11-20-2014, 10:24 PM
Any chance to move this discussion over to Nikon? Just to give others (like our kids or grandchildren after the next two decades :blink: ) to find it, where they hope to find it.
My idea was to go with one body for DX and FX instead of various. Right now, I don't see the super big improvement of 24MP APS-C. And for DX shooters, I'd say from my experience with 3 different ones: Nikon would need to improve a lot. The 8 fps of the D300 won't do, it has to be close to 10. At 24MP (not even the D4 has to transfer such an amount of data). It has to be a competitive AF system. And Canon's mixture of CD and PD, together with a touchscreen and a fast LiveView (talking about 70D now) has potential which Nikon would have to discover.
Question is: Are 10fps enough? A friend and "birder" would like to have film speed (24-30 fps) in high quality. So, why not go for a 1V3 and get 60 fps? Mirrorless is a solution for higher fps. I could imagine a Pro DX mirrorless easier than another DSLR. I do like Nikon cameras, although they are not leaders in new technologies. How long did they take to make a tilt display happen on a FX? Comparing to a EOS D70 it's still not exactly leading
Fullframe is to me the better half-frame, there's plenty of reserve to crop, the lenses are already very good. For a DX Pro you need Pro glass. If one could get 2 D400 for a D4s, why not? But certainly not for me. I would get 2 D810 instead or even 2 D750 and still get nice glass. I can live with Canon being benchmark in APS C.
My idea was to go with one body for DX and FX instead of various. Right now, I don't see the super big improvement of 24MP APS-C. And for DX shooters, I'd say from my experience with 3 different ones: Nikon would need to improve a lot. The 8 fps of the D300 won't do, it has to be close to 10. At 24MP (not even the D4 has to transfer such an amount of data). It has to be a competitive AF system. And Canon's mixture of CD and PD, together with a touchscreen and a fast LiveView (talking about 70D now) has potential which Nikon would have to discover.
Question is: Are 10fps enough? A friend and "birder" would like to have film speed (24-30 fps) in high quality. So, why not go for a 1V3 and get 60 fps? Mirrorless is a solution for higher fps. I could imagine a Pro DX mirrorless easier than another DSLR. I do like Nikon cameras, although they are not leaders in new technologies. How long did they take to make a tilt display happen on a FX? Comparing to a EOS D70 it's still not exactly leading
Fullframe is to me the better half-frame, there's plenty of reserve to crop, the lenses are already very good. For a DX Pro you need Pro glass. If one could get 2 D400 for a D4s, why not? But certainly not for me. I would get 2 D810 instead or even 2 D750 and still get nice glass. I can live with Canon being benchmark in APS C.