Nikon D2x - it's official

"bayydogg" wrote in message
om...
nikon has a way to promote a deficiency, so kudos to them for making
something negative look positive. there probably was no way nikon
could squeeze 8fps from a 12.4mp camera, and they know they need 8fps
to satisfy the sports market. so, nikon engineers/pr people get
together and develop some scheme. in this case, lower the mp and boost
the speed and not tell anybody that it's actually a deficiency that
canon will probably be able to do.

But why is this a, "deficiency"? - If the state of electronics today isn't
good enough to give you an 8 frames per second camera at 12 megapixels, then
why not build a camera that will give you each at the expense of the other?
When the electronics gets fast enough, I'm sure that both Nikon and Canon
will build cameras that take advantage of it........

Alexander Zuev wrote:

And they limited sensitivity to ISO 800 just for fun and not because
high noise level makes faster ISOs unusable. Right. How dumb I am to
think about noise.

I haven't seen an ISO 1600 I've considered usable on any digital camera.
So, while it would be nice if Nikon came up with one, barring that, I
wouldn't miss it a bit if the D2x didn't have it. Which, incidentally,
it apparently does, just buried in a menu somewhere like 3200 on the D2h.

--
Jeremy |

"bayydogg" wrote in message
om...
nikon has a way to promote a deficiency, so kudos to them for making
something negative look positive. there probably was no way nikon
could squeeze 8fps from a 12.4mp camera, and they know they need 8fps
to satisfy the sports market. so, nikon engineers/pr people get
together and develop some scheme. in this case, lower the mp and boost
the speed and not tell anybody that it's actually a deficiency that
canon will probably be able to do.

So a 12mp sports shot looks good and the same shot at 6mp looks bad?

Have you ever actually used a camera, or do you just look at spec sheets for
fun?

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

"bayydogg" wrote in message
om...
nikon has a way to promote a deficiency, so kudos to them for making
something negative look positive. there probably was no way nikon
could squeeze 8fps from a 12.4mp camera, and they know they need 8fps
to satisfy the sports market. so, nikon engineers/pr people get
together and develop some scheme. in this case, lower the mp and boost
the speed and not tell anybody that it's actually a deficiency that
canon will probably be able to do.

So a 12mp sports shot looks good and the same shot at 6mp looks bad?

Have you ever actually used a camera, or do you just look at spec sheets for
fun?

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

In article ,
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
Chris Brown writes:
ed wrote:

I think it's stupid that to shoot faster the focal length is
changed for you... How smart.
PS: Sarcasm enclosed.

It's certainly a novel way of selling what everyone else calls
"digital zoom", albeit minus the subsequent interpolation step.

Both you and the previous poster seem to miss the point entirely. [because
this is useful, wheras digital zoom isn't]

That's an unwarranted assumption on your part - I made no comment either way
on its usefulness. I merely stated that it's a novel way of selling the
digital zoom concept. As it happens, I think it's a rather good idea.

In article ,
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
Chris Brown writes:
ed wrote:

I think it's stupid that to shoot faster the focal length is
changed for you... How smart.
PS: Sarcasm enclosed.

It's certainly a novel way of selling what everyone else calls
"digital zoom", albeit minus the subsequent interpolation step.

Both you and the previous poster seem to miss the point entirely. [because
this is useful, wheras digital zoom isn't]

That's an unwarranted assumption on your part - I made no comment either way
on its usefulness. I merely stated that it's a novel way of selling the
digital zoom concept. As it happens, I think it's a rather good idea.

bayydogg wrote:

nikon has a way to promote a deficiency, so kudos to them for making
something negative look positive. there probably was no way nikon
could squeeze 8fps from a 12.4mp camera, and they know they need 8fps
to satisfy the sports market. so, nikon engineers/pr people get
together and develop some scheme. in this case, lower the mp and boost
the speed and not tell anybody that it's actually a deficiency that
canon will probably be able to do.


Given a reality limit imposed on them for data transfer rates,
the offered alternative for higher frame rates at lower res is a
perfectly acceptable and desirable option. Turning this into a
negative against Nikon is truly strange.

And you're correct, Canon can do the same deficiency if they want.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

bayydogg wrote:

nikon has a way to promote a deficiency, so kudos to them for making
something negative look positive. there probably was no way nikon
could squeeze 8fps from a 12.4mp camera, and they know they need 8fps
to satisfy the sports market. so, nikon engineers/pr people get
together and develop some scheme. in this case, lower the mp and boost
the speed and not tell anybody that it's actually a deficiency that
canon will probably be able to do.


Given a reality limit imposed on them for data transfer rates,
the offered alternative for higher frame rates at lower res is a
perfectly acceptable and desirable option. Turning this into a
negative against Nikon is truly strange.

And you're correct, Canon can do the same deficiency if they want.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Gordon Moat wrote:

One scary thought about that. If the editor is then the sole individual who
chooses the images, is there really much need for talent from the
photojournalist? Many news events could almost be covered in a sweeping and
careless P&S manner, letting the editor figure it all out at the office.

In what way is that different to current practice?

F/8 and be there!

;-)

Gordon Moat wrote:

One scary thought about that. If the editor is then the sole individual who
chooses the images, is there really much need for talent from the
photojournalist? Many news events could almost be covered in a sweeping and
careless P&S manner, letting the editor figure it all out at the office.

In what way is that different to current practice?

F/8 and be there!

;-)