Nikon and Tamron filed a joint patent application for a 200-500mm f/4.5-5.6 lens plus Nikon’s patent for honeycomb sensor with subpixels in between

Nikon Tamron 200-500mm f4.5-5.6 lens patent
Nikon and Tamron filed a joint patent application in Japan for a 200-500mm f/4.5-5.6 lens. Nikon has already filed for 200-500mm f/3.5-5.6 and 200-500mm f/4-5.6 patents in the past. Tamron recently released a new SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD lens, while Nikon has their 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II model.

Nikon also recently filed a patent for a honeycomb sensor with sub-pixels in between - this design should improve the dynamic range:

Nikon honeycomb sensor patent
Nikon honeycomb sensor patent with subpixels in between
Nikon honeycomb sensor patent with subpixels in between 2

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses, Nikon Patents and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • doge

    But what about all the people complaining that Nikon is killing 3rd party support? What are they supposed to do now?

    • rich

      tamron and tokina are believed to paid some licensing fee. Sigma is straight up reverse engineered. All my tamron and tokina never have problem with new camera, sigma that is another story.

      • chary zp

        My old Tamron 70-200 non-VC actually has problems with D7100 and LV AF. Well it simply doesn’t AF in LV.

        • katheryn92385

          This is how you can make a very decent money every month from your home… You can Try it for yourself! After been without work for 6 months,I started freelancing over this site and now i couldn’t be happier. After 6 months on my new job my monthly money is around 12k a month …>> -> click here to start it now!!! <-

      • m35g35

        Agreed. I had the Sigma 24-70 and did not work on my Df.

      • Nikon User

        Sure, but Nikon still killed Tamron A005 to the N1 system which is well shameful of Nikon!

        • Shutterbug

          My Tamron 70-300mm VC USD works great with Nikon 1 using the FT-1.

          • Andrew

            The FT1 mount adapter allows NIKKOR F mount lenses to be used with Nikon 1 cameras equipped with a Nikon 1 mount. The angle of view of an F mount lens mounted on the FT1 is equivalent to that of a 35mm format lens with a focal length about 2.7 x longer:

            http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/lenses/mount_adapter_ft1/

          • Nikon User

            Tamron A005 doesn’t work for FT-1 anymore as Nikon killed it via firmware update. Newly purchase FT-1 also with updated firmware.

        • Andrew

          Shameful, are you kidding? Please do not redefine this word in the dictionary least a foreign speaker gets confused 😉 When you buy a non-Nikon branded lens you are taking a risk. In fact, Nikon is known for putting hidden features into their lens for future camera products. So your savings today may cost you tomorrow.

          It is the same thing when people buy gray market cameras. When everything is working fine, they are happy, but the minute they experience problems, they blame Nikon because Nikon would not service their camera. That extra money you spend is called insurance policy. There is no problem taking a risk, but just don’t shift the blame when a problem arises.

          • Peter

            It’s not all about saving. Apparently the Tamron 24–70 f2.8 is optically better than the Nikon one. There are also the very nice Sigma Art series lenses.

            Camera companies would just like to lock us into buying only their products, but ultimately, nobody benefits from that. Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/Zeiss/Samyang and all the others build their lenses anyway, most customers buy them anyway, and ultimately, when problems arise, it’s the customers who suffer while the camera companies have gained very little, if anything. The world for photographers would certainly be a lot better and easier if the industry could finally agree on common standards. The Micro Four Thirds standard showed that something like that is feasible.

          • Jorge

            That’s total crapola. Stop pandering to Nikon and open your eyes.
            Since the beginning of time, waaaay back when I started taking photos I did not have to use a manufacturers lens – at the time I shot Minolta, and used Minolta, some Telestar wide, and Vivitar lenses. And they worked. No questions asked. Nikon is wrong to cut off other suppliers. Sigma reverse engineering? Good for them! I wouldn’t buy a Sigma as I prefer other brands, but GOOD FOR THEM!
            Nikon should not punish it’s user base if they (we) decide to use another brand of lens.

            • Andrew

              Jorge, no one is pandering to Nikon. Where is Minolta, where is Konica? Oh, don’t tell me, they have been subsumed by Sony. Where is Vivitar,
              where is Leica? Oh don’t tell me, they have been taken over by investors! Where is Kodak, where is Polaroid? Don’t tell me, they have long gone the way of the dinosaurs.

              I am a thinker, someone that looks for truth in an ocean of obfuscated views, analyzing contrasting views and ideas with a desire to grow in knowledge and wisdom. So get your “eyes” off me and question your assumptions 😉

              Nikon is a business. As a business, Nikon has to protect their intellectual property. Reverse engineering Nikon’s products in order to compete against is not something I would applaud. If you invested in Nikon, your views about Nikon’s competitors would change. Your argument is about your self-interest. You purchase competing products and then think that Nikon is “punishing” you. If you had your way, Nikon would be out of business and then your actions will punish every photographer out there who loves Nikon engineered products. Yes, you will buy only the camera body from Nikon and everything else from a low cost competitor. So you want Nikon to subsidize the business of their competitors?

  • catinhat

    Subpixels in-between, — this sounds like something Fuji had invented 10 years ago…

    • Peter

      Except for some reason they stopped making them around the time they introduced the X-Trans CFA. I still remember the craze about the S5 Pro, which was a D200 body with a Fujifilm interior and EXR sensor. Ironic that Nikon would now patent something like that many years later.

      • phocus.org

        There must be some new inventive aspects, otherwise filing a patent application is not possible (the “novelty” criteria in patenting law).
        Technical solutions that are already known/available to the public cannot be patented any more (in a few countries, like the US or Japan, there is a grace period of a few months within which disclosure before the filing date doesn’t have the effect of barring the invention from being patented but, the S5 Pro is much older…).

        • SimenO1

          It seems the newness is that the small pixels are groups of four in stead of a single one. I can see some advantages and disadvantages of doing that compared to the old Fuji sensor.

      • Someone

        How is it ironic?

        Oh yeah, it isn’t. Don’t use words you don’t understand.

        • megadon357

          Actually, it is now accepted to use irony as a synonym for incongruous. Blame Alanis Morissette.

          Technically you are correct, irony must state the contrary of what is meant and requires a double audience.

        • peter w

          pffff…
          There is a purist hanging out on an international forum. Who is it? Oh yeah, it is Someone …
          😉

        • Peter

          Your condescending tone is neither appreciated nor in any way constructive to the discussion at hand. Still, from your attack on my use of language I surmise it that you at least have nothing to criticize about my statements in terms of actual content. I guess that at least amounts to something.

          For the record, the word “ironic” has multiple meanings. You only seem to be aware of the most literal one.

          I am indeed no native speaker, and I would like to apologize for the inevitable incorrect and misleading elocution on my part. Nevertheless I was able to confirm using multiple well-respected dictionaries that your rather normative notion of how the word “ironic” should be used can by no means be substantiated.

          To quote just one, here is the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: “[…] 2 (of a situation) strange or amusing because it is very different from what you expect: It’s ironic that she became a teacher—she used to hate school.”

          • Jorge

            Waaaaa??? What did he say???? LOL
            Lighten up. Or go over to the Leica Forum

            • true

              go over to leica forum? that’s a bit rude

      • Andrew

        So Nikon Designs Sensors After All 😉

        Now this is interesting. Every time Nikon says that they have developed a new sensor like in the D750, the general reaction is skepticism. People just think that Nikon goes to Sony and takes whatever Sony hands to them. They do not realize that Nikon can request design changes to Sony’s sensors.

        The 36 MP sensors in the D810 may be an example of a Nikon designed sensor. So this sensor patent which represents another Nikon invention looks as if Nikon is consolidating its leadership in both dynamic range and ISO range. No wonder the Nikon modified Sony sensors in Nikon’s DSLR cameras perform significantly better than in a similar sized sensor in Sony’s own cameras.

        • Thom Hogan

          Actually, it’s called coopetition. This has been the case of the Sony/Nikon relationship from pretty much the beginning. Nikon sold fab equipment to Sony’s IC group to make sensors, had inside access to the Sony sensor group, and a lot of back and forth began.

          The original D1 sensor was one Sony did not want to make, but Nikon essentially designed it from existing Sony parts and forced the issue by committing to quantity. A lot of folk don’t realize that the D1 sensor was actually a 10mp sensor using photosites designed for compact cameras, but binned. The D1x used a different binning technique.

          The original APS 6mp sensor (D100) seems to have mostly Sony designed, though Nikon eventually added an electronic shutter to it (D70, et.al.). The D2x sensor was a Nikon design, but cross licensed to Sony (for the R1). It was about that point that it became clear that the companies were sharing sensor technology breakthroughs. Today’s Sony sensors certainly have elements that originated with Nikon IP.

          But your contention that the D810 sensor is a Nikon designed sensor is probably wrong. It’s likely a straight Sony sensor with two possible differences: Nikon using different values in ISO elevation, and different filtering on top.

          Often the Nikon versions of Sony sensors have a different part number. But that does not appear to be the case in the D8xx bodies, nor the D6xx. What a lot of people don’t understand is that most sensors are “programmable” in some sense. They have different modes and adjustments that the off-board electronics can enable, so it’s pretty easy to tune a sensor’s results to look different than a competitor’s tuning. Couple that with differences in what I call “toppings” (near IR block, AA, microlenses, and Bayer filtration), and you can easily make a sensor look “different.”

          But frankly, most of the “difference” most people point to tends to be demosaic. There’s far more variability in demosaic than in the actual sensor data. That’s especially true if you change any of the toppings or electrical adjustments. Simply put, Nikon’s use of Sony sensors looks better than Sony’s because Nikon is doing a better job of tuning. That’s been true pretty much from the beginning, even dating back to the pre-DSLR days and the early Coolpix.

          • Eric Calabros

            That brings another question: if Nikon is the best in tuning, why still depended on Sony? They can use that tuning science with Toshiba or anybody else sensors too. D3300 raw looks even better than A6000 IMHO. Now we are facing with, as you wrote, unpredictable bodies, but as I add, with predictable sensors! thats not good for a camera maker that badly needs differentiation. Nikon is now differentiating with itself, not with others.

            • MB

              Nope … Sony has the best sensors and no tuning can beat that …

            • Eric Calabros

              Sorry for destroying your perception, but these days even Canon beats Sony sensors at high ISOs. Check 7Dmark2 vs. a DX sized Sony DR chart at DxO.

            • MB

              My perception is pretty wide and not so narrow minded as yours so it is not so easily destroyed …
              On the other hand Canon does make pretty decent sensors, but Nikon does not have enough power to do it by themselves and I doubt they will go for Canon sensors …

              If you believe in DXO then 10 years old Sony DX sensor in D300 beats Canon 7D mark II in DR and Sony A6000 just blows them away hands down … I personally do not care much on what DXO has to say … and I know that you are talking about DR chart at high ISO … but all around Sony does make best sensors on the market …

            • Eric Calabros

              Making best sensors is something, making sensors that tuning cant beat them, is something else. I know why you suddenly changed direction to the first one

            • Thom Hogan

              A sensor is not an image. A lot of things happen in even taking the raw data generated by the sensor and creating an image. For example, what happens when you use 32-bit floating point math instead of integer math, as some demosaics do? ;~)

            • Thom Hogan

              Probably price, availability, reliability of yield. That’s especially true for very large sensors, such as FX.

            • true

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu

              I guess it doesn’t make much difference whether they use toshiba or sony

          • Andrew

            Thom, thank you. Great information, it provides tremendous insight 😉

      • Zograf

        S5 Pro was not with an EXR sensor but Honeycomb type sensor with S&R pixels second generation. Check at DPreview for details.. The S&R pixels were unique for the DX format of this sensor. They’ve stopped producing it some time before they introduced the EXR…

    • ray

      Should be awesome when they make this.
      DR of the classic S camera’s + Nikon’s modern high iso capabilities.

    • Considering that Fuji was able to pull off 13.5 stops of DR in 2004 with the S3 and S5 Pro DSLRs, this can only be GREAT NEWS for Nikon today in 2014. I can only imagine what such sensor technology will do for the next generation of Nikon sensor!

    • CERO

      perhaps the technology back then was very costly and not easy to build.
      Things that were patented are not always reliable or worth cost/effort wise.
      Some tech that was patented more than 50 years ago is now everywhere. Some even longer.

  • Fu

    That honeycomb sensor looks like just Fuji’s Super CCD SR II, except rotated 45 degrees.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD

    • Tarzan

      No, the small photosites are here subdivided in 4 sub-photosites; this was not the case in the SuperCCD SRII.

      • whisky

        not only that, but the sub sites appear rectangular instead of octagons. wonder if this gets back some of the diagonal resolution?

      • Thom Hogan

        Correct. But it’s still unclear how you’d extract anything other than a split dynamic range from the array. I’ll have to go back and find the academic papers I found when Fujifllm first did the split pixel thing. There have been attempts at aligning multiple Bayer arrays in the past.

        • Eric Calabros

          It doesnt add extra color information?

          • Thom Hogan

            I’m going to have to read the patent carefully to see what gains are claimed and how.

            But in essence, we have two Bayer grids slightly offset and overlaid, one with big photosites, one with very small ones. Within certain data ranges, it very well may be possible to pull out more acuity or color information because of the dual grid. But we’d still be interpolating that into an RGB pixel, which means there will be some form of artifact embedded.

            Sensors are getting tricky. Not many people can even see the difference between what a 24mp and 36mp camera produces, and quite frankly, almost no one seems to be able to see color differentials well (digital cameras have been slowing losing a bit of color discrimination as makers optimize for other things).

            If you can measure it but can’t see it, is it real?

            • catinhat

              Unfortunately, the color discrimination (or lack thereof) might sometimes be too easy to see. This is one big issue where regression did take place. But of course, if something like D800 was targeted at best color at low ISO, which IMHO makes sense for it being at its best as a landscape/studio body primarily, then of course we would have heard screams of how it “sucks” at high ISO, and so Nikon chose not to go this route. As a result, for best color one is forced to look backwards, at the older Nikon bodies. Hopefully, with some sensor design progress that sacrifice won’t have to be made a few years down the road. That would be a real progress, something much more useful than ISO 100,000.

            • Thom Hogan

              An oversimplification is this: if you lower the amount of Bayer filtration, you get more light to the photosite, which means less noise. But it also means less color information.

              A high percentage of the population is color blind in the first place. And everyone keeps asking camera makers to get rid of noise. So guess what compromise they make? ;~)

  • 200-500mm range? Hmmm… if the quality is something like new 80-400 from Nikon then i am pretty interested in …. if everything is internal and not extending tube during zooming, wow that would be awesome!

    • Eric Calabros

      or maybe a black pipe like this 🙂
      Tamron 200-500

  • george

    Can the dynamic range actually be improved further?
    The D800 is already ahead of any other imaging device on the market in the DR area…

    • Fu

      Yes, there’s no physical limit to it.

      (Unlike lowlight noise performance, which does have a hard physical limit: read noise can be improved, but shot noise will always remain. The only way to have lower noise is to catch more photons, i.e. bigger aperture or bigger sensor and focal length, both of which have a cost in terms of depth of field.)

      • peter w

        When you are dealing with extremely low signal, there are other types of noise that will avoid giving a nice and crispy image. Higher order effects of the optical system and straylight.
        (Did you know living trees produce light? a tiny tiny tiny bit of IR.)

    • Colin Stuart

      what cameras can capture is still very far away from what our eyes can capture in terms of DR. Technically there is no limit, but our eyes have some sort of limit (or point of diminishing returns). I’d say that level is what sensor makers need to strive for.

      • Piotr Kosewski

        Not true.
        Basic DR of a human eye is around 10-15 EV, so quite similar to top consumer sensors available today.

        Of course this is not a serious comparison. Human imaging doesn’t work like a camera. It’s more like a continuous HDR from hundreds of frames + noise reduction + spot correction + a lot more processing.

        • Colin Stuart

          OK… well until DR on sensors is to the level of our eye’s/brain’s “continuous HDR from hundreds of frames + noise reduction + spot correction + a lot more processing”

          😛 that’s what we should strive for (how much DR we need). how much ev would that be? 50?

          • Thom Hogan

            The real issue with DR is that we simply don’t have output devices that can match the input DR we can give them. Thus, any discussion of DR immediately turns to how you’re going to “curve” the data into something that looks “right” in output.

        • Eric Calabros

          I’m sure my eyes see more than just 15. I read somewhere thier limit is 24ev. in a low light room with bright windows, D800 needs at least two shots to reach what my eyes see, and I’m not even Batman

          • Aldo

            They say chuck norris can see light in a black hole.

            • Andrew

              He has a Nikon designed sensor in his iris 😉

          • Thom Hogan

            You’re still making an eye/brain connection to see that 24EV range you claim. This is actually just one of the many things you have to “unlearn” to properly see what’s happening in the “real” data (e.g. our brains reinterpret white balance to what they think is right, as in seeing what they know is a white shirt no matter what the light you stick the shirt in).

          • jeff

            Batman goes by sound, not vision…
            🙂

        • Me

          The human eye can detect a luminance range of 1014, or one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) (about 46.5 f-stops), from 10−6 cd/m2, or one millionth (0.000001) of a candela per square meter to 108 cd/m2 or one hundred million (100,000,000) candelas per square meter. This range does not include looking at the midday sun (109 cd/m2) or lightning discharge.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye

          • Me

            …luminance rage of 10 to the 14th power…
            dang formatting limitations!

          • Nyarlathotep

            Luminance range and dynamic range are not the same metrics. A human cannot simultaneously see both one millionth cd/m2 and one hundred million cd/m2 in one image. Just like a modern sensor cannot see both the near black at say 51200 ISO and near white at 50 ISO at the same time.
            Also human vision goes to B&W below a certain point, this creates an uneven comparison. Not to mention resolution is different between the two systems. It makes it really hard to compare apples to apples.

            • SimenO1

              According to DXOmark DR curves some sensors are not far from linear in DR response. That means that you can get almost the same result from X steps under exposure at low ISO + X steps brightness increase as you get from X steps ISO increase + right exposure. Not precicely the same, but not far from it.

              The new patent could provide far lower base ISO with high resolution detail (small pixels), combined with very high low light sensitivity with lower resolution. Two differently optimised sensors in one. Say like a high res D800 and a low res D3s in one.

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes and no. At some point with small sensors, quantum shot noise becomes an issue (randomness of photons). We fight multiple types of noise in digital. If you can totally suppress one that usually means that another raises its head to be the dominate source. Nikon themselves used to have a Java widget on their microscope Web pages where you could adjust the three major sources of noise and see which one was the limiting factor to ultimate DR.

          • Thom Hogan

            Yes, but there’s a temporal issue there. You can’t detect both the low and the high simultaneously ;~).

        • peter w

          with processing you also mean the beautiful thing called ‘interpretation’, or even of greater beauty ‘association’.
          Humans can see more than there is to see…
          (Artists help people doing so)

        • SimenO1

          Actually its more like 6-7 Ev _in a single scene_, comparable to a single shot photo.

          The eyes can adjust for up to 24 Ev by adjusting aperture and chemistry (“ISO amplification” and brain NR processing). Adjusting aperture takes seconds. Adjusting chemistry takes up to half an hour (night vision). This factors are more comparable to multi shot HDR (by changing aperture) and an analogy to ISO change.

        • DiscussGr8t

          And then certain people believe for some reason that all this capability “just evolved….” by random chance. But that is a totally other discussion.

          • mansod

            haha

          • Fishy

            Go back and play with your legos…Adults are talking.

          • chocky

            Incorrect. Not by random chance, but by natural selection – which can be a very powerful force. Try understanding something before you mock it.

            • John

              Very powerful the force is.

        • barbarosa
    • Pat Mann

      But you can still quite easily blow the highlights with a distracting reflective grain of sand in the shot with a D800 trying to max the shadow detail. The mini-pixels, if these areas are to scale, should give about 3-3.5 stops more highlight range without reducing shadow depth more than about 1/3 stop for the space taken out of the sensor. Like having a 3-stop HDR bracket in the same shot.

  • MB

    So maybe Tamron and not Canon will acquire Nikon after all …

    • Thom Hogan

      Tamron is partially owned by Sony ;~).

  • HULK

    Huh, that means premium lens featuring ultra high environmental sensitivity and artsy vignette features. Back focus issue will be corrected for free if you are dead 😛

  • animalsbybarry

    This seems like it may be a new point and shoot supertele zoom
    I would like to know what the sensor size and resolution is.

  • whisky

    to me it makes sense to target this new sensor for the N1s … either the AW-2 and/or upcoming V4.

  • Spy Black

    Has Nikon filed joint patents with anyone before? This strikes me as kinda weird, but economics makes strange bedfellows I suppose…

    • They probably have, but this is the first time I am seeing one.

    • peter w

      I thought there are some lenses which are jointly develloped and made by Tamron and Pentax.

      • Cyrille Berger

        It is Tokina and Pentax which are working together.

    • megadon357

      I’ve wondered why Nikon doesn’t partner with a 3rd party lens maker, even if just to enhance their DX offerings with officially supported lenses that they never intend to make themselves.

      • Thom Hogan

        Simple answer: economics. Nikon has a 30% share of the lens market. Partnering enables a competitor.

        That’s not to say they haven’t done it in the past. At least four lenses that I know of have been rumored to be Tamron designs or productions for Nikon. Still, by involving another company to do the work, you are essentially adding an intermediary between customer and producer. If producing a lens costs Tamron X, then the Nikon version would have to cost X+Y to give Nikon profit margin. So you’d generally want to keep Tamron from selling their own version, at which point Tamron has to consider whether low OEM profits but certainty outweighs higher regular distribution profits with uncertainty.

        • Eric Calabros

          Seems that practice didnt work well with 150-600

          • Thom Hogan

            Not sure what you’re referring to. Are you attempting to say that Nikon’s market share in lenses dropped because someone shipped a third-party lens?

            • Eric Calabros

              No, but a 300mm f/2.8+2x TC or 80-400 potential buyer, now picks the 150-600 >> obviousely less lens sales. Beside that, not a decent same-class alternative from Nikon causes some side effects, such as maybe losing credibility as a leader in optics: a third-party lens maker now make lenses in ranges not existing in Nikon offerings, while performing very well and still very affordable!
              I know Nikon cant stop others to make lens, but..!

            • Thom Hogan

              I suppose. But from Nikon’s viewpoint, the 80-400mm is not only selling well, it’s selling better than the original.

              I would also point out that exotic telephotos are much like tripods. People tend to cheap out trying to get a bargain to achieve top results (how many of those Sigma buyers are actually waiting for the better, more expensive version of the lens?). Over the long term, they eventually end up with one of the real performers, but they spend a lot more money getting there. (Caveat: I haven’t tried the new Sigmas yet, so can’t say how they perform.)

    • Aeroengineer

      Yes, that is what I am wondering as well. A change in lens development strategy? Or perhaps some kind of negotiation between patent lawyers to avoid a downstream conflict? Also makes me wonder about the long term viability of independent lens makers, given the shrinking market for cameras.

    • ZoetMB

      Yes, to me this is the BIG story, not the particular technology in the lens. This could mean nothing (they both were working on similar technology and instead of fighting each other over the patent, they decided to file jointly) or it could portend a future acquisition or merger or something. I still find it strange. We know that Nikon was never happy with the existence of Tamron or Sigma. And we also know that with the market declines, both Tamron and Sigma must be hurting even more than the camera manufacturers.

    • Thom Hogan

      Tamron has made lenses for Nikon before, and there have been shared designs before. The original 70-300mm is rumored to be one of those shared designs.

      With lenses, there’s a lot of behind the scenes crossovers going on. KonicaMinolta, for example, still makes lenses for others, most notably Sony.

      • Spy Black

        Isn’t Konika/Minolta kaput, and they’re resourses absorbed inty Sony? How much of the old partnership is still intact within Sony?

        • Thom Hogan

          KM kept a fair amount of camera/lens capability. After all, they make copiers and other products that use sensors and lenses. What they sold Sony was their consumer-facing camera/lens group.

      • whisky

        the original one element ED version was rumored to be a shared design. as is the new variant of the 18-300mm, which shares the same design as Tamron’s 16-300mm.

  • Global

    Oooh..? I’ve been asking for a 300-600 f/5.6 for years. We already can go to 300m. Up to 300 is covered. We need 300-600/5.6. Its not like Nikon doesn’t already make a 80-400 VRII, anyway. And its not like Sigma doesn’t already offer a 150-500.

    If Nikon is following Sigma and Tamron these days, I’d at least lime them make a USB lens DOCK for updating your constantly mis-focusing lenses (*cough* 58/1.4 close focusing disaster *cough*), so that we can set a near focus and a far focus, set focus speed, etc.

    Cmon Tamron, at least you can build it. At a reasonable price too, I’d bet. Go for a 300-600mm/f5 + USB lens dock.

    • Robert

      Hi Global, On which camera are you using the 58/1.4? Would be interesting to know which AF module that can or cannot focus the lens consistently in your experience.

      About the AF adjustment dock IMHO the lenses should focus correctly coming from the factory (with exception for some microadjustment in camera that seems to be unavoidable sometimes for fast single focal length glass).

  • Au Yeong Wing Yau

    Curious which sensor line this might go into.

    D8xx D6xx D750: means they are planning to introduce their own deviation from the Sony sensor family.

    D5: We’ll see the new D5 with usual great low light performance + better dynamic range come 2016. That’s way out of my class though. Unless they are planning a Df-priced “little brother” somewhere down the road.

    Compacts/bridge cameras: Uhhhh… nothing for me here.

    • Thom Hogan

      Nikon has patented far more sensor variations than they’ve produced. It might not go in anything. It probably means that Nikon thinks that there’s a viable benefit to this approach and wants to preserve their ability to manipulate how that rolls out, if it does.

      Dynamic range is a tricky bit. We have several competing technologies working their way through labs. A few, such as Apple’s iPhone 6 sensor, have made it into products. I suspect that long term how you get the DR isn’t going to be anywhere near as important as what you do with it.

  • Aldo

    Those drawings remind me of organic quemistry…

    • Andrew

      It looks as if you misspelled that word… those college students will love you 😉

      • Aldo

        my spanglish comes out here and there lol

  • Andrew

    Nikon needs to buyout all of these third party lens manufacturers. I don’t know how much business sense that would make especially for the European companies.

    • “NEEDS”? Wow. Bye bye all dx lenses. Btw , after such statements you still ask us why we think you to be a nikon employee?

      • Andrew

        Why would I be a Nikon employee – do you think this is how an electrical engineer with an advanced degree in computer science would spend his time working at Nikon? I do product research, development, and management.

        I do not do much engineering thinking in this blog. But I have complete control of my time and I work about 16 hours a day – maybe not that much, but pretty close 😉

        I like to normalize the dynamics of the discussions. Think of the concept of normalization in database design 😉 If it gets too negative, I like to shift the discussion towards center. If the gets too positive, I like to obtain contrasting views. I am definitely a fan of Nikon products. But I think that all the other camera companies – Sony, Canon, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, Leica, and others are good for the market.

        Oh, in regards to Nikon buying its competitors, I do not think that would be good for the market. Competition is good, and it makes Nikon a better company. And besides, competition gives consumers choice.

        • Then you definitely NEED to rephrase your post so that we wouldn’t get the feel that you are not more than just a nikon fan (used here in a positive sense ). Hey I am one too but I have never felt that nikon should eliminate all competition and become a giant prick which screws us all. Like you said, competition is healthy.

          • Andrew

            You have to be careful not to lose your objectivity; the minute you do, it becomes difficult for you to make correct judgment about Nikon, Andrew, or any number of people you encounter in life.

            I completely understand your frustrations – at least I think I do 😉 Now the following thoughts may not entirely apply to you. Nikon is a research, development, and manufacturing company. Nikon’s photographic equipment is distributed in international markets and they sell millions of cameras each year. Nikon is a multi-billion corporation that does not just make consumer products that you and I can buy, they also make industrial products that are used in semiconductor manufacturing, medical devices, and space exploration.

            With Nikon’s vast resources and deep expertise, even the colors that their cameras produce are incomparable to anything else in the market. If you take the time to start appreciating what Nikon is giving us, you will come to the conclusion that their products are incredibly cost effective. You really should be happy that a company in the like of Nikon exists; it is this deep appreciation that influences my views. Look at the Nikon D3x, that 24 MP camera Nikon was selling about three years ago for $8,000. Now you can buy the D810, a 36 MP camera for only $3,300. Nikon is giving you incredible value for your money, and it is getting better each year. Now the D810 gives you incredibly high ISO for its extremely high pixel count, and you get stunning auto focus abilities in low light. That is the Nikon that I like.

            But Nikon is not just for the professional users. The Nikon D3300 camera gives you stunning Nikon technology and color at a high pixel count (24 MP) without an AA filter for extremely sharp photos. You also get incredible video capability of 1080p at 60 fps. This camera will give you professional image quality in a consumer body at a consumer price ($549). This is the Nikon that I like! With the D810, D750, D3300, and soon to be announced D7200, Nikon’s cameras are now at a place where a new camera product will not make them obsolete.

            Now Nikon as a company has rules, if you abide by the rules you are fine. But if you decide to undercut Nikon by buying third party products or buying a Nikon product that is not covered by their regional warranty then you are taking risks that you should own up to. When everything is going fine you are happy, but the minute something goes wrong you are not so happy. If you do not play by the rules then Nikon, Sony, Canon, Panasonic and a host of other companies will not treat you well. Nikon has financial interests and it makes perfect sense for them to enforce those interests. Isn’t that what you are doing, putting your financial interests above Nikons? I don’t know, only you can answer this question!

            The biggest problem I have found when dealing with people is that they take risks and when they experience a problem, they blame someone else. And if it is a company like Nikon, then if someone like Andrew surfaces with a different view or perspective, they consider him to have some hidden motives. I am not here to please anyone, but to communicate with honesty and integrity. I do not follow the crowd, I have a high self-esteem, and I do not play games. I am here to learn and to contribute. The entire history of my views is an open book; it is there for everyone to read. Go beyond the things you do not agree with and take a moment to read some of my posts, there are over 800 of them. If you took the time you would not suspect who Andrew is 😉

            Now as you can see I have taken the time to express my views not because I want to defend Nikon, but because I care enough about you to help you adjust to the realities of life. Your happiness depends on it! This is the most exciting time in the history of Nikon; I have a Nikon camera, the N2020 dating back to the 1980s so I know what I am talking about. If you think I am wrong about any point, then respectfully reply to me so we can have further discussions. I do not trust my emotion and that is why I use logic, experience, wisdom, truth, and the views of others to evaluate matters. So I hope you would do the same.

            • And how is this Nikon brochure related to the point I replied to? It was …. Nikon NEEDS to buy out all third party lens manufacturers…..
              Besides, we read your comments regularly since a long time now and that is precisely why we suspect what we do.
              Also using this tone like you are trying to argue with a child who is dumb and stupid ( read your post again if you do not think so) reminds me all the more of nikon -of late. The nikon which side steps the real issues to present you with the long paragraphs about how great a company it is.
              Don’t take this in a wrong way. I am still a nikon fan and will be for a long time to come. But just that I am not a fanboy anymore.

            • Andrew

              Umeshrw, I really do respect you and please note that the tone I take is just the way I talk, in a forthright way without making an attempt to color my speech. I have been doing this from a young age, I just do not follow the niceties of societal norms. I also try to help people whether they think they need my help or not 😉 In fact my approach is to act towards people as I would like them to act towards me.

              Here is how I see things. I do not like dishonest and smooth talkers. In fact, I have a tendency to correct strangers if I hear them talking negatively or expressing a view I disagree with. I would actually walk up to them and let them know what I think of their behavior if it is not appropriate. Yep, that’s me! I guess I am different in this regard because I do not see people doing that. I just try to be myself. I am no different at home than I am in public. I do not like people that are pretentious – ones that try to act sophisticated. I really do not care for those things. I respect people equally regardless if they are wealthy or poor. I also love a great conversation – us learning from each other. That is why I have written over 1,000 blogs 😉 But if you check my tone, you will notice that I really like people.

              Now to your point about once being a fanboy, I wholeheartedly agree with you that being a fanboy is not healthy. That is something I try to stay as far away from as possible. Now my definition of a fanboy may be different from yours. I consider a fanboy as someone that deliberately distorts the truth. That type of behavior damages our character, our integrity, and our sense of self-worth. But being a fanboy is more of an issue of a mentality than a love of any particular company or product. The fanboy mentality is we against them. The end justifies the means. Lie to get you point across. Put simply, it is bad behavior. You may not have done these things, and there are variations of behaviors, but I think you get my point.

              If I am arguing a point with you and in the course of the argument I realize that you are correct, I would immediately acknowledge that I am wrong. Fanboy’s don’t do that! I like to be corrected when I am wrong and I do not mind someone else getting the praise. The world does not revolve around me 😉 I would rather someone say that I am honest as opposed to clever, successful, wealthy, or even a great guy. But ultimately, what a person thinks about me is not as important to me as what I think about them.

              As I have said before, I am well adjusted. My philosophy in life is to love people, even the people who attack me. When they do, I try to focus their attention to the facts and give them sufficient reasons for my views or I try to focus their attention on their behavior and show them that they should not attack a person’s motives just because they do not agree with them. Now I have not always succeeded in this area, but I will try to work harder to be more consistent 😉

              Now back to Nikon. I love Nikon products and I want them to succeed. If I write anything about Nikon it is because I believe it. I do not condone manipulating people because that is dishonesty. Not only that, people are intelligent and they will eventually know what you are doing.

              Now as a Nikon fan, I am excited about the D9300. If it is not as big as the D810, I am 90% certain that I will buy it. The frame rate is not that important to me. What I really want is an improved auto focus mechanism, 1/8000 sec shutter speed, better ISO performance, and the fact that the AA filter will be removed. From the executive interview, Nikon should be coming out with an exciting new camera product which we do not know what it will be and that is the only thing that is giving me pause about the D9300. Ah, they never make our decision easy 😉

    • Thom Hogan

      Buy them out, why? Nikon already sells 30% of all lenses.

  • A64

    So, just another sensor dynamic range improvement (why??? Today’s Sony sensors in Nikon bodies are fantastic).. but still no milc high-tech: missing phase-detect AF, slow liveview, slow contrast AF, weak face detection, missing EVF, etc. etc. etc.

    Nikon improves even further those part, which wouldn’t need to be improved now at all.

    Goodbye Nikon 🙂

    • whisky

      why? just look at the 1″ sector where current sensor technology has fallen behind the competition.

      hello Nikon. hello. 🙂

    • ZoetMB

      Incredibly silly comment. Why does a company doing something positive with one technology mean that they’re not doing what they should be doing with other technology? One thing has nothing to do with the other.

      So which manufacturer is filling your needs with all the technology you think you need?

  • rt-photography

    Maybe a new 300 f4 afs and possible 400 5.6 will show up as well. VR2 added will make them killer.

  • Back to top