Jump to content

Interview with the D700's Desingers


ShunCheung

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>It's interesting that they speak and think more like industrial designers than geeky mechanical engineers; I kept expecting them to say Nuremberg track tested and European tuned.</p>

<p>The furtherance of video capability is welcome news. Camcorder users are spending upwards of $500 for DIY solutions or over $1,000 for commercial products on 35mm lens adapters just to get that shallow DoF cinema look. These are really exciting times. Reflecting on how far they've come over the last 10 years, I can't wait to see how camera technologies will evolve over the next decade. Wish I was 20 years old again.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dear Nikon,</p>

<p>Please stop wasting your R&D that your customers eventually pay for on gimmicks-for-geeks like video recording and, instead, put it towards more useful features that real photographers actually use.</p>

<p>Thank-you.</p>

<p>PS. at the very least, make an alternative version of each camera with video recording (say D90v, D700v, D300v). Everybody's happy.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Could I make a plea for a plain simple camera? I need a lighttight box to hold a sensor, aperture and shutter controls. </p>

<p>I do not need video, live view, scene mode, night mode, backlight mode, stupid pop up flashes, auto this and that.</p>

<p>Use Nikon F2 or Hasselblad CM as a basis. BUT IT HAS TO BE A WELL MADE PRO LEVEL QUALITY CAMERA. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>They'd be wise then to keep the D700 in the lineup for the numerous photographers who absolutely don't want video in a still camera.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Who would those be? 90% of the functions in the menus of my DSLRs are for features I never use. I am not asking these menu options to be removed just to please me. I understand that other people have different needs and preferences for features and customization and having these options available in the camera makes it appeal to a larger market, reducing R&D and tool-making costs and finally resulting in a cheaper camera all the while being more flexible. Same is true for video: it doesn't diminish the still imaging characterstics of the camera in any way, but it makes it attractive to filmmakers who need to get shallow DOF and low noise at low price, or to use special purpose optics unavailable for consumer or low- to mid-priced professional video cameras. I'm excited in the future possibilities of DSLR video, as I've said many times. I think it'd be foolish for any still photographer to avoid a camera merely because it has video or some other feature that they do not use, since features help sell more cameras to other people and the volume of production and sales has a big impact on the final price.</p>

<p>I can't wait to get to do macro videos of stuff going on in nature - it's stuff that you see on TV, yes, but at the consumer level it has not been possible. I also want to be able to capture video of wedding ceremonies in extremly low light (just this friday I had to use 1/60s, f/2, ISO 3200 in the church) and blur backgrounds with lenses that I've already paid for. I have a HD camcorder but it's impossible to get good results with it in low light and in bright sunlight you get pitch black shadows and overexposed highlights because of the tiny sensors in these devices. This has put me off using and learning video for now. I look forward to a D300s or D700s with video and while I am a still photographer I understand that some things are better said in moving picture and want to expand to that field. The ability to share lenses between still and video cameras is just great.</p>

<p>Epp B, I just ask what it is so offensive about a DSLR which behaves as any DSLR for still shooting but has a video feature which you activate or turn off from the live view button? Let's say if a D300s (or D700s or whatever) would cost $1500 when new without video and $1400 with video, which would you rather buy? The cost of making separate versions with and without video would increase the cost of both cameras, unless it's just a firmware distinction.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>..It probably will make me wait longer for the next version to come out! (and: no 5DII for me, then..). Gives me more time to save too..</p>

<p>Video in a camera with the control of a DSLR, great!! I don't use most of the features in my (D200) camera anyway (see Ilka's post above..). I came from using mostly F3 in the last years, and my photography style has hardly changed since digital (immediate feedback + more images being the most remarkable changes. <em>O-yeah</em> : and more use of AF, because the viewfinder is crap..).</p>

<p>And yes, I <em><strong>do </strong> </em> want video. And I absolutely hate my HD Sony camcorder.. The quality isn't there, the interface is terrible, there's no control over focusing, the output is <em>yet another</em> Sony-owned inexchangable format that is... <em>ggrrrrrrr</em> .. Who got me started here? Sorry for the rant.</p>

<p>I will wait. Impatiently.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>20 years ago when AF first appeared on the scene, people also used to say: don't give me this AF junk (or some other 4-letter description). Early on, AF was indeed primitive and it took like a decade to improve to a point that it was reliable.</p>

<p>Video on DSLRs may also seem primitive now, but give it a few more years and a couple more generations, who is to say that is not a feature a lot of us will want?</p>

<p>And finally, as people say, most of us probably only use 10% of the features on a DSLR, but each person uses a different 10%. (Don't take 10% literally; it is just a convenient number). Perhaps you don't need certain features, just like me never use Shutter Priroity, there are other people who need it.</p>

<p>BTW, I was a bit surprised that they started designing the D700 after the D3 had come out. The D3 was announced in August 2007. If they started designing the D700 around that time, it look Nikon less than a year to introduce the D700 in July 2008. That was really fast although they reused a lot of designs from the D3 and D300 on the D700.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have to confess: First I thought: Hold this video c**p away from my dSLR. I have a video camcorder, and if I want to shoot video I'll use that. </p>

<p>But, after seeing my videos, and how they deliver (or rather don't deliver) in lowlight settings, I have found that I could really need a video opportunity on my dSLR. But I really want it to be auto-focus and in 1080-format.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I suspect that the autofocus systems in DSLRs are not going to be useable for video. If you focus in a video camera, the movement should be smooth, whereas in a still camera you want it to go as fast as possible then stop for the taking of the picture. A focusing system that is able to maintain focus on a moving subject with the narrow DOF of DSLRs is probably quite challenging to create. I don't think autofocus is used in the making of big screen movies at all. IMO, DSLR autofocus shouldn't be a necessity. Camcorder autofocus works simply because the depth of field is so great and resolution is so low compared to still image capture so it's less demanding. Of course, as technology develops I'm sure there will at some point be DSLR video with autofocus; but I wouldn't expect it in the next 10 years or so. Could be I'm mistaken but I don't see the makings of it in the current still camera autofocus systems.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To get an idea of how well/badly the current Nikon AF system works for video, put the camera in live view (tripod) mode and autofocus on something (it uses the sensor data for this). It's slow and doesn't always seem to know which way to go. Phase detect AF (which works well) can't be used since all the light is going to the sensor during capture. Using pellicle mirrors I suppose an implementation would be possible. And here I thought that the cameras were moving towards no mirror at all... ;-)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Video isn't just a gimmick to appeal to duffers who are upgrading from cell phone cams. It's a necessity for professional photojournalists who need to travel light and don't want to tote the extra equipment for a separate video camera system. Nikon is doing the smart thing by incorporating video into their dSLRs.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think there is a market for video in the independant film makers, but I don't think it will be the driving force for the average buyer of a $3,000 camera. It's a nice feature for a camera like the D5000 which appeals to the entry level market. Chances are if your using a high end SLR your more interested in still photography. However, I would imagine the paparazzi would like the feature.<br>

It was interesting reading why they made things a certain way on the D700. I just got my battery grip and it feels like it was made for the D700.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When the D90 came out with video, I didn't think there was much chance I'd use it. I didn't buy a D90, but the more I think about, the more I think I might play with video. The main attraction is I can mix in video & stills together to make slideshows. I now have a computer up to the task. Having to upgrade my computer was an obstacle for me in the past.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Photogaphy is a hobby for me. I just want a basic shooters DSLR camera of fine quality. I would like to see ISO 50 and a wide dynamic range. Since camera's are very expensive I am not going to buy one that does not suit my needs or personality. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The D700 was designed? I always assumed they just plugged together the relevant components from the D300 and D3 parts bins!</p>

<p>If video really takes off, I imagine we'll see some rapid developments in contrast-based AF systems. This is obviously something the Micro Four Thirds guys are tackling, since they don't have a mirror for phase detection. There's some interesting relevant discussion here:</p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1217960634.html</p>

<p>If these comments on Micro Four Thirds AF performance are accurate, might we even see a change in the design of AFS lenses to support the (apparently rather different) demands of contrast-based AF..?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I find it curious why some photographers are so against video. If there is a market for it, that will justify the R&D and the costs of any extra chips, etc. needed for taking videos. The photographic feature of a camera will *not* be adversely affected, and if you don't use the video, just don't touch it. Some even suggest making two different cameras, one with video, one without - what a ridiculous idea! Both cameras will become more expensive, due to factories having to supply two different designs, and everybody loses out.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My concern with this sort of thing is you get feature bloat and the constant need to shove more an more into the same size box means the quality of the end result drops. People want more and more at the same or even LESS price. At some point I worry that we'll read something like, " We wanted to incorporate the xyz feature that many people have asked for, but we just didn't have room because we had already committed to adding the deluxe widget in that body. " Will the quest for more features take over for the desire to make things simply better at what they do ? Hopefully, gadgetry will not surpass quality.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Responding to Ilkka and Shun, you both make strong arguments for video except for comparing it to AF and other features we take for granted today. Where the analogy fails is the simple truth that video is NOT still photography; it's a different field and a different medium. AF, for example, is a feature that was supposed to enhance one's still photography, not the incorporation of a different medium. Huge difference there.</p>

<p>But the bottom line for me, FWIW, is that I don't want video capability in my cameras, and many photographers feel the same. Regardless of whatever arguments that can be concocted for the implementation of video I simply don't need it and don't want it. For those that do, great.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The best way to assess a piece of gear is to look at results:<br>

<a href="http://vimeo.com/2573992">http://vimeo.com/2573992</a></p>

<p>Many will ask "what camera did he use?" and the answer will be the same as for still photography, but suffice to say any current dSLR based video camera will be capable. More importantly, though, making such a short clip takes everything the best photographer knows and then some. It's an interdisciplinary effort where no artistic nor technical shortcut exist, and if you have what it takes, cameras such as the D90 will make the goal more accessible. </p>

<p>Of course it's moot for those uninterested in film making, in which case the option exists to ignore trands as long as there is no price or functional penalty to pay.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My question is, how much will this "video" feature increase the cost of the camera.<br /> <br /> If the cost increase is substantial, then I am against it. If the cost increase is minimal or none, I don't really have a problem with it. I just don't want to have no other choice than to shell out way more cash for a camera because of the "video" feature that I really don't want anyways.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"They'd be wise then to keep the D700 in the lineup for the numerous photographers who absolutely don't want video in a still camera."</p>

<p>Why exactly? Should Nikon think the folks that buy their cameras are such simpletons that they won't be able to handle not using the video mode if they don't want video? Just like the current owners manage to figure out how to set the camera to manual if they want to take of all the settings themselves or on single exposure if they don't need the 4-6 frames/sec feature. Come on folks, most of us have IQ's a little higher than a rock. Our cameras are a lot cheaper than they would be if Nikon made several models of the D-XXX with each model removing a function that some segment of the purchaser's didn't use. If you don't need a feature then you have my full permission not to use it. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...