Why doesn't this camera exist? Good high ISO, High FPS, 1080p Movie Mode

[SgtCaboose]

Originally Posted by Dark_Ernie

Because, in this particular instance the argument which pretty much comes down to "I dont want this feature, so why should I spend the money" is fairly obselete due to the fact that if youre buying a camera that sits above $4k a couple hundred bucks is absolutely nothing...especially since you would be making money out of it.

Agreed.

The cost hike is mainly due to it being a recent technology, and the creation and implentation of said technology.

Eventually the prices will flatten out and everying down to the X00D, KX00D and DX0 will have the technology to some extent.

As long as it isn't impacting significantly on the fundemental use of the camera (photos) then who cares?

I for one welcome this new technology.

[BigandY]

Where the fuck did all those posts go? Sure there was a lot of useless shit, but I had a reply in there to Dark_Ernie that was perfectly legit

[chilloutbuddy]

Originally Posted by BigandY

Where the fuck did all those posts go? Sure there was a lot of useless shit, but I had a reply in there to Dark_Ernie that was perfectly legit

Yeah I'm surprised that the admins didnt carefully study a ton of shite to isolate your legit post. Maybe their moral is down because they dont get paid enough. Oh wait, they dont get paid at all, maybe that answers your question?

[Athiril]

Originally Posted by Dark_Ernie

Apparently you haven't met my dear friend Mr. Sarcasm.

Thats ok =P

..

In all seriousness...I see where both parties are coming from. Personally I like the idea of these high end stills cameras doing video too. Sure, its now being used for more than it was originally intended for, but isnt that what evolution is all about in technology?

I think anyone who has bought a 5D and hasnt used video mode on it yet should really be smacked.

A picture tells a thousand words...and it shoots at 30fps....puts you well on your way to writing quite a novel?

This evolution is equivalent and as important as when motion picture cameras first started becoming more portable (smaller, lighter) back in the day, allowing street shooting, independant on location work, and new types of film (cinema verite style).

[BigandY]

Originally Posted by chilloutbuddy

Yeah I'm surprised that the admins didnt carefully study a ton of shite to isolate your legit post.

...it was the first post after Ernie's

[Dark_Ernie]

Originally Posted by BigandY

...it was the first post after Ernie's

Yeah I noticed that...I was like "aw..." and then the removal of you saying you might cheat on me I was like "AWWW!"

So cut.

[birdie]

Scott Bourne's review of the 7D... http://photofocus.com/2009/10/17/qui...e-p1-round-up/

He agrees with me (or I with him) that Canon should have stuck with a lower MP sensor to get the better High ISO performance of the Nikon's...

EDIT:
Also here's his review of the D3s... http://photofocus.com/2009/10/14/nik...tial-thoughts/

He's quite disappointed with Nikon's deal on the HD video...

[proffesso]

Originally Posted by birdie

Also here's his review of the D3s... http://photofocus.com/2009/10/14/nik...tial-thoughts/

He's quite disappointed with Nikon's deal on the HD video...

nikon are being freakin stupid. they should go nuts on the video side. unlike canon, there is no pro video market to cannibalize sales from.

[SyN]

i have a small suspicion nikons gonna release a new series of camera which is a new smaller format and film-orientated

[csimpson]

Originally Posted by birdie

He's quite disappointed with Nikon's deal on the HD video...

That's because they're being fricking retarded about it. It sucked on the D90, and it looks like it's still going to suck (comparatively) on the D3s.

The system I actually like the most is Panasonic's. The GH1 is small, versatile, and the kit lens is great for autofocusing in video.

[SgtCaboose]

Originally Posted by csimpson

The system I actually like the most is Panasonic's. The GH1 is small, versatile, and the kit lens is great for autofocusing in video.

And it doesn't try and be something that it isn't.

[oculi]

Originally Posted by SyN

i have a small suspicion nikons gonna release a new series of camera which is a new smaller format and film-orientated

huh? what, APS-D?

[SyN]

well from rumours (nikonrumors.com)
nikons put in patents relating to new lenses and mirrorless system.
patents for 2 primes and at least 3 zooms but with 2.5x crop factor.

either they making the m4/3 competitor, or a video machine. video machine will very well happen since nikon doesnt have a pro video line to cannibalise

[hdkhang]

Originally Posted by Zee

No, it's not.It just happens to be a cinema standard. It works - at the cinema. But my experience in the home environment is that it is jerky.So then people go buy 100/120/200hz TV's with frame interpolation to make up for it. *sigh*.

Be better off with 25fps, 50fps or even 60fps. But anyway...

I still can't believe how well the marketing types did with 24p!

24p is only jerky because of the whole telecine process. Afterall 25p is only 4% faster, surely 4% can't make that huge of a difference in jerkiness. 25p gets away with being smooth because it is broadcast in countries where 50hz is the norm, given 50hz is a multiple of 25, it's easy to reproduce. 24p is used in countries where 60hz is the norm, had it been 48hz or 72hz, there would never be this issue.

[hdkhang]

Originally Posted by SgtCaboose

Agreed.

The cost hike is mainly due to it being a recent technology, and the creation and implentation of said technology.

Eventually the prices will flatten out and everying down to the X00D, KX00D and DX0 will have the technology to some extent.

As long as it isn't impacting significantly on the fundemental use of the camera (photos) then who cares?

I for one welcome this new technology.

The cost hike is practically non-existent. D80 and D90 released at the same RRP, the D90 added significant improvements in Hi-ISO shooting, faster burst rate, Live-View, superior auto-focus system, and a larger hi-res LCD among other things. There is nothing in there that says the 5c microphone hiked up the price. The D90 improvement over the D80 is similar to the D300 improvement over the D200, except that the D90 added video. I didn't recall as much negativity over the D300 announcement.

The perceived D3s price hike at RRP is due to other factors (namely the exchange rate - given Nikon is a japanese company).

There is no "real" cost for adding video to cameras nowadays (work on liveview made it a natural move). There is a "real" threat that not having video may sway potential customers towards other brands. Given that all DSLR manufacturers (save for Lecia and their S2) make their money on lower end models, where the market is very particular about having the latest must have features and who rely a lot on what the salesman sells them... I'd say video is a "cost saving" feature in today's camera climate.

You can even look at it another way. Adding video functionality meant that there was a real need to have the sensor not overheat, or for it to still be performant under higher than usual temperatures. One way to tackle that is via improved cooling, but that would add to bulk, the other way is to make a cooler running sensor. Cooler running sensors = less power drain = more battery life. Cooler running sensor = less heat = less noise = better Hi ISO. Of course this is an oversimplification as many other factors contribute to overall Image Quality, but I can't see how video really gets in the way of taking images.

The only real cost adding video might add is an increase in processing power requirements for cameras whose processors are unable to handle the load. Increasing processing power for video purposes can also lead to improvements in capture rate which lead to faster FPS. I read somewhere that the D90 is actually able to hit 6fps (as opposed to the 4.5fps that is specced), can't recall the link at this time, my thinking on that is that 4.5fps allows Nikon to differentiate the D90 from the D300.