Joined: Aug 2010
09-28-2010, 12:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2010, 12:59 PM by boren.)
Brightcolours, I think you're confusing the needs of professional cinematographers with those of hobbyists who want to video their family and friends. For them, spontaneous scenes with moving subjects such as kids and pets are the norm. This is where the Sony solution provides a much better solution than the CDAF used by other DSLR's - the former provides constantly sharp subjects, while the latter turns out mostly out-of-focus videos with some jerky AF in between.
As to why use DSLR's instead of camcorders, I think we've already discussed this, but I'll be happy to explain the reasoning again.
[quote name='qadn' timestamp='1285662812' post='3310']
@wojtt: the A850 / A900 are about the same price as a D700 and 5DII.
I am not seeing that much a difference really in terms of price.
Note that the resolution of the sensor has almost no impact on the production costs, it is purely a matter of the surface area of the sensor.
These are the right cameras to point out the issue regarding Nikon's FX strategy. They almost have the same price but D700 has 12MP. I really doubt that a new D700x with e.g. 18mp would have the same price... By the way, the fact, that 12MP is by all means enough if you don't want huge prints, is another topic.
Apart from this, are you sure that the pixel density does not have an effect on production costs? I'm not a specialist but I always though that the pixel density and the related electronics until image production cost a lot.