<<

Obviously you are not that pro if you really meant what you wrote there…
I'm not going to bother teaching you why Nikon only keeps 12MP with only one higher mega pixel full frame camera. You have no idea about cameras.

Motion-Jpeg is not optimal, but the advantages is that Nikon can use the same picture settings and processing as with the stills. AND you can more easily take out still from the movie.

Motion-Jpeg with 1080p would cause hugh files.

It is more important to delay a product rather than launched with so so improvement/quality. If the damage is done, it is hard to recover.

also.. low price or at least the same as its predecessor will help.

Like it or not, it isn’t about what you need, it is about what the market and competition demands. video is the next big thing. take it and quit complaining. You may as well demand decent video if they wish to avoid the bad press associated with the fact that your top of the line flagship has inferior video quality than a point and shoot and every single camera your competition makes. how’s that for some reputation.

Anyone who expects the D700x to come out before the D3x has come down to a reasonable price, is going to be disappointed. Nikon would no doubt like to sell a D700x even more than folk on this board would like to buy it. But the fact is that at the moment they are unable to make that camera for their traditional flagship price point.

Ken Rockwell is an ass. Only he could write a review of a camera and fail to mention the three main drawbacks to the Leica system up front. First it is manual focus, second the range finder design means you are not seeing what you are shooting, third the body costs $7000 and the lenses run you $1200 for the normal and $2500-$5000 for your other primes – forget zooms.

If I send a PJ to cover a story and he comes back with beautiful stills AND compelling video, that’s a good thing. He’s already there. And why should he lug around another piece of equipment?

These are like the same arguments one made favoring a trunk full of primes instead of two zooms. That’s a fine-arts photographer talking. A sports/news pro needs whatever gets out of their way so they can capture the story and make the customer happy. And the capability to record video is becoming part of that.

This “buy a video camera” nonsense totally misses the mark – no “video camera” short of a $250,000 Panavision can compare to what’s possible with a DSLR’s optical finder, huge sensor and selection of spectacular lenses.

What Nikon and Canon are doing is essentially enabling use of the capability of a system we’re ALREADY hauling around with us. It won’t be long before DSLR video equals or surpasses the quality of movie cameras used in feature films (the still capability always has). Things are about to change radically.

The D3s is the ideal camera for video because it’s mission in life is not fine arts stills but rough-and-tumble professional photojournalism in the field – recording an EVENT. That’s why it’s got the fastest autofocus, quickest frame rate, and all those weather seals. These cameras are about capturing the story under less-than-ideal conditions quickly and making the customer happy. The ability to record video fits in perfectly with that mission.

Given that Nikon has an absolutely stunning set of f/2.8 FX zooms it is reasonable to expect the next pro level releases to be of primes.

Oddly enough, it is the high ISO performance of the CMOS sensors that makes the fast lenses so desirable. I can’t use flash inside a conference, but with my D300 and a 50mm f/1.2 I don’t need it.

When we get to really high resolution sensors (50MP and above), the performance of the zooms is not going to be enough to do the sensor justice. Nikons zooms are as good as they are due to state of the art computer aided design. Their line of primes was designed by hand. So they are really not worth very much, in fact my DX 10-24mm lens does better than my 20mm prime. So no wonder pros have little use for them. What folk are after is a newly designed ultra-prime that outperforms the zoom.

I shoot video, but I use a video camera to do so at the moment. I am not really very interested in having a DSLR that doubles as a video camera. But I am really interested in having a video body that can use my F-mount lenses.

In time I expect to see Nikon produce a dedicated video body. I think we will also see the shutter go electronic on DSLR sensors in the near future.

But that is the whole point of the Nikon system, you are not just buying gear for your current needs, you expect it to work with the gear that comes out later.

nikon cost more with fewer options but more thought in design and better build quality….

Step aside for a moment: are the current cameras that bad in any of these criteria? I suppose not otherwise there would be no market for such equipment.

Regards
PF