Nikon D400 ISO Comparable with D700?

[sjd996]

There are a bunch or rumors flying round about a D400 to replace the D300 - nothing even remotely concrete yet, but there is a list of rumors here:

http://www.dentonimages.com/rumors.php?rumor=Nikon D400

A 2 year release cycle would put the D400 announcement this summer (D300 was Aug 2007).

My question is, given the D300 gave about a 1.5 stop ISO improvement plus 2 extra megapixels over the D200 coming out 2 years later, could the D400 have similar improvements over the D300 given another couple of years development?

If so, that puts it in D3/D700 ISO territory (and possibly higher megapixel).

If Nikon were to release a camera like that, would they also have to release a D3h with even better ISO at the same time? Would it kill D700 sales?

There's been a lot of rumors and speculation about the D400 over the past few weeks, just got me thinking...

 

[SP77]

No.

So long as they keep cramming more megapixels into DX, any improvement in photosite design they make will pay for that and the smaller photosites that come along with it and not 'truly' improve ISO performance. Most of the D300's "1.5 stops" improvement is from more noise reduction processing being done in the camera and not actual hardware sensitivity IMHO. 1600 and above is smudge smudge smudge, not crisp detail. If they wanted to get close to D700 level ISO performance in DX we're talking 5-6 MP with the same photosite pitch as FX. I'd absolutely love one, but it probably wouldn't be a very marketable camera.

 

[marioni]

Not likely.

 

[sjd996]

I agree it's not likely, but technology advances and I'm just playing devils advocate.

That said, a lot of D2x users were very surprised by the ISO capabilities when the D300 came out, so it wouldn't be the first time...

 

[Roosje]

And the iso capabilities of the D90 are again better than the D300

 

[Cope]

Steve, I would not get too concerned about rumors of new bodies, just enjoy what you have, and/or buy what you want.

 

[PhilDPho]

And the iso capabilities of the D90 are again better than the D300

They will be identical shooting raw, where no Noise reduction is committed since they both share the same sensor.

 

[Roosje]

They will be identical shooting raw, where no Noise reduction is committed since they both share the same sensor.

It is mentioned that they don't share the same sensor, but I haven't looked further into it, so I don't know how much truth there is in that statement. Here you can find a graph with noise comparison between the D90 and D300 http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/294|0/(appareil2)/295|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon and click on SNR 18%

 

[PhilDPho]

If the tests are done with jpeg then the D90's updated image processing algorithms will give slightly cleaner images. However, shot raw and processed with the same settings images will be identical, much like the D700 and D3.

 

[Roosje]

If the tests are done with jpeg then the D90's updated image processing algorithms will give slightly cleaner images. However, shot raw and processed with the same settings images will be identical, much like the D700 and D3.

"As digital cameras become more advanced, it is increasingly difficult for users to assess which model provides the best performance in real-world situations. In specially-designed tests, DxO Labs shows that digital camera RAW sensor performance in real-life situations varies widely and sometimes bears little relation to price."
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database

 

[PhilDPho]

that's quite interesting then, as I am 99% certain they share the same sensor. I need to do some more reading.

 

[pforsell]

If the tests are done with jpeg then the D90's updated image processing algorithms will give slightly cleaner images. However, shot raw and processed with the same settings images will be identical, much like the D700 and D3.

I have seen no proof that the whole sensor is identical.

Sure, the sensel part most likely is the same, but the CFA, AA-filter, microlenses and most importantly the ADC components could be different. This whole package: the sensel with all the toppings is what constitutes the sensor.

It is the "toppings" part where Nikon shines. These can make a huge difference (almost 2 stops) as can be seen between D3X and Sony Alpha900. Despite the shared piece of silicon Nikon clearly is in a league of its own.

At least something must be different between D300 and D90 because there is a half stop difference in RAW images. Sample variation? Not likely.

 

[PhilDPho]

the D3x doesn't have the same amount of pixels as the A900, so I thought these sensors would have been totally different?

 

[pforsell]

the D3x doesn't have the same amount of pixels as the A900, so I thought these sensors would have been totally different?

The Nikon D3X has 6048 x 4032 pixels on a 35.9 mm x 24 mm sensor.
The Sony Alpha 900 has 6048 x 4032 pixels on a 35.9 mm x 24 mm sensor.

Totally different?

 

[wgilles]

I hate rumors, they make everyone go crazy

 

[Julien]

So people are trying to compare a sensor that actually exists to one that doesn't at all , am I right ? …

 

[PhilDPho]

Nikon claim D3x at 24.5
Sony claim 24.6

 

[ChrisLilley]

They will be identical shooting raw, where no Noise reduction is committed since they both share the same sensor.

They don't have the same sensor, and analysis of RAW images gives different results. However, it does seem likely that the noise reduction is different also and possible that the D90 applies some early-stage noise reduction to the RAW data, which can't be disabled.

 

[ChrisLilley]

If the tests are done with jpeg then the D90's updated image processing algorithms will give slightly cleaner images. However, shot raw and processed with the same settings images will be identical, much like the D700 and D3.

Since the DxOMark tests are done on the RAW images (as that site clearly staes) then - no.

This section provides definitions for all the RAW-based measurements presented within the Image Quality Database: ISO sensitivity (speed), noise (as related to standard deviation and Signal-to-Noise Ratio, dynamic range, and tonal range), color sensitivity, and controlled print comparison. A brief overview of DxO Labs’ test protocols as implemented within our DxO Analyzer image quality evaluation solution precedes the discussion about the importance of measuring in RAW.

Source: Defining the measurements of dxomark.com

 

[PhilDPho]

I hadn't read through the site, as the DxOMark test website seems to never fail to crash my browser, I wonder it this difference is visible, or just numbers?