Beware: We said announces, not releases.

Already done:

Beware: This will be updated as often as needed. This may lead to repeated publications in the RSS feeds and some publication date changes.

The first presentations and reviews are coming up now everywhere on the Internet (except in France where Nikon appears to have embargoed the news after an isolated incidents in this country):

• Nikon product page (USA)
• Nikon press release (USA)
• DPreview hands-on review/preview
• Ken Rockwell presentation (with comments on the movie mode)
• Hands-on preview from Nikon D40/D40x/D60 Photog by Simon Joinson
• Richard Kilpatrick
• Photography Blog
• PopPhoto
• ThinkCamera

And an advanced presentation video:

$999 should be quite a nice price for a completely new camera with 12.3-megapixel image (4.5fps bursts) and even a 24fps HD-Movie 1280×720 mode. Standard zoom lens offered in kit will be AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. You can see it below with this lens and… a GPS unit (compatible with nearly all existing Nikon SLR cameras: D3, D300, D700, D2X, D2Hs, D2Xs and D200).

As I was expected, this announcement is not followed by one for the Nikon D3x. Just the entry-level Nikon D90.

We knew that it was coming with 25 million pixels, but it could have been short on quality compared to the D3 (or D700) sensor because of its small (but many) pixels. For Nikon to accept to use this Sony sensor (and not a better one) at this level of products, they must be sure to have the best possible silicon piece: Pros want wonderful images, not only big figures (a big bunch of pixels).

I was thinking differently, but this could tilt the scale toward a very high price for the Sony Alpha 900 camera (I had hoped to see less than 2500€ or even less than 2000€, but -now- I would not be surprised if the label looked like 3000€).

However, it would leave some space left in the Sony camera range for an Alpha 800, with an intermediate price. This could be quite neat if it allowed to have a super-featured Full Frame camera around 3000€ (the Sony Alpha 900) and another Full Frame under 2500€ (the hypothetical Sony Alpha 800).

With such arguments, nobody would be surprised in seeing a brother to the recent Nikon D700: The ruored Nikon D800?

Let’s see at Koln Photokina opening next month.

I guess it means that Nikon feels this will be a major step forward and not only an upgrade to the existing Nikon D3. Clearly, Nikon is the leading brand in terms of technology leaps this year.

Essentially, Thom is saying “3 new SLR cameras before the end of 2008“. And, this would mean that all the probable/expected cameras are coming to fruition in the coming months:

• Nikon D800/D900: A big image version of the Nikon D700 (based upon the Sony 24MP Full Frame sensor).
• Nikon D3x or Nikon D4: the high-end replacement for the Nikon D3 (but the name seems not to be confirmed at all, right now).
• Nikon D90: The camera aimed at the low end of the SLR market. Since Nikon is still resisting to the Canon lower-end (the Canon EOS 1000D is still a little expensive compared to the Nikon D60).

• The Nikon D3 receives a software upgrade that will allow to climb from 16 Raw shots at 9 fps up to 36 shots. The buffer expansion will cost a ‘(mere?) $500 and will take 2 weeks.
• The future Nikon D3x would be equipped with sensor cleaning technology (even at its stratospheric price of more than $5000, the D3 has not this feature).

As you can notice, it is expected that the Sony Alpha 900 will be targetting low prices despite it’s 24MP sensor (or it will have a little Alpha 800 brother, while the Alpha 900 would shoot for a higher price point). But the current Canon EOS 5D seems to be an astonishingly good bargain (while stocks last).

Interestingly, Thom Hogan, who is often quite knowledgeable about Nikon, thinks that the name should become the Nikon D900. He thinks that this would be the reflection of an effort to bring own the price to allow it to fight against the real competition seen as the Canon EOS 5D MkII and the Sony Alpha 900. Honestly, I have no opinion or no information to add here. You know that I think this would be needed (in terms of price) and names are mostly a marketing issue after the technical features are locked in.

The availability date should not be more than 1 year from now, and quite probably in the very first weeks of 2009.

• Nikon D3x because Nikon is not yet out of voice and they prepare a high-end pro SLR to go along with the D3; Probably beginning of 2009.
• Sony Alpha 900 because Sony promissed in September 2008 (launch at PMA in August 2008?) its super-hig-end 24 million pixels FF camera.
• Canon EOS 5D MkII because the replacement for the EOS 5D is coming soon (maybe not even waiting for August) and maybe with a cheaper little brother under the name of Canon EOS 3D.

Nikon Rumours affirmed last week that the Nikon D700 (or D700 FX) will be priced just under 3000 USD. It has been said that the Canon EOS 5D MkII should arrives around 3500 USD, but the Canon EOS 5D is already sold under 2000 USD now. And the Nikon D3 (already previous generation camera) is still near 5000 USD, except in some very small on-line shops whose reputation is a bit low.

Not taking into account the actual performance and exact features of each, I would say that Sony will be able to position itself around 2000 USD which is the price point that Canon is setting for all the others. But keep in mind that there is a large body of amateurs enthusiasts that are ready to pay much more than the usual 600-1500 USD price tag for a digital SLR, but the competition is heating to bring Full Frame capability to the masses.

Your guess is as good as mine, but I would say that the tendency is to prepare to a very low price point. 2000 USD will be considered a turning point (notice how Canon is letting the price of the EOS 5D plummet down). A camera willing to position itself as top-quality Full Frame will probably aim at $2500 (I think the price of the Canon EOS 5D MkII or a possible Canon EOS 6D could climb there, not even speaking of a possible Nikon D3x in 2009 with a stratospheric price), but a product aimed at a larger market would have to start around $2000 and preparing for a street price going under this limit (this should be the case of the Nikon D700 -the name is referring more to the D300 than to the D3/D3x pro family- and of the Sony Alpha 900).

And it’s a good question to ask, but the answer goes with some of the comments about sensor resolution. About the same people who noticed that resolution is not all that counts (despite what is said or implied by some of the major brands on this market) also understand that going Full Frame is a possibly very important decision for the attentive digital photographer.

WTF is Full Frame?

First you’d like to understand what we are speaking about – precisely. Most Digital Single Lens Reflex (D-SLR) cameras use a sensor whose size is about half of the size of a usual (old?) 35mm film frame. We call them APS-C-sized sensors because it’s not far from the (younger but still old?) APS-C film frame size. Since so many photographers have been trained in the world of 35mm films, everything tends to be compared to it.

Those small sensors are used by camera manufacturers because the smaller the silicon chip, the cheaper it goes. This is the main reason why phone cameras use even smaller sensors (a few millimeters wide for some of them).

Full Frame sensors are those ones that are nearly exactly the same size as a 35mm film: 24mm by 36mm sensitive surface. By silicon manufacturing standards this has long been too big to be reasonably manufactured in large quantities but progress being what it is in this industry (Moore’s law, you know?) it is now becoming feasible. So why not?

The pros of FF

The first one is that if you stick to a fixed number of pixels (say 10 millions of them on one single sensor), the wider the sensors, the larger the individual pixel sensitive element. This has several enormously interesting advantages.

Being big, the pixel is also much more sensitive (it can collect more photons at the same time). So, there is less need to do mathematics and algorithmics to compensate for low light situations. The sensor collects directly enough light and the image is less impacted by noise. Like when you push the volume up on a radio to hide the background noise of a conversation. Those big pixels naturally “push the volume up”.

And noise is a real problem. On very high ISOs and/or on low quality cameras (read “small sensors” like we find them in camera phones or even compact point-and-shoot cameras), you keep shooting images that are dull, covered with little colored specks or lack in details because the camera manufacturer forced on “noise cleaning algorithm” and this removed most details.

Parallely, if you pixel is large and collecting a lot of light photons, it is easier for the electronics to cut it in small pieces: you get better dynamic range. It means that you will find easily more details in the dark areas of the image and you will mostly avoid the blown-out white zones of some light areas. This is a good thing for your photos.

But there are also some other even more subtle but important issues at hand. Many photographers migrating from analog to digital SLR cameras have noticed that the viewfinder now looks like a tiny little tunnel: everything seems to be small and dark. Since the sensor image is smaller, it is sent back to the eye in a smaller size too. It is uncomfortable unless you invest in a camera with a top of the line viewfinder. But if the sensor is Full Frame, it is easier for the camera manufacturer. They don’t have to enlarge the image, it’s already big.

A much more technically difficult argument is something that is now cropping up with large pixel numbers. When we had 6 million pixels on an APS-C sensor, nobody noticed it, but with 10, 12, 14 millions pixels people start to notice that the increase of resolution does not always go with improved image quality. One of the reasons is linked to light diffraction when you close the diaphragm. The pixels are getting so small that the slight diffraction from a lens closed at f/22 or f/16 is becoming larger than a pixel (or at least perceptible there).

Manufacturers (and intensely attentive photographers) now understand that if they want to keep getting more pixels, they -first- have to buy extra-high-quality lenses (at a price) and -second- they must get bigger pixels (and bigger sensors). 20 million pixels on an APS-C sensor will probably never be significantly better than 10-12 millions of them. You have to go to Full Frame if you want more pixels! It essentially gives you more real pixels and an extended diaphragm range: in most cases, it is understood that around 12 millions pixel on an APS-C sensor, closing to more than f/16 is just breaking down your picture.

As a side note, this also explains why so many small cameras and phone cameras are producing really ugly images out of an astonishing number of pixels…

Questionable advantages

Another bane of small sensors is that they have so much Depth of Field (DOF). Everything seems to be in focus. This is good for a digital photo notebook like your camera phone. But if you want to go a little more on the artsy side, you may want to ensure that the subject is neatly focused and leaving the background in a warm fuzzy light. This is more difficult with APS-C sensors than with full frame sensors. However, you have to admit that this is a mixed advantage. For example, macro photography is always lacking in depth of field. APS-C has been bringing a little advantage here.

Also, APS-C sensors being smaller, they tend to crop the image. So, the standard 50mm lens you used on the old analog camera looks like it is giving you the same image as your old 75mm or 80mm short tele lens when mounted on a Digital SLR camera. This is what is called the crop factor. Depending on your camera (or, more precisely, its sensor), it gives you a small conversion factor (1.6 for most Canon EOS, 1.5 for most Sony and Nikon). This is a nightmare for people in love with wide angle lenses and wide panoramas (it’s becoming more and more difficult to get a wide angle lens: super wide 16mm now looks like a wide 24mm). Many nature landscape photographers suffer from that change. However, being a wildlife photographer myself, I admit that this can be good too: My collection of tele-lenses got a boost going from Minolta analog to Sony digital; The latest addition, a 400mm f/4.5, is nearly exactly equivalent on my Sony Alpha 700 to a 600mm f/4.5 on the old Minolta Maxxum 9xi but it is about half the weight and half the price). Not everybody can be happy with that.

The dark side of the Full Frame

But there are also very bad aspects of these large Full Frame sensors. First, we already said that electronics manufacturing is utterly sensitive to surface. The larger a chip, the more expensive. And not only because of the added material. Defects on a silicon chip tend to be spread quite evenly on its surface. The larger it is, the more defects you have, the more difficult it becomes to manufacture, the more parts you have to scrap (if your chip is twice bigger, a single defect will kill it, but on a smaller one, you would get one good chip and one bad one). Price increase has long been so large that it is not mentionable. Now, things are a bit easier, but… it’s expensive.

Also to mention, bigger sensors mean bigger cameras (your phone camera is small because its photo sensor is small). Bigger means heavier. There is a definite difference between a 300g camera body and 800g camera body. Keep it for more than an hour while shooting! Some photographers may not really care (I often hold a camera behind a lens that is more than 2kg -I previously mentioned a 400mm lens of 2.9kg- and I’ve got used to it but many people would not even think about it. The first time I bought a second-hand Sigma 400mm/5.6 the previous owner was selling it because he had a back ache prohibiting to use it).

But you could also say that you don’t really care if the image is good. And here comes the size of the lens again. To cover the full surface of a Full Frame sensor you need a lens that is large enough for that. It must also be of perfect quality to the extreme corner of the image. But if you get the light in all corners you also have to ensure that the light rays are not suffering from too many angled paths through the lens. If you do not make sure of this during the design, it’s easy to get a correct lens for APS-C, but a pitifully bad one for Full Frame. Quite often, these are difficult goals to reach and you get vignetting (the corners of the image are a little darker than the center) and soft corners (zones that are not as crisp as the center of the image). The larger the sensor, the more difficult to make a good lens for it (again). You go to the pro-quality lenses. Again, there is a price hike and added weight on the scale.

So what?

In the end, the choice to go Full Frame is currently reserved to prosumers or top-flight amateurs or even pro photographers. But we have to keep in mind that the trend will be going there just to keep the quality while other factors are climbing. Don’t believe that electronics progress will remove all limits (diffraction is an optical phenomenon we have to live with). Not everybody will have to go there, but Full Frame is there to stay.

You may not want to invest in Full Frame, but you must take that into account when you buy a lens. Many cheap lenses are only able to serve APS-C sensors. While this was a sensible investment (pay less for the same service), remember that a good lens is supposed to live much longer than your camera (digital cameras have gone the way of computers: 2-year obsolescence is the standard). This is why so many Full Frame (even second-hand) lenses are keeping a high market price. This is why Sony and Carl Zeiss still only manufacture lenses able to work on both APS-C and FF.

When I buy a tele lens, I tend to pay a hefty price on second-hand hardware (more than 2000 Euros on the old second-hand Minolta APO G High-Speed 400mm f/4.5 I got from eBay). I intend to keep that much longer than the Sony Alpha 700 and the Konica-Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 7D I use as SLR bodies behind it. If (and I say if) I go and buy the future Sony Alpha 900 Full Frame camera which is supposed to be available some time this year, possibly at the end of the Summer 2008, all my lenses will still be compatible with this camera body.

So, even if you don’t care about the added quality, think about the rest of your investment in the context of Full Frame sensors.

  

There are only images to judge, but it leaves some possibilities for (preliminary) analysis.

The back face of the camera shows an interface impressively similar to the usual one found previously on the Konica-Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 7D and the Sony Alpha 700. Position and meaning of the buttons seems to be nearly identical. I would just point at the will to mark the presence of the HDMI interface by engraving on the connector caps (on the left-hand side as on the A-700). But this is no news.

Notice the complementary/optional grip that really includes a full set of commands to ease moving to vertical position of the camera. Those adepts of optional battery grips will definitely appreciate.

On the top face, the same comments will be made, but nobody could miss the additional LCD screen. Usually removed from the cheap cameras for economic reasons, the price of the Alpha 900 will visibly authorize it. I know many people who were deeply regretting its removal from cheaper cameras.

Data displayed here include all the basics:

• Shutter speed and diaphragm aperture
• Possible exposure correction
• White balance
• Battery status

But, really, I don’t grock the new button with a logo looking like the little flower.

Last, look at the rotating button on the left-hand side. It has all the usual basic exposure modes but none of the result modes found on other Sony Alpha cameras (most pros wouldn’t care loosing them). However, the 3 distinct positions for 3 user modes are back. I have to admit that the MR position of the Sony Alpha 700 was less pleasant than Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D 1/2/3.

Is it still needed to remind you that? This flagship must host the new Sony CMOS sensor of 24 million pixels. This will probably translate in 20 or 22 million usable pixels, but it will be a big amount. Less clear is the resulting image quality. Other Full Frame cameras (from Canon and Nikon) do not reach that (merely 1/2 of it). They should have the advantage of larger individual pixel sizes, but technology is progressing quickly and Nikon may be tempted to use this new sensor in a future 20MP Nikon D3x.

High-end or not, it is clear that the Sony Alpha 900 will have a LiveView function to shoot without taking the camera to your eye. I am still unconvinced, but this is the the fashion of 2008. As the Alpha 900 will probably arrive in August or September, it will have LiveView.

A point to notice on this Carl Zeiss lens: There is the usual AF-lock button, but with an additional ring to stop on AF or MF. This is probably becoming a trend in high-end lenses for Sony-Carl Zeiss.

  

All this is good. But it is clear that the most important part is not visible. Even clear views will not cut to it: sensor quality, processing power and algorithmic prowess will tell if this will be a revolution for the high end D-SLR market or it will merely be a copycat for Canon and Nikon (I think that Sony has enough to kick butts, but I can’t prove it yet… just that they said that they would go up to 25.600 ISO).

All in all, I invite you to also visit Master Chong web site.