Nikon D3s -- It's REAL!

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Comanche

.....
Though I am not a Nikon shooter, I am waiting for the arrival of Canon's 1D Mk IV for the video. (Of course, I'll have to figure out how to afford one as well. )

Yeah, Nikon came out with the first real "Pro series" camera with video with this D3s.
Can't wait to see what the 1D mk IV will offer! Maybe 120fps @1080p for super slo-mo!


Speaking of V-DSLR's, this documentary about the war in Afghanistan looks great and was shot with the 5d2.
http://vimeo.com/6995256

[syuan]

Originally Posted by wapiti

Maybe, just maybe, with all this going on, I will be able to afford a used D3 one day

you can afford an used D3 today:

http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...d.php?t=109561

[Comanche]

Originally Posted by PIC

You better save fast ... real fast ...

Does everyone know what Oct 20th is ???

Yeah - officially its the 50th anniversary of Canon SLRs, but rumor has it the Mk IV will be shown then.

We'll see.

I waited awhile to buy the Mk III and was rewarded with a bug-free AF system. I'll wait again. I'm not an early adopter.

Comanche added 3 Minutes and 15 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by thejakestir

Speaking of V-DSLR's, this documentary about the war in Afghanistan looks great and was shot with the 5d2.
http://vimeo.com/6995256

The current issue of the NPPA's magazine's lead story is about another PJ in Afghanistan with a 5D Mk II and describes his use of both still and video.

[txphotog]

Not that video is a must have feature for me in an slr but these days everyone expects video to be included. With all current Canon slrs except the 50d shooting 1080p video why hasnt Nikon put 1080p video in any camera? I use professional video equipment daily and a still camera for my stills so I prefer to use the right tool but having the option in a still camera is nice.

[toverman]

Originally Posted by thejakestir

As far as video being an unnecessary features. I think at this stage in the game if a camera manufacturer didn't offer video in it's pro line, they would be at a big disadvantage.
If I was a PJ shooter, I would definitely be learning everything I could about video and only buy a camera that offered it.

+1 (or +2).

Or a wedding shooter.
Or a sports shooter.
Or a children's portrait photographer.
Or ... or ... or ...

We might not like the convergence, but with more publications going Web-only, and clients/customers/consumers expecting videos over stills, the time is now to embrace video in pro DSLRs. The next camera body I buy – whenever it is – will have HD video capability.

[dmora]

Originally Posted by toverman

+1 (or +2).

Or a wedding shooter.
Or a sports shooter.
Or a children's portrait photographer.
Or ... or ... or ...

We might not like the convergence, but with more publications going Web-only, and clients/customers/consumers expecting videos over stills, the time is now to embrace video in pro DSLRs. The next camera body I buy – whenever it is – will have HD video capability.

It is very nice to have the option when its there... but for those saying that it falls short because it doesn't have what other cameras have or have had for a while longer is asinine.
There is a completely new sensor which gives absurd clarity in high ISO situations. There's nothing in the range that can even be spoken of in the same sentence in terms of its performance by the pictures shown.

[jeffkohn]

Personally I think the focus on 1080p/24fps is kinda stupid. We're talking about video that for the most part is going to end up on the web, where you have to compress the hell out of it just so people can download it in a reasonable time. And 720p compresses better, in fact once compressed for download 720p will look as good or better than the 1080p, which will need more aggressive high-pass filtering.

And I really don't get the obsession with 24fps. You don't want 24fps for journalism, that's for sure. 24fps was originally chosen by the movie industry because 35mm film is expensive, not because 24fps looks good. For journalism 30fps or even 60fps would be ideal, especially if you want to be able to grab frames for stills.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Personally I think the focus on 1080p/24fps is kinda stupid. We're talking about video that for the most part is going to end up on the web, where you have to compress the hell out of it just so people can download it in a reasonable time. And 720p compresses better, in fact once compressed for download 720p will look as good or better than the 1080p, which will need more aggressive high-pass filtering.

True, and 720p will also be easier to handle and upload while on location. I'm assuming that's what Nikon is thinking. This is not the camera small film makers are going to be buying.

And I really don't get the obsession with 24fps. You don't want 24fps for journalism, that's for sure. 24fps was originally chosen by the movie industry because 35mm film is expensive, not because 24fps looks good. For journalism 30fps or even 60fps would be ideal, especially if you want to be able to grab frames for stills.

That's why I mentioned being surprised about not having variable frame rates like 60p. IMHO, this camera really should of had that.

I do prefer the look of 24p over 30p or 60p for movies though.

[PIC]

[QUOTE=Comanche;1011927]Yeah - officially its the 50th anniversary of Canon SLRs, but rumor has it the Mk IV will be shown then.

We'll see.

I waited awhile to buy the Mk III and was rewarded with a bug-free AF system. I'll wait again. I'm not an early adopter.


[QUOTE]

After the horid stories of Mk III and things like no camera raw {yet for 7D} and blackspot on 5D Mk II you got to be one of those photo gear nut heads to be early adopter ... even worst are pre order nuts.
I waited for the 5D Mk II and then bought a 5D Classic after comparing differences and price.
I might buy a 1D Mk IV in a year or so after introduction ...