Although many of us have criticized the video feature being added to DSLRs, this will be a benefit that we will see from the video feature. When zooming while shooting video you are going to want to be able to maintain the exposure and depth of field, and a constant aperture lens will be important in doing this.

The 16-35mm f/4 VRII is largely a product of the video feature. Nikon touts the new VRII as being good for shooting video, and that is why we see VR in such a short focal length lens. Also, that lens is a constant aperture zoom due to wanting to make it easier for maintaining exposure and depth of field while shooting video.

So, in this instance we are benefitting by getting better lenses due to the video feature being put in the DSLRs.

1. Just because a lens isn’t 2.8 doesn’t mean it’s a cheapo consumer lens. (I shoot mostly with the 24mm 3.5 PC-E and that’s no hunk of junk.) The hope here is that Nikon’s new line of 4.0 lenses are not el-cheapo lenses like the existing POS 24-120.

2. While the trinity of 2.8 zooms with a D3X may be the ultimate in quality, some of us do a lot of work in the backcountry and actually have to hike to our photography. Why carry overly big lenses if you’re just going to shoot at F/11 and there is a cheaper smaller alternative? Throwing money at the most expensive solution isn’t always the BEST solution.

In theory the max ISO rating is determined by the highest ISO rating that can be used and keep noise under a specific threshold. I would like to know if that is based on the JPEG output or the RAW output. The lack of difference between the D300 and D300s suggests that maybe there has not been a major breakthrough in sensor design, rather they have got better at tweaking the JPEG conversion to eliminate extraneous noise.

I certainly would not say no to a D3x if offered one! But the price is a bit out of reach. If you add the price of the lenses required to do it justice you are looking at the price of a new car.

Any camera with that sensor is going to cost at least as much as the current D700. So I really don’t see the point of a cheapie lens. Sure you can take great photos with an f/4 lens. But to get 24 quality MP you are going to need to choose with great care.

That ISO 1600 says to me that you are going to want to get a lot of light in to get the best from it in most handheld situations. A lens you can only use on a tripod or with flash is not a kit lens in my view. Nor can I remember taking many landcapes at mid range focal lengths. Until I got the ultra-wide I seemed to always want to go wider or narrower.

the first 4 shots are taken with the 16-35mm.

No wonder I see so many fat photographers, they refuse to use their legs.