dmora wrote:
except custom orders are NOT cost effective and it would cost infinitely more than a mass production.
Ok then, let's throw this even further into fantasy land!
Let's say that Nikon decides, as a publicity stunt, to offer a free custom made camera to 100 people. Participants could only be drawn from people who have actually mailed in a product registration form (only registration forms from peope who purchased a DSLR or a lens). Ha! try raining on that parade!
Oct 07, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
snegron wrote:
Ok then, let's throw this even further into fantasy land!
Let's say that Nikon decides, as a publicity stunt, to offer a free custom made camera to 100 people. Participants could only be drawn from people who have actually mailed in a product registration form (only registration forms from peope who purchased a DSLR or a lens). Ha! try raining on that parade!
snegron wrote:
Ok then, let's throw this even further into fantasy land!
Let's say that Nikon decides, as a publicity stunt, to offer a free custom made camera to 100 people. Participants could only be drawn from people who have actually mailed in a product registration form (only registration forms from peope who purchased a DSLR or a lens). Ha! try raining on that parade!
Oh crap! I haven't mailed in my registration cards.
How about a 12 megapixel CMOS sensor in a prosumer body, the pro autofocus system, lower noise control so we aren't always listening to Canon's claims of having better noise control, a pro battery option using a grip granting much better battery life and speed, ergonomically similar to my D200 and built to the same standard, and priced where it is obtainable for serious amateurs (under $2000.)
Yes, I know I just described the D300. But if you had asked me before the announcement was made, that's what I would have told you. Well, maybe I would have also mentioned the 35mm sensor, but even without that Nikon got very close to what I was looking for. I might actually drop off the waiting list and buy one later as I don't really need it, but it is what I am currently looking for. Of course in about 2 -3 years, people will be wondering how anyone could get a decent photograph with such an antiquated camera body.
Some of the suggestions sound interesting, but I think I'd pick up a D300, D3, or D300X (or whatever they might call an FX sensor version of the D300) before looking at any of the other suggestions. I will admit I'm getting to like the lightweight D40. How about one of those that has an FX sensor but little else? Give us a cheap option that focuses strictly on IQ, not gadgets. I'd still prefer the D300, but it's nice to have a light camera such as the D40 when you just want to snap a few quick shots and don't want to break out the heavy gear. I'm rather impressed with some of the results I get with that little guy.
snegron wrote:
I would request a rangefinder-type DSLR with Nikon F mount (kind of like that Leica M8 but with a mount that would accept regular Nikon AF and MF lenses
What custom DSLR would you have made?
well, if you want to use the f mount the lenses are designed to focus at a spicific point, plus the thickness of the sensor, plus the thickness of the screen. and you end up with a d40.
louis fusco wrote:
well, if you want to use the f mount the lenses are designed to focus at a spicific point, plus the thickness of the sensor, plus the thickness of the screen. and you end up with a d40.
In other words at the same point as a film camera.
I'd like a pro body with a 6mpx FX sensor and an AF/metering system good to -5EV. And, to make -5EV scenes handholdable (say 1/30 shutter speed on an f/1.4 lens), the HI-2 should go up to 153600.
In a few years, we'll have the technology, but I'll never land this small-file-size dream boat.
dinoadventures wrote:
I'd like a pro body with a 6mpx FX sensor and an AF/metering system good to -5EV. And, to make -5EV scenes handholdable (say 1/30 shutter speed on an f/1.4 lens), the HI-2 should go up to 153600.
In a few years, we'll have the technology, but I'll never land this small-file-size dream boat.
I tend to agree with this. Actually, the d2h sensor scales up to ~9mp FX, which would be more than sufficient, I think. I see little value in having a large MP high ISO cam. I've sold a lot of d200 high ISO prints, but 99% of them were 5x7 or smaller and a few 20x30s.... IME, very few people want large prints from scenes that require high ISO, to begin with, so there's no significant need for lots of MP's.
The problem is that I wouldn't pay $5k for such a body. I'd want the d300 body and features. The problem with that, is that there isn't nearly as much demand for such a high performance body as there would be for a true high ISO body for the masses.
Nikon would make a killing, if they offered a soccer mom high ISO cam that allowed novice users to forget about flash and cost, like a d40fx at $1k. That's not likely to happen anytime soon....
