Video of Nikon D3 first impressions. Man, that's a friggin fast camera, both shooting and ISO-wise.
---
"Already ordered one?"
No. I might afford it, but hardly justify it at my use level.
Also, it is simply too big and heavy. Very conspicuous, and I'm a walk-around photographer, I don't like heavy.
For a hard working photographer like for example my pal Laurie Jeffery, speed, reliability, features, and ruggedness are much more important that weight and size, up to a point of course.
For an amateur art photographer like me who likes to walk around and be inspired, and not advertise too widely that he is photographing and not to get tilted shoulders, weight and size are quite important. That's why I might get the upcoming Fuji F50fd, and why I keep hoping for more compact and light cameras in professional quality in the future.
It is also why I am looking much forward to either Canon or Nikon making the next camera with a full frame sensor (low noise in pictures), but compact. The next-gen Canon 5D, as it were. My Canon 5D makes totally awesome quality, much better than I ever could with 35mm, so I can only try to imagine what the next step is.
"Canon went for quantity of pixels, whereas Nikon invested in quality of pixels"
Well, Canon did the same with the 1D III. As opposed to the 1Ds III. (Notice the little "s". Stupid naming convention.)
It is anybody's guess if Nikon will make a super-high rez camera too. I think they will though. I think they removed the "H" from the speed camera because it's no longer really a low rez option. 12MP is good enough for almost anything. 22MP is a replacement for big 6x7 studio cameras, maybe even 4x5 inches.
Laurie Jeffery says:
This looks like my kind of camera. It's about time Nikon did this.
I shall be getting one.
Anybody want a very well looked after but much used D2X that only been around the world three times and only ever shot nudes?
5 comments:
It's a beauty. Already ordered one?
The situation with Canon and Nikon at the high-end looks interesting. Canon went for quantity of pixels, whereas Nikon invested in quality of pixels (with almost unbelievable ISO).
If it's true that few objectives can utilise Canon's 21.1-megapixel resolution, then it looks like Nikon made the right decision. And, as a result, are now in a very good position indeed.
"Already ordered one?"
No. I might afford it, but hardly justify it at my use level.
Also, it is simply too big and heavy. Very conspicuous, and I'm a walk-around photographer, I don't like heavy.
"Canon went for quantity of pixels, whereas Nikon invested in quality of pixels"
Well, Canon did the same with the 1D III. As opposed to the 1Ds III. (Notice the little s. Stupid naming convention.)
It is anybody's guess if Nikon will make a super-high rez camera too. I think they will though. I think they removed the "H" from the speed camera because it's no longer really a low rez option. 12MP is good enough for almost anything. 22MP is a replacement for big 6x7 studio cameras, maybe even 4x5 inches.
"Also, it is simply too big and heavy."
A studio camera. Or on location standing still. Events, etc.
"(Notice the little s. Stupid naming convention.)"
Yeah, might as well distinguish models based on whether one additional comma is present or not ;-)
For a hard working photographer like for example Laurie Jeffery, speed, reliability, features, and ruggedness are much more important that weight and size, up to a point of course.
For an amateur art photographer like me who likes to walk around and be inspired, and not advertise too widely that he is photographing and not to get tilted shoulders, weight and size are quite important. That's why I might get the upcoming Fuji F50fd, and why I keep hoping for more compact and light cameras in professional quality in the future.
This looks like my kind of camera. It's about time Nikon did this.
I shall be getting one.
Anybody want a very well looked after but much used D2X that only been around the world three times and only ever shot nudes?
Post a Comment