| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Nikon D3s
Chris Parent, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 11:01 AM on 09.28.09 |
| ->> I'm not as interested in the video as the 14 FPS. That would be extremely nice for sports and such. |
|
Max Lashin, Photographer, Assistant
|
Fort Lauderdale | FL | United States | Posted: 11:02 AM on 09.28.09 |
| ->> do they need video? one word, multimedia.. |
|
Dave Prelosky, Photographer
|
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 11:46 AM on 09.28.09 |
->> Chris,
While 14fps sounds really cool, keep this in mind:
In the D3 manual you are reminded that the camera WILL NOT refocus in continuous mode when being used at maximum frame rate. Unless the D3s has a major upgrade in computer power, I wouldn't expect the AF performance to improve drastically. |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 12:11 PM on 09.28.09 |
->> I'd like video in my DSLR. I'd probably be shooting more video then being asked to use little handycams and trying to use those to get what i want visually.
As for 14 FPS, eh. I'd rather learn to get the ball exactly where i want it on the first shot. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 09.28.09 |
->> So David, when your shooting something like a diving touch down catch in the corner of the end zone then you actually fire just one perfectly timed frame of that action ?
Must be nice to be able to get the ball and defenders and focus all perfect in a single frame. While the rest of us are sorting through hundreds of frames from a game you've just got 20 or 30 perfect frames. That would sure be nice.
See, I'm not that good, nor that lucky, so when I see the receiver coming at me, I hit the shutter right as he's making his jump for the ball, and then I'll fire off probably 5-10 frames as he goes up for it and tries to make the catch and then comes down into the endzone, perhaps getting his feet in, maybe not.
Now if I was a better photographer, and had the ability to get the ball right where I wanted it, I could easily get the millisecond timing to ensure I have the ball in the perfect spot of the frame, along with the DB's hands not blocking the receivers face, and the whole thing perfectly in focus.
But I can't do that, so instead I have to take several quick shots and then pick out the best one, because the first frame may not of been in focus, and the second one might of been slightly too early and the ball isn't quite in his hands yet, and then the 3rd has the DB's hands blocking the face, but the 4th frame, the 4th frame has everything come together and thats the one I'll submit.
Sometimes though, even at 9 FPS, the perfect moment happens between the 3rd and 4th frame. If I had 14 FPS then I could have an additional option by having a 3rd, 4th and 5th frame covering the peak moment of that game winning catch, and thus more options to choose from.
Whats the best story telling shot from that play ? The catch, the tackle, the dropped ball, landing out of bounds ? I don't know what an editor wants so I shoot a sequence and allow them to pick what they need.
So again, if your good enough to shoot a game on single shot mode, and can nail the perfect moment every time, thats pretty darn impressive. More power to you, but for me, a faster frame rate is hardly "eh" |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 1:57 PM on 09.28.09 |
| ->> Sure hope Nikon increases the buffer size, the current upgrade to 50 files might not be enough. |
|
Dave Prelosky, Photographer
|
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 3:33 PM on 09.28.09 |
->> Jeff,
I'll attribute the tone of your post to having had a bad weekend.
With that said, have a look at pg 88 of the D3 manual and you'll see the Nikon explanation of what I said above. Simply having a higher frame rate isn't the be all and end all of sports shooting.
Further, my shooting style is usually:
A. Dial down the frame rate down to 9 FPS.
B. Put myself in front of a play
C. Mash the shutter button down
D. Edit ruthlessly |
|
Chris Parent, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 3:41 PM on 09.28.09 |
| ->> The miniscule amount of time it takes for the reception to happen means that focus for the couple frames that I would want would be sharp. A matter of a couple inches from a hundred feet away or so isn't that big of a deal. It might not be as sharp as possible, but it is definitely sharp. I don't plan to shoot the whole game with the shutter mashed down, but when needed the extra couple frames are a great help. |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 3:43 PM on 09.28.09 |
->> *If* there is a new model (and look for a Nikon announcement the day after the Canon Mark IV introduction), the most likely scenario (technically) is:
1080p video, either 24/30 fps
Increased buffer
14 fps *in 1.5 crop mode* without refocusing
All other specs same as the D3
Probability of this imho? Extremely high.
Another bases-loaded home run for Nikon... |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 4:09 PM on 09.28.09 |
->> I saw some rumors of a 1.3X crop, which might be pretty neato.
Also that potential 16-35 f/4 would be in my bag too. Where are those fast primes?? |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 4:14 PM on 09.28.09 |
->> Jeff Mills,
I believe Patrick Swayze's character Dalton in the movie Road House said it best.
"There's always barber college." |
|
Patrick Meredith, Photographer, Assistant
|
Austin | TX | USA | Posted: 4:22 PM on 09.28.09 |
| ->> Nic is right on the money...Where are the fast primes??? |
|
Grant Blankenship, Photographer
|
Macon | GA | USA | Posted: 4:31 PM on 09.28.09 |
| ->> Umm....I want one. Or more realistically, the D700 version. Sweet. |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 4:33 PM on 09.28.09 |
->> My guess is that the 1.3X crop rumors are about as accurate as the 1.6X crop rumors...
The whole thing is obviously vaporware, but it's quite compelling from both a technical and marketing standpoint. I give it a very high probability simply because the body is a proven platform, the engineering investment is reasonable and the timing would be *very* effective at capturing more of the market.
There are also the rumors that D3 production has already ceased... |
|
Dave Miller, Photographer
|
Darlington | PA | | Posted: 5:18 PM on 09.28.09 |
->> I for one don't care how many fps it shoots or even if it will wash my car. I ain't buying. I have a pair of D3s and that's where it's going to stop for the foreseeable future for me. After spending an absurd amount of money over the last seven years or so on upgrades, etc. I've had enough. Every two years or so they come out with something better AND expensive for a field with increasingly diminishing prospects.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm more concerned about the future of our field and my ability to stay in it than what Nikon (or Canon) has to unveil. |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 5:24 PM on 09.28.09 |
->> I'm just saying that 14 frames a second wont make me a better photographer.
Learning to anticipate the play, reading the body language of the athletes and anticipating when the peak action will happen should make me better. |
|
David Shea, Photographer
|
Riverside | CA | USA | Posted: 5:25 PM on 09.28.09 |
->> I can't wait for 24 fps!!
What? Oh...umm...is that really video? Hmmm...wasn't expecting that. Do I subconsciously want to shoot...video?!?
AHHHHHHHHH! |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
 |
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 9:12 PM on 09.28.09 |
->> I'm kinda with Dave Miller on this one, though for different reasons.
When I switched up to the D3 it was like finally getting that ball and chain off my ankle. The great color, superb ISO sensitivity, full-frame view, and high FPS gave a sense of liberation in my shooting which I was unaware I had compromised on. It felt almost like going back to film, except without all the hassles of film.
If they come out with a D3s, I'm sure it'll be more of the same great stuff with some nice add-ons. But really, that'll only mean original D3 cameras will be cheaper and that's what interests me.
-R- |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:25 PM on 09.28.09 |
->> I still love my Mark III's. They do the job. I have found when I don't get a photo it's OE. Operator Error. It's on ME.
FPS? Yeah, that's great having an insane frame rate. But you know what? No matter WHAT the frame rate sometimes (more often than not) the PEAK moment happens in between those milliseconds. Unless you're shooting video that's the way it is. Ten years from now this whole conversation will be moot. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 6:58 AM on 09.29.09 |
| ->> What Ron and Chuck said. OE needed no explanation, Chuck. (Otherwise known as the nut behind the viewfinder...). Like Ron, I figure the D3 prices will go down... |
|
Joseph D. Sullivan, Photographer
|
Long Island | NY | USA | Posted: 8:41 AM on 09.29.09 |
| ->> If the D3s and the Mark IV both come out with 1080P video incorporated, is the NFL going to ban them from the sidelines? |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 9:13 AM on 09.29.09 |
->> The thing is...shooting video with a dslr is simply....well....not practical. If you really want to shoot video, there are better tools to use. Sure you have the ability to use the larger sensor and faster lenses for that razor think dof....but in reality...its not a very good tool. It cant follow the action or steady the image or a host of other "features" that have long been standard on even the most rudimentary HD video cams.....
IMO...I dont want to HAVE to pay for the vid feature. I'd rather have the OPTION to choose the V model or not.
Another huge consideration, is, how much more are you gonna be able to charge for the video snippets added into your coverage? Not that much, and considering the huge amt of time in editing required, you will be going backwards in pay in many cases.
Sounds great in theory....not so much in practice. |
|
Eileen Blass, Photographer
|
xxxxx | xx | USA | Posted: 9:25 AM on 09.29.09 |
| ->> When my finger gets heavy and I find myself burning through disks, I remember what my mentor/boss/good friend Norris Ingells (Lansing State Journal) told me a long time ago when he'd see me walk back into the darkroom from an assignment with multiple rolls of film. He used to tell me that back in the day, he'd shoot Michigan State football on 4x5 and he'd get the winning touchdown, the fans cheering, the other team dejection, the bench going wild, and the coaches etc. all on one sheet of film. Of course, his tongue and cheek message was for me to back off and find the right moments. It's hard to do, but it's a good goal. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 11:25 AM on 09.29.09 |
->> The thing is...shooting video with a dslr is simply....well....not practical.
Not so fast. Keep in mind the type of video content a photojournalist is being asked to produce these days alongside their still photography work is far different than the type of content traditional video producers create on a daily basis. Television - for instance - shoots a product far different than what a newspaper is creating (and most photo editors would beat you with a chair if you suggest they are trying to be TV). In television-style content you need tools that can do the types of things and get the types of shots TV-style content demands...lighting, audio, follow focus, etc. TV is also reporter and talent-centric, which makes it a far different product. DSLRs are not a good OVERALL solution for that type of production (although I'd argue they could easily play a supporting role in most any production).
DSLRs are great for the type of content most newspapers are producing - namely documentary-style pieces that are not live-action, talent-oriented. A DSLR video camera is a great tool for this type of product.
You can argue all day long whether newspapers should be doing things more like television...and if newspapers start going that direction they SHOULD dump the DSLR video stuff and invest in real shooter kits for their staff. But most photo departments aren't there yet. Until they are, DSLRs video cameras can be a great tool to do what they are doing now. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
102 Yards From The Beach | CT | | Posted: 11:34 AM on 09.29.09 |
| ->> Can we get less Dave & David's replying to this thread? Keeping track of all you Dave/David isn't possibly at the 3fps my Canon 5D fires at! |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:48 AM on 09.29.09 |
->> "The thing is...shooting video with a dslr is simply....well....not practical."
well, I am not so sure about this. Just check out Robert Caplin's music videos-they are amazing
http://robertcaplin.blogspot.com/ |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 09.29.09 |
->> You guys are missing the point. Its not that it cant be done. Its that its not practical to do. Basic functionality like effective af....effective images stabilization....faster frame rate to eliminate "rolling"...awkward controls...all make using a dslr for video not such a great idea in practice.
Sure there are some great snippets out there. But look at the production it took to make those. The real world fusion videos simply are not very good. (being kind here) They look more like old super 8 herky jerky oof movies than technologically advanced HD video. The technical part is there...larger sensor, faster glass, etc etc. It just needs to be housed in a good video camera and not an SLR. Take a 4-500 dollar Sony HD camera, and apart from thin dof shots....you'd be able to create a much better, more effective video. Low light ambient only would be the one area in which that might not hold true....but again, the lack of other basic video functionality leaves a lot to be desired. Also...remember I also do wedding coverage, where everyone proclaimed this to be the second coming of Christ...and now the reality is sinking in that it simply isnt the quick and easy path to riches many touted upon the release of the 5d2. Sure it can be done. Vincent Laforette did a magnificent one....albeit one with a huge production, far above the scope of virtually every wedding photographer.
My point was really simply that I dont want to pay for this. We are however being forced to pay for it, as the options are dwindling for dslr's without video. Heck, if the 5d2 would have had better AF instead of video and 22mp, I'd still be shooting Canon....IMO, there needs to be more effective functionality for the dslr video capture to be truly effective...that functionality is going to come at a cost....I would rather not pay that cost, and put those dollars into improved AF/ISO/DR etc etc etc...how about an rf flash transmitter built in (PW). How about dumping the aging PC connection for a 21st century version not prone to fail. Lots of ways I'd rather see a DSLR be improved than to simply add video. |
|
Max Lashin, Photographer, Assistant
|
Fort Lauderdale | FL | United States | Posted: 3:06 PM on 09.29.09 |
->> http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/
a entire website dedicated to shooting video with dslr... |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 3:11 PM on 09.29.09 |
->> Brad,
No one is missing the point. You think everyone shooting video should shoot with a video camera. Got it. A large number of people disagree with you.
My background is television. I have more experience shooting video than I have shooting stills. I recently completed a three day video shoot where I used both a 5DMk2 and a Canon XH-A1 (with wideangle adapter). In the situation I was shooting in (artists at work in a cramped hot glass studio), the 5D2 footage was visually an order of magnitude better than the XH-A1 footage. Absolutely gorgeous, even in high contrast/low light.
Did I have to really watch my focus? Sure. But old school cinema techniques come in handy - know your distances and keep them constant and you almost don't need to see the viewfinder to make sure it's in focus. Sure you have to hold the camera steady - most high-end pro video cameras DO NOT have image stabilization anyway, so I'm used to that. If things get a bit shaky you can always apply image stabilization in post - and since you have a 1920 x 1080p frame, you have a lot of room to play with before anyone will even notice.
I originally thought I'd be shooting more with the XH-A1 because of focus issues - I was worried about being able to keep focus with the action and having AF capability in the XH-A1 was a hedge against this. But after getting used to the distances and the focus points in the shop (and because most of the footage was wide/up close), focus wasn't as difficult in this situation.
->> Sure you have the ability to use the larger sensor and faster lenses for that razor think dof....but in reality...its not a very good tool.
You seem to discount the value of having the ability to get great selective focus and image quality on a budget. The ability to do this for anything less than $20,000 is an amazing achievement. For visual artists it's a really important capability...not a throwaway "sure it would be nice". Particularly for visual artists who are transitioning from still photography - where that type of imagery is a given. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 3:21 PM on 09.29.09 |
->> Max,
That's a great link with lots of info.
Funny though, there's not any Nikon video stuff, though I guess the D300s is still very brand new. |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 4:00 PM on 09.29.09 |
->> Actually David, thats not what I said. Not many still shooters have your background and are likely to come up with the results you can accomplish.
The real gist of my commentary however was that we soon will not hve the choice to buy a dslr still only camera. We will all have to "pay for" those features....
Many of us who come from a still background, would rather those dollars be dedicated to improved still features. Thats all. Like I said...sure it can be done. But do we all have to have a video capable dslr? Soon that will likely be reality as it seems ALL dslrs are trending toward having video.
How much that addl tech really "costs" is debatable, but there is an added cost. The tech to make it happen has a value. I'd like the option to not purchase that value amt.
Post processing is another huge time consideration as i mentioned. Frankly, I spend enough time in post on stills. Video requires even more, esp if you have to go in and correct for camera shake as you mentioned.
Does it have a place? Certainly! No question. Should it be required?? Thats the question. If there were an optional 5d2 without video but was 500.00 bucks less...they'd have sold a boatload of them. I'm looking forward to the d700x....and not wanting to pay a premium for video...although i'll probably have to as the choice is being made for us.
bb |
|
Frank Niemeir, Photographer
 |
Woodstock | GA | usa | Posted: 6:01 PM on 09.29.09 |
->> http://www.studiodaily.com/blog/?p=2018
"At DV Expo in Pasadena on Sept. 23, 2009, the Digital Cinema Society held a meeting devoted to the Canon 5D Mark II and soon-to-be-released 7D and the Panasonic Lumix GH1, still cameras that some people have adapted to use as video cameras. At its under $3,000 price point, these cameras have become all the rage among low budget and experimental filmmakers. The crowded room was full of HDSLR enthusiasts, many of whom expressed eagerness to know when Canon would release the 7D." |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 2:37 PM on 09.30.09 |
->> Brad,
Standing still in the current is always harder than going with the flow.
When AF was introduced, diehard MF shooters had the same complaints. Ditto with film holdouts when the digital era took hold.
Not ALL new bells & whistles are a good thing. But video is here to stay, and I've got news for you: not only will you not be able to buy a still-only camera any longer, before you know it you won't be able to buy anything that is like today's DSLR. Everything will be a video camera and you'll be able to pull out stills surpassing anything a DSLR could produce.
Face it. It's coming. Drawings lose to B&W photos lose to color photos lose to video. Video is king. Until it is replaced by interactive holography. |
|
Kevin Kreck, Photographer
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 5:28 PM on 10.08.09 |
->> Brad, Your point is well taken, there is a cost. The question is, based on economies of scale, how much less would the cost be not to have it. If it didn't have it, wouldn't it be just a little bit different than the existing model?
The electronics product business model, whether it be a DSLR, a 46" LED LCD TV or a computer, is basically the same: When a new technology/advancement/latest gizmo is introduced, the earlier technology is lowered in price and the new technology replaces it.
My first Nikon D1 cost me about $4000 iirc. The D3 cost about $4500 when I bought it a while back. The public perception is that prices go down. They do - for older technology. The replacement technology is the same price or higher than the older technology.
That's the way it works in most form of consumer electronics. You'll get the 1080P video because that's one of the things that builds value into the equation - even if you don't believe it does. That's what those Marketing MBAs are about - building value into the equation for the greatest number of potential buyers.
Michael |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 4:40 AM on 10.09.09 |
| ->> Brad, I concur 100% with your position. I think there is way too much of the attitude "Let's do it because we can" rather than "Does anyone want it, or can we give people a choice?" I would welcome the day I can buy a cellphone without a digital camera in it. I have taken precisely 3 photos with a digital camera in my life. And even then I was drunk. All I want is what I want, not what some marketing newbie-wonk thinks would be cool to include. |
|
Harrison Shull, Photographer
|
Fayetteville, WV | Asheville, NC | | Posted: 8:14 AM on 10.09.09 |
->> I wonder when - if ever - will we see a shift to something more ala carte when we buy a DSLR? Like when you go to Dell to buy a computer online these days, you literally build the machine to your specs as you click thru the site.
Do you want a 1 series sized body or something more like the 50D to 5D body size? What sensor do you want - crop or ff? Frame rate, AF system, memory card preferences, ISO performance, video or not, and a host of other features could be customized as well.
Like Brad's comments above, I don't give a rip about video on my DSLR. Others do indeed want this feature. But as it stands now, we that do not want video are going to pay for it regardless.
I am sure that there are production issues that preclude this ala carte vision for buying a DSLR, but I for one would be very interested. |
|
Andrew Nelles, Photographer
 |
Chicago | Ill. | usa | Posted: 11:18 AM on 10.09.09 |
->> Getting off topic from the whole D3s thing, but on the topic of the practicality of DSLR video for PJ work, and fast moving subjects, etc. Danfung Dennis has produced some amazing footage with a 5DII in Afghanistan, featured in an upcoming Frontline on PBS (has this link been shared here already?)
http://gizmodo.com/5373320/high-definition-war-footage-taken-with-canon-5d-... |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 2:10 PM on 10.09.09 |
| ->> wow, just wow. I love when Frontline does this stuff.. |
|
Tony Donaldson, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 10.09.09 |
| ->> I think AF performance, live view capabilities and AF during video (while still using the optical viewfinder) would all be possible and more practical if either Canon (who used to have it) or Nikon would offer a pellicle mirror. Not to mention crazy frame rates and potentially less battery use thanks to not having to move a mirror. Losing a stop for that is virtually irrelevant given the low-light performance of modern cameras. And the cameras would be quieter and potentially more dust-resistant. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Matt Petit, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Downey | CA | United States | Posted: 2:45 PM on 10.13.09 |
| ->> I can't wait! Cuz I have an extra $8,000 lying around somewhere... |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 3:27 PM on 10.13.09 |
| ->> Does anyone have a link to Bill Frake's Australian assignment which is referenced in Mark Terrill's link? |
|
Frank Niemeir, Photographer
|
Woodstock | GA | usa | Posted: 6:19 PM on 10.13.09 |
->> and even more up to date link:
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870000
"The successor to the two-year-old D3 has a seven-stop ISO range of 200 to 12,800, plus three further boost settings that allow photographers to capture images up to an unprecedented ISO equivalent of 102,400."
and
"most of the camera's still shooting functions - including ultra-high ISO settings - are available in the video mode." |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 8:30 PM on 10.13.09 |
->> The high ISO sounds awesome, but this is disappointing:
"Movies are captured in HD quality 1280x720 pixel resolution at 24fps"
Looks like I'll be keeping the 5D2 for awhile...
It will also be interesting to see if they've fixed the "jello" issues found in their previous efforts... |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:09 PM on 10.13.09 |
->> I know the Video Feature is popular, but...
If I need Video, I would Hire a Video person that can actually shoot Video!!
I can't. I'm a Still Commercial Shooter, the video feature is something I won't need while I'm shooting a Catalog.
Y |
|
Dave Prelosky, Photographer
|
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 10:38 PM on 10.13.09 |
->> And my GM isn't going to be thrilled with the idea of spending more for features that we don't use. Making the leap from D300 to D3 was easy - the difference in rated shutter life closed the sale.
When the time comes, it looks as if we'll be back to whatever the current equivalent of a D700 is. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:43 PM on 10.13.09 |
->> Yamil, while emotionally I'm with you, the marketer in me whispers in my ear not to jump too quickly on the "I don't need it bandwagon."
Tony, I'm not sure you're not on to something. Many of the shooters on here don't remember the pellicle mirror - it was before their time. But a modern version of it would really rock.
Nikon? Canon? Are you listening? |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 10:43 PM on 10.13.09 |
->> There is a countdown timer over on nikon rumors.com that claims the announcement any hr now.
The video thing not withstanding...the extra iso capability and the 14fps are noteworthy indeed. Here's to hoping the d700s wont be far behind it. They are saying Feb '10.
I can wait that long....it'll hurt, but I can wait :~)
bb |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 10:57 PM on 10.13.09 |
->> If the high ISO is as good as they are hyping, it's definitely something a lot of people will be able to use. Being able to shoot at reasonable shutter speeds in dimly lit gyms, killer street photography, spot news. The sensor cleaner feature will be nice as well (about time!).
I really hope the price in the US isn't where it is predicted in the UK. £4200 is around $6,700 if you do a straight conversion. Definitely won't be buying one at that price for awhile...
The video is a serious disappointment, philosophical discussions aside. There's a huge difference between 1080p30 and 720p24. I'll take the quirkiness of using a DSLR for video if I can get gorgeous 1080p30 for under $2,500. 720p24 at almost $7,000? Nope. For that price I'm into a Sony Z7U with an extra lens... |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
