- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
what the D400 pics
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).
I think it's all down to Flash , he love's a bit of bovver....:shake:
And he is putting em all up..........
Steady on Stan..........
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.
Why? They are fast running out of steps in x0's - why not move to x000's
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.
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!
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...
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.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.
£3k? You practically need a mortgage for professional video equipment.What do you mean by dedicated Video Camera? The £500 ones that normal people buy or the £3000+ ones that "pros" buy?
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.
£3k? You practically need a mortgage for professional video equipment.
Still, apparently there has been a movie shot on D90 out there now.
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.
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).
I was aiming it more at the Wedding videographer with a semi pro canon or Sony not the £100k film cameras.
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!
So please when can I have my 16-18mp D400 ... without video
But when .... :shrug:
Never...the video feature adds, in marketing terms, "value" to the camera :shake:
Well why dont they get the Swiss Army to design one, it could do everything then, like the knife.
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?
Ahhh....gotcha.....is the 600 f/4 a common lens to use at weddings?
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'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)
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...
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)...
You seem to be either stupid or just being difficult (and i'd wager the latter from reading past posts)...