|
Post by john101477 on Oct 16, 2009 21:28:22 GMT -5
well Nikon has hit a brick wall. they are launching the ever popular D3s. thats right now you will be able to get the same crappy 720p video that the D90 and D300s has but in a lot more expensive camera. Not sure what the goal is here since nikon has only jacked prices on lenses and camera body's in the last few months. not to mention the ridiculous price tag on the D3x since the equivalent Canon sells for $2000 less. kind of disappointed in the company at this moment.
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Oct 16, 2009 22:49:08 GMT -5
That's a pretty unsound and bizarre critique of the D3x, John. The selling point of the D3x isn't video, it's the resolution of the still shot. It's a studio camera, not a camcorder. I'm surprised Nikon even bothered with video capabilities in that model.
If you want to compare the D3x to a Canon that's $2k cheaper, let's see the specifications head-to-head.
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Oct 16, 2009 23:15:14 GMT -5
I was not saying the nikon D3 has ever been a crappy camera, what I am saying is they are adding a pointless and crappy feature to a pro camera. As for comparing I am comparing the price of the D3x $7,999 to the 1ds at $6,114
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Oct 17, 2009 5:30:18 GMT -5
I repeat: <let's see the specifications head-to-head.>
|
|
|
Post by jimhobson on Oct 17, 2009 8:41:29 GMT -5
Maybe 'cause they just dropped the D300 from production. I was looking for a D300 last night, and I see the stores are showing the D300 as "Discontinued". As I understand, many Wedding photographers incorporate video clips in their packages. Not full video coverage. There it would be a plus.
|
|
|
Post by Steve (FloppyDog) on Oct 17, 2009 9:23:21 GMT -5
Maybe this will drive the price of the D3 down, I wouldn't mind replacing my D200 with one. Normally I'd use the same shooter until it craps out, but some sensor issues (mainly the high ISO noise problem) are really getting to be a pain.
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Oct 17, 2009 16:51:24 GMT -5
I was not saying the nikon D3 has ever been a crappy camera, what I am saying is they are adding a pointless and crappy feature to a pro camera. As for comparing I am comparing the price of the D3x $7,999 to the 1ds at $6,114 Be careful about confusing the D3 and the D3x. They're completely different cameras intended for completely different uses. I don't recall ever seeing a 720p video, but I'm sure it's good enough for video annotation (for documentary purposes) and home video. If someone really needs better video for professional purposes, they should probably be looking for a dedicated video camera. I don't see anything objectionable to adding 720p video to a high-quality studio DSLR. As long as it's an adjunct feature that's not imposing any limitations on the primary function or purpose of the camera, why not add it?
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Oct 17, 2009 16:58:37 GMT -5
I had the opportunity to talk to the area big wigs in portraits yesterday. and they shoots with a D3 but uses a D700 as backup. he made the comment that he will probably not buy a new D3 but replace it with a newer D700. Jim I can understand a wedding photographer wanting to capture video. it could boost the image of the photographer to offer a complete package. Unfortunately the video capabilities fall well short on the Nikon line. No auto focus in video mode, 24fps, 720p resolution, a 5 minute recording limit and weak audio ability. Nikon admitted to rushing the video feature to beat Canon who was also coming out with a video feature. Bob as for comparing the D3x and 1Ds mIII, here are the specs you asked for Canon. Nikon seems to have a slight edge in some categories but not all and not $2000 worth. www.adorama.com/ICA1DSM3.htmlNikon www.adorama.com/INKD3X.html sorry not gonna type them all out. What I guess I am trying to say is that the D3x is extremely over priced for the market they are in. I understand that they are having a very bad year, profit wise, only clearing 1/5th of there profit of last year. though they both started in the same price range (actually the same exact price) the Canon has come down in price. To be competitive, you would thing Nikon would do the same.
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Oct 17, 2009 17:02:43 GMT -5
I was not saying the nikon D3 has ever been a crappy camera, what I am saying is they are adding a pointless and crappy feature to a pro camera. As for comparing I am comparing the price of the D3x $7,999 to the 1ds at $6,114 Be careful about confusing the D3 and the D3x. They're completely different cameras intended for completely different uses. Thats why I say D3 and D3x separately and soon to be D3s
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Oct 17, 2009 17:30:30 GMT -5
I had the opportunity to talk to the area big wigs in portraits yesterday. and they shoots with a D3 but uses a D700 as backup. he made the comment that he will probably not buy a new D3 but replace it with a newer D700. Those "bigwigs" are using a D3 for portrait work?!? I hope they're using them for much more than that. The D3 is a sports camera made for low-light work. It'll do for portrait work but as a portrait camera it's not remarkably different from my $1k D80. (D3 max image 4,256 x 2,832, D80 3,872 x 2,592.) Unless these bigwigs got the D3 so they could also catch night games and games in poorly-lighted gymnasiums and wedding receptions in dim rooms, they paid way too much for their equipment. The D700 is, for the most part, a capable (almost duplicate) replacement for the D3 (except for a slower burst-mode and a lack of dual card slots). I haven't bothered to see what the price break is.
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Oct 17, 2009 17:36:02 GMT -5
Be careful about confusing the D3 and the D3x. They're completely different cameras intended for completely different uses. Thats why I say D3 and D3x separately and soon to be D3s John you're all over the road with the three model designations. In this statement: < I was not saying the nikon D3 has ever been a crappy camera, what I am saying is they are adding a pointless and crappy feature to a pro camera. As for comparing I am comparing the price of the D3x $7,999 to the 1ds at $6,114 > ...you're griping about the D3, then comparing the D3x to the Canon competition. Trying to follow your rhetoric here is... difficult.
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Oct 17, 2009 22:12:19 GMT -5
The guy I am talking about started out in sports much like you. the cover about 80% of the pro images taken in Tehama county, including the Red Bluff High cattle call as of this year. He is quite a remarkable photographer.
Yeah I am a little peeved with Nikon right now sorry. Boosting prices on glass, not enhancing or fixing the video mode for the new models, and as for the D3x it just seems strange to me that they are not even trying to be competitive.
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Oct 19, 2009 20:38:45 GMT -5
Sorry, John, but I don't buy any of your "Nikon is not even trying" rhetoric. For whatever reason you feel like going off on Nikon, you're not using facts to back it up. The D3s is going with 1080 HD video. In expanded settings, it's also going to be capable of shooting to -- brace yourselves, folks -- ISO 102,400. Its native-mode max ISO is a mere 12,800. It shoots a continuous full-rez burst mode of 9fps. (11fps in cropped frame.) The price is $5,200. If that's not "competitive," I'm the freakin' Queen of England. nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25466/D3S.html
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Oct 19, 2009 22:53:44 GMT -5
Movie ModesMovie with sound HD 1280 x 720/24 fps VGA 640 x 424/24 fps QVGA 320 x 216/24 fps www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25466/D3S.htmlSame crappy 720 and 24fps and no auto focus Bob. this straight copy and paste from the nikon website The ISO is cool. it would be interesting to see what ISO 102,400 looks like. As for price the D3s is in the same realm as the 1d mark 4 which also shoots ISO 102,400 and is priced at $4999 so not to far off the track . I have never made a comment on the D3s price before today. when it comes to Price my comments have always been about the D3x, an entirely different camera, comparing it to a camera in the same market, the Canon 1Ds MarkIII
|
|
|
Post by NCPhotoTrekker on Oct 20, 2009 7:22:46 GMT -5
We are getting into a comparo of video capabilities which a DSLR is not even supposed to be able to do in the first place. I have often thought that they did it in the upper end models so that the technology would filter down to the low end bodies, and would steal away the point and shoot crowd. They like their live view and movie mode in a small camera. Now that the DSLR's are getting that same ability, the camera makers are now able to sell lenses to customers that they couldn't before.
To rate cameras based on their movie mode is crazy!! We are photographers, not cinematographers. We seek to find the best quality still photograph. If we can do a HD movie from the same platform then so be it. Personally, I've had a camera (Sony F828) with movie mode, and I haven't even checked to see if that facility works. When I end up with a camera that will shoot HD video with stereophonic sound, I'll just be annoyed that they put holes in the casing for the microphones. Its a waste on a high end DSLR in my opinion.
As far as Nikon not keeping up....I still say that their bodies are ahead of the Canon equivalents pretty much across the board. I think that Canon is constantly playing catch up to Nikon, and there are times that they find their mark.
|
|