8 hours ago
 |
stromaroma
Lives in
Vancouver, Canada
Joined on
Jul 2, 2007
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
TakenUserName: Has the FAA relaxed the rules on this yet? While they allow remote control helicopters and gyrocopters for recreational/sport use, they grounded all others when used commercially. I know several real estate photographers who posted ariel photos of homes for sale and suddenly got a visit from the FAA., and effectively closed that portion of their business. They were going to make "rules" but were absurd...like a full helicopter's license. They also made exceptions (or special permits) for government agencies so now seeing police departments with ariel drones of similat design.
Soon they'll ban kites. Oh wait, they already do that in Afghanistan.
stromaroma: Looks like a nice camera but I probably won't buy it. I have a D300 and D7000 and no need for FX. The D400 may interest me though, for wildlife. My D300 is so loud it scares away wildlife, that's gotta change. Plus video would be nice.
What I am disappointed about with Nikon though is its entry level approach to the N1 series. As a rep in Britain said months ago, "We want enthusiasts and pros to be buying our DSLR's". Well Nikon, why don't you give your customers what they want instead of telling them what they want? Has it not occurred to you that many pro's don't want to lug around DSLR's all the time?
"Try Prayer to overcome the laws of physics "
Why? The problems with the N1 series have nothing to do with physics, it's poor user interface and not gearing the controls towards people who actually want to do things with the cameras besides point and shoot.
I agree though, the laws of physics will eventually likely win out and limit what is possible with a small sensor.
Although, maybe we will see mirrorless electronic cameras go beyond what we thought possible by taking multiple shots at 1/20,000th and then using some algorithm to average them out to go beyond what a single image on a DSLR could produce in terms of ISO.
I have been looking towards the m4/3 system and I admit that I am put off by the high price and that it's still pretty large. I am thinking that I might just bite the bullet and get a J1 and lens combo soon when they go for cheap on clearance sales, at least the lenses are good and they will hold their value until a better N camera comes out. OK Nikon, you won...
stromaroma: Looks like a nice camera but I probably won't buy it. I have a D300 and D7000 and no need for FX. The D400 may interest me though, for wildlife. My D300 is so loud it scares away wildlife, that's gotta change. Plus video would be nice.
What I am disappointed about with Nikon though is its entry level approach to the N1 series. As a rep in Britain said months ago, "We want enthusiasts and pros to be buying our DSLR's". Well Nikon, why don't you give your customers what they want instead of telling them what they want? Has it not occurred to you that many pro's don't want to lug around DSLR's all the time?
I cannot justify buying a V1 because of its shortcomings. I am waiting for a Z1 or something that has better controls and menu system. I want a small mirrorless camera that has "pro" level performance -- obviously not in terms of ISO performance due to the small sensor but everything else. The FT-1 adapter will not suit my needs for my existing DX lenses, its AF performance is unacceptable. Why can't this be fixed so that our lenses are indeed backwards compatible across the whole Nikon system?
Small cameras are not just toys for entry level photographers. They are desired by serious enthusiasts and pros who can't, or don't want to, lug around a big DSLR in many circumstances. Many of us are travel photographers and we want small, small, small! We want DSLR performance minus the mirror and large sensor, it's that simple.
Looks like a nice camera but I probably won't buy it. I have a D300 and D7000 and no need for FX. The D400 may interest me though, for wildlife. My D300 is so loud it scares away wildlife, that's gotta change. Plus video would be nice.
What I am disappointed about with Nikon though is its entry level approach to the N1 series. As a rep in Britain said months ago, "We want enthusiasts and pros to be buying our DSLR's". Well Nikon, why don't you give your customers what they want instead of telling them what they want? Has it not occurred to you that many pro's don't want to lug around DSLR's all the time?
CNY_AP: They said it cost $2.5B, but don't forget, the program lasted multiple years, so that money was spread out over a period of time. It was a small amount each year for a country our size...and it is a much better way to "stimulate" our economy than to send out checks which get spent at Wal-Mart (ie China) and on drugs. NASA employs American workers who spend money here, the spaceship is not made overseas, and taxpayers get benefits from what has been developed and discovered over the many years of NASA.
And Maybe they'll find Obama's parents and birth certificate up there. Yea, and Romney's "stash" as someone mentioned earlier.
The US is toast, as is the whole world. They can't even put a man in space anymore. We're at Peak Oil now, and 95% of the energy we use comes from burning dead things, it's all downhill here on out until the Malthusian Collapse in a few decades. The US imports 1/2 of its oil. When the debt-based financial system implodes soon ad the US can no longer import oil then we'll finally realize how far we've stripped Mother Earth of her resources. About 4 billion people will die, give or take a few billion.
stromaroma: Why would I want 24 MP in such a crumby body? Seriously, I go travelling with my cameras and laptop and 24 MP is just going to bog everything down and require more storage space. What's wrong with 16 MP? The difference to IQ is negligible. Scratch the MP ratrace and give me what I really want -- better low light performance and faster frame rates. If I ever want 24 MP, which I don't, I'll get a high end body.
Obviously the same sensor with less megapixels will produce the same amount of noise. The point is that they could have used the area available on the sensor to make a different sensor altogether with larger pixels that produces less noise. Sensor advances can go both ways -- more MP or better high ISO noise. The laws of physics dictate that if you reduce one the other can go up. I'd much prefer movements towards high ISO noise capabilities.
stromaroma: Why would I want 24 MP in such a crumby body? Seriously, I go travelling with my cameras and laptop and 24 MP is just going to bog everything down and require more storage space. What's wrong with 16 MP? The difference to IQ is negligible. Scratch the MP ratrace and give me what I really want -- better low light performance and faster frame rates. If I ever want 24 MP, which I don't, I'll get a high end body.
Actually I have the best small laptop available. They have stagnated over the last couple years since everyone is moving to tablets which I don't want.
4 fps may be enough for you but not for me.
Sure, IQ of this may be equivalent to the 16 MP sensor of a couple years ago but then they could have gone the other way and maintained the 16 MP with way better high ISO noise.
Charrick: There are so many people who hate more megapixels. I know that more megapixels decreases the size of each pixel (that is, image sensor element), thus allowing it to gather less light. I'm not disputing that.
But with the D800, I thought people would have learned that, at least in low to moderate ISO settings, more megapixels DOES translate into a sharper picture with more details. Some people are pretending that technological innovation with sensor sensitivity to light stopped in 2006. And if that were the case, then perhaps 6 megapixel sensors would be good enough.
I, for one, am glad that some companies are pushing the envelope. I don't like pixels just for their own sake, but it's clear that at the 24MP range, pictures taken in daytime will probably look better than with, say, a 12-16MP sensor of the same size. Then again, I take far more pictures in the daytime than in the middle of the night or in candle-lit rooms.
You can only crop your high MP image if the lens is able to resolve that detail. And to the above commenter who says they can discern between a 24 and 12 MP image, there is no way you can tell the difference. How big is your monitor? Are you sure you aren't just noticing differences in the cameras' settings? They are from different generations, years apart, they are obviously not going to produce the same kind of image.
Why would I want 24 MP in such a crumby body? Seriously, I go travelling with my cameras and laptop and 24 MP is just going to bog everything down and require more storage space. What's wrong with 16 MP? The difference to IQ is negligible. Scratch the MP ratrace and give me what I really want -- better low light performance and faster frame rates. If I ever want 24 MP, which I don't, I'll get a high end body.
Very interesting, I might consider this.
Since the sensor is 1/3 the area of DX does that mean I only lose about a stop and a half?
And if I put my 300 mm bird lens on it does that make it what, like 500 mm in DX terms? At the expense of only a stop? Sounds good to me.
But I am wondering,, just because the camera can capture such high speed data, aren't we limited by card write speed? What size is the buffer?
>
> budzio wrote:
> > this pic is so SOFT. click on it to view it at 100% zoom. it's an alright pic, definitely not a #1 pic.
>
> it is so sad to think nowadays the only thing that makes a "good" picture is how sharp it is...
>
It depends on the nature of the photo. I think this type needs sharpness.