What if the D3s is Nikon's answer to the 5DM2?

ScottMac is hoping for 150 posts. it is the mark of some people to see that their posts reach 150 replies. Only posts that try to start a fight reach that mark. It would be a mark of shame for most people.

topstuff said:

ScottMac said:

it's baffling.

Click to expand...

Too right it is ! Baffling ! Absolutely Baffling !

If the lack of HD 1080 Nikon's is still baffling you (in spite of the fact that the current range are near the end of their life and new cameras are imminent) you must either be:

a) Stupid.

b) Bored with nothing else to do.

c) Deliberately pretending to be stupid and bored with nothing else to do.

d) All of the above.

Let us know which one it is.

Oh, and please, please, please, promise to come back on this thread later in the year when the D700 replacement comes out so that we can all laugh at you.

Click to expand...

--

-> > "Oh, and since we're on the subject of advice, you may want to be a little leery of some of the advice you see on this, or any other, message board. If someone is giving you advice ......make a determination about how much weight you'll give that advice. You may find that sometimes there are 'serial-posters' on the internet that should read more and type less."
-Brian Blanco, Sarasota Florida

I include myself in that quote
Chris, Broussard, LA

You are down right rude ...

Please, please read today's Thom Hogan comment on trying to use any DSLR for professional video, aptly titled 'The Fatal Lure'.

Probably ScottMac will hate Thom's ideas, but common sense is not always welcome? Fatal lure indeed.

listen, Im not going to use the video function in my pro cam, but It is a useful feature, I use alot on my p&S and I sometimes just bring it and no vid cam, but think about this, u are at LAX you snap a picture of Kanye West he proceeds to attack you and destroy your equipment, he says he tripped and fell on your stuff, whats better evidence in court stills or a video? its like this dont bring a knife to a gunfight, next gen nikon pro cams all need vid and 20+ MP, all of you saying they dont are people who arent buying a new camera so they arent catering to you, you arent the adopters of new technology, but you shout and scream about how we already have too many MP, well thats nice for you dont by a new cameras therefore to the camera makers your opinions are irrelevant

Newguy703 said:

listen, Im not going to use the video function in my pro cam, but It is a useful feature, I use alot on my p&S and I sometimes just bring it and no vid cam, but think about this, u are at LAX you snap a picture of Kanye West he proceeds to attack you and destroy your equipment, he says he tripped and fell on your stuff, whats better evidence in court stills or a video? its like this dont bring a knife to a gunfight, next gen nikon pro cams all need vid and 20+ MP, all of you saying they dont are people who arent buying a new camera so they arent catering to you, you arent the adopters of new technology, but you shout and scream about how we already have too many MP, well thats nice for you dont by a new cameras therefore to the camera makers your opinions are irrelevant

Click to expand...

You haven't been paying attention have you?

Most people here have no problem with Video. Indeed, I would bet my house that the D800 and D4 will have it. This seems to be too hard for the OP to understand.

But your LAX Kanye West example makes no sense. If it's going to kick off between me and Kanye, I'm hardly going to get out my 5D2, take off the lenscap, set to MF, think about the frame rate, aperture and focus.

I would just grab my iPhone .

just keep a $200 P&S handy to capture the video of kanye attacking you and dont worry that your $2500 or $6000 body cant shoot video. Keep your DSLR for that photo you will make $5000 when you sell it to the tabloids.

Nikon is banking on the D7000 for growth. The pro-consumer segment is where the money is at. Nikon loves their pro market because it is that reputation that gets people to buy the d7000s and it is the improvements in the pro cameras (at great R&D cost) that wind up in the pro-consumer and consumer market years later, but I think if nothing new materializes until 2013 then that is fine. Pros dont care. Nikon does not care. Nikon does not make a killing on the FF cameras. They love selling the lenses and they love to spend the R&D for the consumer stuff.

Pros shooting their weddings and other gigs and their customers are not saying "oh you only have the lowly d3x or d700, hmm i only want a canon photographer shooting my wedding with the latest mumbo jumbo". If they want video they will hire a videographer. They are not looking for one man to do video and photos and if you are selling both video and photo then you have at least 2 people and hence, two pieces of equipment. No pro is going to switch from nikon to canon for financial gain -- no way, and nikon knows this.

For every d7000 they sell they sell probably 1.5 new lenses. For every d800 or d4 they sell they sell an increment of maybe 0.3 lenses because most people are just upgrading the body. I will upgrade my d700 to the d4 when it comes out. I really doubt it will be 2011 and Nikon does not care and neither do I. i am very happy with the d700 and i rather wait for them to develop the right product than come out with some stupid camera that is the same but it does video and has 24MP. That is not going to help me.

I do not think anyone will be buying a d4 or d800 in 2011. maybe they announce something in 8 or 9 months, but you cant touch it until 2012 or later

It's baffling I tell you! What are Ford thinking ?

All these people buying GM Minivans are not buying Mustangs!

There is something wrong I tell you !

I'm baffled.

mtlr said:

Please, please read today's Thom Hogan comment on trying to use any DSLR for professional video, aptly titled 'The Fatal Lure'.

Probably ScottMac will hate Thom's ideas, but common sense is not always welcome? Fatal lure indeed.

Click to expand...

He doesn't offer any ideas at all, other than his hatred of video in DSLRs. He starts out saying camera companies are spending "most of their efforts" on putting video in still cameras. Huh? 1080p (2 mp per frame) HD technology is ancient. It's been in Canon's cheapest entry level FF camera for THREE years. Where are his facts or research on this? So much for approaching the subject in an unbiased way.

He then sets up a straw-man argument trying to establish that users expect DSLR video cameras to take the place of full dedicated video camera rigs. Whose saying that? FF DSLR video can produce certain types of cinematic video that smaller sensor video cameras cannot. But dedicated video cameras are easier to use and are set up from the beginning for shooting video. Both cameras can do things the other can't. DSLR video is just another video tool to be used along with other video gear.

Just because Thom can't shoot video with a DSLR means nothing to the pros who use it everyday when it's appropriate for the job. We just finished a gorgeous image spot for a TV network shot with a 5D II that was originally slated to be shot on 35mm film. Yes, we/I have fast lenses (a huge barrier to Thom), and pros know how to focus manually because thats the way it's done with high-end video gear.

There is very little common sense in that article, only spin and rants.

Sal

video is here to stay, if you dont have it or more MP as a company you are behind. as for consumer not pro cams being a priority I feel the pro cams are a halo product that drives sales of the rest of the line, Im hoping for a 24 mp D800 with video and I will replace my D3 then..unless I can get a new D3x for $5500 (what its really worth) if Nikon doesn't get on the ball Sony or Canon will surpass them... I dont "need" more MP but I "Want" more MP and video, thats what drives camera sales

Newguy703 said:

...if Nikon doesn't get on the ball Sony or Canon will surpass them... I dont "need" more MP but I "Want" more MP and video, thats what drives camera sales

Click to expand...

Concisely put. I don't NEED more mp. My D200 still delivers plenty detail:



But I WANT more mp. Because with more mp I'l get more detail -- no possible argument about that. And becausse of the implications for editing and graphic manipulation. And for more finely detailed large prints.

I have the strong sense that those on this thread who are against a true improvement over the D3/D700 are those who spent their money on those models, and have a gnawing resentment that their shiny toy is going to be obsolete. I don't have a D3. Or a D700. Or a FF camera. I have a D200 that delivers pictures that are the equivalent of images from those cameras, under ideal conditions. So I should be happy and keep quiet, too.

But, no. I WANT an upgrade. I WANT more mp. 10 mp is "enough" for great pictures, but I want the newer, better instruments.

Because as a technology, we're there.

Because we're shooting digital, and digital needs digits. Lots of digits. More is not bad. More is good.

I don't shoot video, so it's not a pressing urge for me. But again, as a technology, we're there. Video has arrived.

Whoever said on an earlier post that this is a "still camera forum" reminds me of when "Digital Photography Review" started. It was a novelty. "Real" cameras weren't digital. There were endless threads about film vs digital, saying that digital will never catch film. That's still the case with LF film. For those who cherish only still cameras, but want the highest possible resolution, Linhof still makes 8x10 film cameras that'll wipe the doormat with any of these digicams. So buy one of those. Make mine a DSLR with video.

I'm sure I'll use the video when I get it. Heaven help me, I'm already outgrowing 6 TB storage, with my measly 10 mp still images. Plus double backups. Groan.

Scott, your logic about Nikon's product line being washed out this year is grimly compelling, but I do hope you're wrong. In my gut, I feel (or is it just hope?) that we'll see everything that we want. That is, those of us who actually want a new camera. We WANT a truly better Nikon. It will have high MP and, yes, 1080 video and in my fevered imagination a host of great new features packed super-ergonomically into a fabulous rugged body. Yes we will, yes we will. Say it enough times. Sigh...
---------------
Tom B

Tom_Bruno said:

Scott, your logic about Nikon's product line being washed out this year is grimly compelling,
---------------

Click to expand...

What complete nonsense.

HD video came along roughly at the same time the D3/D700 range were fresh out and new to the market. Canon, having beaten Nikon to the punch in incorporating these features have made a big impression. Even Canon did not predict how DSLR's and video would make such a big impression.

Since then, Nikon has clearly been listening. The most recent new camera from Nikon, D7000, includes 1080P video and a new generation sensor with an extra two stops of DR over APSC Canons - all very good stuff.

I have no doubt that the D800 and D4 will also contain similar improvements. No doubt they will have HD video too and more MP.

So whats the problem? Other than impatience on your part?

bikinchris said:

How about a wager? If a new Nikon FX model is released this year with 1080, you wil not write on this board for the rest of the year. It will be a relief to all of us, I know.

If no FX model is announced before Dec 31, 2011 I will not post all of next year.

Deal?

Click to expand...

The question has always been why no 5DM2 competitor, and that is specifically, a moderately priced FF camera with 1080 HD video and high MP, at least 21, like the 5DM2 spec and price. I know Nikon always charges more for the same thing, or less, so I will take the bet with you if the spec is a new Nikon, released for sale within 2011 with FF, 1080 HD video, at least 21 MP, and under $5,000. But I know you won't take that bet because you know Nikon can't and/or won't make a camera like that this year, just like I know it too. You think it will be 16 or 18 MP. and maybe over $6,000 (as a D4) and that's no good for me and it's not what people want. However, I have been predicting that they may release a D3Xs with 24 MP and 1080 video for $8,000, so if that camera is released for sale in 2011 then you would win the bet. But a 16MP version of the D3s, with 1080 video tacked on, and for more than $6,000? No, that would be an expensive joke on both of us.

So, will you take the bet now?

topstuff said:

topstuff said:

Scott, your logic about Nikon's product line being washed out this year is grimly compelling,
---------------

Click to expand...

What complete nonsense.

Click to expand...

topstuff said:

So whats the problem? Other than impatience on your part?

Click to expand...

Is it really MY impatience, or HIS or anyone, or is it their incredible slowness to market with something that Canon has had for years? What has this resulted in that matters so much? Well, for one thing, the complete dominance in pro dslr 1080 HD video by Canon for one thing, no producer will take Nikon dslr seriously for professional shoots and that may be permanent the longer Nikon waits to get in the game. Remember Beta tapes from Sony for VCR's? They were better quality than VHS but they never made it.

someone wrote

Someone else wrote

I don't think it is insane. It is likely true, although I can't vouch for the official numbers. I'm one of those persons 'waiting no matter what'.

I'm through with buying tech that is getting long in the tooth and then sitting to watch as it is updated almost immediately, leaving me wanting. After all, the camera only helps with some kinds of photos and I can take many wonderful photographs with old technology, right? Obviously, if I have to wait too long for Nikon while Canon continues to improve at some point I'll sell my lenses and migrate to Canon or some other maker. It's up to Nikon to make their decisions about whether to risk losing customers like me.

That said, I'm waiting for new tech mainly because I like to buy new cameras and spend money. It is true there are some kinds of photographs that can't be taken at all with old technology. Some of the pics being taken at night under low light with modern cameras, for example. On the other hand there were wonderful photos taken by poor equipment going all the way back into the 1800s.

Diderot

Sal Baker said:

mtlr said:

Please, please read today's Thom Hogan comment on trying to use any DSLR for professional video, aptly titled 'The Fatal Lure'.

Probably ScottMac will hate Thom's ideas, but common sense is not always welcome? Fatal lure indeed.

Click to expand...

He doesn't offer any ideas at all, other than his hatred of video in DSLRs. He starts out saying camera companies are spending "most of their efforts" on putting video in still cameras. Huh? 1080p (2 mp per frame) HD technology is ancient. It's been in Canon's cheapest entry level FF camera for THREE years. Where are his facts or research on this? So much for approaching the subject in an unbiased way.

He then sets up a straw-man argument trying to establish that users expect DSLR video cameras to take the place of full dedicated video camera rigs. Whose saying that? FF DSLR video can produce certain types of cinematic video that smaller sensor video cameras cannot. But dedicated video cameras are easier to use and are set up from the beginning for shooting video. Both cameras can do things the other can't. DSLR video is just another video tool to be used along with other video gear.

Just because Thom can't shoot video with a DSLR means nothing to the pros who use it everyday when it's appropriate for the job. We just finished a gorgeous image spot for a TV network shot with a 5D II that was originally slated to be shot on 35mm film. Yes, we/I have fast lenses (a huge barrier to Thom), and pros know how to focus manually because thats the way it's done with high-end video gear.

There is very little common sense in that article, only spin and rants.

Sal

Click to expand...

I agree with you completely, but in Thom's defense, he may be talking about consumer or prosumer use too. However, it is definitely true that this forum is not for pro dslr 1080 video shooters, and not so much because it has few pro posters who shoot dslr video, but rather, because Nikon HAS NO FF 1080 HD CAMERAS FOR SALE AT ANY PRICE SO NOBODY HERE EVEN HAS ONE UNLESS IT'S A CANON!!! Double HA HA!

Diderot2 said:

someone wrote

Someone else wrote

I don't think it is insane. It is likely true, although I can't vouch for the official numbers. I'm one of those persons 'waiting no matter what'.

I'm through with buying tech that is getting long in the tooth and then sitting to watch as it is updated almost immediately, leaving me wanting. After all, the camera only helps with some kinds of photos and I can take many wonderful photographs with old technology, right? Obviously, if I have to wait too long for Nikon while Canon continues to improve at some point I'll sell my lenses and migrate to Canon or some other maker. It's up to Nikon to make their decisions about whether to risk losing customers like me.

That said, I'm waiting for new tech mainly because I like to buy new cameras and spend money. It is true there are some kinds of photographs that can't be taken at all with old technology. Some of the pics being taken at night under low light with modern cameras, for example. On the other hand there were wonderful photos taken by poor equipment going all the way back into the 1800s.

Diderot

Click to expand...

I hear you but this is not the way pros see it. People who make a living with their cameras, and if you shot Nikon seriously in the film days, you know Nikon was THE pro 35mm camera, know that new technology does two things. It gives you the ability to meet client expectations and is often necessary to keep up with your competition who has it already.

It's not about toys for me, or even JUST having the tech, it's often a matter of putting food on the table, and lately, even having a table. I managed okay because my competition is MF people but lately, budgets and desires have given rise to 35mm with FF, high MP and 1080 video use. Yes, it's tough out there in this industry right now.

Tom_Bruno said:

I have the strong sense that those on this thread who are against a true improvement over the D3/D700 are those who spent their money on those models, and have a gnawing resentment that their shiny toy is going to be obsolete.

Click to expand...

I think you are right.

Some people seem to take it personally. Claiming Nikons are so good they don't need to progress.

I do want them to progress even if it makes my D700 "obsolete", even though I don't intend to change my 700 for a good while. I want it to move Nikons game on and for them to make the best cameras.

No one is saying you have to upgrade every generation! But Nikon should keep making the best cameras they can.

Some of it though is due to out dated views such as high iso/low noise and higher MP.

Video I am less interested in, but it is inevitable I think. No one is forcing anyone to use it.

Although...as to asking why no 5D Mk2 competitor over and over and over and over.....maybe Nikon dind't think it was so important, maybe they couldn't or didn't know how to do it to their satisfaction, maybe they didn't want to get burnt with wibble wobbly jelly video like from the D90 again. Who cares....they didn't do it. Wait and see what the next gen offers.

Stu

--
I seriously doubt your lens is a copy

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabbitstu77/

You say the question was for a competitor for the 5D MKII and ask for almost the same camera. The answer has always been that Nikon does not and has never built a camera to be an exact competitor to Canon. But you always have ignored that. Where is Canon's competition for an FX camera that shoots 9fps and 14bit?

As for the bet, you put so many caveats on it, that it doesn't resemble a bet, but a marketing equation.

Take the bet as it was written or nothing. I didn't think you would even consider it. You would want a Bugatti Veyron but would only be willing to pay for the price of a smart car.

ScottMac said:

bikinchris said:

How about a wager? If a new Nikon FX model is released this year with 1080, you wil not write on this board for the rest of the year. It will be a relief to all of us, I know.

If no FX model is announced before Dec 31, 2011 I will not post all of next year.

Deal?

Click to expand...

The question has always been why no 5DM2 competitor, and that is specifically, a moderately priced FF camera with 1080 HD video and high MP, at least 21, like the 5DM2 spec and price. I know Nikon always charges more for the same thing, or less, so I will take the bet with you if the spec is a new Nikon, released for sale within 2011 with FF, 1080 HD video, at least 21 MP, and under $5,000. But I know you won't take that bet because you know Nikon can't and/or won't make a camera like that this year, just like I know it too. You think it will be 16 or 18 MP. and maybe over $6,000 (as a D4) and that's no good for me and it's not what people want. However, I have been predicting that they may release a D3Xs with 24 MP and 1080 video for $8,000, so if that camera is released for sale in 2011 then you would win the bet. But a 16MP version of the D3s, with 1080 video tacked on, and for more than $6,000? No, that would be an expensive joke on both of us.

So, will you take the bet now?

Click to expand...

--

-> > "Oh, and since we're on the subject of advice, you may want to be a little leery of some of the advice you see on this, or any other, message board. If someone is giving you advice ......make a determination about how much weight you'll give that advice. You may find that sometimes there are 'serial-posters' on the internet that should read more and type less."
-Brian Blanco, Sarasota Florida

I include myself in that quote
Chris, Broussard, LA

bikinchris said:

You say the question was for a competitor for the 5D MKII and ask for almost the same camera. The answer has always been that Nikon does not and has never built a camera to be an exact competitor to Canon. But you always have ignored that. Where is Canon's competition for an FX camera that shoots 9fps and 14bit?

Click to expand...

To be fair, the 5DII has faster fps at 14bit than the much more expensive D3x at similar resolution. I'm not convinced that anyone can really see the 14bit difference.

Sal

bikinchris said:

You say the question was for a competitor for the 5D MKII and ask for almost the same camera. The answer has always been that Nikon does not and has never built a camera to be an exact competitor to Canon. But you always have ignored that. Where is Canon's competition for an FX camera that shoots 9fps and 14bit?

As for the bet, you put so many caveats on it, that it doesn't resemble a bet, but a marketing equation.

Take the bet as it was written or nothing. I didn't think you would even consider it. You would want a Bugatti Veyron but would only be willing to pay for the price of a smart car.

Click to expand...

You were too vague in your description for the bet.

How is this: no new FF Nikon with at least 20 MP and 1080 video in 2011?

If you don't take that bet then it is you that lacks confidence in Nikon and it proves you actually agree with me that they can't do it for still another year.

It doesn't interest me to debate whether or not it's a good thing that Nikon is sticking with 12 MP and 1080 video in FF, for me, I can't use their products because it's not pro spec enough, period, the file size is too small for high end advertising and tv producers won't accept 720 HD when they can easily have 1080 FF at only $2,300. And in addition, I'm not going to buy a D3X and it's because it has no video and is crazy out of control over priced for what it is.

Why would I bet on 16 or 18 MP, I have no interest in low MP when Canon has had 21 MP FF and 1080 video for YEARS!!!