...but when you compare the optical construction and physical characteristics, it looks like it may be just that: a rebranded Tamron 28-75/2.8. Lending even more credibility is why would any new standard zoom design start 28mm, which hasn't been "wide" since the mid-90s.
--
The a900 obviously had no bearing whatsoever on the cost of the D3x, I doubt Nikon will worry too much about the a850.
As Iliah will point out, the D3x has better DR than the A900/A850, but the A900/A850 has better spectral properties, so "improved" may be a stretch. Maybe just "different."
I agree with you. In my initial post, I stated that it might be worth adding to a nikon kit. So, where's the beef?
Never said they were. That's just your sony fanboy defensiveness, reading stuff in my posts that isn't there.
LOL. Please show me where I bashed the 850 or sony. I specifically stated that it might be worth adding to a nikon kit, in my first post. Of course, you skip right over that, fanboy.
Features and performance drive the business. More features and performance = more cost. Lots of folks don't want a leica, or any other bare bones camera. That's why the high end nikon and canon models are selling so well.
Nah, I don't buy that. The d5000 is less. I don't see droves of people in this forum dumping their cameras to replace them with d5000 bodies. The d300 and d700 are the most capable cameras that I've ever used. Why would anyone give that up, if that's what they wanted to begin with?
It isn't about me. It's about this market segment, of which I am a part. I think that I'm a pretty average guy in this market segment. If I'm not interested in losing features and performance, I can't imagine that there are a lot of other people in this market segment that would. After all, we bought or want to buy, the d300, the d700, etc. Why would we suddenly want to settle for less?
Nikon will release the D700x at the price they had planned from the start. Probably around 4.000 $. And many people will buy it and be happy for a long time.
Some people (like me) would be much happier with a 16-18 MP camera in a D700 body.
--
Greetings from Germany,
Pam
Some of my casual D3 images @ Stany´s photoforum
http://www.fotografie-forum.be/n3-galleryPMeier-1.htm
I think you're right, and I'd suggest I am also a part of this market segment, and it really depends on the shooter. A year or two ago, I was begging for a high MP 35mm body that was lower in price, and, coming from medium format, I would have bought such a camera for $3K if it only had an aperture/shutter control, mirror lock up, and maybe AF. The A900 ended up being much more. Outside of the AF, the A900 and D700 are pretty competitive in features, and I'd suggest that the in-body IS negates the AF advantage for some. Heck, I never shoot over 1fps with my A900. Now, I am hoping for an even simpler, smaller 24MP FF camera for under $1K as a travel solution. They can even leave out AF. lol.
Nikon will release the D700x at the price they had planned from the start. Probably around 4.000 $. And many people will buy it and be happy for a long time.
Some people (like me) would be much happier with a 16-18 MP camera in a D700 body.
--
Greetings from Germany,
Pam
Some of my casual D3 images @ Stany´s photoforum
http://www.fotografie-forum.be/n3-galleryPMeier-1.htm
No, I know exactly why I want a 24MP camera. Having post processed my 2nd photographer's Canon 5DII files I understand what the applications of a 24mp files are very well and what post processing opportunities and downfalls there are.
Really? the #1 business driver............PRICE.............
Kerry, you're comparing apples to potatoes, but if you want to make it a realistic comparison, the D5000 will probably outsell the D300 5 to 1
Kerrry, let me give you an "average guy" who two years ago purchased a D60 Kit at Costco for $700 and now loves photography and he can't afford to upgrade to FF but he can afford to upgrade to a D300 for $1,600. Guess what? for $400 more he can get Full Frame, 24 MP, it's an easy call. The average guy can scratch an extra $400 for the upgrade , no way he can scratch an extra $1,000 , especially at 12MP.
I shoot mostly landscape/buildings/etc. and no sports, etc. so this is perfect. I don't need the fast AF, etc. 95% viewfinder coverage is a bummer though but not a big deal.
A850 is a 98% VF. From everything I'm hearing, it is nearly impossible to tell the difference between it and the 100% A900.I shoot mostly landscape/buildings/etc. and no sports, etc. so this is perfect. I don't need the fast AF, etc. 95% viewfinder coverage is a bummer though but not a big deal.
Too bad it is not a F-Mount body
--
