Drab said:
No radio integration (Bluetooth, WiFi, 3G, or GPS), no network integration (WiFi, 3G, or ethernet), no modularity. Lenses don't collapse into body. Low-res high-speed has been done before. Good if not extraordinary sensory performance. No revolutionary accessories. No system integration. No change in photographic workflow. = no game changers IMHO.
I'm with you there. As a social camera, it would have benefitted from a 3G/WiFi functionality that would have allowed sharing through popular social websites (tumblr and facebook to name a couple). At least that would have been more appropriate for this type of camera than an add-on GPS unit. I was also looking forward to a collapsible lens but I guess we won't see that anytime soon.
Drab said:
PDAFOS is likely the biggest thing, but my imagination is drawing a blank as to what it can do for me. The D7000's 3D AF tracking is great, if PDAFOS is what we need to expand frame coverage I'm all for it, else I expect the D400 can have ~75 AF points the old fashioned way. That said how often do you wish you had AF coverage at the top of your frame when in landscape orientation? Corner case for sure.
(Context to that is I don't give a hoot about video, so take my comments with said grain of salt.)
Never really wished for AF coverage at top or bottom of the frame but I could have used it at the corner a few times. I'm not a big fan of video on DSLR's either. I want my D7000 to be a camera that takes nice crisp beautiful stills and nothing else. I hate the fact that my D7000 can shoot all different kinds of video at resolutions and fps that I don't give a rat's bum about. The only video I like to see come out of my D7000 is motion stop video. If I want a video camera, I'll friggin' get one. Just stop packing that junk into my precious DSLR (>_<) However, place good video on a P&S or the new Nikon 1 and I could go for it. I know it's not the most logical thing but go figure ^_^'
jonnyapple said:
Has anyone seen a diagram of where the AF points are on these? I suspect that they cover about the same fraction of the frame as an FX AF sensor because they're using the entire image circle of the lens like FX does.
I think the physics won't let them put these phase contrast sensors on the edges or corners of the frame because half of the information they're using for the rangefinder doesn't exist at the edges of the frame. It's the same reason you get vignetting at the edge of the frame. The missing light is predominantly from one side of the lens. I realize I'm not anything like an expert (just a self-convinced physicist, which can be a very dangerous thing!).
No I haven't seen a diagram either but that's an interesting point. I'm not a physicist either but I'd guess that it would depend on the size of the image circle the lenses are designed to cast. This is just a hypothesis so not 100% sure on this and maybe someone could correct me but I believe different lenses cast slightly different size circles on the sensor. In other words, the image circle is not always a tight fit around the sensor and some lenses are "looser" or "tighter" than others. If Nikon designed the new system with this in mind, then maybe (jus maybe) they're able to extend the AF points more into the edges and corners of the sensor.
