Nikon teases about upcoming 10.2 megapixel DSLR

Oh Nikon! You kidder, you. The popular pro-cam manufacturer is prepping a new DSLR, and has upped a little teaser on their site referring to the "Next Nikon." Beyond the usual marketing hyperbole of "More power," "More control," "More versatile and "More excitement," Nikon lets slip the megapixel count: 10.2, and the release date: 20 days from now. Word on the street is that the mystery cam will be a replacement to the D70/D70s series, and the 10.2 megapixels will be one welcome improvement from the 6.1 megapixels of the D70.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[Jason @ Jul 20th 2006 2:14PM]

Unless it's a bigger sensor and/or lower noise chip, why would more megapixels be better?

[Jared @ Jul 20th 2006 2:16PM]

I welcome any release that bumps down the cost of blunt-edge technology.. Just waiting for that $400 D50.

[Elliot @ Jul 20th 2006 2:37PM]

Ok, this is the last time I'm going to say it, I promise. Here goes: Dear engadget, you must realize that the megapixel count of digital cameras does not matter. Once we got above about 5, it's all good from here on out. Sticking a ton of pixels on a tiny sensor behind a plastic lens doesn't actually get you anything but more noisy, blurry pixels. Now that's not exactly what you're getting on a DSLR, but the point remains that unless you're shooting National Geographic cover shots that are going to get printed at 600dpi, we don't need more pixels. Strapping a D70 upgrade with a ten megapixel sensor only does two things: Nikon can charge more, and SanDisk will sell more memory cards.

[Jessica @ Jul 20th 2006 2:46PM]

I hope it's a replacement for the D200 not the D70!!! And hopefully, it will offer a highter FPS! I've marked my calendar --- 20 days to go --- Aaah! :-)

[NeoteriX @ Jul 20th 2006 2:52PM]

While I feel the same way about the Megapixel race, the reality is that no one's going to buy a new camera that has the same MP as the old one, regardless of the whatever other new features might be added, like faster AF, more AF points, larger LCD, faster shooting, bigger buffer, etc.

[Jimmijam @ Jul 20th 2006 2:59PM]

A larger full frame sensor would be nice...

[evo @ Jul 20th 2006 3:00PM]

I have a D50 and I'm very pleased with it. More pixels are always a nice-to-have feature, barring the extra expense of memory to store the photos. What would be more interesting would be a full-frame sensor so we can do away with the irritating 1.5x focal length conversion for DSLRs. Also, an SDHC slot would be very welcome.

[Cris @ Jul 20th 2006 3:12PM]

It says "Integrating quality an AFFORDABILITY to meet the demands of passionate photo enthusiasts."

The D100 is already replaced by the D200(not affordable for everyone).
Now looks like the D70/70s are going to be replaced too(much more affordable).

[Samuel McConnell @ Jul 20th 2006 3:15PM]

Nikon most likely won't release a full size sensor...they seem pretty appy with the APS-C size sensor.

The best part about a higher megapixel count is the ability to crop a bunch and still have enough pixels to print at 11x17.

[teo @ Jul 20th 2006 3:22PM]

elliot,
You cannot make this statement and just gloss over it like it doesn't matter.
"Now that's not exactly what you're getting on a DSLR"

With DSLR MP do currently matter. Yes, the p&s camera lenses are maxed out with the quality they can deliver MP wise--because the line resolution is greater than the lense capability.
However, with interchangeable lenses and a larger GLASS reflector(not plastic) DSLR's have not yet reached that point. Perhaps this Nikon does, but that's not really the point is it? You weren't making a product-specific comment, becuase they're aren't enough details to go around yet.

[Pip @ Jul 20th 2006 3:44PM]

Buying more MP so you can crop more is a bit absurd.

The photograph should be framed properly the first time to begin with. Obviously there are exceptions here and there. Light poles that snuck into the shot that you didn't initially notice, or that five year old picking his nose in the corner.

Other than that, larger sensors, more AF points, and faster image writing for more FPS are what people are buying in todays dSLRs.

[mpeng @ Jul 20th 2006 3:48PM]

enthusiasts = a d70 replacement. maybe a cheaper d200. It would be better if they could get better iso sensitivity. D70 wouldn't bring out the full frame sensors. maybe the next D2's will. Whatever...Nikon probably wasn't getting enough of a buzz like the Canon 30D was. dunno...

[Zeek @ Jul 20th 2006 4:08PM]

Never one to sing Sony praises, and I've got more Nikon glass at home than I can count, but I think the upcoming Alpha dslr will beat this on price and performance.

[Robert Aitchison @ Jul 20th 2006 4:42PM]

Anyone know if it encypts some of the data in RAW format so it can prevent/frustrate people using 3rd party graphics programs (i.e. Photoshop or the GIMP) like some of the previous DSLRs have?

[George @ Jul 20th 2006 4:46PM]

Only worth it to me if they do produce a full-frame sensor. I like wide-angle and aps-c doesn't allow wide angle short of very expensive zoom lenses...so throwing out my F100 film camera with its 20mm doesn't make any sense to me.

And I hope you are kidding PIP. The ability to crop has been an essential element to all photography since day 1....especially in medium and large format photography.

[james @ Jul 20th 2006 4:51PM]

So can someone please tell me, is this going to be using the exact same 10.2 megapixel sensor as the Sony A100??? Because I know Nikon already uses Sony sensors so I'm guessing that it's going to be the same.

[evo @ Jul 20th 2006 4:58PM]

teo--

Elliot was referring to the fact that the physical size of the sensor and not its megapixel count is the (far) bigger factor in image quality. For the same megapixel count, small sensors are inherently noiser than large sensors. The more pixels you cram into a physical area, the more noise results. The real advantage of DSLRs is not the lenses, not the SLR viewfinder, or even the various features of the camera--it's the fact that you get a much larger, much less-noisy sensor.

[Yem @ Jul 20th 2006 5:19PM]

"Only worth it to me if they do produce a full-frame sensor. I like wide-angle and aps-c doesn't allow wide angle short of very expensive zoom lenses...so throwing out my F100 film camera with its 20mm doesn't make any sense to me."

Pentax make an APS-C framed 14mm f/2.8:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/1906/lens-test-pentax-smcp-da-14mm-f28-af.html
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/pentax/smc_da_14_28_ed_if

Demand for full-frame misses the point. Demand low noise and improved resolution. If the sensor has to get bigger to support these qualities then so be it but frame size is one (possible) solution - it's not the goal.

Personally, I like APS-C for the focal length "multiplier".

[Chad @ Jul 20th 2006 7:21PM]

Don't forget about glass and sensor to storage processing. The 6.1 megapixel D70 produces far better photos than other slightly cheaper cameras that have 8 or more megapixels. Like I said, NEVER forget about glass and image processing.

[Dave Gruska @ Jul 21st 2006 8:32AM]

People like to latch onto a single number to gauge performance, and for cameras, megapixels is the chosen number. I think they should come up with something like Intel has done to get over the "MHz = performance" illusion - come up with another new number that takes numerous factors into consideration, so it would be clear to see that a 10MP with high noise is not better than a 6MP with low noise.

@NeoteriX
I recently upgraded from a Sony DSC-F707 (5MP) to a Canon S2 IS (5MP) for my "p&s" camera :-) Another intersting note is that the Canon actually has a smaller sensor size than the Sony, but takes better quality photos to my eye. But most people probably would go for more megapixels over anything else.

@Yem
Personally, I'd like full frame 35mm equiv for the lack of a cropping multiplier. But yes, the quality has got to be there as well.

[schmod @ Jul 21st 2006 11:45AM]

Is it just me, or does this thing look too *big* to be an entry-level DSLR?

that, or the proportions on this thing are sort of odd (skinnier and taller than normal)

[tinou bao @ Jul 21st 2006 2:56PM]

i see a lot of comments on the full frame sensor. anybody like to comment on this article:

http://www.cleanimages.com/DDBlog-ShouldNikonMakeA35mmSizedSensor.asp

i don't really know the benefits of the full frame sensor except the no 1.5x factor, which is good/bad depending on what photos you take i suppose. for a phot like this i love the 1.5 factor

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tinou/180056802/in/set-72157594196170874/

[JJP ZAMMIT @ Jul 22nd 2006 1:13AM]

I have a D70, and I take most of my pictures with P setting, but I notice that thay are a bit underexposed.
How can I overcome this problem. thank you

[evo @ Jul 22nd 2006 1:16AM]

tinou--

Good article, thanks for that. For me, the 1.5x factor is irritating, not because it's inherently problematic, but simply because it's a mismatch between old, film camera conventions and new, digital ones, specifically in terms of lens portfolios and photographic technique. The article has an interesting perspective on the 1.5x factor, and if you tend to shoot at the long end of your lenses, it seems to be an advantage. But it's true that the numbers are (almost) completely arbitrary in the end, and if there were no older conventions that conflicted with the new, sensor size wouldn't even come up (other than in reference to noise).

[Lupowolf @ Jul 27th 2006 12:15PM]

Elliot et al: In regard to the megapixel count, it matters in the higher numbers. Having shot with a 22-megapixel Leaf Systems digital back on a Hasselblad H1, I can tell you that the results are much better.

[david @ Jul 27th 2006 5:02PM]

The site states that this new camera is an "addition to the lineup", which to me would indicate that it is not a D70 replacement, but something between the D70 and the D100/D200.