Guidenet wrote:
As for dual cards, really now, who cares? As for the ISO of the D3s, again, who'd use it? I know with my D700, I don't stop up past 6400 and rarely go even there. I want to take nice photos. I don't care to take noisy messes just to say I did it at some crazy ISO. I mean, isn't that why we love photography? We want to take the best photographs that our skill allows. These tools we use are supposed to make it easier. Sticking a couple of silly extra features and putting an "S" by the name certainly does not compel me to think they will contribute to me taking better images. ...Show more →
Sorry but this is one of the most ignorant and narrow minded statements I've seen in a long time.
Who cares about dual card slots ? Oh, gee, maybe those of us who have to shoot on deadline and want to be able to write jpegs we can quickly transfer and send off at halftime and still have raw files written to another card for later processing ? Or maybe those of us who are shooting priceless once in a lifetime moments like weddings and we like to be able to have a backup for our clients in case we have some card corruption.
And gee....who on earth would need high ISO ? Hmmm,, perhaps anyone who shoots any sort of sporting event indoors or at night or perhaps weddings where your not allowed to use flash, or concerts perhaps ?
Now I know to you that when I'm shooting an event in a really dim arena at high iso that its just a noisey mess and you might think I'm just doing it to say I did. Well thats not the case because my clients, be they a news publication, or just parents themselves do value those images and my ability to document those events that took place.
Do I spend my time at a volleyball game because I love taking nice photos ? No, I do it because its how I keep a roof over my head.
So while those "silly" features may not help you make "nicer" images, they can mean a world of difference to others ability to do their jobs better.
Try opening up your mind a bit and realizing that there are people out there who shoot different subjects and for different reasons than what you do.
I would much rather have a D700s with a dual card instead of more MP or video. As a wedding photographer, there is nothing that brings more of a pucker than to discover you filled the card near an important moment. (Thus we change cards often before they are filled.).
I now use D300s' for critical work and have dual 32gb cards in them. No changes.
DragonflyDM wrote:
I would much rather have a D700s with a dual card instead of more MP or video. As a wedding photographer, there is nothing that brings more of a pucker than to discover you filled the card near an important moment. (Thus we change cards often before they are filled.).
The only two things I would want in a D700s/D800/D700x/whatever are dual CF cards and even more AF cross points (even better AF system).
The resolution doesn't matter to me as long as it is at least 12MP. Movie mode doesn't really mean much to me as I wouldn't buy the camera as a video tool. If it's there, it'll be nice to have. Also, the incremental iso upgrade will be a plus also, however the current iso performances on the likes of D700 and 5D2 and 1D3 are absolutely fine for professional work. Heck, the 5d original is still fine for high iso work.
I'll take the current af system and bag the dual cards for the resolution alone. I have the d3 and the d3x and would love to see a smaller brother. The 1080 video would be great and very handy.
Nikon is being quite smart. They may need to contend with a 3D and a 5Dii in the near future. I suspect the D800, which will not be announced till the summer, will be 16-18 MP, and be announced with a new 24-120 f4 to compete with canons 24-105.
I would love to see a D700x with the D3x sensor for something around $3500. Keep in mind that it appears Sony is loosing money on every A900/A850 body sold - something Nikon CAN'T do if it wants to stay in business, so matching Sony on Price isn't likely. If it comes to market, I expect a D700x to sell for a bit more than a 5DII. I personally doubt we'll see a D800 with a 16/18mp chip in it. If Nikon does make such a chip it would appear in the D4 first - and we're two years away from a D4.
When the D700 came out many long-time Nikon watchers said it was a year early to market, if that's true we could have another year to wait...
Robb Mann wrote:
Keep in mind that it appears Sony is loosing money on every A900/A850 body sold
What makes you say that? Is there any information or analysis that supports the statement? While I've heard occasional speculation suggesting this, I've never seen anything that goes beyond mere speculation. With the coming introduction of the full frame 24 mp Sony a850 at a price of $1999 (with only a slightly more limited feature set than the a900), it is clear that if they are losing money on these cameras, the losses are really going to start accelerating.
sony doesnt lose any moneys on A850 and A900. Manufacturing cost is lot under half price of that camera. They lose moneys in the term of that those few sales they have, would be made also if camera was more expensive. They just somehow overlooking the fact that most photographers wont care as much for pixel count as for overall system quality.
Travelinbri wrote:
Nikon is being quite smart. They may need to contend with a 3D and a 5Dii in the near future. I suspect the D800, which will not be announced till the summer, will be 16-18 MP, and be announced with a new 24-120 f4 to compete with canons 24-105.
Sony is rumored to come with a 14MP full frame sensor, leaving the choice for a D800 with either a 14MP (which would be such a small upgrade from the D700), or use the very good 24MP sensor. Unless you think Nikon may get access to the M9 18MP Full frame kodak sensor?
SoundHound wrote:
Pavel, if that's your picture you're a young man but I'm not. You see the way this "Life Thing" works is, as your body/brain ages, you compensate with smarter/newer/better equipment.
Ha!
and don't forget the fast cars (especially 2 seaters).....
