Upgrade bug time, where to go from D2X

I would recommend the D400. At 16mp with 1080p video it has a been a great camera. I can't wait to get the housing. Hopefully the housing will fit the D400s

I would recommend the D400. At 16mp with 1080p video it has a been a great camera. I can't wait to get the housing. Hopefully the housing will fit the D400s

Do you have a time machine?

George, the Canons can take a RAW (or whatever the setting) full res pic in video mode. It'll stop recording for 1 sec but that's better than low res stills in video. That's if that's what you're referring to. I was talking about having a 16+ mp with 1080p video FF ViDSLR. Since going pass 25mp will probably render half my lenses "soft" I'm very happy with 16-21mp.

The 1.4 requirement comes from shooting lowlight scenes like clubs etc. I never really appreciated the strength of the FF sensor until then.

For an example of what lowlight 1080p looks like:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=33815

George, the Canons can take a RAW (or whatever the setting) full res pic in video mode. It'll stop recording for 1 sec but that's better than low res stills in video. That's if that's what you're referring to. I was talking about having a 16+ mp with 1080p video FF ViDSLR. Since going pass 25mp will probably render half my lenses "soft" I'm very happy with 16-21mp.

The 1.4 requirement comes from shooting lowlight scenes like clubs etc. I never really appreciated the strength of the FF sensor until then.

 

For an example of what lowlight 1080p looks like:

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=33815

I was not aware that one could take a snap while doing a video as you describe. A one second blip, however, is likely to be noticeable. If they could get that down do a small fraction of a second it would be better.

I suspect that one has to decide between either doing video or stills for most shots to do a good job with either. For example, the actual time spent spawning (i.e., releasing gametes) by salmonids lasts for justs a few seconds; trying to do get those few seconds recorded well with both media at the same time probably won't work.

Tom, the point of having such hybrid isn't to use them at the same time all the time but have the choice to switch between the 2. Imagine a gun battle in Ramadi. There's no way to take stills without getting shot so video would be best. Then if you see a shot that is worth taking as a still... click and it's done. Same for underwater, where a baitball is so much better on video than in stills, yet if you see a bryde's whale charge at the right angle, you can hit the still. Except in video mode, there is not strobe firing, which is limiting.

This is all very interesting times. I think video implementation will become THE differentiating factor over the next few years as MP etc level off. If one considers sensor technology, the cameras are very similar with minor variations in camera implementation, with objective testing like DXO possibly giving Nikon the edge. Nikon are obviously at a disadvantage in the video area not being a video company up to now. (They did attempt one video cam in the eighties I think.) If Nikon don't even things up in their next few cameras, they will have a serious problem I think. I'm still not at the point where I will buy a DSLR based on it's video, but I'm sure as I toy with it and see the possibilities, it will become a factor. Folks like Drew of course consider video already a major component, imperfect as present implementations are. The follow up to the D700, probably coming this year will be a defining camera I think for Nikon. If it has improved video implementation along the lines of what Canon offers or possibly better, the will stay in the game. If not, even I may have to consider the dark side eventually, because Nikon will have lost 2-3 years to Canon, which is a long time in technology terms.

This is all very interesting times. I think video implementation will become THE differentiating factor over the next few years as MP etc level off. If one considers sensor technology, the cameras are very similar with minor variations in camera implementation, with objective testing like DXO possibly giving Nikon the edge. Nikon are obviously at a disadvantage in the video area not being a video company up to now. (They did attempt one video cam in the eighties I think.) If Nikon don't even things up in their next few cameras, they will have a serious problem I think. I'm still not at the point where I will buy a DSLR based on it's video, but I'm sure as I toy with it and see the possibilities, it will become a factor. Folks like Drew of course consider video already a major component, imperfect as present implementations are. The follow up to the D700, probably coming this year will be a defining camera I think for Nikon. If it has improved video implementation along the lines of what Canon offers or possibly better, the will stay in the game. If not, even I may have to consider the dark side eventually, because Nikon will have lost 2-3 years to Canon, which is a long time in technology terms.

Good points! As I have NEVER shot video it is all pretty much academic. And if I did what would I do with it? There are seemingly an ungodly number of formats. I could sell some interesting shots but would not know HOW (with all the specs) to deliver any hypothetical product. With stills it is a 'no-brainer'.

Good points! As I have NEVER shot video it is all pretty much academic. And if I did what would I do with it? There are seemingly an ungodly number of formats. I could sell some interesting shots but would not know HOW (with all the specs) to deliver any hypothetical product. With stills it is a 'no-brainer'.

Sometimes one does not know what one will do with technology until one has it. 2 years ago, we were not even talking about VDSLR's, except RED which most thought of as a hybrid videocam, rather than hybrid DSLR. Then came the D90 and 5DMKII and lots of folks have shown some pretty cool stuff that certainly gives folks like myself some aha moments about the possibilities. The D3s and 1DSMkIV are certainly aimed at getting journalists into the hybrid groove, as demonstrated by guys like Vincent LaForet. It's just a matter of time before we start seeing some underwater hybrid presentations I think.

Tom, I think the stuff you do could be ideally suited for hybrid presentations once the implementation becomes seamless and instantaneous - possibly with true RAW video capture etc.

Already folks are talking about other technologies, that even though hard to imagine, will become mainstream, such as true high dynamic range, 3D imaging etc.

Probably in 10 years we will have 30+MP ISO 248,000, 20:1 dynamic range, 3D, RAW capture VDSLR's. Probably even better. And I think those that say that improving technologies don't make for better photography are missing the point. It's really about the presentation and how we view things that are driving the changes.

Sometimes one does not know what one will do with technology until one has it. 2 years ago, we were not even talking about VDSLR's, except RED which most thought of as a hybrid videocam, rather than hybrid DSLR. Then came the D90 and 5DMKII and lots of folks have shown some pretty cool stuff that certainly gives folks like myself some aha moments about the possibilities. The D3s and 1DSMkIV are certainly aimed at getting journalists into the hybrid groove, as demonstrated by guys like Vincent LaForet. It's just a matter of time before we start seeing some underwater hybrid presentations I think.

Tom, I think the stuff you do could be ideally suited for hybrid presentations once the implementation becomes seamless and instantaneous - possibly with true RAW video capture etc.

Already folks are talking about other technologies, that even though hard to imagine, will become mainstream, such as true high dynamic range, 3D imaging etc.

Probably in 10 years we will have 30+MP ISO 248,000, 20:1 dynamic range, 3D, RAW capture VDSLR's. Probably even better. And I think those that say that improving technologies don't make for better photography are missing the point. It's really about the presentation and how we view things that are driving the changes.

You are correct. I think the current line ups are not ready for prime time. I want remote control, superb AF, raw, high ISO, high DR, and high res in a small package. The REDone in a housing is gigantic. The various housings need relatively deep water (I have to use small dia. ports) and need a large insertion space. This where the dSLRs will work better.

There are new technologies around the corner as well, such as CFast cards. Before long we will have TB cards at current eSATA speeds. Then we will be talking!

I wonder, let say Nikon releases a D700x FF 24MP and D400 16-18MP DX sensor, same AF, D400 has low noise, at least usable upto ISO1600 or 3200 easily and has ISO100 or even bettter ISO50, if money is not a concern, would people with D2X go to D700x or D400.

I wonder, let say Nikon releases a D700x FF 24MP and D400 16-18MP DX sensor, same AF, D400 has low noise, at least usable upto ISO1600 or 3200 easily and has ISO100 or even bettter ISO50, if money is not a concern, would people with D2X go to D700x or D400.

That is a bridge I will not cross till I get there!

I may just wait for the D4 Seacam housing to become available!

That is a bridge I will not cross till I get there!

I may just wait for the D4 Seacam housing to become available!

It would be nice to dream a bit. However, I suspect that Nikon would release D700x awhile before releasing D400 so I imagine going

to FF and then when Nikon release D400, I would be swearing and wonder if I really need fullframe or not

I don't think I would be holding my breath for D4 much. However, if it shares the same body as D3, I would be kicking and screaming again about

not jumping into D3X bandwagon early on

It really depends on the exact details which one Id choose. The 10-17/D400 obviously has a lot of appeal, but we'll have to see what other differences there are between a D400 and D700x. (assuming any of them ever show up...its taking forever). In the mean time, pixel peeping aside, fact is.. Canon people are doing some really nice things with the 5D and now 7D. Eric made some nice videos on our last trip, which to me proves that DSLRs with video have a real place and can get you stuff you otherwise wouldnt get. But there is just no way you can mix the two on a dive. You set up for video or still.

Actually Cor, I experimented with setting up for video AND stills with the 5D2. I'll be touching on it with the review but it can work sometimes. Testing with the Magic Filter AND strobes needs more work to get the match correct in terms of color temp but I think many people have been trying with magenta gels to get their strobe color temps to match the magic filtered lens. Shooting with a filter is a must for ViDSLR but getting the WB right is more difficult than a conventional camcorder (although the consumer camcorders also need many button pushes to do the same.)

As I told Alex, I did try it with a 7000lumen halogen for stills and it was difficult to get it better than f8 at 1/60 at 200ISO. I preferred strobes with magic filter. I found you can shoot with magic filter and strobes in RAW without too much effect on color. Then you can shoot natural light IF you have the right port and lens. Since video uses more of the sensor and requires wider f stops unless you go up to 1600ISO, then you're always in the f5.6-8 region which is where many dome ports still exhibit soft corners. I'd like to see how the super dome of Seacam handles.

It would be nice to dream a bit. However, I suspect that Nikon would release D700x awhile before releasing D400 so I imagine going

to FF and then when Nikon release D400, I would be swearing and wonder if I really need fullframe or not

 

I don't think I would be holding my breath for D4 much. However, if it shares the same body as D3, I would be kicking and screaming again about

not jumping into D3X bandwagon early on

Merry Christmas!

Your assertion may be incorrect, the D400 may come out first. See recent rumor here:

http://nikonrumors.com/2009/12/22/rumor-ni...dy-roadmap.aspx

This is a DX roadmap and suggests a D400 sooner, 2011?, rather than later. As for a smaller bodied FF, it is anyones guess. However it would seem wise for them to introduce one as soon as 2010. They may be waiting for some new technologies to enable our desires, or to surpass Canon. Or they may be making too much money at the amateur level, i.e., 000 models.

The D3s is already a 'different' body from the D3 and D3X so I doubt we will see a D4 with the same body as a D3. I am hoping that Nikon as well as Canon see the light that people want somewhat smaller bodies and work towards that end in their future pro body models.

To answer everybody's musings.

1-If I want to shoot real video I get a real video camera. If I want an occasional video shot when the whale shark swims by and I have a macro lens on, I get a small, cheap video camera like the one I saw at the dive show. I understand that experts can get some cool vid with a vid-on-still setup but it is unlikely for me.

2-As for DX or FX for my next camera, that depends on a question that maybe someone can answer:

"If I load an af-105-vr on a D3x, take a macro shot at maximum magnigfication, then crop that shot to the same size as a FX camera, which picture is better, the D3x cropped or the D300?"

Essentially I am saying that I have no artifical constraints. If I can shoot, then crop, to get the same image, then I gain flexibility with the FF for macro as well as low light wide-angle capabilities at the expense of a larger setup. That would interest me.