Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vincent" data-source="post: 521449" data-attributes="member: 15675">The discussion is now about FX vs DX and lost the D7200 vs D750.The sensors can be found here:<a href="http://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/16/list-of-all-nikon-dslr-cameras-and-their-sensor-manufacturerdesigner.aspx/#more-100118" target="_blank">List of all Nikon DSLR cameras and their sensor manufacturer/designer | Nikon Rumors</a>=&gt; you will see that most high end still have Nikon sensors, except high pixel models. DX mostly now has Sony or Toshiba. So there is a difference in technology. (remark: Nikon designed sensors are sometimes produced by Sony)The sales issue was pointed out with the
<table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>Nikon NC81338L</td><td>D3, D700</td></tr></table>where the D3 underperformed due to the D700 success. So Nikon does now design the quality per model to avoid this for the future.The same tech in DX as FX was more discussed with D7000 and D800:Senscore states:D800 Photosite Size:&nbsp; &nbsp; 4.9&nbsp; &nbsp; μm reference score of 1000 for all measurementsD7000 Photosite Size:&nbsp; &nbsp; 4.8&nbsp; &nbsp; μmNoise:&nbsp; &nbsp; 409&nbsp; &nbsp; σ = 7.7Dynamic Range:&nbsp; &nbsp; 583&nbsp; &nbsp; σ = 4.2Color Range:&nbsp; &nbsp; 254&nbsp; &nbsp; σ = 6.0Tonal Range:&nbsp; &nbsp; 620&nbsp; &nbsp; σ = 4.3Resolving Power:&nbsp; &nbsp; 451&nbsp; &nbsp; σ = 4.9The question here is this difference due to design (claimed by salukfan111) or more linked to measurement procedures (downsizing etc). So is it possible to release a D400 with scores of 1000 at 15 Mpix?I wanted here also to compare to the D3s: Resolving Power:&nbsp; &nbsp; 466&nbsp; &nbsp; σ = 1.9 a better resolving then the D7000 even if it is a lower Mp, but high end FX. ====================One other thing (one where I agree with Ken Rockwell), sharpness of pictures generally is more linked to the photographer then to the material (even if better material can help) and is overrated.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vincent, post: 521449, member: 15675"] The discussion is now about FX vs DX and lost the D7200 vs D750. The sensors can be found here: [URL="http://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/16/list-of-all-nikon-dslr-cameras-and-their-sensor-manufacturerdesigner.aspx/#more-100118"]List of all Nikon DSLR cameras and their sensor manufacturer/designer | Nikon Rumors[/URL] => you will see that most high end still have Nikon sensors, except high pixel models. DX mostly now has Sony or Toshiba. So there is a difference in technology. (remark: Nikon designed sensors are sometimes produced by Sony) The sales issue was pointed out with the [TABLE="width: 1"] [TR] [TD]Nikon NC81338L[/TD] [TD]D3, D700[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] where the D3 underperformed due to the D700 success. So Nikon does now design the quality per model to avoid this for the future. The same tech in DX as FX was more discussed with D7000 and D800: Senscore states: D800 Photosite Size: 4.9 μm reference score of 1000 for all measurements D7000 Photosite Size: 4.8 μm Noise: 409 σ = 7.7 Dynamic Range: 583 σ = 4.2 Color Range: 254 σ = 6.0 Tonal Range: 620 σ = 4.3 Resolving Power: 451 σ = 4.9 The question here is this difference due to design (claimed by [B]salukfan111) [/B]or more linked to measurement procedures (downsizing etc). So is it possible to release a D400 with scores of 1000 at 15 Mpix? I wanted here also to compare to the D3s: Resolving Power: 466 σ = 1.9 a better resolving then the D7000 even if it is a lower Mp, but high end FX. ==================== One other thing (one where I agree with Ken Rockwell), sharpness of pictures generally is more linked to the photographer then to the material (even if better material can help) and is overrated. [/QUOTE]

Verification