator

              I’m with Ren Flockwell-

              For a wedding, the money gear is fast lenses and lighting. The camera is not a dealbreaker, but obviously if you are charging top tier prices, you better look, and act, the part.

            • lolly

              flownlead: “Art is not in the equipment you use”

              I would add “it’s in the eye and mind of the artist”

              Unlike others I agree with most of what you say. I don’t think the others who ‘knock’ you understand what you’re saying. In their minds they need the latest equipment because it makes them more efficient i.e. produce photos more easily with less time involved. Whereas you’re more concerned about the art of taking great photos with what you have.

              I have a question for everyone. Why do so many photographers with digital cameras look at their LCD right after taking a photo ?

            • throbbing parts

              if after using a G10, your photos “came out just as good as {your} previous work”, that means to me that your normal work must really, really, royally be good suck.

              which is all fine and good – someone has to bottom feed the lower end of the market.

            • no-nikon-no

              what a frivolous baloney of a story. this is pure science-fiction romance novel. trying to be a robin hood hero. saying that my iphone is as good as my nikon 3ds bs. by the way, your “$10,000.00” total of equipment is not even enough to be considered professional. it would only be enough for a walmart wedding hope you know.

          • lolly

            Can everyone let go of this topic ? It will probably degenerate into “my photos are better than your photos” … as long as the client is happy with your photos who cares what others think, eh ?

            Btw, film is not dead ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • flownlead

              Thank you Lolly.
              They won, I lost.. big deal.
              It’s the mature thing to do xD

        • Just A Thought

          “Enough with the amateurs and cheapies thinking they can do photography!”

          Spend some time on DPreview in the D3, D3S forum. There one can find posts with some of the crappiest Wedding pics taken by supposed Pros using D3 variants. The sad part is that the couple paid for them. Going by memory. one guy posted pics with color balance way off – sickly yellow skinned bride. And as usual the first replies were “Great shots”. Then when someone with some sense mentioned the sick skin tones, the photog said that was done on purpose. In contrast I have also seen eye popping fantastic pics from folks shooting with dirt cheap Canon Rebels.

          Anyhow, I’m sure that in the hands of an experienced Photog one would get great Wedding pics from a number of P7100s.

          • flownlead


            If you treat weddings as a money making business adventure.. then you have no right to put down other photographers who use consumer low grade gear to weddings.

            Am I an artist Yes of course. I grew up around arts. And photography to me is an other art form. I choose who i take photos for because i charge enough that i can. If them and I don’t click i recommend them to other photographers in the area. with different price ranges. I’m not there to shoot typical photos. I am there for one sole purpose to document the event. And with that said. Yes i could shoot a wedding in a dim-lit chruch with that camera. Ever hear of flashes?


            Enjoy the free round on the house.

            Send me an email if you want to continue this chat as this isn’t the place to keep this thread alive. And i’ll show you what I’m able to do with proper technique and know how. I think you’ll look at yourself and say.. I need to learn more. And stop thinking that everything depends on equipment. Because it doesn’t. It just makes things easier. So enjoy taking your 4000 photos per wedding and processing them all to knock out 1000-2000 decent photos.
            And i’ll enjoy taking my time and shooting 400 photos that are all bang on. with little to no time in editing room. ๐Ÿ˜€

            • Pat

              I would have loved to continue this conversation off this board but you failed to post a link to your website or add a way to contact you. I left mine if you would like to respond.

              I believe I have repeated my two cents enough but it doesn’t appear as though I have. Let me dumb it down one more time:

              My issues are with:
              Falsely advertising oneself as a pro when s/he is actually a soccer-mom with a Walmart kit.
              Falsely advertising gear as being pro grade when it is consumer grade
              Crappy business practices of said non-pros in my area
              “artists” (people posing as artists, using the term “artist” to infer that they, or their work, is better simply because they call it art)
              *Notice all these things that I have issues with deal with people, not equipment

              I do not have problems with:
              qualified photographers choosing the gear they choose to shoot with
              Artists (real, qualified artists, i.e. Dorthea Lange, Ansel Adams, and even Anne Geddes even though I loathe her work, etc).
              consumer grade gear
              P/S cameras (I own three)
              low power flash units
              old gear, new gear, broken gear, scratched gear, gear in general
              Holgas (though, I hate the quality to the core)
              free rounds on the house

              And, for the record, I never asked if you could shoot in a dimly lit church with a p7100. I gave a list of gear and asked which one you would choose. Actually, I requested a response that wasn’t “I COULD use anything that was given to me”. I wanted to know what you would to take to a wedding in a dimly lit church given those three options (a flash wasn’t included in the lower two options but is in the d3s+bag o’ toys).

              And, while I’m at it, I shoot 100 photos/hr while at weddings, including formals. Of those, about 80/hr make the cut. I usually have edited an entire wedding in about 8 hours. The albums are what kill my workflow, I haven’t found a good solution to those yet.

              Also, I recognize that I’m not the best photographer. That’s why I read and shoot when I have time off. I’m always improving some aspect of my business. I have yet to say that I’m better than anyone simply because of the gear I own.

            • Anyone can have fierce bravado when they don’t have the balls to 1) comment with their real name or 2) show their portfolio, especially when they’re bragging about how amazing their portfolio is. I could strut around here proclaiming to be the next Bresson, hiding behind my anonymity, but that’s what an insecure coward does. I don’t care about what cameras and lenses you may or may not use; you’re right — that’s your prerogative. But your attitude towards professionals that choose to use pro equipment is so silly it’s funny.

            • RH

              +1 to Pat & Ryan

              Proof is in the pudding. Hiding behind anonymity and bragging about being a real “artist” while others aren’t shows that you’re probably just another wannabe amateur thinking too highly of himself. Only insecure people need to boost their egos like that.

              And as a sidenote: You mentioned that after a wedding you spend “little to no time in editing room.”. If that’s the case, I don’t believe you can call your work top notch in this digital age. I’m not sure about you, but usually digital images look a lot more bland than, say, film-images straight out of the camera even after “a perfect exposure” (especially raw-files). I’m not saying D700/D3 images look shitty from the start, but in my own experience they become much more after some editing (big or small). Even if the files are “perfect” according to you, you’re missing an opportunity to differentiate your own personal style from the rest by creative manipulation of color (or black&white). That’s not to say post-processing = personal style, but a part of it.

            • Tommy B.

              “Yes i could shoot a wedding in a dim-lit chruch with that camera. Ever hear of flashes?”

              Ever hear of churches or officiants not allowing ANY flash during the ceremony? I’ve shot weddings in churches where no flash was allowed, I wasn’t allowed on the floor and had to be in the balcony which was about 150ft from the bride & groom. How are you going to deal with that?

            • All of this is so ridiculous! Show the photos with the G10 and be done with it. If they’re great, awesome. If you didn’t want to make other clients jealous/pissed off then you shouldn’t have mentioned this story, which obviously would lead to people asking to see the photos. Get on with it. I couldn’t care less what you used, but if your going to parade around the fact that you used some low-level gear and got some top-notch pictures then show them and save yourself all the time you’ve been putting into responding to everyone else.

          • lolly

            I don’t think this is the forum for discussing the quality of anybody’s photos. It will probably degenerate into “my photos are better than your photos”.

            Lighten up, guys

  • FM2Fan

    very interesting – any digital camera is based on three major components: image sensor, A/D, image processing – when you say “insane” – what do you mean specifically?

    a great move would be a real competition to our friends at RED, who lead the video market in performance as well as cost – let us hope Nikon can provide power to more customers at lower price. “2K” for example at 30,60,120 fps – that would be just great.

    Later on you could crop the video downto HD … ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • by insane I mean very high fps processing capabilities at full resolution

      • I have the feeling that Nikon will probably set a new record in terms of fps.

        • Paul Hartung

          ‘Monstruos’ should be Monstrous…

          • Mock Kenwell

            When did this forum turn into a Spell-Check Grammar Fest?

            • nikono

              It’s Paul Heartung. LOL! Spelled ur name wrong

        • Just A Thought

          Sony’s new cameras can do at least 12 FPS at 24MP, so it is natural that it used a new processor to handle that much bandwidth. Any new Nikon cameras which uses the new Sony sensors will naturally require new processors and include lots more buffer memory. Everyone one will get new processors.

          • the interesting part is that the new mirrorless camera is suppose to get this new processor

            • photonut

              Makes sense.

              Would a mirror camera such as D3/D700 be able to handle those fps…?

              I wonder if Nikon is willing to sacrifice noise perfomance by using a translucent mirror in the D4/D800 in return for higher fps.

            • Danyyyel

              It could also do very fast contrast Af for video.

            • randyravener


              Last I read somewhere, one of the main factors limiting the fps burst is not the buffer, but the mirror itself. Moving something so fast up and down(or in and out if you like) causes huge amounts of stress in the object itself, more so on its joints.

              It could be theoretically possible with mirror-lockup mode. Fast AF in Liveview(mirror lockup). So the mirror does not need to come down in order for a picture to be taken, then the limit of how many fps would be how fast the shutter and open and close.

            • AtlDave

              I agree with Danyyyel that a high frame rate would make for faster CDAF.

              I wonder if this also means we could get an electronic shutter. Even if it was limited to long shutter speeds a totally silent and vibration free shutter would be a big plus for me. If a camera can take full resolution video at 60 fps it should be able to use an electronic shutter up to 1/60 too.

            • PHB

              Probably not all that much of a surprise – no mirror to flap means faster shots. Possibly an electronic shutter so exceptionally high FPS possible. Quite likely only high rather than exceptional resolution (16MP say) so very high FPS quite feasible.

              Another thing that has changed recently is very very high speed flash memory chips.

            • JK

              It’s going to need it in order to get rid of all the noise from that tiny-@ss sensor.

        • AnoNemo

          Expeed? The way how it sounds is really great. Nikon should learn more about the “speed” part when it comes to releasing the new FX. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • KT

          Not so sure why people are so hung up on the shear FPS number. Unless you worked for Sports Illustrated, what difference does it make whether your new FX body was shooting RAW at 6 or 8 or 14 FPS for 56 frames. Unless I’m missing something, I would rather see that processor power translated into rendering low noise level at high ISO rather than high FPS

          • Indeed, I actually (typically) reduce the number of FPS on the high settingโ€”I’ll usually set the low number to 3fps, and the high at 5fps. Anything more (for non-sports/action shooters) seems overkill and too much.

            • Robert Falconer

              Anything more (for non-sports/action shooters) seems overkill and too much.

              Agreed. Just because your car can do 250KPH doesn’t mean you’ll ever use it.

          • MJr

            There’s a whole lot more benefits to a faster processor than just fps you know. But fps is just an easy number to remember, compare and brag about, so people pick that up, thats’all.

          • Art

            For my job, I mostly photograph landscapes, still-lifes and portraits. But in my “real” life, I build high-power rockets with my kids. (Kinda like those Estes rockets we all used to build growing up but these shoot 10,000 – 20,000 feet up.) Having a good number of FPS is pretty important on catching things coming off the launch pad accelerating up to or past mach 1. So while I don’t shoot sports; when I’m just capturing my every day life, there are moments when a high burst rate truly is needed.

            • “…in my โ€œrealโ€ life, I build high-power rockets with my kids.”

              Thus fitting you into the second category of ‘action’ shooter.

              Speaking of, I wanna come by and see you guys launch a few of those sometime, Art. ๐Ÿ˜‰

          • Paul Brousseau

            Not that it’s a typical application, but I’d like better ISO _and_ higher fps for concert footage. A shoot bursts, and if there are lights flashing and/or moving around, the more opportunity of getting something in that split second, the better.

            That said, if I had to choose one, I’d go with better ISO.

        • FM2 fan

          fps for video – I assume. fps for stills is difficult to top, since a mirror will not stand much more than 10 fps (accelaration …) – that is, why a77 is using SLT – 12 fps would be a mechanical difficulty having high chances to break –

          anyway: the advances in chips should lead to new designs for faster read out of the sensor AND processing within the camera as well as provisioning of output devices i.e. wireless transmission of HD

          • D3s does 11fps, although that is on crop mode. This may not allow the mirror to move out the frame in time for FX sensor area?

            • Joel

              No, the mirror will continue through its full range of movement as the camera relies upon the mirror returning to allow both you and the AF to see the scene between shots. The crop limitation would be due to the amount of data they’re trying to pull off the sensor at 11fps.

            • Roger

              Mirror moves out of the way just fine. Limitation was the as Joel says, amount of data needed to be read off the sensor. No such limitation in 2011. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • Jabs


              Since the camera can do 11fps at DX resolutions, then the mirror movement is probably not the hindrance, but perhaps the throughput of the current CPU-Expeed-combo is the limitation.

              DX = one file size in megapixels
              FX = a larger file size in megapixels

              Sort of like trying to push something larger through a small hole = the problem with FX fps in the current Expeed. The solution is usually higher BIT structure in the camera’s pipeline as in going from an 8bit or even 12 to 16bit pipeline to a 24 or 32bit structure, as when you increase the bit structure, you now gain bandwidth and thus you can easily move the larger files of FX in a SHORTER or equal time. More and faster memory plus CPU’s or specialized image processing chips can also speed things up significantly.

              Throughput = file size capacity that can be moved, processed or transfered internally (in the camera) per second or even in fractions of a second.

              Hence Expeed 3.

        • High FPS is one of the big things I am anticipating, the D7000 should have had 60fp, I’ll be crossing my fingers that the new DSLRs live up to the new hype…

      • 120-300 os

        Good work NR Admin Peter the great hopefully 1 frame p sec faster than the new A 77 sony and off course lot better quality Nikon rulls

        • Worminator

          Given the a77 is APS-C your hopes about image quality are nothing short of delusional.

  • Paul

    Yes!! The new DSLRs are coming!!

  • I Should Be Shooting

    Nikon owes you so much, admin. If it wasn’t for these tidbits of great things to come, I’d be shooting Canon now.

    • @Ishouldbeshooting: HAHA! Ain’t that the truth! As much as I am not a fan, I’d be shooting those backwards lenses too if it were not for [NR].

      Thanks for all you do Admin. You provide a wonderful service, and Nikon is fortunate to have you.

    • NR FTW


      I too would have switched.

    • Tommy B.

      Not I. While I have been let down as well, since I too am awaiting the next full-frame to upgrade to, I’ve been continuing to shoot with my D90 and will remain patient. I could run off kicking and screaming because I didn’t get my way, but I know Nikon will give us something awesome. We just have to wait for it a bit. The minute you all run off to Canon and whatever it is that you feel they have to offer you, Nikon will make their announcement and you’ll wish you hadn’t jumped ship and I’ll gladly take your spot in line.

      • Amen. All these folks that “would have switched” also “would have been sorry”.

        Forget about the question of what they would have switched to? 3+ year old technology, on the cusp of being replaced as well?

        Yeah, smart.

        • PHB

          I don’t know why people on this site are unable to get it into their brains that Nikon and Canon both have a four year product cycle with new major releases timed to come six months ahead of the Olympics.

          It is always going to be like that for top flight professional gear because the Olympics is going to be the time that the sports mags all make their biggest money and are going to be most willing to invest in new gear.

          So no you are NOT going to get a cheap version of the D4 being announced with or before the D4. If you want D4 performance then expect to pay D4 prices. The D400 can launch with the D4 because its not a direct competitor, but even that is not guaranteed.

          Expect pro camera gear to have a basic 4 year life expectancy. You may see a minor product refresh midcycle (D300s, D3s) but thats not a guarantee and you are going to see a lot more bang for your buck if you time purchases for the start of a generation upgrade.

          • Worminator

            Doesn’t that mean the D4 arrival is imminent? D3 was announced Aug 2007.

            • dgreene196

              D3 was announced in August 2007, but it wasn’t available anywhere until November 2007, and it wasn’t readily in stock until several months after that. I’m pretty confident that there will be D3s replacements in the wild before 2012, though that confidence only comes from historical trends.

  • Jonny Fay


    That sounds pretty exciting. Wasn’t the first implementation of Expeed 2 in the D3100 and D7000 only a year ago?

    Do your sources indicate that Expeed 3 is ready for production/distribution? Seems like a fast refresh, but I would happily take it if it expanded on Expeed 2 capabilities.

    • It should be ready if they will include it in the mirrorless camera in 3 weeks. It may not be called EXPEED 3 – this was just my speculation.

      • randyravener

        Possibly a ‘patched’ version of the Expeed 2?

        • PHB

          I doubt that they have completely abandoned their previous chip design, but a new version of the chip will almost certainly be on a new process and that will mean an automatic improvement in clock speed.

          The processor could simply be the last generation processor design made smaller, a so-called ‘die shrink’. Or they could make use of the additional space to add more processor cores / cache memory / features. They could even do both and have one version of the chip for smaller cameras and another for the pro series cameras.

          Traditionally the flagship cameras have had the same processor as the dx00 cameras but two of them.

          If the flagship cameras or the mirrorless supports thunderbolt then things could be really interesting. That would mean enough bandwidth to dump 4K or higher resolution raw video off camera.

      • soap

        What evidence exists that all EXPEED2 (3,) chips are the same? I have seen no tear-downs showing this. EXPEED appears to be as much a marketing label on a family of technologies as a singular chip.

        My point is that releasing an “EXPEED3 powered” mirrorless is no indication that the same chip will be in any other camera to follow, but merely the start of the EXPEED3 marketing campaign. The same is true of Nikon’s dual-EXPEED cameras.

        Now perhaps I am mistaken and there is a microscopic teardown of the EXPEED chips (as we have seen of the sensors) in the wild, but I have not seen it.

        • soap

          Sorry about the failure to close the em tag.

        • Jabs


          Nikon has designated its’ IMAGE processing, image acquisition and all the various algorithms they use, as EXPEED to simplify the terms for consumers.

          It actually consists of several parts and technologies and varies from camera to camera.

          Look here and also look at all the other related definitions:

          Look at EXPEED C2.

  • Come on Nikon, me and my long waited saving account are sooo ready for a new DSLR!

  • Great Job Peter and Nikon!

    May The Force Be With You!

  • Jabs


    Just what I was expecting – probably similar to what they did with the D3X but now including massive video bandwidth and lots of RAM and even more throughput.

    GO … Nikon !!!

    Thanks for the info.

  • broxibear

    “Until now the name EXPEED has been used to indicate the latest generation of Nikonโ€™s image processing engine. Updates to this engine were not defined or labelled leading to the thought that the processing engine had not been updated or changed since itโ€™s introduction. With the introduction of EXPEED 2 chips, a numbering convention will be used to differentiate between the different versions of the Imaging Processing engine used in a digital camera.
    Future processing engines will be numbered in accordance with technical advances; this indicates a difference in the core chip used and all peripheral devices used for image processing. The different generations of processor will indicate improvements in areas such as processing speed, image quality, colour reproduction and noise reduction, but we will not reveal the specific changes within each model. The image processing chip used in the cameras will continue to be optimised and tailored for the specifics of each model.
    COOLPIX EXPEED processing chips will be identified by the letter โ€˜Cโ€™ and then a number, for example EXPEED C2. The โ€˜Cโ€™ signifies COOLPIX and indicts that the processor has been optimised for COOLPIX cameras. DSLR processors will remain named as EXPEED followed by a number to indicate the generation.”

    • Jonny Ray

      That explains it. Thanks!

  • Why do we get all excited about the latest iteration of a camera’s processor? It is not like these parts can be compared across brands and it is yet another meaningless statistic for photo junkies to argue about in forums.

    • Up $#!t’s creek

      nothing, but if you have been following the main topic for the last 2 years its hopefully an indicator for something more than a mirrorless camera

    • You’re right, it is just another episode of the “Babbling marketing” series: a far eastern interpretation of the Lexicon Branding great marketing invention dated back in 1992: the name “Pentium”, the first CPU with a registered name (and not only an identifying number). Needless to say that “Pentium” (and its successors) are names of CPU families with open interfaces, comparable specifications and common internal architecture, used by thousands of system builders and software developers in many different OS, and not proprietary CPU for proprietary platforms, totally not comparable between them, used in only a few models by the same manufacturer.

    • “Another meaningless statistic” seems a bit simplistic. It sounds like (from both your post above and your blog) that you are exactly the kind of fellow you deride, namely one who wants “quantifiable, standardized and comparable specification” so you can feel armed on the topics you’d like “to argue about in forums”.

      The image processing engine is the real power behind the camera, and as significant (or more) than the sensor itself. From what I understand, the processing engine is more expensive than the sensor (I’m sure someone can either verify or refute this).

      Either way, the processor plays a significant part final image quality, as well as the speed with which the images (and now video) are processed.

      That it isn’t a metric that’s quantified, discussed, hyped, and oversold in literature by companies like Canon and Sony (the two biggest marketing hype companies in the industry) should tell you something about just how good the competition (AKA Nikon) is. ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Richard


        All kidding aside, if this is true, this is the long awaited upgrade in processing capability that I and a few others have commented about for a long time. It is the essential, if unglamorous, element in obtaining decent frame rates with higher MP sensors and in processing those image files so that they are better able to deal with noise issues, even with sensors that are much improved in that regard.

        As decent video requires a high frame rate, better image processing capability is simply the price of entry. Battery life? I won’t say who cares, but that is what spare batteries are for.

        Camera manufacturers have lagged far behind the computing industry in general when it comes to increases in processing capability. Let’s hope that this first step to catch up is followed by more and better processors in the future.

        • Jabs

          @Richard and Ron.

          Computer processors are quite different from IMAGE processors.
          Computer processors are more like NUMBER crunchers often, while IMAGE processors are more like GPU’s or high end VIDEO card processors like Nvidia and AMD/ATI Workstation cards that accelerate both OpenGL and 3D, for example.

          Data and video or image output are two different animals.

          ‘Image’ processors = Nvidia Telsa at the high end and Tegra at the lower end
          ‘Data’ Processors = Intel Xenon or new AMD Bulldozer based Opterons on the high end

          Nikon seems to be the best at digital camera IMAGE processors as evidenced by the custom embedded image processors used in their outrageously priced (and worth every penny, too) D3X. The D3X has so much image plus processing power within and such a wide bandwidth, that it was able to move 16bit files (though slowly at times) through its’ pipeline in real time and thus a remarkable achievement.

          Think of image processors as like a Nvidia Tegra that works with a CPU in your new Android based Tablet, as they do different functions and are thus optimized for different things or goals. It is like DSP’s (digital signal processors) versus CPU’s (central processing units) and thus like they are ‘one trick ponies’ and not like CPU’s which centralize the processing within. Image processors shape the OUTPUT and speedup things that go to or from a camera’s CPU plus sensor and now perhaps in the new Expeed 3 (or whatever they call it), Nikon might have been able to make something like the D3X’s IMAGE processor not only cheaper but perhaps faster and better with greater throughput and upped the bit structure to perhaps 24 or 32bit (even 64bit) to make 16bit video and photo files fly through there plus other related signals at the same time.

          Remember, as you increase the bit structure of your files or this output, the ‘pipe’ that they travel through has to be BIGGER or greater in bit structure for it to even go through there quickly or even successfully.

          The IMAGE processor is what probably made the D3X cost so much, as it is probably worth more than the whole cost of a Sony A900 DSLR body, even when they share a similar sensor.

          D3X’s – Image processor and CUSTOM IC’s (Integrated Circuits) = higher cost than the whole BODY of an A900.

  • Bart B

    Mine, mine, mine, … ๐Ÿ™‚

    Bring on the Mirrorless … I want it now!!!

    • Geoff

      Don’t worry, I won’t be buying one so you should be able to get it. ;- >

      • You can have mine too.

      • Bart B

        Thanks guys ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Highlight

    Shoot at filmspeed and choose your picture afterwards!

    • FM2 fan

      OK – great and you manage to write all this into a cachee or on flash cards? 100 MB/s is the current limit per card. If you want a cache of 16 GB plus 200 MB/s, then you need a big capacity in the camera AND high current from the battery pack for bursts and more than ONE card being used – this will be fun!

    • Sometimes the thrill is in missing the shot.

      Also, 24fps isn’t as fast as we typically think. There are plenty of chances to get 24 ‘almost good’ frames, but none that are ‘sweet’.

      • BornOptimist

        “Sometimes the thrill is in missing the shot.”
        Ron, very well said, and I concur with my whole heart.

      • +1 !

        After a point, FPS doesn’t matter… it’s not how fast your camera is, but what you do with it ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • Ha! I was thinking about you on my previous post re: FPS, Amanda.

          “If anyone could use more FPS, it would be Amanda getting those sweet action shots of her clients’ animals”, I mused.

          And then you had to speak up and debunk that assumption.

          It seems you don’t usually hear the bonafide pros asking for the bigger better specs. They’re just eager to spend their wallet full of hard-earned cash on the next toy from Nikon. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • JonMcG

      yeah, do I really want to sort through 2,000 pictures+ to find the ones I want? There is a post processing effect here with having so many large images to go through. Nikon doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel here. Just give us a notch better in handling & performance across the board on both the D700 & D3s and we’re happy campers..

  • venancio

    and here i was thinking that the next gen would have dual processors, and nikon comes up with just one but with more than double the capability… wow… but i’m still waiting for the D700S or D800… whenever it will be, it will be worth the wait…

  • gallon

    Thanks admin.

    For all the mirrorless bashing around here, it could turn out to be very very interesting. High speed processing is great. Next, I hope to hear about the curved plane sensor. Most people seem to have overlooked or forgotten this. Sharp focus, edge to edge, anybody. No chromatic aberration, anybody? The prospects are exciting.

    • .. and the fact that you can use existing F mount lenses (probably with an adapter)

    • FM2 fan

      what about chromatic and other corrections within the camera i.e. recorded image is already processed, which saves us a lot of time in postprocessing and makes it very valuable for anyone who intends to publish quickly i.e. over the air

      • gallon

        With a curve sensor, there is nothing to correct.

        • FM2 fan

          chromatic aberrations will be different for each lens – thus a curved sensor will need to be adaptable i.e. somewhat flexible. there are of course other sources of trouble.

          the real problem is a different one: if image quality is concerned: how to reduce noise in general? If I read the 12.5 stops dynamic range promise by Hassy and Leaf … is that what we can expect?

          the most probably innovation is having the AF on the sensor itself, which will simplify the overall cam a lot (with or without mirror).
          It would certainly help for continuos AF in video modes as well as having them all over the sensor surface – if I had a dream – this is it –
          AF on sensor, because this is ultimatively the right position to do it –
          nothing else shall be that precise

          • gallon

            Well, Nikon knows what the sensor curve is, and it is Nikon designing the new lens set specifically for this sensor. I think they can deal with it.

            Nobody knows for certain of course. But I think Nikon is capable of viewing it as an integrated system. Else why even bother with new lenses.

            • FM2Fan

              exactly – they sold 60 million lens – if only 10 million are still in use, then a curved sensor must cope for them, otherwise you need new cam and lens …

              good for Nikon, bad for all of us using their gear and enjoy doing so

          • Jabs

            Maybe putting both the AF module and the sensor module together might be the worst idea except maybe in cheap camera or smart-phones of limited capabilities.

            1. Registration – the camera would have to determine which UNIT to obey or override plus what and where to focus on constantly
            2. Speed or a lack of it – twice the things to now confuse the camera
            3. How do you have multiple focus points, if the AF module is buried in the sensor? Do you now use SMALL multiple sensors to get a given megapixel?
            4. What chooses the point to focus on and WHY?
            5. How do you focus in RGB (Red, Blue, Green) or sRGB when each color has a different wavelength and therefore reaches a point of focus at different times PER color?
            6. That might be workable on monochrome but hardly a thing to consider with COLOR and anything of high resolution with today’s technology perhaps.
            7. What would drive the micro-motors and systems for AF and VR in the lens?
            8. What would you use to VIEW the image before you PRESS the shutter?

        • Jabs


          What do you mean by a – CURVE sensor

          Are you talking about a sensor shaped in other than a ‘flat’ object?

  • PoBoy

    Now that’s what I’m talking about! Thank you Nikon….for something concrete that I can look forward to.

    • cpm5280

      you read something on nikonrumors and it’s “concrete”? ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Anonymous

        Good one! Point taken.
        There should be an announcement on the 8th. If no leaks means no cameras, does this count as a leak and evidence of a DSLR on the 8th?
        How are we looking DSLR-wise on the 8th?

  • Ole

    If the D800 doesn’t come out in September………………I will switch to Nokia camera in their mobile phones!!!!

    • Me too!

      • flownlead

        Haha I don’t even care anymore if they upgrade.

        Because I’m switching to one of those nokia camera phones.. They do great work in the right hands..

        I’ve learned a very important lesson recently. ๐Ÿ˜›

        So hit me up if anyone want my gear for free?

        • I’ll take it. That way when I sell it on the open market, I can finally afford that trip around the world I always wanted to take. And you better believe I’ll have my Nokia Camera Phone in hand the whole way!!!

          • flownlead

            If it makes you happy.. But make sure you get all of my contacts and proof of purchase receipts etc.. Or you may get GadgetTrak after you.. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            I’m very happy to have found this site a few weeks ago. Mostly great attitude folk in here.

            A round on the house for NR and it’s readers.

          • Jabs

            Make mine an old Polaroid 600 series camera – lol

            Nokia’s are too high tech, so go even more retro!

            ***SMILE***, you’re on Candid Camera – lol

            Pacing and waiting for this film to develop = awwww!

            Crazy plastic camera!

        • MJr

          Plus if anyone calls, you won’t even have to switch devices.

          • flownlead

            lol MJr An extra round for you.

          • Jabs

            Providing, you did NOT mix up the PUSH to TALK button on your phone with an LED flash button and almost blind yourself when instead the flash fires – lol

    • Art

      I’d hold out for the new IPhone 5. The IPhones already have a proven track record and are the #1 camera used on Flickr. The other advantage is that you can then put an “i” in front of the names for all of your photos making naming your artwork simpler. This includes names such as: iSunset, iGirl, iBicycle, iLibrary, iModel, and of course, iEye.

      • That’s techno-pirate talk:

        “iEye Matey!”

  • An endless steam of small sensor cameras and no D700 replacement in sight.

    • billy goat

      Hey Ron – I still think you can attach a dildo to the new mirrorless hotshoe and waggle that at the girls as you take their snaps!

      • Rude, juvenile and excessively sexual.

        • billy goat

          Why you just described your photostyle.

          • Guys like you are my best marketing tool.

          • MJr

            first i thought billy was a bit rude indeed, but looking at your gallery scubadiver i changed my mind.

            • Which shots did you like the most?

            • Andre

              I just love taking a thread off topic so I have to chime in and say that while Ron may take a lot of images of good looking ( mostly ) ladies he doesn’t do a bad job on the odd landscape.
              Strangely enough I never hear people complain about those images but we see constant digs at the ones of featuring the female form.

              That kind of strikes me that most of those complaints come from anonymous internet keyboard warriors that either haven’t got the balls to attempt such shots or that they simply don’t have balls at all —-

            • MJr

              Andre obviously i love girls too, i’m a guy, but the problem i have with these is that 99% is point and shoot in the most literal sense. Safely with a tele from a distance. That is not photography, and certainly is not art. There is no connection, no immersion of the environment, no composition, no nothing, just plain girls, girls, girls, as flat and senseless as can be. This makes them objects. There is no value in this, besides saving them lazy perverts the time of heading out the door themselves.

            • ericnl

              somehow the words ‘pervert’ and ‘stalker’ come to mind when looking at his galleries…

            • Patrick


            • no-nikon-no

              hahaha most of the girls have the “some weirdo stalker is taking photos of me” look.

      • Mock Kenwell

        Holy crap billy goat! LMFAO! +1

        • r

          It’s hilarious to see a bunch trolls pretend to be taking the moral high road.

          • Mock Kenwell

            Yeah, Ron, like you didn’t google “hot shoe dildo accessory” immediately after reading that great idea.

    • Moth Flopwell

      Let me set this str8….I would not even buy a D700, D3s, D3x….They are 100% out of date. Behind the times. Old Mothballs of Nikon. Times are changing people…These cameras are what? 30 years old in Tech time. Even Nikon’s high end camera cannot do video…Even their D3s cannot do 1080 p.

      Let it go Girls!!!! Time to move on…

  • tmay

    I don’t recall where I read this, and it would have been quite a while ago, but there was some indication that Nikon was interested in incorporating Intel’s Thunderbolt technology into future cameras.

    Well, what a coincident; that was right here on Nikon Rumors;

    • Wouldn’t make much of a difference really, since the maximum transfer speed is still dictated by the transfer rate of the card itself. It’d be too expensive to implement TB tech into the cameras, a cheaper and still very sufficient solution is USB 3.0.

  • frager

    i just wonder if the next updates should be better from top to down, because if they make a D800, noone would buy a D3s because I expect a big step forward of specs( just see Sony new A77/Nex 7 and the price). or if we see a good mirrorless than noone would buy D300s. or we will see -as Sony- mirrorless and DSLR at same time.

    • I wonder how long Sony can ‘sell cameras at a loss and make it up in volume’. Nikon won’t drop prices, and they’re less likely to raise them, either. They will continue to improve quality and polish the feature set.

      Additionally, there are PLENTY of folks that will buy a D3s on discount. Nikon typically does drop the price considerably once they know a camera has less draw in the market.

      But you’re crazy if you think the mirrorless (with the current rumored specs) will replace D300s. You’re not alone, but you’re still crazy.

      • frager

        just see nex 5n and compare to canon 5dmark2

        i think mirrorless could be a killer of some dslr. for me is important: high iso and no sound, cause of wildlife photos

      • AnoNemo

        I am not convinced that sony makes losses on the camera business. Maybe they have lower marging on the dslrs but you never know. One thing is sure that the cost of the translucent mirror dslrs are significantly lower than the regular. I think sony has lower margins on the dslrs but much a hefty one on the mirrorless. Coolpix and the Cybershot should be the same. Maybe sony has a bit of an advantage here as well.

        We should dig out the sony financials to see whether they made losses.

        • Production is only part of the cost, as R&D is a huge upfront cost for any company. My guess is they are running razor thin margins, or are taking a loss.

          Their bottom line would definitely be an interesting thing to find out.

  • Dandydon

    I haven’t read the comments above (some of us have real jobs) but it sort of stands to reason that if you go from 12mp to 18mp or 24mp, either one of two things is going to happen. It’s either going to run really slow, or it is going to have a faster, updated processor. Not likely that they can”find” the processing power in firmware effeciencies to account for that many more pixels to process.

  • coco

    maybe is just a scam that nikon came out with to charge their cameras more than other bands – sony for sure

    • I agree. I personally know one band that got charged an arm and a leg just to have a rental D3s there at one of their concerts.

      Nikon and Sony are totally ripping off the bands.

      • TheInconvenientRuth

        I agree. It’s a disgrace and about time this dispicable practice is exposed. If only News of the World had hacked my voicemail this would have been public months ago.

        Earlier this year I was woken by a phonecall at 4am. It was a firmer X-Factor contestant, in tears. Turns out her publicist insists she has all her shots done on a Canon. But she knows Canons make her look like a horse. She wanted to be pretty, to be shot with a Nikon. But the band couldn’t afford it, it would cost 35.8% more.

        This has to stop before more people cry. We have too many celebrities that look like horses these days, all because Nikon and Sony are ripping off the bands…

      • Mock Kenwell

        This thread is just cracking me up today! Thanks Ron & TIR!

  • mshi

    EXPEED engine is used for JPEG processing. What I want to see is that Nikon can come up with RAW video. Those that do shoot JPEG will benefit from newer processing engine. But, how many JPEG shooters are out there?

    • Charlie Martin

      I shoot in JPEG. I haven’t really noticed any differences in post processing regarding NEF and JPEG. I prefer to get it right before I take the photo and spend 5-10 minutes post processing rather than take the photo and spend an inordinate amount of time post processing the image.

      • Well you significantly reduce the level of upscaling interpolation you can perform on the image when shooting JPEG.

        Additionally, it limits your DR, white balance, and exposure. If you have the time to nail all that in camera (and will absolutely never want to print larger than the native resolution) then JPEG is fine. Otherwise, it’s kind of low-grade.

        If you care about your images from a professional standpoint, lossless compression should be avoided at all costs.

        • Oops…meant to say “lossy” compression should be avoided at all costs.

        • FM2 fan

          agree – the exposure contol in a RAW format helps – as long as JPEG is 8 bits encoding – if JPEG would have 12 or 16 bit this could change …

          • Actually, the Kodak DCS760 created a pretty neat (and patented) JPEG mode called ERIโ€”Extended Range Imaging. The idea was to provide the benefits of RAW with the file size closer to a JPEG. It actually seemed decent (from what little I played around with it). I still don’t think it would solve the problem of upscaling, but the other issues were largely addressed through this innovation. Not to mention a file size of around 10-30% above standard JPEG filesizeโ€”it’s not a bad deal.

            I wonder why we haven’t seen any of this since the Kodaks. Or maybe we have: is this what Nikon does for lossy-compressed RAWs?


            • Richard


              That is a very interesting question. One has to wonder just what the source of Nikon’s NEF technology is. Could there be a license from Kodak tucked away somewhere deep inside?

              Support for another JPEG format would be required prior to adoption or else there would need to be a converter of some sort to get it into a LR/PS compatible format.

              Unfortunately, the history of technology is littered with examples of “better ideas” that simply never made it.

            • Richard


              Thanks for the link to the Galbraith article. The extent of the recovery of the blown out highlights in the sample images was quite remarkable.

              I made a quick search for information about the Kodak patent. I stopped at an article in Forbes on Aug 17th of this year which indicated that Kodak has placed its patents up for sale. Speculation is that a wireless company is interested as you may recall there is a patent battle going on and it seems everyone is loading up with patent purchases. It might behoove Nikon and the rest to get a license or simply purchase the ERI-JPEG patent(s).

              I suspect that such an obscure little patent might get lost in the shuffle and be available at a bargain price, much of which could be recouped licensing the tech to other camera companies. I would guess that ERI-JPEG could do wonders for IQ on cell phone cameras.


            • Why look into ERI-JPEG when there is already a much improved JPEG standard, JPEG XR?

            • Richard


              JPEG XR is a Microsoft product which supposedly will be made available on a Royalty free basis. It has only comparatively recently been approved by the JPEG working group.

              Even though MS is pushing it, in no small part because it is implemented in Windowsยฎ and not other operating systems, there is as yet no support for it in hardware. MS is reported to be working on ASICs for it which will be necessary before anything will come to pass in terms of its potential adoption for in camera capture. Fairly or not, some people are skeptical of MS’s motives.

              From what little I know about JPEG HR, it does have the potential to provide improvements in IQ for many consumer grade cameras not saving images in any of the various RAW formats. Current JPEG ASICs are much less expensive than the proprietary processors used for RAW processing in the cameras. If MS is able to bring JPEG HR ASICs to market at prices comparable to current JPEG ones, they will indeed improve the quality of photography for many people.

              I have no data upon which to compare JPEG HR with ERI-JPEG, but take a look at the images in the link Ron provided. The recovery of data in the (intentionally) very overexposed image is quite remarkable. The article concludes that ordinary processing of RAW data fell far short of the recovery accomplished by the ERI-JPEG image processing. As I understand it, MS claims that JPEG HR will approach the dynamic range of RAW data and be subject to post process manipulation in ways similar to current RAW post processing, which would certainly be an improvement over the current JPEG/JPEG 2000 situation.

              The conclusion to which I am drawn is that ERI-JPEG is capable of producing results superior to that of RAW or JPEG HR image files when recovering data from over/under exposed images.


            • I agree that because MS developed JPEG Xr that many are biased against it. However, its ability to offer higher bit depths for jpegs and higher compression with fewer losses/artifacts makes it very attractive. Be it JPEG 2000 or JPEG XR or the ERI-JPEG, it would be a definite improvement. JPEG XR was adopted as an official standard last year, so I keep hoping its support will now start to grow. Any of these improved standards need wider support and ASICs to make them really viable. I just would like to see something better than the existing JPEG to become a widely supported so that it can replace the existing JPEG.

          • Jabs

            Use .png = problem solved

  • now….if this is 12 MP, and 4K video… no more bashing

  • photonut

    Just to play with the “insane” statement:

    I’d like to see two different insane mirrorless cams.

    One with insane noise performance: 12 MP and at least D700 noise level (come on Nikon you can do it) for street and indoor work

    One with insane resolution: > 24 MP for landscape work

    ==> I’d buy both in a heartbeat!!!

    • Sylvesterii

      I’d rather have 1 mirrorless cam that had 2 separate interchangeable sensors. One that is 8-10MP for crazy low-light performance, and one 18MP for those people who want higher MP counts.

      Plus, if it was then theoretically the noise level of the D7000 would be easily reacheable by nikon because it would have approximately the same pixel pitch. That would be enough for me.

    • joe

      Why the heck would you want a 2.6x crop sensor for landscape work?!

  • Ernest koe

    New image processor will probably mean better heat management in video. This is a good thing.

  • SDiggity

    It looks like Nikon has finally stepped up to the plate and is looking to put one out of the park! Give us 240fps for video! So psyched Nikon…and thanks for the post NR Admin.

  • feleris
    • Spetacular video!

      This is the type of photographer who puts the life on photography!

      Thanks for sharing… cheers!

    • PoBoy

      Great video, thanks!

  • Ola

    Expeed is nothing but a marketing brand! In reality, the EXPEED is a Fujitsu FR-V processor.
    So, admin, what did you say Fujitsu had been doing? Or is it someone else, that would be interesting news.

    Also, up until the latest column AD Sony chips, the image processor has NOT been the FPS limiting factor. Sensor AD has been the problem (i.e. getting the image off the sensor).

    • I have no idea if the chip is made by Fujitsu

      • broxibear

        I’m pretty sure Texas Instruments make the chips in Nikons and Canons not Fujitsu.

        • BornOptimist

          AFAIK, they have also used Renesas chips previously

          • DFive

            Its going to have Quad i7 Intel chips……

    • tub33

      Fujitsu FR-V is a CPU. Expeed is an image processing chip which includes a CPU but has dedicated logic for things like encoding JPEG and video formats as well as customized IO for the sensor interface and other peripheral buses. I used to work in a design team that made these kinds of chips for the compact market. Our ARM CPU core was only about 20% of the die area of the full chip. The other 80% was dedicated logic for JPEG encoding, H.264 video, USB 2, DDR interface for buffering, SD interface and logic, and a bunch of other internal SRAMs for temp space.

      • tub33

        Oh yeah, the ARM CPU ran the software that displayed the menus on the back and handled all the user input (buttons) It’s just not fast enough to use an embedded CPU for real time image processing. Even a new Intel Core i7 can’t run a modern video game fast enough. You need a dedicated graphics card from Nvidia/ATI with customized logic to accelerate those operations.

      • Ola

        You are missing my point completely.

        Point 1:
        NOTHING can be predicted or learned by the marketing blab Nikon is putting out about it’s Expeed chip.

        Point 2: If you want to learn something about future Nikon Expeed chips, you should probably look at what Fujitsu offers.

        You are right about Fujitsu not being alone in offering competitive ASICS, with all the hardware codecs and bus interfaces you talk about. But point 2 above comes from the fact, that it is highly unlikely that Nikon would change to another architecture, since their their FR-V software base is quite large.

        To broxibear: Nikon is NOT using Texas. But Canon DIGIC is probably a Texas Da Vinci.

  • Worminator

    “Nikon has a new image processing engine (maybe called EXPEED 3?) that will be able to deliver some insane frame rates and video capabilities. This new processor (or a light version of it) will be included in the new Nikon mirrorless camera.”

    Image processing chips frequently and regularly updated. That the mirrorless camera does not use the same chip as last year’s D3100 is hardly newsworthy.

    It “might” be called Expeed 3? Yes, it might. After all the number three does usually follow the number two. It might be called “Francetta Pelorini” but that sadly wouldn’t change it’s functionality any so speculating on this point is less than worthwhile. And what exactly are “insane” video capabilities? Come to think of it, what are “sane” video capabilities?

    Come on admin, you can do better than posting this meaningless drivel.

  • henry

    This is certainly a welcome news after a bit of a let down. But this is very good. Sony stepped up with a respectable numbers, it looks like Nikon is beginning to show its hand.

    I am hoping the new D4 will maintain comparable speed as D3s but with double the resolution, 9fps at 24 M raw. That would set the bar for the DSLR’s further in the line including the D800. That would mean 5fps at 24M raw for D800 and 3fps 48M for D4x.

    Maybe Nikon will up the ante and go extra 2 or 3 fps for 12 fps at 24M for D4 and 8 fps for D800. That would certainly be a good news. Whatever happens, as long as Nikon delivers the goods, I can wait.

  • Pierre

    Sorry….but this post has no value….!

  • NG42

    The mirrorless, which I had little interest in, suddenly got way more interesting.

    • Yeah, imagine a Beowulf cluster of Nikon mirrorless cameras ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • GeofFx

    So would a super fast processor make it more likely that we could see 16bit files in the future? I’d rather see the processor power be used to improve image quality than FPS.

    • Agreed.
      Looking forward to 16 bit files too. It could be here sooner rather than later.

    • TaoTeJared

      +1 on that! 16bit files will be the next major improvement for imaging. Everything else is just condiments on the side.

  • Henry

    To make nice weding pictures or any pictures, the equipment is not the essencial and specific issue…, your skills and your talent is the most important “thing” in game; and nikon is making good equipment to help…., them we just need to have patience to wait the next dsrl…!!!!

    • D3S Guy

      To me, it seems like that we will be asking for a new camera every after 4 yrs….no matter what the existing cameras can do!

    • Canon User

      Admit it Henry, skills and equipments are equally essential.

  • This is great news! Now can I have my Digital FE3???

  • Jesse G

    it’s probably for some new coolpix

  • sflxn

    Unfortunately, while waiting for the new FX announcements, I went ahead and spent the money in my equipment savings plan on an Epson 4900 so all I can do is to jealously watch all the latest camera announcements. ๐Ÿ™

  • Harry Angel

    Maybe they can use the speed to read full resolution images from the sensor and downsample them in real time to get great video?

    It would be nice to get rid of the line skipping and all the accompanying artifacts that todays cameras have.

  • last_SHIFT

    Thom has already stated that there wil be dual processors. Hmmm…..Expeed2x2=D4…that would even impress Don Draper ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Also, he went offline till sep 5 – doesn’t he do that every major announcement season ??? Bless him and his D3x – great guy!

  • Stupid events tired

    No need of Jpeg

    No need of video

    No need of mirrorless (but, if d800 is mirrorless with 100% 10Mpx viewfinder…), no need of 125g box behind a 1800 g lens…

    No need of 49 fps, nor even 9

    Need >20 Mpx, need >2x contrast range as the “best” (the less bad) actual

    If I find it in a phone, I buy a phone !!! (in 2045?)

  • Rahul

    Any idea about the dimensions of the mirrorless body? Would it be thicker than 30mm? Also do you have a any clue about the focal length of the pancake? I guess 16mm or 18mm on a 2.6x crop will be good.

  • Rod

    Enough with the mirrorless camera!! WE DO NOT CARE. thank. you.

    • John

      YOU may not care, but please do not speak for the rest of us. I certainly care.

  • broxibear

    Nikon counterfeit rechargeable batteries guide published today…

  • Jon Snow

    Nikon doing what RED couldn’t with Scarlet? This is going to be real interesting.

  • Kingyo

    Admin stop using words like “insane frame rates and video capabilities”.. I immediately start thinking of a mega-awesome D4 or D800 being around the corner and I don’t want to get too excited ๐Ÿ˜€

  • (littel off) Need advice:

    Nikon D3s or Stay with my D7000 + 17-55 + 70-200 VR I

    Thanks and cheers!

    • Up $#!t’s creek

      go for D3s, i will gladly take equip off your hands

    • Just A Thought

      “Nikon D3s or Stay with my D7000 + 17-55 + 70-200 VR I”

      You did not mention what you would use either camera for, or potential future use (could be different from present). Going by your lens list and rather limited info, IMHO it seems that you are not into shooting landscapes nor shooting with a wide lens. The benefit of a D3S over a D7K is that wide lenses would be wider. Longer lenses would be less long – the downside to the equation. Right now you can reach approx 300mm with your D7K. On a D3S you would be limited to approx 200mm. In some situation that 100mm can be a big deal..

      Low light performance of a D7K is supposed to be quite good. You would have to ask someone who shoots with both, but I posit that the D3S would have better low light performance (not a dramatic difference, but better).

      FPS shooting speed is one area where the D3S beats the D7K hand down. If you shoot a lot of sports, motor and human type, you would be better off with the D3S.

      If you have large hands the grip on the D3S will be a nicer fit. Adding a battery grip to a D7K does not have the same nice ergonomics of the built in grip on the D3S – Ok that is subjective but you asked for an opinion.

      In conclusion from the limit data you presented, you’re probably better served with your D7K. Keep shooting, 2012 is not far off. The D3S replacement may offer many more reasons for moving away from your D7K.

      One last point is to consider keeping the D7K as a backup body. You’re not going to get a great deal of money for it and IMHO it would make more sense to keep it. For a laugh, check your local brick and mortar camera dealer to see what they would give you for it. Their offer will not be funny and will kinda confirm my suggestion to hang on to the D7K even if you get another body.

      Hope this helps….

      • Just A Thought, thank you so much, i will stay with my combo until 2012.
        My main shoot is social events and advertising campaigns.
        I have also the 12-24, 60mm micro and a 50mm 1.2 AI-S, iยดm just thinking about fullframe real advantages. The autofocus system of Nikon pro bodys is better than the D7K. If there is a DX with the sensor of the D7K and the XDCAM3500 autofocus system, maybe i will stay DX.

        Thanks again. Cheers!

    • Jabs

      @Bernardo Vaghi

      Your answer depends on what you are looking for and what you shoot.

      D7000 = quite good a camera but no where in the league of a D3s in anything PERIOD.

      D3s is in its’ twilight and about to be replaced and with the lenses you mentioned, then that would be the deciding factor.

      D3s is so much faster and better than a D7000, as one is FF and the other is DX = no contest, even when the D7000 is so good.

      I would buy even an older D3 over a new D7000 and with the D3s, no contest EVEN if a D4 came out tomorrow.

      Though the D3s is 720p, it is easy to scale 720p to 1080p and the D3s has much better clarity, low light and high ISO capability than any other 35mm DSLR to me, personally. I shot film, so DX is useless to me, as I have to do mental gymnastics to deal with the crop factor and I find that there is NO substitute for real focal length, meaning the increased focal length multiplication of the DX format does NOT look better than you using a REAL higher focal length lens, which costs more.

      DX is like using a tele-converter to get a higher focal length versus using the real focal length and thus you decide that according to how picky a photographer you are or how much money you have.

  • D700guy

    Oh for crying out loud, can we just get an announcement regarding the FX DSLR’s??
    This is getting to be re-god-damn-diculous

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      Announcement regarding FX DSLRs;

      They are coming!

      Better now?

      Ruthy x

    • Nathan

      I guess your name won’t be D700guy once the new cameras come out then, eh?

      • Jabs

        Would be = wus-aD700guy

  • Tim

    And where do you get this information on this “a new monstrous image processing engine”? Was it hard to make up to keep your site being visited?!! LOL!! Pathetic!

    And this “a new monstrous image processing engine” would be ready for a P&S camera!!

    Find something more convincing the next time you want to attract visitors on your site!!!

    • rwg

      I bet the site has plenty of hits…

    • Up $#!t’s creek

      apparently it was convincing enough….

    • Canon User

      lol! be happy NR Admin, you got bunch of jealous A-holes here ๐Ÿ™‚

  • AnoNemo

    NR Admin, I guess 200 posts is a lot.

    • I think we went through this few times already. I will post something new when I am ready for it, not when you ask me to. This is why your comments were deleted.

      • AnoNemo

        That’s not what I meant. I meant that the new Expeed made people curious. It would be interesting if we would know a bit more about the improvements between Expeed I and II (which is in the D7000) because these 200 posts are guessing and not much tech info added by the posts.

        • Oh I see, sorry. I do not have any more info on the processor. I was just told that it will have some amazing performance.

  • Back to top