Thom's 2011 predictions are out and D400 is...

Started Nov 6, 2010 | Discussions thread
Dan
Dan
Senior MemberPosts: 1,371Gear list
Like?
Re: What about the D7000?
In reply to Tony Beach, Nov 14, 2010

Tony Beach wrote:

Cameras are not just about sensors.

I know, but if you only look at the pictures,

That's for the audience, for the photographer the features and capabilities of the camera can be important.

I wonder if I would have gone with a D90 if it had come out before the D300. I had a D200 and the Fuji S5, but the D300's high ISO performance really impressed me, and I was having issues with the AF of the D200/S5s. Now that I've used the D300, I can't imagine "downgrading" to a D7000.

Which DX photographers need a vertical grip?

Which FX photographers need a vertical grip?

Those that take pictures of people. I think there are many more photographers that take pictures of people than there are that take pictures of birds.

Do bird photographers need it?

Does anybody? In fact there have been a few who have asked for it.

I guess sports photographers could benefit from this too.

The D100/200/300 series has always been small.

Not small enough for some; many who shoot FX would appreciate an FX DSLR as small as (or even smaller than) the D7000. Therein lies your answer, if you like really small, get a D7000.

I've always had big cameras, so I guess I'd be ok either way (now that I've thought about it a little more). But at one wedding I shot, I held my camera so long that a nerve got pinched too long, making my hand feel numb. I was told to take Advil for a while so that it could heal. This was back when I was using the S5 if I recall correctly.

a "D400" could be a return to the D2x type of body. It's just speculation anyway, so no point in dwelling on it too much

I wonder why they don't just make a D3 that has either an FX or a DX sensor, two models. Like a car with two different engine options.

I am not going to shoot RAW.

Your loss. If you are happy with the JPEG output then great, but if you aren't, then consider RAW instead of running out to buy the next generation of camera because better processing of your files is tantamount to a sensor upgrade.

I don't even have enough time to go through all the pictures I take, let alone edit them. I don't want another step in my flow. I know of the benefits of RAW, but I choose not to shoot RAW. With the way cameras have been handling high-ISO shots lately, I don't think I need to shoot RAW for noise reduction. I also haven't had dynamic range issues. I can see it helping in the white balance department, but I'm ok right now.

I might start shooting RAW if there was some standardized image format where it would be no different than shooting JPG. I'd shoot RAW and my computer would automatically know alll my settings (WB, sharpness, contrast, etc.) so that I didn't have to do anything more to the pictures.

I believe Nikon came out with the D300s so that they could continue selling the camera to those that objected to the lack of video, which is a feature the camera companies are currently fixated on and believe they need to offer with every DSLR.

I'd love video on my DSLR. The camera would be a lot more appealing if it could capture at 30 fps and have stereo mics. I think the D400 will have good video specs, so I'm really looking forward to it.

 Dan's gear list:Dan's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX30V Nikon D300 Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ETTRNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow