Nikon @ Photokina day 5

The latest updates from Photokina:

Interview with Robert Cristina (Manager Professional Products and NPS) - he dodged the question about a potential medium format camera from Nikon:

Nikon D7000 video test (manual focus):

The rest of the videos are from the "I am Nikon" campaign. The first video is a time-laps of the Nikon's booth making:

Interview with Vincent Versace:

More on the "I AM NIKON" campaign:

Interview with Adrian Steirn (from 21 icons):

Video about MyPictureTown:

The next video is pretty cool - Nikon actually brought real eagles to present their sport optics line:

Highlights of the Vincent Versace’s presentation at the Nikon booth:

Dave Black's presentation at Photokina:

And last but not least, Chase Jarvis who said it right: "Photokina is to celebrate the engineers that create those cameras", I concur:

This entry was posted in Nikon D7000 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Greg

    “Nikon D7000 video test – I think the video AF is faster than the D3100 (see D3100 video AF). I could be wrong”

    The author of that video explicitly stated he didn’t use the AF. It was all manually focused.

    • did not see this comment on youtube

      • Greg

        It’s one of the top comments:

        “was in auto and autofocus disable,the video loke ok,is only 23378kbps maximun,dont have time to try in auto focus.”

        • Yeah that was in reply to one of my inquiries : P

    • Well this guys claim that they had a D7000 for testing and they say that the bitrate is about 24 MB/s

      And here`s another one from the same guy that test it right there in the nikon booth….
      But this one the file extension is not flash is .Mp4 and is shooting from another d7000….

      • Karlosak

        Not to be nitpicking, but the bitrate is most probably 24 Mbps, not 24 MB/s – that would equal to 192 Mbps and one hour of such video would take 86GB of card space!!! Though the quality would be out of this world, that’s for sure 😉

        • Sorry about that Karlosak, its was a writing mistake….

        • I just read this from a DPREVIEW post…

          “The Nikon D7000 uses so-called “B” framing which results in video at lower bitrates (regardless of the given quality) compared to the T2i. The D7000 uses the previous and next frame to compress the video, which takes more processing power, but the file size is smaller for a given quality. I think the T2i uses frame by frame compression, which results in larger files sizes (but less horsepower is needed to compress it).”

          • Is it good or bad??

            • Banned

              It’s good because it uses the next frame as part of the compression and not just the previous frame, so you can have less information for each frame. It makes better use of the compression algorithm. The quality is the same.

            • I’m not totally sure on this, but I thought it would be worse. Because now instead of giving each frame its own attention, you’re grouping it up with others, which may get slightly confusing for the compression, not to mention its a form of compression which usually means quality is *squished*. We’ll see though.

            • Sorry, but computers don’t get confused in the same way that people do.

              Essentially all video is compressed to some degree, including all consumer level cameras.

              Video compression picture types on Wikipedia

              Essentially, the compression algorithm tracks the difference in each frame rather than including all of the (same) information from the previous/next frames, saving on space but keeping the quality the same.

          • Trend


            Yes, because saying
            “this pixel is red for the next frame” 5 times
            is going to give you better reds than to say
            “this pixel is red for the next 5 frames”

      • Karlosak

        What’s more troubling, in the second video one can see the settings menu and it seems that at least for the Photokina (European?) camera model, there is no 720/30p setting! Only 24p and 25p. What a bummer. I don’t like the idea of flashing the firmware to US to get faster frame rates…

        • WoutK89

          or you put it in NTSC instead of PAL 😉

          • Jabs


            EXACTLY – push da button.
            NTSC -or- PAL – MENU option.

        • Jabs


          European PAL needs 25p for compatibility with YOUR televisions or video standards there as you have 50 HZ electrical current. Half of 50 = 25.

          US needs NTSC and thus 30p for compatibility with OUR electrical needs as we have 60HZ electrical current. Half of 60 = 30.
          Video SYNCS to the line currents’ frequency, so it varies all around the world, as VIDEO used to depend on motors having an EXACT frequency to do time-based measurements or syncing.
          Neither 25p or 30p is inferior or superior, but it is what is needed in your part of the world or you could not play the video back except on ‘computer based’ systems.
          Digital eliminates that, but you still have electric motor based or quartz crystal based timing items to deal with as everything is NOT computer based which eliminates the sync, as it resides in a totally digital format UNTIL it leaves the computer and goes to either analog or digital via fiber optic lines or such.

  • The full res pics of the D7000 are amazing. I wonder if they’re taken with noise reduction off.

    • SA

      It’s written: NR is ON. And I’m not impressed. Already on ISO 800 I see noise very well.

      • Thanks. I saw it after posting :p
        If noise reduction is on, then I’m not that impressed. ISO1600 is still rather good though.

  • The invisible man

    No FX for photokina is not that bad news, when you see how fast the technology evolute in DSLR, longer is often better !
    We can expect the next Nikon FX body to be a KILLER !

    Here is what I think will be the D800/D900 (it’s too late for a D700x)
    *** 18MP FX sensor with 400 ISO base (low light sensitivity even better than the D700)
    *** Full HD video at 30fps (videos at only 24fps look terrible) with AF.
    *** Dual slot cards one SD + one CF (I would prefer two CF).
    *** GPS
    ***100% viewfinder
    *** priced around $2990

    I see it comming before March.

    • preston

      I really hope it’s not 400 ISO base, but rather 100 like the D7000. I don’t want to be forced to carry an ND filter with me in bright conditions just because I don’t have a fast enough shutter speed!

      • They might have Lo 1 and 2 for that although I hope not!

        • WoutK89

          But lo-1 and lo-2 mean they are not 100% the same as the ISO they replace. You rather want it to start at ISO 100 then. Nikon said the lo and hi ISO’s are for people to judge if they want to use them (if they do the job for them sufficiently)

      • PHB

        The camera cos have agreed to rate ISO as follows:

        Lowest ISO is the setting that gives the best noise performance.
        Highest ISO is the highest setting that the camera can achieve a noise performance roughly equivalent to the noise of certain 1600 film.

        So ISO 400 would mean that the sensor was optimized for response at ISO400. It could happen, but seems rather unlikely.

    • preston

      also the DR is supposedly better with lower ISO

      • Victor Hassleblood

        I would go for higher DR (and lower ISO) in any case.
        Here a rumor/ a note found on CR that concerns Nikon as well:

        “It seems that both Canon and Nikon are aiming for very high megapixel flagship cameras near the end of 2011, somewhere in the 35-45 mpx range.

        This exceeds original reports of a 32mp sensor inside the 1Ds Mark IV.

        Before either of these cameras launch, I suspect both Canon & Nikon will release big megapixel cameras to come above the D700 & 5D Mark II. Think in the 28-32mp range. This would match up with some stuff I’ve been told in the past.”

        Such a schedule would fit Nikons habit to often refresh from the bottom to the top, topping previous releases with even more capabilities. I have no idea what a D5000 replacement could look like or when it is to be expected, but I guess we can expect new cameras in the following order:

        D3100 (done)
        D7000 (done)
        D400 (next)
        D700 replacement

        • WoutK89

          You forgot the D5100, where do you slot that one?

        • PHB

          The D400 is more likely to come out with the D4 as the start of a new cycle. I expect them both to be 24MP.

          Nikon has a quite a set of problems to address. with their FX line. They need a lower cost prosumer model to compete with the Canon. They need to bring in a new high end flagship and they need to update their smaller body professional model. And it is highly likely that they are looking to bring out a 50MP camera in 2011.

          I suggest the following:

          D4 is 24MP, $6000, Replaces D3s and D3x.
          D4x planned for 49MP in 2011/2012 $12,000

          Next FX model is a prosumer model with the D7000 frame and a new 16/18MP sensor. $1500-$1800

          Following that, a D700s appears with the D3s sensor. This is model for people who want to continue to have the advantage of the D3s low light performance. $3000

          There are going to be some people who prefer 12MP to 24MP and Nikon will probably be looking to support them with a professional camera. Just not necessarily with a flagship camera, just like Nikon did not continue to offer DX flagship cameras (apart from the D3x in low-res mode).

          If you throw in the likelihood of a D5000 upgrade that gives us the following new cameras for 2011:

          DX: D5100, D400
          FX: D9000, D700s, D4

          And for 2011

          DX: Cosmetic upgrades only
          FX: D800, D4x

          • Discontinued

            How come you expect D400 (DX) and D4 (FX) to have the same MP?

            Do you realize, that pixel-size and density of such a D400 would be equal with a 55MP FX?

            Do you realize how many different types of sensors you need, to make your suggestions for Nikons lineup come true?

            DX: 14, 16, 24
            FX: 12, 16/18, 24 , 50

            And what is FX in a D7000’s frame supposed to be, FX-sensor with DX-mirror and -prism?

            And what is the difference between 2011 and 2011?

            • PHB

              There are plenty of 12MP cameras on the market with sensors way smaller than DX, some of them less than a quarter the size. A 50MP DX body is technically feasible. The reason for not doing one is that you need the electronics to read out the sensor and expensive, large aperture lenses.

              Canon already has a 160MP DX sized sensor. You couldn’t use that with standard optics of course (try a $20 million telescope) but it is certainly possible to resolve that well in the visible light part of the spectrum.

              Nikon has already brought out two new sensors this year for the low end models. They could have easily used the 12MP CMOS sensor in the D3100 if there had been a constraint. I would think it rather obvious that the D400 would have a new sensor. Its a professional camera.

              Given that it is a flagship launch year, we expect a minimum of two new sensors designs. Adding a third one to for the Prosumer FX is not exactly excessive.

              By D7000 frame, I mean in the same way that the D700 uses the D300 electronics and case with only minor modifications to allow for the larger prism and mirror.

              Second 2011 should be 2012. Cannot see Nikon wanting to launch two flagship cameras in the same year. Canon might launch a 50MP camera in 2011, but Nikon seems to think getting a camera right much more important than being first to market.

          • Roger

            I agree 100%.

            D4 = 24mp (at least!), better low light performance than D3s, replaces both D3s and D3x, Nikon and buys time until they can come up with..

            D4x = 48mp (at least), highest resolution FF camera, another nail in the coffin of the medium format cameras.

            D700s = D700 + D3s sensor, other minor improvement.

            I only disagree on prices, a bit too high what you’re suggesting, PHB.

            • PHB

              I don’t think $12,000 would be unreasonable compared to the cost of the corresponding medium format cameras.

              I would like to see the other prices lower, but I think we need to be realistic…

            • Jabs

              The D700 does NOT use the D300 electronics, as that is also an Internet MYTH.
              The D700 uses the D3 electronics WITH a body based upon a D300.
              Big difference.
              Other than that, your post was great.

              Thus, the D700s (if released) would use the D3S sensor and its’ associated electronics in a smaller D300 ‘style’ body.
              Sensors and electronics are a PACKAGE!

            • Jabs

              I think that the D4 will be about 18 mp and the D4X at maybe 32 mp.
              Nikon is NOT on a megapixel race but you have to look to their PAST policies for some clue to the future, perhaps.
              They increase the megapixel by about 1/3rd of the previous levels and then they produce an X version with about double the NEW mp.

              10 divided by 3 = 3.3
              New camera was 12.3 and a little less than 10+3.3 or 13.3 mp
              D3 = 12.3 mp or thereabout.
              12 divided by 3 = 4
              12 + 4 = 16, so I expect the new camera to be about 16 mp.

              D3x = 24 mp
              24 divided by 4 = 6
              24 + 6 = 30 mp.

              So, I then expect about 16 mp for D4 and about 30 mp for D4X.
              The ranges of expectations, then can be 16-18 mp for D4 and 30-32mpfor D4X.
              We guess but there needs to be some probability in our guessings or ‘educate or ‘edumacated’ guesses like Jethro of Beverly Hillbillies infamy (LOL)!

    • zack

      Invisible man, you obviously don’t know much about video if you think that 30 fps will be Nikon’s priority. It’s going to be either 24 fps or 25 fps or both.

      • The invisible man

        You’re right I do video as a hobby so I don’t know much about it.
        But from my experience from the “super 8” at 18fps to HD DV, I always found videos with high f.p.s looking better, more “smooth, fluid”

        I don’t really care about video on a body like “D700” but if it come with it, I want it to be perfect because you can have a perfect camcorder with flash memory for only $500.

        The positive thing about video in a DSLR is the possibility to use our lenses and not having to carry a camcorder (most of us already have a very havy photo backpack).

        BTW, if like me your are curious and facinated about the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 here is a link to a demo on youtube.

        • zack

          Thanks for the link. Interesting.
          As for that 24 fps issue, the majority of people who use DSLR primarily for videomaking are interested in 24p. It is about mimicking the ‘film look’ which is 24 fps standard. It is only those who do slo-mo that require 50 (or more) fps. 30 fps is not the video standard, that’s why all the Canon 5d mkII were moaning about the lack of 24 fps which they now got with the latest update in March.
          Check this link further if you want to learn about why is that important. Canon’s main test gear guy:

          • The invisible man

            The movie industrie (35mm film) use 24 f.p.s because of mecanicals issues it was very hard to get more frames in a second.

            The human eye (and brain) have what we call “persistance rétinienne” (I have no idea how it’s called in English).
            That “persistance” allow us to keep a visual memory, very short but long enough to help us see things “smooth”.

            If it was not about the mecanical issues (and the high cost of the 35mm negative film) the cameras would have higher number of frames per seconds.

            That was my 2 cents from my 25 years old optical classes, I may be wrong about it.

            • zack

              “That “persistance” allow us to keep a visual memory, very short but long enough to help us see things “smooth”. ‘
              That is exactly why those ‘gaps’ between -24 fps are aesthetically pleasing for many film-makers. We can argue the same issue with the shallow depth of field and so on. My argument was that the whole history of film (not just 35 mm) was 24 fps. and that has built the notion of aesthetics I’ve mentioned.
              Sure, you can have 1000 fps, like the one found in the Phantom camera, so if you need an extreme slow motion, you will embrace it. However, for any other scenarios, people will always measure their work to that of the early (or traditional if you will) film-makers. See my point?
              However, that may change in the years to come.
              (btw, I do have my super 8 camera, but I’ve always shot in 24 fps. and not 18 fps. Canon 814 )

        • “I don’t really care about video on a body like “D700″ but if it come with it, I want it to be perfect because you can have a perfect camcorder with flash memory for only $500.”

          I want to hear more about this.

          • The invisible man

            B&H or Adorama
            Flash camecorders (don’t have to download video from a tape, just read the memory, reduce edditing time).

          • Jabs

            @Jarski Mela.
            I personally believe that Nikon is not working on VIDEO-graphy but on the equivalent of Digital 35mm Ciinematic Filming for its’ upcoming pro bodies.
            HD is actually lo-res video by Professional Cinematic standards.
            Heck, Japan for years has had better than HD Broadcast resolution, though it was analog. I believe that Nikon is aiming for 4K Video and not HD video, as that is worthless to pros who make Cinematic Movies.
            Look at what RED is doing with Nikon as perhaps a CLUE!
            Cheap flash cams are for Internet posting and not for high quality results.
            THEY do not have the lenses for that.
            The D3S is already at 4K resolution in STILL photography and the D3X is above that, so now they have to add 4K video and then we faint at the price – LOL!

    • The seeing man

      Without video, without GPS, how to use it?
      Perhaps to make phottography?
      $ 2000, I buy it !!!!

    • panfruit

      No doubt. The next FX body is going to soo killer. 🙂 And with all the wonderful new lenses this year, it will be unstoppable! muahahaah

    • NascarGeoff

      base 400 iso is a horrible idea. You just lost all credibility Invisible Man. However, if you end up being correct, Nikon just lost my business/interest.
      base 100 iso is where it’s at.

      • The invisible man

        @ NascarGeoff
        If you are old enough you may remember the the first video cameras did not have a good sensitivity and needed alot of light to make a good video.
        But years after years the sensors were improved and video cameras became much better shooting in low light.

        When I say ISO 400 “base” I don’t mean an artificial gain with electronic tricks. I meant a new sensor with better pixels who will give the “100 ISO” quality at ISO 400.
        So, of course the 400 ISO “base” will be much better at 1600 ISO than the 100 ISO “base”
        And I still think that my infos about a RGB 3 sensors may not be totally crazy.

        • Hope you’ll have more info about the 3 sensors 🙂

    • Eric

      I’m not sure why everyone is so obsessed with 30p video. In broadcast and any kind of professional setting, it’s a non-existent format.

      Nikon and Canon have finally learned this an that’s why they’ve embraced 24p.

      I hope point and shoots are the next ones to embrace it.

      We should be pushing for 25p and 60p, not 30p. It’s a dead end.

      • 30fps is broadcast standard :\

        • zack

          Maybe it is in US

          • US, Canada, any country on NTSC.

            • zack

              I live in Europe, so the broadcast standard is PAL.

            • Jabs

              Again another MYTH about a need for 30fps. The REAL reason why we had a need for 30 or 60 fps was and still is US and other similar places USING electrical current @60Hz and thus they had to SYNC their motors to that frequency or MULTIPLES or divisors of that (30, 60, 120, 240, etc.). In areas of the world where electrical line CURRENT is 50Hz (Hertz), then they sync at multiples/divisors of THAT (25, 50, 100, 200) and hence why they have these SPEEDS.
              However, DIGITAL video recording DOES not need this antiquated syncing as it is DIGITAL and not ANALOG.
              24FPS (or I believe 23.97fps) is a Cinematic Motion Picture STANDARD and has nothing to do with a limitation of their equipment. It is called a SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture/Televsion Equipment) standard if I remember right (LOL) and they determined that this works BEST for them plus keeps all their equipment synced and allows interoperability in a PRODUCTION environment.
              DSLR’s are digital and digital is RESOLUTION independent and NOT synced like analog – so people perpetrate myths because they are clueless.
              Nikon KNOWS this and has aimed their cameras at FILMERS who know these details and others take advantage of consumer/amateur IGNORANCE.
              In America ANALOG does not exist as a Broadcast Standard anymore as the FCC (Federal Communication C?) outlawed it and now that spectrum is used for other things as Broadcast Television is all digital here. Hence 30fps is useless in America unless you are still stuck in an analog world of VIDEO tapes/video editors which need to sync to the electrical line – think older BetaCam, BetaMax, VHS-C, VHS, SuperVHS and such.

    • Trend

      are you going tp say this every post now?

  • Nir.E

    The 35mm f/1.4 lens was not available to the public at Photkin? bummer
    I wonder how good and how big is the difference from my Nikon 35 2.0 on FF body,
    it has no ED glass

    • panfruit

      Doesn’t the 35mm/1.8 trounce the 35/2? I would imagine the 35/1.4 would stomp into crapper. 🙂

    • WoutK89

      So what that it doesnt have that ED glass? ED glass is for difficult optical constructions, apparently the 35mm is like the 50mm a simple construction that doesnt need ED.

      • The invisible man

        Ed Glass was made for tele lenses who have “simple” optical formula.
        But it does not hurt to use it for other lenses also !

      • StickingZoom

        Nikon claims in its brochures that ED glass helps in reducing CA. Both, the 85mm and 35mm, show considerable amounts of CA.

        I’m disappointed that Nikon didn’t address CA in their 2 new professional primes.

        • Roger

          All fast lenses have CA you’re seeing in 24 and 85 Nikkors. Even the Canon primes, even the 6,000-11,000$ Leica primes.

          If you want lenses without CA, dont buy fast primes.

          • StickingZoom

            You didn’t get my point: Nikon has the technology to reduce CA with ED glass and is not using it in their 2 new pro prime lenses.

            The 24mm f/1.4 uses ED glass and has (for a UWA) CA quite good under control.

            • Roger

              I have the 24, it has CA too. Just like the Canon 24, or the 6000$ Leica 24. 😉

    • Antonio Rojilla

      Bummer? You were not there and you are complaining? Ah, I see, you must be one of those that complain about flaws in photos… they never take.

      • Nir.E

        Sorry to disappoint you Antonio, I am a photographer,
        this is how I earn my living, if a lens will give me an edge, i will buy it.
        The 24mm 1.4 is to wide for me the 35mm 1.4 is what I want if it worth
        adding 1600$ after selling my 35 2.o.
        Have a nice day 🙂

      • Ren Kockwell

        Totally unnecessary bashing, Antonio.

  • zack

    Video suffers from the same f-ing wavers and flicker like D90, check the vid. It is obvious that Nikon is struggling in video dpt. WHy bother then…give us a better camera and leave all that video chase to Canon who is clearly winning it. (that bAttle only)

    • Anton

      “f-ing wavers and flicker” has nothing to do with Nikon.
      It’s how light works! Do you know that light blink at a rate of 50/60 hertz? So if you set the wrong setting in the camera it will flicker.

      • Nikon Tandoori

        Video had no reason at all to be included in the first place in my opinion.

        Either it’s a camera, or it’s a videocamera.

        Who needs jerky and jelly videos and mono audio ?
        And who needs GPS and other crap they keep bundling ?

        • Ren Kockwell

          Dude, video in cameras is here and it’s here to stay. Deal with it. It makes perfect sense for a lot of people. If you can’t see the utility in having a camera/camcorder combo, you’re not thinking very hard. If you don’t want it, don’t use it. It doesn’t get in the way of the camera’s still functionality, and it’s not making the cameras more expensive. Compare the D80 initial price to the D90. And the D90 is just slightly heavier.

          Better be careful. You’re starting to sound like a grumpy old man!

          • old photographer

            Yeah, man, Im old.
            Not more expensive ???
            Not more expensive, even in marketing smog???
            30 years ago, argentic Agfa vario and Ilford xxx were 100x better in dynamics then latest sensors. What would it be today ? (30 years or non-research on film, 30 years on marketing expenses in digital stuff…)
            I dont want to call my girlfriend with my camera, I dont want to find my (geographical) way with my camera, I dont want to pay for stupid gadgets, directly or not.

        • Jabs

          @Nikon Tandoori.
          ALL video cameras USED to have the ‘so-called jello effect’ and this was SOLVED years ago by having a buffer in the video camera and then they rewound a few frames and erased the last few frames shot – so now the effect is gone.
          The problem stems from not enough MEMORY within a DSLR and most photographers NOT knowing how to edit it out.
          It is pointless to complain as it is easy to edit it out with say Adobe Premiere.
          People rant about it and expect it to magically disappear – LEARN to edit video JUST like you have to learn to edit digital photos.
          Get your skills up to date and quit complaining.
          Go to and BUY some programs or use FREE Linux and Cinelerra or even Kino video editors. Lots of free video editors in BOTH Artist-X ( and Ubuntu Studio 32bit or 64bit ( – so now you have NO excuses !!!
          That is what I use and they are professional programs too.

          Solutions pal.

          • Jello is caused by a rolling shutter. CMOS sensors are not offloaded all at the same time like CCD sensors. Instead, they are offloaded line by line. Having a buffer does not solve rolling shutter. Doing simultaneous row offload does, but that takes an enormous bandwidth outside the sensor. Sensor makers have gotten more clever in how they do the data offload, which mitigates the rolling shutter effect. But it’s clear that Nikon still has much variability in this: the D3s has little visible rolling shutter effect and the D3100 has very high rolling shutter effect. So the problem is not “solved.”

            • LGO

              I imagined that a global shutter with a fat pipeline and fast processor would solve the jello effect?

            • PHB

              Not quite Thom,

              The way that CMOS cameras solve the rolling shutter problem is by using one extra transistor per pixel to implement a global shutter.

              When the global shutter fires, all the cells are transfered to the holding cell simultaneously. Then they are read out line by line in the normal way. So it is buffering but its an analog buffer.

              The pros of having a global shutter are significant. You can have flash sync at any shutter speed, you can have much higher shutter speed than any mechanical shutter could allow. And it removes the most expensive and fault-prone mechanical system from the camera.

              The con is that the transfer process means that you are introducing noise and the extra transistor per cell means less sensor area.

        • Anton

          mono audio is what pros use. That is you record sound on a professional sound system and use the mono to automatically synchronize recorded video and audio. That’s how you are supposed to record the video with this camera: use the camera to record video and audio system to record audio. (if you use a camera for like 2k, i would expect that you would use 2k sound recording system as well).

          in the movie industry you would record sound separately in a audio recording studio. The mono is used as a draft version, that is it is used to know what exactly did the actor say and when exactly he sad it.

          • While that’s true, a standard 3.5mm jack is still helpful to input audio from an external mic. Rather then having to purchase a separate audio recording machine to do it.

          • PHB

            Professional studios use timesync generators that keep all the various cameras in sync and timestamp all the audio and video data.

            I would not really pay much attention to what pros use today however because it will all be junk in a couple of years. Most pros are still shooting to tape today. The pro videocams are only just arriving with solid-state media.

            The DSLRs will support the new standards that emerge to support professional solid state digital production workflow as they emerge.

          • zack

            You can’t say, mono audio is not what pros use. They use both, mono and stereo. Especially for the location sound. How do I know that? I work there.

            • PHB

              He may well be confused by the fact that many high end mics are mono.

              It does not take a stereo mic to get stereo sound. In fact standard BBC issue for location recording is a mono microphone that has a second mono microphone located behind it with a filament at right angles to the first so that it picks up the difference between the left and right channels.

              Advantage of that setup is that you can concentrate on picking up the narrator using the mono directional mic and then mix in as much or as little stereo effect as you need when you edit.

            • Jabs

              To a consumer, the confusion comes from the word MONO or monaural – lol.
              In the Industry as you note, many use MONO mics but they call them single channel or one channel mics. THEN, they use multi-channel recorders and record from several single channel mics and thus they mix-down in several channels from independent microphones of differing types all designed for a specific purpose.
              That is what confuses consumers who do not know that professionally, people refer to SINGLE channels as MONO and then when they do say a 5:1 or 7:1 surround mix or even a special mix, they try and keep the audio commentator MONO and then put this sound equally on both LEFT and RIGHT channels so that there is an apparent difference in the location of the sound (sort of like how they have a center channel for dialogue) as compared to the effects that are rear channel, side channel or front channel.
              Shotgun mics, stereo or mono condensor mics, vocal mics, border effect mics, surround effect mics and all types of tube, cardoid or different pickup patterns all optimized for their job. This is all mixed down to make the final sound. Each independent mic is designed for a purpose and thus consumers focus on specs while pros focus on making CONTENT and delivering it to them, hence they are lost in buzzwords.

        • zack

          Nikon Tandoori. You better start updating your mind to 21st Century. You can also send an email through Facebook, you know.

          • Poorzack

            If your mind is so update, go away and make your pictures with Your iphone !!!!!!

      • zack

        I know that, and I have D90. I live in UK and the video is virtually useless if I want to shoot indoors due to those ‘waves’. You can’t change that settings in the camera so tell me, if that’s nothing to do with Nikon, how come that is a non-existent issue with Canon? I hoped NIkon will release some update to fix that, but since I bought D90 and that was 2 years ago not a single upgrade-update-fix has been released. Thank you.

        • danpe

          You can change that setting, it just takes a bit of work. Point the camera at a white to black gradient card and lock exposure when the flickering stops.

          • zack

            Not really. It can only be a little less harsh when I do that, but it never totally stops or disappear for that matter.

        • Anton

          What video mode are use using? (frames per second)
          and what frequency is used in UK?

          • zack

            24 fps. UK is 50hz ..

            • Anton

              I checked the user manual of your camera and indeed, you are right, it seems that it supports only 24fps. Well that how business is done, since i see no technical problems in adding support for other frame rates. They want you to buy a new camera (if they would have added other fps support, then you would probably not buy a new camera, at leat now).

              They new Nikon camera do support other frame rates and 50/60 Hz switch.

        • Jabs

          We get lost in the TECHNIQUES to eliminate the problem.
          The SOLUTION – every manufacturer NEEDS to customize or allow customization within their cameras to DEAL with the various needs or lack of a need to SYNC their video OUTPUT to the requirement of each LOCATION of the world.
          Now- HOW ‘jello effect’ is SOLVED = PUT a large buffer in your video camera and then DO pre-fecth and post-fetch PLUS scene matching and thus the start DELAY plus the stop delay is eliminated or minimized.
          OLD analog video SYNCED and then old analog BROADCAST or playback needed a certain sync PLUS video WAS written in its’ FORMAT years ago to sync within the TELEVISIONS or monitors of OLD via a method used by either Sony or say Ikejami (if I remember right) and thus some synced top to bottom and others line by line or even other methods. They now use DIGITAL monitors which often have NO sync as they use digital connectors and keep their signal digital from acquisition to playback plus also edit digitally. (Think like Adobe Premiere or even Final Cut Pro or Newtek SpeedRazor.
          Canon produces video equipment for all over the world and Nikon DOES NOT – so Canon is ahead in THAT.
          Sony also knows and does THAT, so they too are ahead of Nikon. In PICTURE quality of the video, I prefer Nikon and since Nikon also makes extremely expensive ED Cine lenses and are well respected in the FILM/Movie world, then they have an edge there.
          I know how to sync or I don’t even need to sync – as my whole set up is TOTALLY digital. Nothing analog = no need to sync as I can do my own Mastering.
          Analog died in America ages ago when the ORIGINAL NewTek Video Toaster on Commodore Amiga brought in a new era in the 80’s. NO ONE in America today uses video tapes or Analog in the Pro ranks, but use often a combination of Digital/Analog wherein the analog is a link to the past or to deal with footage from other people sent to them in analog form.
          About the mono claim – that is true as they use this as a Control Track and then you later add the REAL audio that you need after editing it in Post Production. You listen and sync or the program does that for you – LOL!
          Lastly – florescent (or flourescent in some parts of the world) light flickers because they sync at either 50 or 60 Hz and thus they are useless for video work. Your eye compensates but the video does not and shows you the problem – HENCE they use Tungsten lights/incandescent lights or even the new LED lights or some Public places have special lights/lighting systems made or optimized for VIDEO shooting just like they have lights optimized for photographic shooting in say an Arena in the NFL, NHL, NBA in America and elsewhere.

  • cirtap

    This Robert Cristina u can tell is full of DO DO….for real..when talking about the ever over priced D3x which is the same camera as the D3s…except pixels…he is talking pure crap…What makes the D3x so expensive…NIKON..wanted a over priced camera..that not many people would buy…they should be ashamed of their selves for that camera.

    IF the Sony high end camera and has the same sensor…and clocks in at what? around 3 grand..why is this 4 grand more? makes zero sense to me…

    • BornOptimist

      If they have production capacity to make 3000 – 4000 D3X pr month, it makes perfectly sense to me to sell them for 8000 rather than 5000. Pure business!

    • Jabs

      The real reason why the D3X is so expensive is that it seems to use CUSTOM electronic components inside its’ body AFTER the Sensor and thus the unreal RESULTS. The sensor is akin to a COMPUTER processor and then Nikon TWEAKS it and then adds much better components inside and thus you have a ‘killer high-end camera’ way beyond anything Sony or anyone else makes. Have you looked at the files from a D3X? Sort of like an Alienware or such Gaming Desktop with the best quad or hexa-core processors and components plus multiple SLI or Crossfire Workstation graphic cards all optimized for nothing but blazing speed or outrageous quality with OpenGL. Therefore YOU get what you pay for and NEED to use it to earn money and NOT for bragging rights.
      Heck, it clearly beats every DSLR on the market by a wide margin and even beats some medium format DSLR’s.
      It is worth EVERY dollar that they ask for it, as the old antiquated Canon FULL FRAME Pro body is priced similarly and much worse. Heck, the D3S is even better than BOTH the Sony A900 and A850 – have YOU looked at the files from a D3X on a critically adjusted CRT monitor? Do you even have the photographic experience/ability or the critical eye to even evaluate such a high end camera?
      Probably not, as you probably use and don’t know that LCD’s have between 75-85% of the color gamut of a CRT or tube monitor, such as the Sony Trinitrons, though the newer LED backlit screens are looking way better.
      The pros who purchase a D3X usually pay for it in a few weeks or even days HERE in America, as they charge accordingly. NOBODY but fools or exhibitionists would buy a D3X for showing off on others, but it is a serious TOOL to do what nothing else can do. This camera is aimed at PROS who make thousands of dollars PER day and not at consumers or even RICH amateurs/pros.
      HENCE, cheap to them as it makes more money for them.

      • The D3x has basically the exact same parts “after the sensor” that the D3s does (other than the ADC, which it doesn’t need and which REDUCES cost), so your contention is invalid on the face of it. The D3x does appear to have a very different set of microlenses and Bayer filters over the sensor than the Sony A900, though, and that may be part of the cost.

        • LGO

          Would this mean that the D3X is a very high-margin camera for Nikon and thus possibly explain why Nikon has not announced a D700x?

          Nonetheless, I would think that being in the market for more than a year and a half, it would now be as profitable for Nikon to release the D700x as most of the would be buyers for the D3x would have already bought one whereas there remains be a large pent-up demand for a D700x.

          Would the absence of a D700x (as well as a D700s) possibly indicate that Nikon has changed strategy on the D700 and that it has a new FX sensor that this would find its way first into a D700-type body prior to the D4, similar to how the new DX sensor has been made available in a D7000 before the D400?

          Still, I imagine that there would be a lot of interest on a D700s and it does not make sense that Nikon has not release this yet even if it has a new FX sensor for a D700-type body. I certainly would be interested in a D700s. The only logical reason for Nikon not to release a D700s is if it has a new sensor with the low-light performance of a D3s but with a higher resolution, e.g., 16mp. But even with Nikon’s track record, this may be expecting too much from Nikon.

          It’s a puzzle why Nikon (and Canon) has not released a new full-frame body during this Photokina.

        • PHB

          I suspect the difference in cost is due to the in-house Sony group getting the benefit of pricing at marginal cost rates rather than production cost.

          Sony has paid for the capital cost of the facility. The marginal cost of running wafers through the plant is probably no more than a few tens of dollars per wafer. But each machine they use costs millions or tens of millions of dollars.

          Say the yield on the 12MP sensor is 90% and on the 24MP is 10%. If Nikon is charged $100 for the 12MP sensor, the 24MP is going to be $1000.

          For the Sony group, the capital equipment is sunk cost and the question is what they can do to make the most profitable chips and push their process development efforts. So even though the yield is poor, they are going to be running that silicon anyway and might as well make some money back on product.

        • Jabs

          @Thom Hogan.
          You are WRONG.
          If you know anything about BIT-structure and Engineering, you would know why you are so wrong.
          The D3X = 24 megapixels.
          The D3X = higher bit structure than ANY other D3 series.
          When you multiply the bit structure by the bit depth plus the increase in megapixels, you get a figure that no 12 megapixel camera can MATCH.
          Hence it is like a comparison between a 32 bit processor and a 64 bit processor. You can do 32 bit within a 64 bit structure, BUT you cannot do 64 bit within a 32 bit environment. The D3/D3S would be akin to the 32 bit version and the D3X, the 64 bit version.
          How do I know this – Trained Engineer.
          I don’t even have to know HOW Nikon did it but there is an Internet myth about Nikon taking a D3 and then ‘upsizing’ things and that is GARBAGE. You cannot upsize 32 bit to 64 bit – comes to mind as an analogy!!! The ONLY thing they have in common is a BODY shape, frame and certain controls but most on the internal components are CUSTOM IC’s unique to ONLY the D3X.
          Megapixel size -X- bandwdth -X- output ‘quality’ in a HIGHER bit-structure = IMPOSSIBILITY in using identical components.
          REALITY, bub!
          The Sony A900 and A850 are what YOU are probably thinking about in terms of a valid comparison, but in Nikon -vs- Nikon, you are clueless indeed. If I had to make a guess, then I would say that Nikon simply took some preliminary components from the upcoming D4 and then had them custom made and placed in a D3 series, so the D3X is in effect a camera that is BETWEEN the D3 and the D4, but when the custom IC’s are made in VOLUME that make them economically viable or more feasible, then the price will COME down. Sorry, but I don’t see anything electronically comparable to a D3X right now and the DXO mark and analysis PROVES that to me, as they are REAL Engineers and not bloggers.

          • Pythagores’grandfath

            (2): D3body+24MpixSonysensor=7000€

            (4):(1)-(2) 12MD3sensor-24MSonysensor=-3000€

            Where is the shop? I want it !!!!

            • Jabs

              LOL@your reply but you are clueless.
              You posted –

              (2): D3body+24MpixSonysensor=7000€

              (4):(1)-(2) 12MD3sensor-24MSonysensor=-3000€

              Where is the shop? I want it !!!!

              My response:

              (1):D3body+12MpixD3sensor+D3 electronics and processors =4000€
              (2): D3body+24MpixNIKON tweaked/Sony sensor +D3X custom electronics and custom made processors =7000€
              (3):A900body+24MpixSonysensor and NO custom electronics or lousy electronics and NO great CUSTOM processors=2500€

              (4):(1)-(2) 12MD3sensor-24MSonysensor=-3000€

              Where is the shop? I want it !!!!

              WHERE is YOUR brain? That is what the uninformed person calculates as they DO NOT know much about the prices of CUSTOM IC’s made in small quantities.
              The PROOF is the distinctly DIFFERENT performance of the Sony A900/A850 FROM the D3X, even though THEY are based upon the same sensors. The associated electronics and Nikons’ tweaks is what made it PERFORM better and thus you pay for THAT better performance.
              1+1 does NOT always equal 2.
              When does 1+1 = 3?
              Let us see you answer that – LOL!

              Lastly, the D3 and D3S are BOTH more expensive than the HIGHER megapixel Sony A900/A850 and thus YOU got fooled, perhaps. WHICH one do PROS choose and use? Which one is backordered constantly and WHY?
              PROS speak with their checkbooks and NOT from ‘clumsy’ addition or subtraction.
              Here is your answer to the WHEN 1+1 = 3.
              1 plus 1 = three, when ONE refers to a pair of two or two halves of a thing.
              1+ a pair = three persons in that case – you figure it out Sherlock.

            • Pythagores’grandfath


              I know !!!
              that Nikon’s Jpegs are a bit better then Sony’s…
              3000 € for that ??? I NEVER make Jpegs !!!!!
              D3 is very good for sport press photographers (they dont pay self their cameras, so D3 is too cheap, and 4 Mpix is really too much for a newspaper sport image).

    • Ren Kockwell

      Part of the proof is in the pudding. Even at that low price, which Sony is intentionally tanking in a desperate attempt to steal market share, the A900 is not flying off the shelves. Why? IQ, ergonomics and I believe most importantly, MEDIOCRE OR NON-EXISTENT GLASS. Sony needs to elevate its glass reputation with just as much gusto as it attacks its bodies or it won’t have a prayer against the red and gold rings of Canon and Nikon.

    • Antonio Rojilla

      You can’t afford it and is Nikon to be ashamed? You should be ashamed of your own job. Think about it.

      • cirtap

        Afford YES….IT is the fact that the D3X is a mere at best a $5000.00 Camera. The only reason that Nikon did this camera was because Canon had their camera priced at the same level. All your paying for and Thom Hogan, Ken Rockwell and other critics of D3X…is 24MP. AND how many times have I heard on this site..MP don’t matter…IF they don’t matter…how come the HUGE ass price?

        The More Cameras Nikon brings out…D7000..and the replacements for D700 and D3s…and on an on…and higher MP…The D3x seems to be an old dinoSOUR…and I would agree with most critics who have reviewed D3x….it is a D3s with just higher MP. And shooting beyond 1600 is useless.

        • LGO

          The advantage of the D3X is not just in terms of its resolution but also in its color depth and dynamic range, particularly when shooting at ISO 100.

          I agree however that Nikon can price this dSLR below what it currently sells for. I would peg $6000 as a reasonable price for this and believe that Nikon would still make a good profit from this.

          • Jabs

            Sorry pal, but your logic is odd.
            D3S is about $5200 US dollars @ 12.3 mp and then you expect to buy a 24meg D3X for about $800 US dollars more?
            $6000 US minus $5200 US = $800 US dollars!

            OK – what were you now saying?

            Should the D3S then be $3000 US dollars?

        • Jabs

          Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but neither Ken Rockwell, Thom Hogan or others you refer to are ENGINEERS but they are mere bloggers.
          When they can show us or PROVE their Engineering expertise and NOT quote Wikipedia or such, then I will listen.
          Right now, they remind me of politicians drumming up support for themselves while being clueless (sorry to be blunt).
          I respect them, BUT I overlook them also when it comes to Engineering concepts.
          I studied BOTH Automotive and Electrical Engineering and though NOT an expert on CAMERAS, I sure understand the concept better than them PLUS I have been using Nikon cameras/lenses since about 1983 (first camera was an F3HP, second was an F3TC, third was an F3AF, fourth was an FA-B(black) with MD-15 combo, fifth was an F4S – won’t say what I use now -lol as none of your business) PLUS Commodore Amigas from the A1000 to the A3000UX and A3000T, hence at the forefront of BOTH computers and digital videos and I also have done some professional video/professional audio as in REAL records made and sold in America plus abroad by famous performers. Therefore wide scope of knowledge, activities and experience and not some blogger with an agenda, perhaps.
          REAL equipment user here who BUYS their own pro equipment often from either NY or other parts of the country. I have been to many US Television stations, Movie sets, Video Editing Houses, Audio-Video Broadcast Trade shows and use Engineering daily in my life for over 38 years. In the Broadcast Area, they explained YEARS ago when they went to UNCOMPRESSED digital what the problems were THEN and how they solved them. The digital Studio/Movie cameras cost maybe 100 times what a D3X costs, so you cannot expect that level of Engineering in a DSLR right now. DSLR’s use/record compressed digital and thus the problems.
          I have seen Digital Uncompressed footage with my own eyes over 20 years ago at several Studios/Showrooms and it truly amazed me. I have also worked with the Newtek Video Toaster with LightWave 3D (though not an expert) when it was an Amiga only product and when it transitioned to both Macs and Windows, while later dropping Macs. I have seen and used things such as Silicon Graphics computers and OWNED an SGI Indy that blew me away. I also owned Macs and maybe 6 Amigas plus now several Windows, Macs, Linux desktops and laptops which I use daily, so NOT talking out the side of my face. Experienced USER of equipment professionally, BUT I prefer to not flaunt my ability until YOU talk crap to me. My Operating Systems used now are WinServer 2003 Enterprise, Win 7 Ultimate 64bit, Win 7 Professional, Win XP SP3 (as lots does not work on Win 7 in the pro world, yet), Artist X-09 and 08, Kubuntu 32 bit (a variety of Ubuntu), Ubuntu Studio 64 bit with the RT kernel, Linux Mint 32 and 64bit, plus other Linux Live CD’s-DVD’s.
          Therefore, experienced in USING equipment PLUS owner of much, but general ‘stooge’ – LOL!
          Life’s good, so no need to complain all day and then dream about things.
          I love Tom’s photographs but I do my OWN analysis plus I overlook Ken, as I am not naive.

  • Thorsten B.

    Hi guys. Yes the 35mm 1.4 is behind glass. But the 24-120mm f4 is availiable i have Shot some pictures at the photokina! I think the bokeh is very good for a zoom lens. The Lens is attached to the D3x and i have some Testshots. So you want it? Thorsten

    • WoutK89

      Why even ask, you know the answer is yes. But isnt the 24-120 already being shipped?

      • Nikon Tandoori

        There’s plenty of gearheads shedding 8000 bucks for a D3x … i think their pleasure just lies in buying the most expensive camera and showing off with their friends on Flickr or the microstock forums …

        Imagine .. a D3x for microstock … and that’s nothing, i’ve read of people buying a Hasselblad to shoot those 1$ images.

        In the meantime Getty Images is still selling at premium prices the whole Tony Stone collection shot in the ’90s with film and nobody complain.

        • Jabs

          @Nikon Tandoori.
          Your problem is that you have a consumer mindset and NOT a Business mindset.
          The D3X is a TOOL to make money and only fools would buy it just to show off.

          BTW – I love chicken tandoori and tandoori nan – lol!

      • According to my sources, the 24-120mm was released to ship from inventory in the US this weekend. Put another way, shipments should be headed out from the warehouse to dealers on Monday.

        • LGO

          This is great news! 🙂

  • The 24-120 f/4 was shown to the public at photokina:

    • Barbie Rokwel

      I was on friday there, and yes the 24-120 f4 was also there. It was attached to a D3x. Looked like a very nice lens, i guess for a lot of people a better option then the 24-70 f2.8

      Whenever a FF comes to my home most likely this lens will come along.

      • ok, I updated the post – maybe the reader who sent me the info did not see the 24-120 on the booth

    • Lolly

      Also one of the photos from the “Nikon @ Photokina 2010” pool on Flickr does indeed have the 24-120 F/4 VR on display.

  • CK

    Build quality is worth something, the auto focus system is certainy worth something, the usage of nikon lenses is worth something. But not worth enough for me to pay for a d3x. More than anything it is a “because we can” kind of thing.

  • Nikodoby

    Dude Admin where’s the video of Ashton Kutcher’s Photokina presentation? Or is he the one making Nikon’s closing presentation tonight? SWEET

  • brave new world

    Strange interview about cameras only – I believe the combination of camera and lens is important. Talking about market segments and potential use cases should include this.

    NPS is about service – not a single question about service … 5-6 minutes wasted time …

  • Thorsten B.

    HI guys,

    here ist the link to some simple pictures in the german forum:
    I want to show the bokeh with f4 with different focal lenghs. The camera was a D3x.

    The faces are grey because of personal rights.

  • Any roumors on new lenses at Photokina? After 24, 35, 50, 85mm primes what comes next?
    I hope 77mm telephoto updates are comming … :-/

  • David

    Pretty bad interview, because the Nikon guy (Robert Cristina) didn’t really answer the questions. For example the question regarding the D3X was totally ignored and the interviewer didn’t really care and actually thought that he was “give the answer”.

  • Banned

    Is it only me or are you guys thinking Photonika brings nothing NEW on the table and is just a big PR event for Nikon? It’s utterly boring. Like so many trade shows the big guys don’t use it for announcements anymore. It’s just about rehashing old stuff. BORING!

    • WoutK89

      Its so true, Photokina is just a show, nothing more. Still wonder why Dpreview ignored the Tokina stand, and so missed out on the 17-35 lens they had showcased.

  • XM

    D7000 movie mode sucks(((
    have to choose 60D(

  • Matt

    Many of we whom would be using Nikon’s D7k within the video world are already hoping once the camera hits the market, Nikon will do as canon did. Update the firmware so as the camera can shoot 1080p 30fps and the ability to overcrank within the 720p setting to 60fps.

    • XM

      Canon had 1080p@30fps and 720p@60fpsr with the start of sales.
      I don’t think that the firmware will solve this…

      • Matt

        @XM. the original video frame rates were 30fps and 60fps. Sorry to inform you once again, but the firmware corrected those non-standard frame rates to true 29.975 and 59.975 frame rates. 30fps and 60fps are not standard video frame rates. Hence the firmware updates. Now when importing the canons footage into Pro Res in Final cut pro everything runs nicely.

        24fps,30fps etc were cine standards @ one time.

        • XM

          I know it! And everyone knows it. I write (and manufacturers also) 30/60 because it’s not very convenient to write and speak “29.975” and “59.975” fps.
          Again, I say that the firmware doesn’t increase the framerate. And D7000 will not get 30/60 fps… these are naive dreams.

    • zack

      No, they won’t update it. They didn’t update anything which has a video since D90 came out.

  • XM

    Frankly, D7000 doesn’t justify the hopes of video mode.
    In D3s movie mode was ok, it suggests that good technology is already there.
    Do not use it in DX looks like a damn marketing imho

    • zack

      Unfortunately. I’m seriosly thinking to switch to Canon. I have three lenses, Nikkor 50mm 1.8, Sigma 10-20 and the D90 kit lens. I will buy the Nikon lens adapter and probably buy 7D or 550. I use video more than I shoot I did wait for something new from Nikon, but D7000 looks very thin in video dpt.

      • Ren Kockwell

        If you want a video camera first, I wouldn’t go Nikon right now either. In fact, I bought a used GH1 to tide me over for video. I recommend it over the 550, although not the 7D. Quite frankly, your lens investment is not that great, so you’re better off switching everything.

        • zack

          I’ve already have Nikon glass which I can use on Canon 7D, 550 or 60D (which is a nice option actually). I will probably sell my Nikon D90 and do just that. Gotta say that I was waiting for Nikon DSLR th whole year, and to be frank, I am disappointed. Is Nikon D7000 better than Canon 7D? Not for me. I’m not into that high ISO game anyway. Anything I shoot is between 100-800.’s a no brainer. Again, unfortunately because I wanted to stick with Nikon

          • Ren Kockwell

            I’m calling bulls—t.

            Okay, so you’re not into high ISO and you’re really into video. So why are you still here? Nikon is all about high ISO and great stills with decent video. You can’t be that clueless. You know Canon is a video company, right? And why would you keep a kit lens, a 3rd party wide-angle and a cheap prime from another maker, none of which are in your self-proclaimed sweet spot of 100-800? Not to mention the fact that two of your lenses are relatively incapable of taking advantage of shallow DOF, one of the big reasons for shooting video with a DSLR. If you had a clue about how to shoot quality video, a Nikon DSLR certainly wouldn’t be holding you back.

            Go get educated. I’m sorry, I’m far from a Nikon apologist, but your posts just set me off.

            • zack

              When something so trivial send you off, have a deep breath then re-think your own mind set. I am here because I own Nikon gear. I bought the glass as well as the camera and I was waiting for an upgrade. Don’t you think that my 2000+ British pounds justifies my staying here comrade Stalin?

              Next time you say sorry, don’t follow it with a BUT. And that is my first and last lecture in Ethics for you.

            • Jabs

              @Ren Kockwell.
              You have indeed pointed out the inconsistencies in their CLAIMS – lol.
              I’ll give you a clue or spell it out for THEM.
              There are many phonies, liars or pretenders who post claims to STOP or deflect Nikon here and it is easy to ferret them out EVEN if you do or don’t like Nikon.
              They make illogical claims and/or usage claims as to WHY they wish to switch. We have Internet buffoons or even people trying to buffalo you, run disinformation campaigns here and tell REAL photographers or even the public about their apparent disdain for much.
              FIRST it was the megapixel shortfall and then the video shortfall.
              WHEN both are addressed and SOLVED, they still complain, thus pointing out CLEARLY their apparent motives.
              OK – we’z all stooopeed – right.

              Storyline – I went to shoot a football match with camera X and used a 100-200 F5.6 zoom and used it handheld. The place was dark and I used 1 on camera flash and the results were awful, so NOW camera brand X is awful or sucks. They also tried shooting video with a 50 F1.4 wide open and only the person’s NOSE was in focus – OK – now who does or does not know anything about photography or videography?

              ALSO – whenever Nikon passes Canon, you get the same crap here. I have LOOKED at the D3100 and D7000 files and they indeed are a NEW era and thus I don’t even say much here on them. Putting my jobs and priorities together to go PURCHASE some new gear and thus I overlook the complainers, as they often have NO life or career.
              Internet buffoons, often anger you with their apparent stupidity or even their expectations for EVERYTHING to be perfect and faultless – what world do they live in???
              Dreamsville or MadMAXXville?

      • This is the worst time to think about leaving Nikon. I predict a mass exodus away from Canon over the next year, even.

        Nikon has superior products at all levels right now. Photokina is where they usually leapfrog each other, but Canon didn’t show up this time around.

  • pher

    A lot of misinformation on that digitalcamerainfo site. I think you should dump the link. I’m surprised how they could get so many things wrong.

    • I thought exactly the same when I read their article!

  • brave new world

    back to the D3X – the camera is a tool and whoever uses it, needs to work for best results. If you don’t do it, then you don’t get the extra benefit. No matter, if you are a professioal or not.

    As long as Nikon sells D3X is numbers, that make them successful, they will extend the life-cycle. As soon as sales drop, they will announce something new. That’s the way product-mgmt works …

  • Matt

    @XM. I should have stated that the firmware updates on the canon 5Dmk2 where to change the frame rates to something more industry standard. The original 5Dmk2 shot 30FPS @1080p. Notice I said (30fps).

    The firmware updated that (30fps) to 29.975 and in the 720p mode from (60FPS) to 59.975. So, frame rates were changed via firmware updates. Fortunately, the Nikon D7k does shoot @ industry standard frame rates i.e 23.975.

    • XM

      Notice I didn’t say that the firmware can not change the frame rate. But the firmware is unlikely to increase the frequency (5D Mark II illustration).
      “Canon had 1080p@30fps and 720p@60fpsr with the start of sales” – about 60D.

  • Emil

    I wonder if anyone can make sense of Nikon naming convention. It looks so all over the place jumping from D90 to D7000, D3100, etc.

    • XM

      In my opinion the naming is more logical now.
      1) Low-end – DXXXX with 3 gradations:
      D7000 now

      2) DXXX middle-end:
      advanced crop D300s
      advanced full-frame D700 now

      3) DX high-end
      Cool D3s now).

    • Merv

      They are just creating new numbers

      D50/D40/D40x/D60/D3000/D3100 is the lowest entry level DX

      D5000 is the middle step in the entry level DX

      D70/D70s/D80/D90 is the top step of the entry level DX, maybe D7000 also falls here

      D7000, from what I understand, has some features that the D90 didn’t have such as AF fine tuning and 14-bit NEF files (and more)

      • Jabs

        Nikon simply RAN OUT of numbers, so the new scheme.

        D90 = end of the road in TWO digit numbers, as next would have been D100 series and thus going backwards in confusion.
        D30 – I think Canon got that one
        – nowhere else to go!

    • I agree. I don’t think we should think of their naming convention in regards to the past.

      Looking at now and moving forward it makes more sense.

  • mikey

    from the look on the peoples faces in the manual focus video, photokina looks mega boring

  • DaveyJ

    The Photokina pictures make me think I should try to go to the next one. The eagle pictures in this setting were unusual and I thought the whole setting was an inspiration. I have photographed and taken video with the little D3100 and if that is any indication I will be very happy with my D7000. The D3100 has my vote for the best entry level camera I have seen.

    • Jabs

      Yeah, I agree about the D3100 – great camera that reminds me of the D80. I went to Best-Buy in my town in America yesterday and they had a D3100 plus also a D90 there on display. Tried both and they also have the D7000 (not for you to use or try yet), but they are waiting for the anti-theft device to arrive, before they display it.
      LOVED D3100, but did not have enough time to play with it or use it much – so far GREAT camera and will go back maybe this weekend and do closer evaluation.

  • Dweeb

    “Knee-kon”! LOL Crazy Limeys.

  • Max

    Here are some impressions from the Photokina, shot with the D3s.

  • Jabs

    A Little off-topic:
    I went to Best-Buy in my town yesterday in America to get some things and they had a D3100 with the kit lens in there on display. The salesman also told me that they already have the D7000 in stock but they are waiting on the electronic anti-theft bracket to arrive before it goes on sale or is displayed. The price was $699.99 US dollars with the kit lens.
    WELL – I loved the D3100, but I was too busy to spend more than a few minutes with it. Initial observations is that it reminds me of a D80 and the red AF illuminated points were easy to see and use. The showroom was dark with crappy lighting, but the camera focused fast and a few times, the flash popped up and fired without me doing anything (LOL). I like the layout so far, but I have to go back to the store and take some time with it, plus maybe bring a card and then examine the images in my Office/Studio later.
    I can’t wait to see the D7000 also and then try it, as it seems like a real revolution from Nikon. I probably want to buy both cameras, as in my work I do quick shots in both stills and video. I really want a few FX bodies, but in the mean time, opportunity awaits and I need some new gear that will pay for itself in a short while. When Nikon introduces newer stuff, then I will also evaluate that and purchase what I like. New gear gives me new impetus plus I am of the mind that you never have enough bodies or lenses as I have a very short time to do all of my work at any location, so speed is of the essence.

  • Kapa

    ha-ha) D7000 video firmware upgrades petition)

  • Back to top