Has Nikon Forgotten They're Not a Camcorder Company?

Started Oct 14, 2009 | Discussions thread
David Rosser
David Rosser Veteran Member • Posts: 3,460
Re: It seems like a hot thing these days

RRJackson wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

But surely one would wonder, if the photographers shoot photos, and dedicated pro shooters especially, then why would anyone need so and so video in their camera. Especially when it is obviously not a free and give away feature. Why raise prise for what it seems most (most?) do not need.

The price of the D3 when it was introduced was $4999. The D3s is $5200, right? Is that extra $200 on a camera released two years later eating at you?

Personally, I'm all for video in DSLRs, but we're still not at a point where a RAW capture system is available in a DSLR and that's annoying. I mean, motion JPEG is at least less unpredictable than the H.264 stuff that consumer cameras are all using, but it's still no replacement for Cineform RAW.

Quite, the Nikon implementation of Video is rather poor and by the time they put it right and satisfy all the video requirements we will end up with a video camera that does stills rather than a dedicated still camera.

I agree that the world is moving forward on this and that photojournalism is moving strongly towards delivery over the internet rather than the printed page, the long term requirement is therefore for video cameras with a still capability good enough for the web (i.e 4 Megapixle not 12 or 24 megapixle).

There is a market for dedicated still cameras but I suspect it will be a shrinking one made up of those of us who think a print on paper (on the wall or in a book) is the whole object of the exercise.

 David Rosser's gear list:David Rosser's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC5 Sony RX100 III Nikon D40 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow