Is anyone else waiting for a Nikon 5D?

[tom_harvey3]

<p>I have discovered and acheived a state of total (and packable!) Photo-Nirvana. Canon 5DII and L-glass, augmented by a Panasonic HDC-TM700K. Awesome video from the Canon when you have a subject that lends itself to a "production-based" setup with tripod and heads and proper lighting. Image quality is excellent for stills and video with the 5DII; Panasonic video is very good, stills can be a bit sucky I've heard.</p>

<p>Nero suite and Sony Vegas suite for video edits and the package is complete.</p>

<p>In a pinch, my Ford F-250 SD crew cab has served as a "dolly" setup using a versa-clamp, seriously. Have to figure out how to squelch or remove the diesel background noise</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>If I want to pound in a nail - I typically don't use a screwdriver or a wrench - I get a hammer. If I want to shoot video - I grab a video camera - If I want to shoot stills - I grab a DSLR or SLR.</p>

<p>So - No - I'm not waiting, wanting or demanding.<br>

Dave</p>

 

[steve_wagner1]

<blockquote>

<p>And video? Even on the 5D MKII? just look at what the professionals use: Yes, they use a 5D, but only along with all kinds of extremely expensive accessories, that turn the humble DSLR into a camera of cinema-style proportions. This encompasses supports for shoulder-holding the camera, focusing helpers, viewfinder extensions and so on and so forth.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And videographers with traditional cameras don't!? The difference is their cameras cost $20-50,000, and all the accessories cost just as much as the dslr accessories, often far more. This is a poor argument against dslr video.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>The only reasonable objections I can see to its inclusion is it drives up the price and the extra internal hardware increases the chances of failure. Otherwise - who cares? It's no skin off your back if you don't want to use it, just don't use it. Heck, if nothing else you might just find yourself in a situation where video would be really handy and there you got it. I've certainly found that with my P&S cameras.</p>

<p>That said, I want the choice to pay for it or not and I suspect that's not in the offing.</p>

<p>It seems like no matter how much the technology advances and how much the parts get commoditized the prices stay the same. They always find a way to include enough cup holders as it were to justify charging you roughly the same value. Ok, yes, it's a little better than that, but not as much as one would expect.</p>

<p>It's kind of like hard drives. A 250gig drive might have cost $80 five years ago at Staples. Want to go out and buy a new drive? Still $80, just now it's 1 TB. Great, but maybe you don't need 1 TB. All you want is 250gig and hopefully have it be $40 given how easy it is to make now. Unfortunately you can't - instead they've added "features" (more space, encryption, backup software) and you still can't get the advantages of the commoditized pricing.</p>

<p>Yes, maybe my examples aren't perfect, but you get the point.</p>

<p>Anyway, I bet you they (Nikon) could make a $1k full frame DSLR if they threw away all the "wiz-bang" crap and just made a nice, solid, simple camera with all the basics of a advanced amateur AF SLR fifteen years ago (ie: mirror lockup, DoF preview, simple but effective metering, simple but effective AF, reasonable flash). I know <strong>I'd buy it</strong>.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>you might be interested to know that there are now two different Nikon to Canon adapters for AF-S lenses that allow aperture control.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I looked in Google, but can't find this -- about which I do not know. Can you give me a link or something, I'm curious about how it would work, although all my Nikons are pre-AIs. I have used a AF Nikon fisheye lens, but simply went with it wide open on my Canon EOS camera.</p>

[rafael_s]

<p>Actually I've been waiting for Nikon to someday release an FM2 (or any early F series) body with full frame digital. They haven't a clue how a camera like this would probably outsell most of their current line.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>Agreed. I think this is some of why there's so much excitement over say the Fuji X100. Granted it has a lot of cupholders too, but it appeals to those of us who don't really need all the extra junk...</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Rafael, you're projecting your desires onto the larger photographic community. Nikon knows exactly how well a camera like that <strong>won't </strong>outsell anything in their current line. They do market research. I've done two market research projects on related designs (one was a "snap fit" approach to a digital back for existing cameras). A manual focus DSLR with a single company's mount is not a marketable product. One product that can cover the entire MF market (either snap-fit backs or interchangeable bull-nose mounts) was barely viable in 2007, and is not viable today.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>Ok, I agree in retrospect it probably would "outsell most of their current line", if it would be (as you point out) successful at all. Certainly however there are many who would like to see such a beast. Whether that is enough to be viable is another question.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Matt Farhner - The only reasonable objections I can see to its inclusion is it drives up the price and the extra internal hardware increases the chances of failure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>D90 launched at the same price as D80 did. D300s launched at the same price D300 did. Canon 5D II launched $400 lower than 5D did. So there's no "it drives up the price" issue.</p>

<p>There's no "increases the chance of failure" issue, either. The only "extra internal hardware" is a microphone. Literally. Nikon and Canon share their IO chips between P&S lines and DSLR lines, so they've even got the audio A/D already. 5D (I and II), D300 (with or without "s"), etc. all have random access CMOS sensors. Read the sensor at a lower resolution and higher speed, compress it (software, on the main processor) and store it. Basically, it's just rerouting liveview. Liveview already gets compressed, so it can be streamed out the USB port under PTP. Route the stream to flash.</p>

<p>Heck, 5D II is a lot cleaner inside (smaller, less complex FWB boards) than 5D (without video) was.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>Joseph - I guess my point is the D90 should have in theory been cheaper than the D80 due to leveraging of prior technology, optimizations in the fabrication process, and commoditization of the components (not to mention low inflation, if not deflation). That it wasn't (cheaper) might be taken to support my thesis.</p>

<p>However, I actually agree with you, because I'm sure like Canon, Nikon could have dropped the price. I should have probably said this, but part of my point was they dress these cameras up with cupholders that really don't cost them anything but help justify jacking up and/or keeping the price. For instance, in my analogy, my guess is a 1 TB drive costs less to make now than a 250 gb drive did 5 years ago, and yet it sells for the same - they use the "features" to justify not passing on price savings (which is what capitalism is all about I suppose but...).</p>

<p>I also didn't honestly mean to imply I believed that there was actually "more to break", while certainly this is true for cars with lots of gadgets, pretty much all of what is in cameras is solid state and/or software. I was just sort of saying, "If you want to complain about video, the only think I could see questioning are price and reliability," neither of which I was all that convinced (for reasons you point out) are really a problem.</p>

<p>In short, I essentially agree!</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>JDM, here...<br>

I have a couple of the Fotodiox adapters, the Ai and AF-D version and the AF-S version. When I got mine, they didn't offer a chip, but now Fotodiox will install a Dandelion chip for an extra $50. but I've found that to be unnecessary for both macro and video. The Dandelion "flat mount" chip can be used successfully on it, and if I did more still photography, I'd probably chip the adapter myself. I put Dandelions "wall mount" versions on a Nikon 105mm f2.5 and 55mm f2.8, it was pretty painless.</p>

<ul>

<li>AF-S http://www.fotodiox.com/product_info.php?products_id=571</li>

<li>with chip http://www.fotodiox.com/product_info.php?products_id=28</li>

<li>Ai, AF, AF-D http://www.fotodiox.com/product_info.php?products_id=30</li>

<li>with chip http://www.fotodiox.com/product_info.php?products_id=572</li>

</ul>

<p>The 16-9 is rumored to be a Novoflex, with a Dandelion chip already mounted.</p>

<ul>

<li>http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/</li>

</ul>

<p>The Novoflex doesn't have a chip, I'll point you to dpReview's note about it, because Novoflex's website is as bad as their adapters are good. Problem is, if you're in the US, HP Marketing gouges you an extra 30% above and beyond the exchange rate from European Novoflex prices. You can get it through 16-9, with a chip, cheaper than you can get it through HP without a chip. Or you can get two Fotodiox, with chips, cheaper than one Novoflex, without. ;)</p>

<ul>

<li>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10072602novoflexeosnikntadapter.asp</li>

</ul>

 

[Mankuthel]

<p>I know this is not what everybody wants and doubt Nikon might release one in the future but I'm looking for a DX camera in a pro body - like the D2x.</p>

 

<p>I'm very happy with my D3 but do miss the crop factor at times. The D300 and the like are great cameras but it just doesn't feel right with the battery pack attached.<br>

 </p>

[kevin_swan1]

<p>Wow, I wasn't expecting this to ignite such a lively discussion!</p>

<p>Just to expand a bit on the reasoning behind my desire - I currently have a D300 and I love it. However, I want to upgrade to a full-frame body. In addition, I'm very intrigued by the groundbreaking advances that DSLR's have brought to amateur film making. The hollywood-esque shallow depth of fields, the ability to use all kinds of exotic lenses in a *video* context (fisheye, macro, tilt/shift) is very appealing to me, even if it's not very practical. I'd just like to have a camera with which I can play with that sort of stuff, sort of dip my toes in the amateur film making world, you know what I mean?</p>

<p>My D300 is aging, and is due for a replacement. I just don't want to "settle" for a D90 or a D700, right before Nikon comes out with a worthy competitor to the 5D.</p>

<p>My frustration is that the 5D has been king of the "full-frame, 1080p, 24 fps" hill for several years now, and Nikon hasn't fielded any competition at all. They've come out with new models that do video, but it's been more of the same - 720p, crop frame, lacking 24 fps. Why bother even releasing a camera like that? Are they even TRYING to compete, or are they completely ceding the amateur film making domain to Canon?</p>

[tholte]

<p>Kevin, I hear you and I am pretty sure that Nikon hears you. I think the D700 replacement will be what you and I are looking for. Good video, at least 16MP and cost less than $3,000 would be nice and quite doable I would think. </p>

[jameshoadley]

<p>If you just want to dabble settle for <em>any</em> Nikon with video, there's nothing wrong with 720p compared to 1080p, on a crop frame or not. If you really want to use 1080p on full frame, it sounds like you're more serious. I don't think 720p on DX would be that much worse.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>I am waiting to win the lottery (maybe the the mega millions). Once I do that I'll just pre-order all their new cameras as soon as they are available, and also buy every single lens they sell. Even if I may not use them. *grin*</p>