Nikon D3s

No question on that - why not have it if you need it. ; And if you need it, certainly it's most convenient to have it in the same device as your still photos, assuming neither is too compromised in function and quality.

I'm just one of those who doesn't want or need video. ; I thought I might like video many many years ago, having never had it before, so I invested in a miniDV camcorder that was nice and small and full featured and top of the line at the time. ; I used it on one trip...and the video never left the miniDV tape for months. ; No interest in cutting and splicing it, noone I knew had interest in sitting and watching it, and I realized I didn't really care much for filming with it, or watching the video either. ; Just didn't do anything for me. ; It sat in a bag in my closet for well nigh 4 years, unused. ; I dug it out to shoot some footage during our hurricane-bonanza parade in 2004 and 2005, to show friends and relatives what a hurricane looks like tearing up my yard and neighborhood...then back in the bag. ; A coworker borrows it 2 or 3 times a year to shoot her kids' plays and such. ; That's it.

My guess is those with kids probably want them for that. ; I'm not one of those with kids, so can't really think of any other occasion that I wouldn't rather shoot stills...it just suits my vibe and style better. ; Ironic, given that my father is a film/video director. ; I've never used the video capabilities of any of my past 6 digital still cameras that have had it, even the HD ones...and can pretty confidently state I do not intend to. ; Maybe the camcorder will get another use if another hurricane comes along.

I'm all for adding video to DSLRs for those who want both functions...I can easily just ignore that feature on mine. ; MY only caveat to that is that the video features do not in any way impair the functionality, ergonomics, or image quality of the still camera functions of the DSLR. ; That's when I'll be against it. ; If it's just a mode on the dial, no buttons are changed or relocated, then go for it!
 
"Grumpwurst" said:
I agree with Scott Bourne that the convergence between dSLR & vSLR is inevitable and I'm personally pretty excited about it considering there isn't much difference between a digital video camera and a digital camera other than the software that stores the final product.

I personally am getting tired of carrying both a High Def video camera and my dSLR so I'd be all for upgrading to a camera that does both and does them well.

I know that Tim and Greg (ImagineeringMyWay) are starting to grow fond of the video capabilities of the Mark II's
Click to expand...

Roger Cicala is as well.
 
"Jeff Fillmore" said:
I have had several occasions when I wished I had video. ; Earlier this year the Dapper Dans spotted my 5yo daughters birthday pin and came right up and sang happy birthday to her personally- that was the first time I was really a little ticked that my D700 does not have video- yet a D90 does (released 1 month later for about 1/3 the price.) ; I would probably not use it a bunch- but why not have it if you need it?
Click to expand...

This is the camp I fall into. ; I don't use it much, but I figure why not have it if the technology allows. ; I wouldn't use my camera as an mp3 player (inset more logical technology for cameras to next incorporate...GPS, probably), but if technology allows that to be a feature (and one that isn't cost prohibitive) in the future why not get it? ; I'm betting once I have kids, I will want video much more.

All this speculation about new technology in cameras is fun, and I do like technology, but I'd rather put my energy towards photography into actually getting better at photography. ; I haven't hit the wall yet with the D90, so no point in me getting geeked about this. ; Plus, even if I had hit the wall, there always is the money thing.
 
"WDWFigment" said:
but I'd rather put my energy towards photography into actually getting better at photography.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. 'stuff' is great, and fun to have, but if we would all live more in the viewfinder, rather then worrying about our 'stuff', our pictures would turn out better.

Joe McNally just posted a blog yesterday about a workshop he is attending, not teaching, in NYC. The workshop leader, looking at his bag containing a body, four lenses, computer and motrin, looked at him and said 'What's all that (snip) McNally?' The result was the group was sent into the field with one body, one lens, and no flash.

Others have said it here with various words (Roger has even made mention of a trip around the world with the D700 and the 14-24), and it begs repeating: Limit your bag, not your imagination!
 
I am all for the 1 camera / 1 lens / no flash model- it's how I go out 95% of the time- and usually a prime lens at that. ; Walk around AK (where everyone says take the long lens) with nothing but a wide angle and you will be amazed at what you see.
 
well i might as well throw down right now with the vslr advocates, i just can't stand the thought of sensor/high iso r&d getting stalled or put on the back burner for a feature i have no current interest in and probably never would, i want some things addressed first in my dslr, and here's my list
1. a mirror lockup button, or some way to make that totally useless, direct to print into mirror lockup via menu/custom function

2. better weather sealing on the full frame prosumer models, i don't want, need and won't spend the money on the 1d series,

3. 1 series 45 point autofocus, again no 1 series for this boy, see above

4. a 50-250 f4,L is lens for wdw walkaround/tripod use, now my bag becomes smaller, this lens and 2 others become my travel kit, 14mm plus 50mm f1.2 for low light and wide needs, 1.4 tele to go on the 50-250, this still stays f5.6 for longer needs

i'd go halfway on the price differential between 5d mark 2 and the 1 series to get these things, and would pay that for a body without video, unfortunately marketing departments drive product offerings and they rarely have real photographers in charge, so i accept it's probably a lost cause, that appealing to the masses is where it's headed, and they want all in one solutions
this rant now officially over, at least for today
 
"Jeff Fillmore" said:
I am all for the 1 camera / 1 lens / no flash model- it's how I go out 95% of the time- and usually a prime lens at that. ; Walk around AK (where everyone says take the long lens) with nothing but a wide angle and you will be amazed at what you see.
Click to expand...

I did (almost) just that last September. ; I had my 10-24 on the camera primarily, though I did cheat and have my 18-250 along in a tiny camera bag. ; The 18-250 only came out for the forest/jungle walkthroughs and Kilimanjaro Safari...the entire rest of the day, the 10-24 stayed on. ; It was great fun, and almost like seeing the park all over again for the first time.
 
Based on what I'm reading online there is a growing trend of photogs becoming videographers and with this onboard video capability, you can now get better capabilities out of a Canon 5D Mark II than you can get out of a dedicated High Def prosumer video camera

As long as they don't sacrifice photo quality I'll be a vocal advocate for the convergence of the two technologies. ; But adding things like the front-facing LCD so people can keep doing their cheesy self-portraits just irks me
 
Well it looks noisy and grainy, but decent detail. ; Considering most any other camera probably would have shot a black rectangle...it's amazing!
 
With the ISO wars getting this crazy, and rapidly approaching 1,000,000 ISO...shot condition details are going to have to start being posted for anyone to have an appreciation for what they are looking at.

A slightly dim scene of puffins on a rock with some noisy sky...no big deal. ; But finding out that it was taken at 2am on a moonless, starless winter night in a coastal refuge with no manmade light source...THAT would make it much more impressive! ; ;)
 
That image is worthless from the standpoint of someone looking to compare the capabilities of the D3s with other cameras.

To start off with, the resolution is WAY too darned low. ; It's well known that you can take a noisy image and reduce the resolution and effectively reduce the noise levels. ; This is the way point and shoot cameras sometimes achieve ridiculously high ISO levels, through pixel binning. ; They don't even record a full resolution image, they combine groups of pixels together to sort of attempt to fake the results you would get with a camera with far fewer, larger pixel sites.

The ONLY way to compare this camera to others available is taking an image of a scene shot under standardized lighting and comparing it with images taken of the same scene on other cameras. ; AT FULL RESOLUTION.

The only thing I can say about this image is that it's a low quality image shot using specs that seem at first glance to be impressive.

But what good is it? ; Come on, name one profession where returning a low quality result like this would be acceptable. ; The only thing I can think of is research where the intent is merely to document the scene rather than produce art or entertain the public. ; But if you're operating on that level you'd simply discard the DSLR approach altogether and use a proper night vision system. ; Sure, you lose color, but so what? ; You could record the scene in greater clarity in full motion video.


And BTW, regarding the situation this was captured in... ; It's a zoo. ; Look at that shadow being cast on the blue background. ; The blue that should be the horizon is a back wall, a rock is casting a shadow on it. ; It's a zoo habitat that simulates a nocturnal environment in order to give the captive animals a simulated natural environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top