- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Another Dubious Nikon New Model "Leak"...
- Thread starter Flash In The Pan
- Start date
OP
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Unlikely, it looks fake to me
OP
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have a look at the D300s thread, look at the pictures and then look at the video - two entirely different cameras 
OP
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
D40 no longer on sale, D60 getting a bit long in the tooth, D5000 quite expensive, I can see a reason for a 'budget' model and a D3000 is a likely name.
Whether that is it or not is irrelevant - I bet we'll see one before the summer is out.
Whether that is it or not is irrelevant - I bet we'll see one before the summer is out.
- Messages
- 1,757
- Name
- Alastair
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Word on a US forum is it is going to be a D5000 without video :shrug:
All I want is a D400 without video ... please
If video functionality doesn't add any significance to the cost, wouldn't it be simple enough to just ignore video? I can't see them not adding video to future cameras from this point onwards. It makes no sense not to feature video excepting perhaps the D4 (or whatever the D3 is replaced with).
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just something else to go wrong, and it is never going to be as good as a dedicated video camera ... like a camera on a phone, never ever used one.
I want every last ounce of processing ability used for still capture, I do not need any redundant space on the chip in case I want to shoot a video clip.
OP
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think it's all down to Flash , he love's a bit of bovver....:shake:
And he is putting em all up..........
Just this one....the others are nowt to do with me :razz:
If any of this rubbish is true then I'll need to start saving for a D3, if I wanted a video camera, I'd buy a bleedin' video camera :shake:
OP
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Steady on Stan..........
By the time I've saved up the money the D5 will be out anyway and it'll have a microwave oven built in
Messiah Khan
Santa is your dad
- Messages
- 2,666
- Name
- Alasdair Fowler
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The Nikon naming scheme is making even less sense to me now. 
Anyway, the only cameras I would get excisted about would be;
A Pro DX body.
Any MX body
A D300 dx replacement with the ISO performance of the D3.
Anyway, the only cameras I would get excisted about would be;
A Pro DX body.
Any MX body
A D300 dx replacement with the ISO performance of the D3.
Why? They are fast running out of steps in x0's - why not move to x000'sThe Nikon naming scheme is making even less sense to me now.
Messiah Khan
Santa is your dad
- Messages
- 2,666
- Name
- Alasdair Fowler
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Because they started the x000 line on the D5000. Now moving to a D3000? Which one next, a D4000 or a D6000? Why didn't they just start on the D1000 and work their way up? Same with the D700. That is just going to be a problem for the D300 follow on in a few years time.
- Messages
- 2,859
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What do you mean by dedicated Video Camera? The £500 ones that normal people buy or the £3000+ ones that "pros" buy?
A DSLR with video function is far better than the £500 ones that's for certain!
OP
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 2,859
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Go look at a film made with a 5Dmk2 and one made with a standard Sharp video camera, then think about zoom, you're not going to get many cameras with a zoom that will give the image quality of a 600 f/4... Then you need to think about DoF...
Yes overall your DSLR and lenses are going to cost a hell of a lot more than a £500 video camera with a £50 lens in, but if you are buying the camera and lens for photography and then have the use of the video camera function then it doesn't matter...
Yes overall your DSLR and lenses are going to cost a hell of a lot more than a £500 video camera with a £50 lens in, but if you are buying the camera and lens for photography and then have the use of the video camera function then it doesn't matter...
OP
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Riiight...
The link is to a camera that would probably cost £4-500 with kit lens if it was real and you're backing up your claim by citing a £2000 camera and a £7500 lens?
How does the 5D/600 combo fair against ten grand's worth of pro video equipment? That would be a fairer comparison.
Just perhaps they identify the D5000 as the 'middle of the range' camera and a D3000 (or D2000 or D1000) will be the 'entry level' body and you could go up to a D9000 that could replace the current D90.
This will give the option to make a D5100 (and on upwards) 'facelift' models before whatever becomes the D6000 range and so on.
Just my 2p.
£3k?
You practically need a mortgage for professional video equipment. Still, apparently there has been a movie shot on D90 out there now.
- Messages
- 2,859
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No it wasn't, the link was to DSLRs (any) having a video mode, and the only reason I chose the 5Dmk2 was because it was the first one out and full frame. Even with a 500D and a 70-300IS the IQ will be far superior. Also, as I mentioned before, the cost doesn't really come in to it as most people will use their original kit they bought to take photos with (although a few may buy DSLR's because they are cheaper than the real pro video kit, and can provide better IQ).
Anyway, why is it so hard to believe? Like a camera the most important parts for IQ are the lens and the sensor, bearing in mind the sensor on a normal video camera will not be much bigger than a compact camera, with a lens made from two or three small pieces of glass. The average £500 video camera is the equivilent of a compact in the still world.
£3k?
Still, apparently there has been a movie shot on D90 out there now.
That's why I said "pro"!
I was aiming it more at the Wedding videographer with a semi pro canon or Sony not the £100k film cameras.
For sure. Bit you have to wonder where Red and dSLR video is going to end up.Anyway, why is it so hard to believe? Like a camera the most important parts for IQ are the lens and the sensor, bearing in mind the sensor on a normal video camera will not be much bigger than a compact camera, with a lens made from two or three small pieces of glass. The average £500 video camera is the equivilent of a compact in the still world.
That's why I said "pro"!
I was aiming it more at the Wedding videographer with a semi pro canon or Sony not the £100k film cameras.
You can get a seriously good collection of Red kit for @£25,000 and dSLR's are making movies already.
D90 with Redrock
- Messages
- 518
- Name
- Zak
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If the D5000 is anything to go by this'll be a waste of time/money
OP
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No...the link in my op is to a sub-£500 Nikon camera
If I can refer you back to your own words "A DSLR with video function is far better than the £500 ones that's for certain!" which you went on to prove, by citing £10,000 worth of dslr and lens!
Once again, do you have any evidence to backup that claim?
By that reckoning, wouldn't the BBC be better to dump all it's video equipment then, if a dslr (by which I assume you mean a 5D MK II) can produce better images?
I was aiming it more at the Wedding videographer with a semi pro canon or Sony not the £100k film cameras.
Ahhh....gotcha.....is the 600 f/4 a common lens to use at weddings?
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My original point stands, to have video function that I will never use means that there is redundancy on the processor, I want all that processing power and programming used for still photographs.
If I want to take video I will go and buy a video camera, which has all its processing power dedicated to video.
The same as I buy a mobile telephone to phone people, not to listen to music, take photographs with, or surf the web with. Other people do, I do not, so see all the additional stuff as a waste and just something else to go wrong.
I understand your point regarding a dslr being superior to a £500 video camera, that is your opinion, I have no knowledge of modern video cameras, so am not in a position to offer any opinion on the matter, I am only interested in still photography so have no need whatsoever for a video on my DSLR.
So please when can I have my 16-18mp D400 ... without video
OP
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So please when can I have my 16-18mp D400 ... without video
That'll be the D400L...for Lite
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OP
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But when .... :shrug:
Never...the video feature adds, in marketing terms, "value" to the camera :shake:
- Messages
- 6,253
- Name
- Sean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In my opinion, it does. I'd love my camera to do video.
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well why dont they get the Swiss Army to design one, it could do everything then, like the knife.
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well why dont they get the Swiss Army to design one, it could do everything then, like the knife.
- Messages
- 2,859
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's all very well but I wasn't refering to your post, I quoted someone elses, who was talking about all DSLR's:shrug:
And as I mentioned before (which you quoted me on further down the post), price doesn't really come in to it, a 500D will provide a very similar picture quality with a 70-300 IS as the 5D, and both will provide a better IQ than a £500 video camera (which is what almost everyone would buy and or have anyway). So you have a choice, use your existing kit, which provides "free" video function, or go and buy a £500 video camera, which would you choose?:shrug:
I'll go find some for you.
EDIT: Just a couple I found (and not cherrypicked)...
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/t143905.html
http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/12/02/for-image-quality-buffs-dslr-video-is-off-the-table/#comments
(pretty much both say that compared with £50k+ they aren't as good, but leagues ahead of consumer cameras... They also point out the main benefits other than IQ, low light capability, DoF and interchangeable lenses)
By that reckoning, wouldn't the BBC be better to dump all it's video equipment then, if a dslr (by which I assume you mean a 5D MK II) can produce better images?
Nice twisting of my words (although I do admit, I did mean semi pro kit, not the £100k stuff the BBC use.)
Oh, and please don't edit my post...
Ahhh....gotcha.....is the 600 f/4 a common lens to use at weddings?
What's that got to do with the price of fish? A wedding photographer would use the lens he needs, for example a 70-200, which is just as sharp as the 600 f/4. You seem to be either stupid or just being difficult (and i'd wager the latter from reading past posts)...
My original point stands, to have video function that I will never use means that there is redundancy on the processor, I want all that processing power and programming used for still photographs.
If I want to take video I will go and buy a video camera, which has all its processing power dedicated to video.
The same as I buy a mobile telephone to phone people, not to listen to music, take photographs with, or surf the web with. Other people do, I do not, so see all the additional stuff as a waste and just something else to go wrong.
I understand your point regarding a dslr being superior to a £500 video camera, that is your opinion, I have no knowledge of modern video cameras, so am not in a position to offer any opinion on the matter, I am only interested in still photography so have no need whatsoever for a video on my DSLR.
So please when can I have my 16-18mp D400 ... without video
I guess I can see your point, however it's the same with IS on lenses. If the feature is "free" then would you rather have it and never use it or decide not to have it and decide one day that actually it could be a good idea?
All the processing power and programming will be used by still images, video won't be running in the background, and the camera manufacturers would be shooting themselves in the foot if the addition of video caused a degredation of still image quality.
(I have to say at this point, and you can look it up in the 5D mk2 thread, that I thought the addition of a video function on the 5D was a stupid idea. However after actually seeing what it was capable of producing I changed my mind.)
OP
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll go find some for you.
EDIT: Just a couple I found (and not cherrypicked)...
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/t143905.html
http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/12/02/for-image-quality-buffs-dslr-video-is-off-the-table/#comments
Obviously not cherrypicked - the first is just someone else's opinion and the second, well sorry to disappoint you, but I'm pretty sure this
isn't a £500 camcorder, but it is one of the video cameras your second piece of "evidence" refers to. Here's the other....
and I could be wrong here, but that doesn't look like a 500 quid video camera either.
As noted above, no they don't....
Nice twisting of my words (although I do admit, I did mean semi pro kit, not the £100k stuff the BBC use.)
Oh, and please don't edit my post...
I didn't twist your words, you said pro, not semi-pro :shrug:
There's quite a difference y'know
Oh and I haven't edited your post (that wouldn't be possible), I have selectively quoted from it - there's a difference....
Umm, that was the camera/lens combo and prospective use that you gave..
Said the man who jumped on a thread about a possible sub-£500 Nikon and started going on about ten grand Canon combos being better than pro, sorry, semi-pro video equipment. If that was what you wanted to discuss, why not start another thread? I refer you to your own statement...
Now, back to the original point of the thread
Please feel free to contribute if you have anything to say about that - Messages
- 410
- Name
- Oscar Dewhurst
- Edit My Images
- No
Does anyone know when a D400 will be released as I'm looking into upgrading from my D60 and it will be the D300 or D400 (if I have the money )
)