michael_thebo

<p>I think there is a surprising amount of crossover between guns and cameras.<br>

You "shoot" both. Both require a squeeze for proper release rather than a jerky push or pull. Both guns and cameras benefit from stabilization, and even a strap is useful for this; though a wide range of accessories are also available. Oh yeah, shooting either can soon become expensively addictive! I've even reloaded expendable cartridges for both.<br>

Unfortunately, and more often recently, either of them sometimes "freak out" certain people. Pointing a camera around sometimes draws unwarranted attention from security types, and often even the completely legal possession and carrying of a firearm draws similar attention.</p>

 

<p>You mention TRUTH as a role of photography, and far more than unpalatable images I see a larger problem with the concept of TRUTH in photography. I view this from what I learned in J-school, which is that photography should convey a basic sense of truth about the world; and from what I have learned afterward, that very very few outlets for photography offer a true sense of objectivity, regardless of their claims to the contrary.<br>

Lets take, for example, one recent photograph. I don't remember the photographer but I am sure the majority of readers will know, immediately, the photo I am talking about. From the recent Georgian war there was a photograph of a heavy set woman sitting, as if dumbfounded, in the ruins of a building. The first time I was this photo if was used to convey the TRUTH of Georgian artilitary attacks upon South Ossetia, this was prior to any accusation of Russian involvement or bombing. A few days later the very same photo was used with a different caption to convey a new TRUTH, that of Russian agression against the sovereign nation of Georgia. I will leave to the reader to determine which TRUTH to take from this photograph, which I found immensely powerful. But, no one can deny that the TRUTH expressed by one of these uses of this photo must be remarkably and horrifically wrong when compared to the actuality of the subject's situation.<br>

So, we can see, even apart from an era of photoshop and easy digital information, photographs can convey TRUTH or they can just as easily purport to do so, while actually doing the opposite. Add into the fray the ability to add and remove elements and I do not believe a photographer's image is any more TRUTH than a writer's words.</p>

<p>I find my .dng's converted from D90 .nef's are slightly over 10% smaller. More importantly, the issues I had with Bridge CS3 not liking them on my wife's computer is gone. I'm liking the compatability better on the DNG format, it bothers me that Nikon has differences in the NEF format between cameras- I worry that in 15 years I will again have problems with some software not reading some .nef's.<br>

If a RAW file is like a negative, then I see proprietary RAW formats as each, sort of, requiring a specific and proprietary negative carrier- something I would never have accepted in a traditional darkroom.</p>

Kind of reminds me of the old Pentax 110 SLR, neat little toy if you need a neat little toy, but not very good for serious photography. Simply put, the laws of physics mean it will make worse pictures than a DSLR, which has a larger sensor. Less DOF control. Smaller photosites. Lenses that need to resolve to a higher resolution to make the same quality picture. Make it cheap enough (really cheap) and I might get one just to put in my glovebox... maybe it would be ok for backpacking...

Ben- I really don't see a big problem with storing and processing 1920x1080p30 to a CF card, this is what the RED

Scarlet is supposed to be doing for release early next year. Though it will use two CF cards, they will be in

series so it can have uninterrupted recording... that would be on a 2/3" sensor at 3k (3,000 ish pixels wide)

using Red's codec and having considerably more bandwidth than needed for HD.

 

OTOH, perhaps it will just offer 640x480 video without focusing abilities while recording, like my antiquated

Fuji FinePix S602.

 

Rather than the resolution, if its at least HD, I would be far more excited about the interchangeable lenses and

the huge (compared to video cameras) sensor, presumably offering a much higher useful ISO and more control over

DOF. I think such a camera could help take Nikon into the next century and if it functioned even marginally well

we'll see a large crossover to it from videographers and "filmmakers".

 

As a side note, I am already using HDV progressive stills commercially- 24 pictures per second that offer

reasonable enough IQ for the web, but truly excel at capturing "the moment". The next era of photography, and

especially of photojournalism, will be marked by a blurring of video and photography. This is already happening

and I dearly hope Nikon will be a part of it.

I would almost certainly buy one if it offered 30 or 24 fps progressive video at true HD or higher, even if its just through the HDMI port. I really can't see why some people think this would be a downside.

 

I have been doing more video that still photography lately. One of the major issues video shooters have is the severely decreased ability to capture images with low DOF due to small sensor size. Indeed an entire industry has sprung up offering DOF adapters which allow the attachment of a sort of mini-view-camera using 35mm lenses- just to get back DOF despite the compromises in IQ that such devices entail.

 

So, can anyone imagine why a DX sized sensor hybrid still / video camera would sell well? Even if you had to record off of the HDMI port, it would still probably outclass almost any video camera this side of the Red One. Sound isn't a big issue, though an elegant way to plug in balanced mics would be nice, sound can me recorded separately a lot more easily than getting shallow DOF on a 1/3" sensor video camera.