What about a Nikon DSLR that incorporates a phone?

[dan_brown4]

<p>I'd switch to Canon!</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Far better would be to add Bluetooth capabilities to a DSLR so that one could Bluetooth the pics to one's phone to directly upload them to the ent (or whatever).<br>

Putting a phone into a DSLR would cost real money and involve compromises in the DSLR design. It also involves some irritating usability issues, like do I have a separate SIM for the camera and my real phone.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>As someone who does 360 deg panoramas I would love to have Nikon incorporate a level / plumb sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, Nikon has that already on D3, D700, and I believe on D300.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My F3 still does what it did from the moment it was designed. Not a wide range of features, admittedly, but still very good! With my F4 I complain about bad (matrix.. etc.) metering and lousy AF. Not with the F3, because it doesn't do all that!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Albin, I can see two things wrong with that logic.</p>

<ol>

<li>Nikon F3A-AF was Nikon's first autofocus system. F4 was the third AF camera, after N2020. </li>

<li>Alastair is describing a feature that is basically not compatible with a DSLR (for reasons ergonomics, hardware cost, and differing update cycles between phone and camera). You're describing a feature that was, in concept, quite useful. It simply was primitive and poorly implemented on F3, a bit better on F4, and wasn't world class and highly useful until F5. By F6, D3, etc. it was better than anything someone experienced and skilled can do with manual focus.</li>

</ol>

<p>By your logic, no one should ever launch any new features, at all, because those new features won't be "perfect" at introduction.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A DSLR with phone? I'm trying to figure out why I would want a DSLR with video capabilities. If I wanted to shoot a movie, I would bring along one of those fantastic compact video cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, personally, I "want a DSLR with video capabilities" because I own some $20-30,000 in good Nikon glass. No "fantastic compact video camera" has lenses like that. I can do low light work, shallow DOF work, macro work, extreme wide angle (right up to 180 degree round fisheye) shots, tilt/shift lens shots.</p>

<ul>

<li> Videographers grab videos with video cameras: they're tools for "reportage". Even family vacation videos, graduation videos, etc. are reportage. They're journalism. Typically "poor journalism", but still journalism. They need a ton of features like high performance autofocus, auto exposure, auto white balance, vibration reduction, on-camera microphones, long shooting times. </li>

<li>Cinematographers "shoot a movie" with a movie camera. The video capable DSLRs have more in common with a digital movie camera (Panavision Genesis, Red ONE, etc) than they do with a Sony or Canon video camera. Movie cameras give you a full range of DOF control from deep "senic" to shallow "subject isolation", just like DLSRs and FSLRs. Focus is typically manual, exposure, WB, etc. all manual, because they all have to be planned and the camera can't be changing them randomly during the shoot. </li>

</ul>

<p>You would be amazed at what people are doing with them, and how they're doing it. If you're going to have a shot where the focus shifts between two people talking, or you follow a moving person, the cameraman has to rehearse the focus, just like the actors have to rehearse the dialogue. That's why there are currently at least six different companies making "rigs" for Canon 5D II that let you do things like "follow focus", or even have two people running one camera, one tracking and one "pulling focus". Real "movie" stuff. I've shot a Canon 5D II with a Red Rock follow focus on a Glide Cam mount. The stuff bolted to that Canon cost more than the Canon itself. I built something like a Glide Cam for my D90, but don't have a follow focus yet. I do have a clamp on focus lever that's pretty cool, and works with my MF and non-AFS AF lenses...</p>

<p>Scary thing is that video DSLRs also offer a certain attractiveness for reportage. A couple of decades video camera manufacturers trying to satisfy the needs of TV news crews and wedding video shooters has refined the ergonomics of video cameras. But...</p>

<ul>

<li> The best low light video capability out there is, right now, the Canon 5D II. For some videographers, whether shooting the 9:00 news or someone's wedding, that low light ability is worth suffering thr ergonomics of a Canon 5D II in video mode.</li>

<li>The Nikon D90, D3s, D700s, and D5000, Canon 5D II, 7D, and 1D IV, Pentax K7, and I forget which Oly and Panasonic models all offer video that is useful for a variety of purposes, without requiring another camera (with a different user interface) in a journalist's bag, along with the different batteries and charger for that camera. You mentioned a "compact video camera". What is more "compact" than something that takes up zero additional room in your camera bag.</li>

</ul>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I can tell you that I worked a good part of my career when there were no personal computers, no mobile phones, no pagers, only one car per family, a house in a big city cost $10k and we had 3% unemployment. We could leave our front door open without getting robbed, if I had a job it could be for life, and the pension would pay me 75% of my final salary.</p>

<p>Has technology enabled us to more things?...YES.<br>

But is life better?...NO.</p>

<p>I can tell you, life was a whole lot better than the frantic, insecure, time poor one we live now. So a big NO from me.</p>

[graham_thompson1]

<p>Yes. Not only could you use your mobile whilst driving you would be ready to capture the accident you cause.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>But is life better?...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Last month, my 77 year old mother just had a lumpectomy and two weeks of radiation treatments and is now clear. In your "no personal computers, no mobile phones, no pagers" time (aka "the good old days") all she would have had is ...</p>

<p>a funeral.</p>

<p>My father's heart attack would have been fatal.<br>

<br /> How old are you? Would you have lived to that age with the medical care that was current in your day? Maybe you don't like carrying a cell phone or a pager, but aren't you glad pretty much all doctors cary them?</p>

<p>Oh, and the reason you got a pension of 75% of your salary was someone anticipated you living about 10 years after retirement. ;)</p>

[riley_s1]

<p>That's a fantastically terrible idea.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I think Maxwell Smart would want one. He would look normal enough with a large DSLR stuck to his ear.</p>

[emiliogtz]

<p>The more things you ask a device to do, the less good it becomes at it.</p>

 

[silverfox]

<p>A phone built into my camera, not a chance, I would be just about to take a shot and then.......... "how long are you going to be?, where are you?, why did you take my car?, hope your feet aren't muddy!, hurry up!, when are you coming home? Blah blah blah blah just has the super expensive DSLR phone was hurtling off the side of the cliff!</p>

<p> </p>

[photos of hans koot]

<p>I already use it as vauumcleaner.. so much dust it seems to attract...</p>

[luisarguelles]

<p>I would hate that.</p>

[hernan_enriquez]

<p>Mu cell phone is just that and it looks like a cell phone, not a rectangular piece of glass! My carry-everywhere camera is a Canon A720. Keep your butt wiping, beer chilling multitasking expensive toy!</p>

[jongaus]

<p>In 30 years from now, when you have the 10th generation iPhone integrated with the 10th generation Kindle, integrated with a 10-300mm zoom camera with the ISO performance of Nikon D3s, few will remember why we bought DSLRs back in the old days. These gadgets will not be phones or cameras, bat personal communication devices. The available apps will decide their pattern of use. And beware: Keep your paper books in a safe place, they will be very valuable when all text is stored and distributed electronically.</p>

[dan_stegal]

<blockquote>

<p>don't forget the xanax dispensary for the mother-of-the-bride</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think one of those guns that shoot those darts with the drugs - you know, the ones that they use to take down elephants to tag them for research.</p>

<p>"Here, let me take your picture mother-of-the-bride!"</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>I want a dSLR that does less, not more:</p>

<p>Manual exposure only (center weighted avg), WB (custom and/or via Kelvin only), raw and/or full res jpgs only), hot shoe, pc connector, built in infrared trigger but no flash (like an SU-800), high flash sync (at least 1/250th), single release shutter (no continuous), copyright embedding in exif and iptc and that's about it... like a digital FM2n. Maybe an in camera black and white mode for the jpgs... t</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Joseph, all your points about video are well taken but I seek simplicity and I'm a serial thinker. If a phone connection could continuously upload images from my DSLR to my computer at home (or elsewhere), I could really go for that and think it's a fantastic idea. I just can't think about all the telephone calls I would get when I'm in the middle of nowhere. (Even Mono Lake has cell phone service.) I leave my cell phone in the car when I'm photographing. </p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I don't even really want a phone in my CELL PHONE. I use about 4 minutes a month on actual phone time. But I do about 800 text messages a month, and at least a hundred emails. Now, on the other hand....I wouldn't mind a 6 Mega pixel cam with RAW and ISO to 3200 in my cell phone. That would be cool</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"If a phone connection could continuously upload images from my DSLR to my computer at home (or elsewhere), I could really go for that..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now you're thinking with portals.</p>

<p>A lot of folks who claim now they wouldn't want a wireless communications device built into their dSLRs will one day wonder how they did without 'em. Check back on this thread in 3-5 years.</p>

[tele_tele]

<p>What about Nikon DSLR that shows TIME and DATE on info screen. That would be revolution.</p>

[bmm]

<p>I wouldn't use that particular feature myself.</p>

<p>But if it means that more units sell and therefore that Nikon can make the stuff I want available to me for cheaper then yes go ahead and I'll just disable that function using a menu setting or whatever. I have the same attitude to movie functions in current models - bring it on if it moves more units for Nikon, and I'll just choose not to use it.</p>

<p>Also I WOULD take an inbuilt SIM card for the reason of triangulating location, getting automatic local time, etc and therefore giving me good rich metadata in my images kind of akin to what the optional GPS units do. And maybe with that SIM card one useful thing could be a camera that automatically (via GPRS or some other wireless protocol) backs up its images to some online server space which means we wouldn't have to lug around so many laptops, hard drives, etc on travels.</p>

[mark liddell]

<p>A phone that actually functions as a phone!? No.<br>

I would however like to develop 'apps' to compensate for the numerous Nikon firmware oversights....</p>

[sonja_greene]

<p>OH GREAT! Now we can talk, chat, visit the internet to check this forum, find our way when we get lost, listen to music, play online video games, take professional photos, on one unit and all while driving at the same time.....oooohhhh. Sorry, had to say it.</p>

[hiro]

<p><em>I think Maxwell Smart would want one. He would look normal enough with a large DSLR stuck to his ear.</em></p>

<p>A phone in a DSLR? I'd rather have the shoe phone. (:</p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

[western_isles]

<p>Am I missing something?<br>

Alistair, do you work for in the telecoms industry?</p>