File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Oh man I can't wait. I won't have to drag another camera along for video! Also, what is the gps for? Is it just to log where you took the pic?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
That movie mode is some serious fucking news. It's a crop sensor in still 35mm terms, but as a movie camera, it's full frame.

Has an AF motor. I'm mildly surprised by that.
>> Anonymous
I wonder why it took so long to put in a fucking video mode.
>> Anonymous
Yay for shitty movie mode in a fairly good DSLR!
>> Anonymous
i am switching to nikon
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243463
Because driving an SLR-quality sensor at 24 frames per second is a nontrivial undertaking. Previous generations of sensors would get really hot and noisy really quickly. This is also why it took 'em so long to implement live view.

(As for why it took so long after they got live view viable... I dunno)
>> Anonymous
NO PRINT BUTTON??????????
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243466
24 frames per second, full frame, with the full catalog of Nikon lenses available. Only 5 minutes at full res, granted, and only 20 minutes at 640x480, but still. Next time you're watching a show, count off in your head how long each scene lasts. Five seconds is a long time to go between cuts. Five minutes only happens in documentaries. Boring documentaries.

(Well, and with directors trying to prove they have a huge penis by doing really long moving unbroken scenes)

I wouldn't call this a shitty movie mode. I would call this a credible-competitor-to-the-Red movie mode.
>> Anonymous
Good night, sweet prince Canon.

>>243476
GTFO, 50D.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243479
Sad thing is, the 50D will probably outsell this because lolmegapixuls.

As a canonfag, I'm really, really hoping that a 5DII happens at Photokina and that it fucking pwnz. And I'm really looking forward to when Canon steals that movie mode trick so I can get some of that action.
>> Anonymous
>>243478

And glorious mono audio.
>> Anonymous
I like Nikon bodies better than Canon, but I have to be a canonfag because they were the only ones smart enough to develop a lens mount that can take adapters. You can't put an M42 on a Nikon without a piece of glass that works as a teleconverter anyway, but the EF mount will work just great with anything you can stick in front of it.

Here's to hoping for a 5D-MkII that has better mirror clearance than the current 5D. Otherwise it's gonna be a used 1DsMkII for me.
>> Anonymous
>>243478I would call this a credible-competitor-to-the-Red movie mode.

LOL

lest we forget even the lowest fucking end red has OH i dunno, about four fucking times the resolution of this?
>> Anonymous
>>243478I wouldn't call this a shitty movie mode. I would call this a credible-competitor-to-the-Red movie mode.

720p24 != 4K RGB
>> Anonymous
Movie mode is the new must-have checkbox feature, just like sensor cleaning and live-view was for 2007-2008. Just watch, everyone and their cat/dog will release a DSLR in 2009-2010 with movie mode.

>>243484
PIXELS is so 2005.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243492
And also a RAW video mode and the ability to record for as long as you have drives to take the bukkake spray of bits it throws out.

I don't mean a credible competitor to the RED for big budget movies or anything. But for people who are making smaller videos faced with the decision of renting a RED for a week or flat out buying a D90, the D90 looks pretty good.
>> Anonymous
>>243478
The RED shoots at like 4000x2000 pixels, 24fps, can record to a hard drive for hours, takes cinema lenses, handles real multichannel audio, supports uncompressed footage instead of M-JPEG, mounts to cinema tripods....

This isn't a competitor to that. It's the other side of those HD camcorders that take decent quality 8-megapixel stills -- a still camera that takes acceptable HD video.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243501
see>>243499
>> Anonymous
>>243502
No it fucking doesn't. A high-end Canon or Sony HD camera is a pretty good option for someone who is thinking of renting a RED for a week. What you're saying is like "well, for those people who are thinking of renting an H3D for a photo shoot, well, they could just BUY a whole Rebel XTi, pretty good option amirite?"
>> Anonymous
>>243499
What the fuck? No. Just, no.

Maybe versus getting a cheap-o HV30 or HC9 consumer camcorder, but no pro is going to be shooting serious video with a fucking D90. They'd be out of their fucking minds. Also, samples plz.

>>243501
Exactly.
>> Anonymous
ahahahaha at ac making a bullshit claim and gets swamped

priceless
>> Anonymous
>>243502

>>243488mono audio.
>>243488mono audio.
>>243488mono audio.
>>243488mono audio.
>>243488mono audio.
>>243488mono audio.
>> Anonymous
>>243499
The D90 has nowhere near the level of controls and jacks on even a consumer HD camcorder, much less what a pro would need. Quit talking out of your ass.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243505
Fine, fine, competitor-to-red was a serious exaggeration.

But I still maintain that the ability to make videos with the DoF and lens options and light sensitivity of a DSLR is a big deal. There are a lot of people out there who spend lots of money on crazy rigs to latch an SLR in front of their video camera so they can get shallow depth of field, even at the expense of light. The DoF is one of the subtle things that makes amateur videos look amateur.
>> Anonymous
>>243502

Also you may have noticed that the D90 doesn't even do AUTOFOCUS in movie mode. So that pretty much makes it a really shitty camcorder. I think it would be awesome to play with as an artsy tool (can you control the shutter speed when it's shooting movies?) but it is NOT to compete with any kind of camcorder. Even Nikon talks about it as "new artistic options" instead of "TWO CAMERAS IN ONE HURR".
>> Anonymous
>>243512

people have been faking your beloved DoF for years with prosumer HD cams
>> Anonymous
>> Nikon D90 Key Features
>> 12.9 megapixel DX-format CMOS sensor (effective pixels: 12.3 million)
>> 3.0-inch 902,000 pixel (VGA x 3 colors) TFT-LCD (same as D3 and D300)
>> Live View with contrast-detect AF, face detection
>> Image sensor cleaning (sensor shake)
>> Illuminated focus points

>> Illuminated focus points
>> Illuminated focus points
>> Illuminated focus points

what does that mean, how is that a key feature
>> Anonymous
Hah, I was right, the video is effectively crippled here. LAWL P&S AUTO VIDEO.
>> Anonymous
>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond90/page10.asp
>Exposure is fully automatic in movie mode (though exposure compensation settings are honored).
Yep, auto, which means you can't select what aperture to use or ISO while recording. Fucking marketing gimmick. It also means, we most probably can't record video with our good old AI and AI-s lenses. It sounds as if they wanted to rush video onto the market with this one. I'll stick with my brand new D80 until the D400 comes out and by that time, it should have video done well.

1280x720, 640x480, 320x160 (1920x1080 might be asking for too much)
Mpeg4 Compression, that's H.264 video and aac audio (FUCK YEAH)
Choice between 24, 30, or 60 frames per second (not bound to frame size).
Full manual control over exposure based on aperture and ISO since the "shutter speed" is decided by the fps.
Automatic ISO setting for "Aperture Priority" while recording video.
Continuous autofocus while recording (I imagine the in body AF motor would be noisy. Get around it with USM)
External audio input 3.5mm jack (for STEREO!) I'll be pissed if they don't include it. Not that hard.

Let's compile what we want and send the info to Nikon!
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
I'm just waiting for the A900 with that newfangled sensor sony have been developing that destroys current ones for DR.

Also lolcanikon.
>> Anonymous
Canon 50D outselling this?

Yeah right AC stop being a shit fanboy. The D80 was Nikon best selling DSLR, it outsold the 40D even in it's later days by almost 2:1. The 'advantage' the 50D has with 3 megapixels is easily countered and probably destroyed by the D90's MOVIE MODE, only regular joe consumers would give a shit about the extra megapixels.

But guess what they'll do when they find out the D90 has a movie mode?

Canon really needs that 5D II that people keep insisting is coming, otherwise Canon is going to continue to lose ground to Nikon.
>> Anonymous
>>243581

So the video is P&S like, were you really expecting HDMI 3CCD quality?

The point is it's there and it's enough.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243584
>Canon 50D outselling this?
>Yeah right AC stop being a shit fanboy.
The hell?

I was saying that the D90's a better camera but expressing remorse that the average consumer just looks for the higher number next to the 'Resolution' tickbox.

How the hell is that being a fanboy? I mean, maybe a *Nikon* fanboy, but I assume that's not what you mean.
>> Anonymous
http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2008/08/chase-jarvis-raw-advance-testing-nikon.html
>> Anonymous
>>243584The D80 was Nikon best selling DSLR, it outsold the 40D even in it's later days by almost 2:1.

UHHHHH

You realize of course it is only the best-selling if you tally up the total number of sales for the entire lifetime, which spans over TWICE the amount of time the 40D has been out? Yes?
>> Anonymous
This new camera looks pretty sweet. Things are hotting up again.

I remember there was a lot of fans worrying that there would be no D80 update and it was a one off (kind of like with the 5D).
>> Anonymous
hmmm base iso of 200?
12-bit instead of 14-bit?

WHYYYYY NIKON WHYYYYYYYY
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
oh man, the D90 is siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick. If I hadn't bought the 5D, I think I would've gotten this for sure. VIDEO? VIDEOOOOOOO?

Nuff said. Video. Motherfucking video. With your nikkor lenses. It's all I fucking want as a photojournalist.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Though it's not full-frame. :(

The full-frame one will blow my dick off.
>> Anonymous
lol nikon does nothing to improve image quality

adds on gimmick of video recording and nikon fanboys are all over it

good job, Nikon
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>243741
How the fuck is 720p video from a 1.5x crop sensor a GIMMICK? This is the VIDEO CAMERA that most people have been asking for. Fuck the stills. Photojournalists want a handy videocamera with decent depth of field control and good manual controls. That camera has arrived. This shit is exciting.
>> Anonymous
Am I the only one who could care less about video from an SLR? I felt the same with live view. I mean I know it's neat and all but I like taking photos not video.

This would make more sense on a higher end metal body camera. Photojournalist in the field need something a bit more rugged than a D80, I'd imagine.
>> Anonymous
first of all, you're a huge nikonfanboy and your rage is showing

second, you have no fucking idea how to use a video camera do you?

the first of its kind is always a gimmick because it will never work the way you think it ought to work, much like the first live view

this does NOT have decent depth of field control, movie lenses are routinely f/1.8 so unless you feel like spending top dollar for a f/2.8 zoom, you are not getting any kind of dof control with consumer f/3.5-5.6 zooms, just no

this does not have good manual controls, you are relying on the lcd screen which does not tilt and will lag on exposure gain. have you ever played with a cheap camera? there is a reason why every devent video camera out there is stabilized, motion blur and shake is readily apparent on video and last time i checked, nikon does not have a lot of fast VR lenses. that is not equal to a good filming experience

someone already said it, it's fully automatic and has no autofocus

he already said it>>243582Fucking marketing gimmick.

mono, nothing else needs to be said

motion JPG, let's see a proper codec next time

i'm sorry if you are raging over this when it's clearly a gimmick

it's the first step in a new direction, good job nikon, but it's a gimmick
>> Anonymous
>>243741
I'm not all over it. D80 is plenty good enough for me until I can afford to upgrade to full frame. Live view? Could be nice, but I prefer to use the optical viewfinder. Video? I would probably never use it. Dust reduction? Does that even WORK? My five dollar blower gets the job done every time in those rare cases something gets on my sensor.

I AM still waiting for those new primes people have been telling me about though...
>> Anonymous
>>243754

i was referring to fanboys like heavyweather who went all OMFG VIDEO

and not realizing nikon didn't do shit to improve image quality

see

>>243738hmmm base iso of 200?
>>24373812-bit instead of 14-bit?
>> Anonymous
>>243749How the fuck is 720p video from a 1.5x crop sensor a GIMMICK?

Hahahah, oh wow. Should be expected from the biggest Nikonfag since Ken Rockwell.

>> This is the VIDEO CAMERA that most people have been asking for.

Hmm, no. It's not. This is a webcam that records at 720p.

There are little to no controls at all. Takes about 5 minutes of video and God knows how exactly and how long it will take to write to the card after it buffers.

>> Fuck the stills. Photojournalists want a handy videocamera with decent depth of field control and good manual controls.

Hmm, no "photojournalists" are not going to fuck around with DOF controls. Are you fucking kidding me? See above for manual controls, and exposure is completely automatic.

>> That camera has arrived. This shit is exciting.

Well I guess at least Nikon marketing is working for Nikon fanboys.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
oh balls, I was only aware of the D90 from APAD, I hadn't heard about the shortcomings. Oh well, better luck next camera. I'm sure they'll get it together soon. At least the feature is introduced.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>243761

It's not the video recording I care about, it's the shortcomings.
>> Anonymous
Movie mode is cool, but sounds more like a step down towards a P&S. Then again, most people buying intro-level SLRs are really just looking for a more expensive point and shoot. So not bad marketing.

However, when engineering something, you can make something do a few things really well, or a lot of things just okay. My cell phone may not be able to take 720p video, but it does take video, so if I need to, I can take video. My SLR is for photos. I don't want any photo-taking capability reduced by "gimmick" features, no matter how cool those features may be.

Canon for a long time was the clear market leader; that by no means meant that Nikons were worse cameras. Likewise, even if this become more popular than the 50d doesn't mean the 50d is an inferior camera.

This is actually a great situation for photographers; each company has to first improve their own existing model to try to outdo the other, while the other company has to make improvements that will soon become standard.

Truth is, it's a very good camera, but ultimately, it's how you use it.
>> Anonymous
video on an slr
more like buying a ferrari to go to wallmart
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243758
>Hahahah, oh wow. Should be expected from the biggest Nikonfag since Ken Rockwell.
Pro Tip: Heavyweather doesn't own a Nikon DSLR anymore and does most of his work with a Canon EOS 5D.
>> Anonymous
>>243802
Protip: he bitches about the controls, lusts for the D700, shoots with old Nikkor primes, and still praises Nikon. He's a Nikonfag.

Which is good. Cartier-Bresson was a Leicafag. David Douglas Duncan was the first Nikonfag.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Why the fuck would I want my camera to take shitty video? If I want a video camera I'll be one. Don't waste space on my future cameras canon! Do not buy into the shitty stupid gimmick.

Also since it's running live view it will heat the camera up and increase the noise some while raping your battery. Lol at people who will switch between video and still.
>> Anonymous
>>243738
>>243738

thank you.. everyone is arguing over video.. why the fuck would someone serious enough about photography buy an SLR for video? the ergonomics were not made for that.

now, base ISO 200 and 12 bit sucks, and isnt even as good as the 40D (base 100 and 14 bit)

enjoy your inferior color range nikonfags.
>> Anonymous
>>243804
>David Douglas Duncan was the first Nikonfag.

I should expand on this. The only reason, in fact, Nikon's photographic division got off the ground was DDD's Nikonfaggotry. He found out about their lenses, liked them, and went around the Korean War taking pictures and telling all the other photojournalists, "Dudes! Lenses made by photographers!" Eventually they caught on and Nikon had it made.
>> Anonymous
>>243806
Base 100 = Better for studio work and people who like shooting at f/1.2 at high noon and who are too lazy to use an ND filter.
Base 200 = Better for everything else.

>why the fuck would someone serious enough about photography buy an SLR for video

For some ass-stupid reason (yes, I know what is, and I'm entitled to hate it) editors want their photographers to bring back video, too. Now, tell me, what's ergonomically better: a future D400, D4, or D800 with video mode, OR one schlepping one of those and a Red Scarlet at the same time?

Buying a DSLR for video is a bad idea, you're right. Having video on a DSLR doesn't hurt anything, and helps photojournalists with editors who have no compunctions about pandering to infinitesimal attention spans quite a lot.

>>243805
Some people don't really mind noise. You're free to.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Also, what the hell is Nikon going to call their next lower-midrange camera? D100 is already taken...
>> Anonymous
>>243802

truth.. he's just a massive gear fag like you
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>243808
so what you're saying is that it is useful to a small portion of professional photographers while basically useless to everyone else. It's wasting space physically with the mic. I know it's small amount of space, but imagine if this pressures camera makers to make it decent. Our DSLRs will be bogged down with camcorder features and have their designs shifted to allow for better video instead of shifted up in image quality. Do you want your camera to have two micro phones on it? Do you want nikon to waste their time researching how to make it not suck instead of focusing on regular features for dslr and lenses? Seriously is this is just a low shot at canon in a desperate move to hold the market.

Also internet, are you ready to enjoy even more bad videos?
>> Anonymous
>>243810
D...110?

Also fuckoff D90 give me new primes instead
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
I'm sure this is perfect for some people since Flickr does short videos too now.
>> Anonymous
>so what you're saying is that it is useful to a small portion of professional photographers while basically useless to everyone else.

It's convenient for everyone else. Which is somewhere between "useful" and "basically useless."

If someone's priority is stills and they happen to do the rare video, this is good for them, as opposed to shelling out for a high-quality camcorder, too.


>It's wasting space physically with the mic. I know it's small amount of space, but imagine if this pressures camera makers to make it decent. Our DSLRs will be bogged down with camcorder features

Everything else they could do is firmware, taking up essentially no extra space, and mics are very small. Look at those little slim point and shoots, they've got mics. Some DSLRs have had mics for some time, for recording audio notes, who uses this feature I don't know, but it's there.

>and have their designs shifted to allow for better video instead of shifted up in image quality.

This will never happen.

>Do you want your camera to have two micro phones on it?

Don't care. From a design standpoint, it'd depend on overall size, but a good compromise might be one mic + a jack for better recording equipment. More useful than those TV and printer jacks.

>Do you want nikon to waste their time researching how to make it not suck instead of focusing on regular features for dslr and lenses?

Honestly, I don't care. Everything as far as technology is good enough for anything worth doing; the only meaningful advances would be in design, like putting swivel screens on DSLRs, or putting better viewfinders on lower-end ones.
>> Anonymous
Oh hey, Canikon release a MAJOR FUCKING GIMMICK and the fanboys all have exploding boners.


Why doesn't this surprise me? Brandfags, the lot of you.
>> Anonymous
>so what you're saying is that it is useful to a small portion of professional photographers while basically useless to everyone else

Also, why don't you bitch about how everyone has been pandering to sports photographers for years, with dozens of AF points and stupid FPS rates?

At least PJs do work more meaningful than "hey, watch this motherfucker kick a ball, in a shot so close up it's interchangeable with a hundred other shots from a hundred other games!"
>> Anonymous
>>243822


How dare they pander to easily their largest professional market?!
>> Anonymous
ANSWER HONESTLY


If Sony or Olympus had released this exact feature what would the reaction have been?
>> Anonymous
>>243825


shitstorm.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
>>243825
I would've laughed long and hard posting this image.
>> Anonymous
>>243825
Mockery, which would've been the wrong reaction.

Enthusiasm is also misplaced, unless you're a photojournalist, and then it should be tempered by the flaws in the implementation, as with Heavyweather's response here:>>243761
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243825
>If Sony or Olympus had released this exact feature what would the reaction have been?
Probably exactly the same to my reaction to it coming from Nikon. Just like how I got really excited at things like the E420+pancaek combination, micro-4/3, and that Sony lens with the crazy smooth bokeh.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>243804
Pretty much. I love'em.
>> Anonymous
>>243837


Well that makes one of you.
>> Anonymous
they fucking dropped the ball on actually improving the camera, instead they add another new feature
>> Anonymous
Except for a few pixels more this isn't really an upgrade to my D80 atm.

Great camera if you're upgrading from a D40 or D60, or buying your first camera. But kinda useless if you already have a comparable camera.

The only thing I would love to have is better GPRS support on my D80. Can't think of anything more I would like...
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>243846
Uh, it's the D300 sensor, right? That's a pretty big upgrade from the D200 sensor, which is the same one in the D80. The files look much much better. I mean, if your D80 is serving you well, then you have no need to upgrade, and that's good too.
>> Anonymous
it's not the D300 sensor, are you stupid
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243846
The D90 is no more meant as an upgrade for D80 owners as the D50 is meant as an upgrade for D40 owners.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>243859
>> Anonymous
>>243854
Megapixelzzz. Better high ISO performance is nice though.

>>243856
I think it is...

>>243859
I know. Was just sharing my thoughts...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
nikon called, they want their toy camera back
>> Anonymous
>>243864

First and foremost there's a new CMOS sensor, which Nikon claim produces D300 quality output at up to ISO 6400 and - one of several features to 'trickle down' from higher models - the same highly acclaimed 3.0-inch VGA screen as the D3/D300.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243860
These are incremental upgrades. Who the hell upgrades from a Rebel to a Rebel XT? Or a Rebel XT to a Rebel XTi? Or a 20D to a 30D? Same camera line, next model up, never has enough features to justify an upgrade. 20D to 40D, maybe. Rebel to Rebel XTi, maybe. XSi to 50D, sure. But D80 to D90 or 40D to 50D just doesn't make any sense.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243866
Ever shoot one-handed with a 40D for a long period of time? Even with a small lens like the 35/2, that's really rough on the wrists. My arm gets tired doing that pretty quickly, and I masturbate a *lot* so my right hand is probably stronger than most.

Making the camera smaller and lighter is in no way a bad thing.
>> Anonymous
>>243874
theres a difference between jacking off a lot, and holding something heavy out in front of you
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243875
My point stands. The D90 being smaller than the 40D is an advantage.
>> Anonymous
720p24 by itself is nothing special. A "movie mode" with a non shitty lens - oh my fucking god. Winner.

This is now the best sub 3k camcorder.
>> Anonymous
>>243854
I own the d200 and the d300. You can make the same exact pictures with either camera. If you can exceed the d200's technical limitations to the point where you're saying "shit, I need a d300", you're a god-level photographer, or you don't know what you're talking about.
>> Anonymous
>>243881

Yeah, it's the best.

With 5 minutes of footage, mono, no manual controls, motion JPG.

That's really the best video camera ever since the 1990s.
>> Anonymous
>>243877

you must be weak as a little girl to cry about 100 g, jesus
>> Anonymous
Guys my father bought me a 40d for about 2 weeks ago..
Im pretty new to photography but im learning quickly and I've already have people who wants me to take pictures of them or take photographic missions, when my profession is a whole other area. Anyway! The thing is that I wonder if im going to see any diffrence between the pictures of a 40D and the 50D?

Would I try to give back the camera to the store where my father bought it to buy a 50D or should I stay?
>> Anonymous
>>243883
then why the fuck did you bother getting the d300 you absolute fucking moron.

>>243478
facepalm.jpg


your a fucking fat idiot that doesnt have a single iota of comprehension of how lame the video mode will be on a dslr.
>> Anonymous
>>244033

It will be more expensive, but if you can get a 100% refund for the money without losses and don't mind adding the extra then go for it. Otherwise the differences are minimal. In actual use you won't see any magical difference in your photos because of a change in model. User skill, learning technical basics and artistic ability will matter far more. Good luck.

>>244040

He did say he was exaggerating. Still, we'll see what the video mode is like when its actually out there. It could be better than expected.
>> Anonymous
>>244043He did say he was exaggerating.

yeah.. after 10 people called him out for being a retard
>> Anonymous
god.. you are all fucking ASSHOLES.

fuck you all and your technicalities and your absolute bullshit.

the nikond90 is chillin, cause they incorporated video.
tell me what's wrong wit that
you're all fucking pieces of shit
>> Anonymous
Big deal, so they added video. Not a big surprise after they added Live View, and made it clear that the objective was a point-and-shoot with interchangeable lenses.

I almost think Nikon's purposely trying to make the D90 and anything below it seem as "consumer" as possible, to push enthusiasts and pros up toward the D300, D700 and D3.
>> Anonymous
I assure you, the movie mode in the D90 will be next-to-useless, and just a marketing gimmick (like most tag-line features on DSLRS). Sony is not going to let Nikon hurt it's video market with it's own sensors. On the other hand, since Nikon has put it on the D90, you can bet this feature will show up on other DSLR's. If their is a demand for the feature, that may lead to competition in the quality and utility of it. But, I won't be holding my breath for a DSLR that shoots in HDV, let alone something like AVC-Intra--Panasonic is the only camera maker utilizing that currently, and only on their broadcast gear--(that is intra-frame compression, not AVCHD crap).

The D90 will likely shoot a few minutes of severely compressed 720P footage, that wouldn't hold a candle to the HV30. Sony and Canon have nothing to be concerned about, and again, if there was an issue, Sony would just say, "yeah, not so much" and Nikon would put it's tail between it's legs, and bow down to it's master.
>> Anonymous
>>244056
>to push enthusiasts and pros up toward the D300, D700 and D3

This is not a bad thing. Unless:

1) The photographer can't afford anything better.
2) He or she ergonomically jives perfectly with the D60/90
3) He or she needs a body smaller than the 3/700

Then there's no reason not to go for one of those, which all have things to reccomend them over the D90:

D300 = Full coverage finder, old lenses will work
D700 = Larger format, larger/higher mag VF, old lenses will work
D3 = All the above, with the con that it's bulky and obtrusive and ugly.

And over the D60, of course, all of those plus the D90 have autofocus on non AF-S lenses, a larger VF (If I'm not mistaken, the VF on the D80 is the same as the D200, I assume the D90 will at least be the same size, though not full coverage, as the D300), and two control dials.
>> Anonymous
>>244063
Oh, I agree that the D40/60/90 are all toys, I'm just saying that it seems like Nikon is trying to make it as painfully obvious as possible.
>> Anonymous
>>243514

Yes, but theatrical movies have been shot in manual focus since their creation. They have some guy manning a focus wheel to adjust during conversations and changes of view.
>> Anonymous
>>244136
Yeah, I thought about responding to that, but decided to let it go. AF for video might have its uses, but really, do you want focus hunting showing up?

The guy who does that is called the First Assistant Camera (AC, in before /p/ jokes) or the focus puller, because, well, he pulls the focus. Pskaught has said he works as one as his job.
>> Anonymous
>>243810

They won't go up into 3 digits with their amateur cameras. it would be a D30.

Amateur: Dxx
Pro-Am: Dxxx
Pro: Dx
>> Anonymous
Guys, wtf? They D90 doesn't lose any image quality from having the video mode. It's just a convenience factor. With video mode on the same camera, you won't have to drag around another camera.
>> Anonymous
>>243806

Yeaaaaah for all extents and purposes ISO 200 is a much more convenient setting. ISO 200, f/8 and about 1/320s works great on a sunny day outdoors. You should be stopping down to around f/8 for almost all shots anyway, unless you need the extra speed.

I know so many people who shoot wide open with their kit lens at 1/2000 s and ask why their shots are soft when the shutter is so fast. It's not always about the speed, people!
>> Anonymous
>>244148

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Get the fuck out.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>244148
>>all extents and purposes
>>extents

And iso 200, f/8, and 1/320 at all times? Whuddafuck?
>> Anonymous
>>244149
>>244151

You're both morons.

>>244149
How?

>>244151
I didn't say all the time, I said on a bright sunny day. I like to shoot at f/8 because I do. At ISO 200 you'll find that according to the sunny 16 rule I should be shooting at 1/400s. My camera underexposes 1/3 stop so I shoot at 1/320. Understand now?

Jesus, people here are just getting dumber by the second.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>244152
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>244152
So you're the one shooting iso 200 on a "bright sunny day" and I'm the moron?

And don't pull the "wahh, I like shooting at f/8, its preference" card, because you said
>>"You should be stopping down to around f/8 for almost all shots anyway, unless you need the extra speed."
not
"I prefer to stop down to f/8 for almost all shots anyway, unless I need the extra speed"

Shooting at those settings constantly because that's what Sunny 16 says to do isn't smart, because you're completely limiting yourself. I prefer having more control over my DOF and exposure than that, thanks.
>> Anonymous
>>244158

Stop feeding the troll/moron.

He probably has a shitty camera like the D40 with a base ISO of 200 and can't do shit about it.
>> Anonymous
>>244161
I have a shitty camera like the original EOS 300D with a base ISO of 100. In fact that's what it is.

>>244158
I shoot quickly, and predominantly with a manual-focus 105mm lens. Stopping down to f/8 makes it easier to focus the lens with the crappy screen in the 300D, and shooting at 1/320 or thereabouts ensures that camera shake is a non-issue at those focal lengths.

If I stop down past f/11 or so, I start to see diffraction softness creep in. If I open up wider, it's hard to get the thing in focus fast enough.

If I want to have SUPER SAIYAN MEGA BOKEH then I open the lens up and shoot at a faster shutter speed, and even sometimes ZOMG reduce ISO.

My original point, which has been completely lost, is that the 1 stop difference in DoF that going from ISO 200 to 100 will give you is essentially pointless. Is there a detectable difference between f/2 and f/2.8? Yes. Does it matter? Not significantly. Even then, the only place this will make a difference is when you're already shooting at your maximum shutter speed, which is a pretty rare occurrence.

tl;dr ISO 200 as a baseline is hardly a handicap because it is perfectly usable in 99% of situations.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>244168
1.) there's absolutely no reason to use it as a baseline when 100 is available and your lighting is favorable.

2.) That's a pretty freaking long lens to use as your regular lens, dont you have a normal lens? Even still, if you need 1/320 then it sounds like you have Parkinsons. If your lens is 105mm, something like 1/125-1/200 should be reasonable.

When Im shooting film, I usually use 400 iso for the stopped-down aperture, but I dont do it by choice really; my Jupiter-3 is sort of misaligned and it has focusing issues with the rangefinder anything wider than 5.6
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>244172
iso 100 is not always true base iso.
>> Anonymous
>>244172
105mm isn't my normal lens -- I use a 35/2 for that. I find that 105mm (160 or something crop) is a perfect length for shooting people on the street without having to get in their face about it. I can stand about 20 feet away and get a good full-body shot of the person. Most everything else I use the 35.

If I'm out walking and see a shot, I'll be rapidly twisting both the aperture and focus wheels while bringing the camera up and composing the shot, and probably making the exposure before I've fully stopped walking. That tends to increase blur over the normal hand-held guidelines. 1/320 on a 160mm lens (equiv) works pretty well for me.
>> Anonymous
>>244174
>105mm, street
GET THE FUCK OUT. That makes for boring, bland, flat photos. Use your 30mm for street.
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>244176
lol, typical nazi "street" photog
>> Anonymous
>>244174
we're all very impressed
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>244173
I didnt say it was, just that it's more practical. Especially on a "bright sunny day".

>>244174
I almost made a joke in my other post along the lines of "please don't tell me you're shooting flat candids of people several yards away with a tele and calling it street"
But I apparently didn't need to make that joke...
=[

As far as the rapid twisting and movement causing blur; work on your form maybe? Personally, if Im carrying a camera with me, then I usually set my camera somewhere in the area of a proper exposure for the location long before I even see a shot, that way if I see something I want to take a picture of, it's as simple as lifting the camera, checking my focus (which I usually default to about 1.5 meters away), and snapping the shutter. Dont worry about getting in peoples faces, you're just shy, the most you will usually get is a "what was that for?" reaction after you take the picture, and by then you've already got a far more interesting picture than a flattened shot from 20 feet away.
>> Anonymous
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d90/en/d-movie/

If these are taken with a D90 how can you complain about the video image quality? Looks great to me
>> Anonymous
>>244194
Looks rather great. I hope we see soon this video feature properly implemented - full manual control, record "raw" video, more fps, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>244191
>I usually set my camera somewhere in the area of a proper exposure for the location long before I even see a shot, that way if I see something I want to take a picture of, it's as simple as lifting the camera, checking my focus... and snapping the shutter

Which is precisely what you're after him for. He likes more depth of field and longer lenses, but otherwise you do the same thing.

Also, unless you're working in a studio or shoot wide open all the time and are too lazy for an ND filter, higher base ISO is better. Shutter speed can go up much more easily than it can go down.

Also, the difference in quality between 100 and 200 is miniscule, and what's weird is you've never seemed like an IQfag before.

Lastly, keep in mind that pretty much everyone shooting this sort of thing for years shot Tri-X: ISO 400 Tri-X. I.e. "base ISO 400." He, or someone shooting with a camera with Base 200, are shooting at half that.
>> Anonymous
>>244199
Oh, HCB used Ilford instead, but he always used their ISO 400 film.
>> Anonymous
SD card and not CF? Oh lawrd
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244261
I love how the D50 thread gets it mocked for using CF instead of SD and the 90D thread gets it mocked for using SD instead of CF...

But yeah, Nikon has had SD on its lower-end cameras for a while now. The D80 used SD, too, so it would be weirder if they'd switched back to CF for the D90.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244263
>I love how the 50D thread gets it mocked for using CF instead of SD and the D90 thread gets it mocked for using SD instead of CF...
Fix'd, and fuck Nikon and Canon for having such similar naming schemes.
>> sage sage
sage for gear thread.
>> Anonymous
>>244273
sage for failed sage.
>> Anonymous
the only thing that annoys me more is the order in which nikon do it

at least with canon its 1d, 5d, x0d, x00d, x000d series
whats nikon? d3, d700, d100-300, d70-90, d40-60.. where the fuck did their order come from
>> Anonymous
>>244280

inb4ac lol im so smrat and post very obvious answers and feel good about it
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244280
>where the fuck did their order come from
Kinda makes sense when you look at it in historical context.

First there was the Nikon F, their first SLR. Then that begat the F2, F3, F4, F5, and F6 as their top-of-the-line cameras. When they started off with the digital SLRs, they had the D1 and D2 and now D3.

Below the single-digit Fs, they had the Nikon F90. When they made an upgraded version of that, the obvious way to go was the F100. Then they made a digital version of that and called it the D100, which begat the D200 and D300 and kinda the D700.

They made a camera that was a bit lower on the food chain than the D100, so they picked a lower number: D70. The upgrade to that was the D80, then the D90.

They also came out with a camera a bit worse than the D70, which they called the D50. Then they branched both low and high with that, giving us the cheaper D40 and the slightly less cheap D60.

So... basically there's no real pattern. They're picking the numbers as they go along using what seems logical at the time but without really thinking about leaving space for the next model number. Canon does this too (what happens after the EOS 90D?) but they've got a much longer way to go before it becomes a real issue.

>>244300
You know, I *do* feel good about it. I AM SO SMRAT YAAAAY!
>> Anonymous
And you just love the extreme marketing that goes into it.

D40x!! It's got a fucking "X"!! It's like, totally much much better than the D40! FUCK! And it's in DX format! It's a motherfucking awesome pair of letters!! Dee fucking Ex!!

And don't forget lol, CANON FUCKING REBEL BITCHTITS EXCESS EYE!! I can't wait for them to release the 60D into the American market the CANON DIGITAL RENEGADE DICKSHITTING NIPPLES!!
>> Anonymous
>>244347
The x designates a higher resolution sensor in the same model, like the s means it's a special version with a few upgrades but the same sensor. This is typical naming schemes for Japanese stuff that has more to do with "extra" and "special" than XTREME JAWSOME SHIZNIT.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>244199
The reason I went after him is that he stated matter-of-factly that his way was the correct way, and that you 'should' do it like him. And yeah, there's nothing wrong with doing it your own way, but with a bizarre technique, you don't need to tell people how they 'should' be shooting. And either way, 105mm for street is just...not a very good decision unless he has some amazing compositional skills and elements in his shots.

e.g. "You should be stopping down to around f/8 for almost all shots anyway, unless you need the extra speed."

>>Which is precisely what you're after him for. He likes more depth of field and longer lenses, but otherwise you do the same thing.

He was using focusing and changing shutter speed as his excuse for blur problems, if he is having to change his settings so often in one environment that he is causing himself to blur shots, then he should probably figure out an average to stick to, a lot easier to avoid fucking up shots like that. Besides, he's shooting at f/8, its not that hard to focus rapidly at f/8
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>244389
>This is typical naming schemes for Japanese stuff that has more to do with "extra" and "special"

They're not the only ones who do it. And it goes with my point that they want to bring attention to the XTRA or SPECIAL or COCKSUCK EDITION! Pic related, XFX 8800GTX OC FUCK.


sounds kinda like 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX
WHOAMG ACRONYMS!!
>> Anonymous
>>244397
So what should they call a D40 with a higher rez sensor without being OMFG EXTREMEJEEZ? Is there something wrong with a legitimate upgrade being labeled as a special edition? It's not like they're only upping the clocks 3% and throwing in GTX XXX OC FATAL1TY EDITION!
>> Anonymous
>>244347D40x!! It's got a fucking "X"!!
ITT: people getting upset over a single letter
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>244397
XFX = company
GTX = model
OC = overclocked

Whats so infuriating about that, everything is relevant. Same with the lens.
>> Anonymous
>>244397

It's actually fun the see people that calls "lol" a laugh raging about that.
>> Anonymous
>>244318
You forgot Nikon's "Ooops we screwed up on the d70 so here is the fixed version"

d70's
>> Anonymous
>>244347
no, you're a fucking idiot. The D40X is not "omg extreme marketing".

Nikon's pro lines follow the standard:

D#X = high resolution
D#H = high speed

So the D2X, the D2H, etc.

The D3 is currently really the D3H, since nikon has yet to release the D3X, but you should expect that soon.

The D40X just follows the same naming standard nikon always uses.

And dude, its a japanese company. They don't even know what the fuck "extreme" is. They speak japanese. Idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>244588
EKUSOTURIMO!!
>> Anonymous
>>244588
Of course, the REAL reason Nikon is using "D40X" is that they can't up the number to D50. I figure the next will either be a D40XS or a D45.

And I think "extreme", by the way, has worked itself, in severely mispronounced form, into everyday Japanese slang...
>> Anonymous
lawl, everyone's defending Nikon but not Canon. Can't really get around the whole Rebel thing.
>> Anonymous
>>244697

i guess you missed the 27 posts saying how the D90 is shit sucks except for LOL VIDEO LOL

enjoy covering up your ears
>> Anonymous
>>244698
I meant how everyone's getting behind Nikon on their naming scheme.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244701
>I meant how everyone's getting behind Nikon on their naming scheme.
>how everyone's getting behind Nikon
>everyone
See
>>244318
>>244347
>>244397
>>244531
>>244601
>> Anonymous
>>244601
No, the real reason they didn't call the D40x the D50 was because that it was just a special version of the D40. They didn't turn the D1x into the D2 or the D2x into the D3 even with plenty of naming room. See: D60.
>> Anonymous
>>244715
Yeah, but Nikon hasn't used the X designator on a camera below the D1/2/3 until now.

Also, they established D__S as an "upgraded" naming form for lower-end cameras with the D70S, so why not use that?
>> Anonymous
>>218629 Upgrading from Rebel to Rebel doesn't feel like much of an improvement.

As much as I like Canon, they are putting me in a bad position.

You've got your Rebel user, all fun and games.

You want to upgrade, you've got the $1,000 40D body.

Okay, good stuff. It doesn't have that many more features than the XSi but fine, it's faster and better than what the XSi does.

Great, what happens to someone who has a 20/30/40D?

You want to upgrade, you've got the $2,000 5D that is 3 years old. Sure, it's an oldie but a goodie, but it's still freaking 3 years old.

Or you've got the $4,500 1D or a $7,000 1Ds.

With the D700 and the upcoming D3x, Nikon will have a superior body than Canon at every single price point.

The D80 replacement will be better than the XSi.

The D300 is better than the 40D.

The D700 is better than the 5D.

The D3 is better than the 1D.

The D3x will probably be better than the 1Ds.

And that pains me a lot as a Canon guy that they've been slacking off so much for 3 years.

The last 3 bodies released are a joke. The 40D was less than spectacular. The XSi and XS are there for the low end.

The only reason I am still sticking with them is the unbeatable lens selection Canon still has. Which you will say matters a lot more than a full frame sensor with usable ISO 25,600, but hey, it's a fucking full frame sensor with usable ISO 25,600.

And that's just my rant.
>> Anonymous
>>244747
Thinking like a photo n00b, its the LENS that matters not much so the body, whats the point of getting a 1k 40D when you put a shitty 18-55 IS lens infront of it..
>> Anonymous
>>244798
The 18/55 IS isn't shitty, the non IS version is. It depends on your uses too. The 40D is faster, and therefore can be more appropriate for certain tasks regardless of lens.

Go bark up another tree, you're troll is showing.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244747
>You want to upgrade, you've got the $1,000 40D body.
You should update your copypasta. The D50 and 90D are announced now.

>Great, what happens to someone who has a 20/30/40D?
You keep frickin' shooting. I'm quite happy with my 40D. Would I like a 5DII when (if) such a thing ever actually gets released? Of course. Am I going to stay up at night worrying that I don't have a camera between the 40D and 5D that I can lust after? Nope.

>The D80 replacement will be better than the XSi.
And $300 more expensive
>The D300 is better than the 40D.
And $400 more expensive. Also, the D300 isn't *that* much better than the 40D, and the 50D closes that gap even further.
>The D700 is better than the 5D.
And $650 more expensive.
>The D3 is better than the 1D.
And $500 more expensive

Lets switch that around:
The XSi is better than the D60
The 40D is better than the D80
The 5D is better than the D300
The 1Ds Mk III is better than the D3

All of those Canon bodies are a bit more expensive than their Nikon counterpart, but no more so than the delta-price in your Nikon/Canon comparison.

Canon and Nikon bounce back and forth in SLR leadership. They have done so for decades. They are likely to continue doing so.
>> USMC Sergeant !SDPEsPMnww
>>244747
Copypasta
>> Anonymous
ITT: poorfags cry poor

my arsenal consists of 2x nikon D3's, loads of lenses, and i just ordered a canon 1ds mk3 and a 400mm (2.8) lens.

all of you. cry some more.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244820
What exactly were you hoping to accomplish with this?
>> Anonymous
>>243510
Lol, no one will use on-board audio. In productions, we almost never use on-board audio, unless the camera has XLR plugs, otherwise we'll just have a marantz synced up.

Movie mode on this is a great development. It will greatly rival high end HD cameras. Not because of it's features, but because of interchangeable lenses and a great DoF.

I'll be getting one depending on compression of movies. I might wait until a canon with movie mode comes along. CHDK + movie mode will probably make it a monster.
>> sage Anonymous
This is the longest thread I have seen on /p/... and its full of utter shit and gearfags. Also, before you come back, FUCK YOU AC

Thank you, showing us that gearfag topics will always be bumped ahead of photo c&c topics.
cocks, sage
>> Anonymous
>>244825
>>This is the longest thread I have seen on /p/...

lurkmoar before raging, newfag.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
Bump.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244825
>Thank you, showing us that gearfag topics will always be bumped ahead of photo c&c topics.
When was the last time you posted criticism more detailed than "shitsux" on someone else's picture?

When was the last time you started a picture thread?

And when was the last time you bumped a gear thread? Oh wait:
>08/29/08(Fri)06:57
>> sage sage
saaageee
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
Counter-sage
>> Anonymous
>>244739
"x" specifically designates an upgraded sensor. "s" was used on the D70 because there were just minor tweaks that involved neither the sensor or a significantly higher shooting speed.

They'd only used it TWICE, so it's not like they had some long history of keeping it pro only.
>> Anonymous
>>244823Lol, no one will use on-board audio. In productions, we almost never use on-board audio, unless the camera has XLR plugs, otherwise we'll just have a marantz synced up.

uh, how are you going to get external audio when the only audio you get from the camera is mono, oh wow let's get a whole external audio setup to record movies with our dslr camera

and by the time you buy all the fast lenses to get actual depth of field controls, you will have spent enough money to get an actual camera that does real video instead of this sorry excuse of HIGH DEFINITION MOVIE
>> Anonymous
Anyone who thinks this implementation of video technology into an entry level DSLR camera is a waste of time should not bother replying.

You have missed all the reasons on what makes it so good, the D90 is Nikon's best decision, even better than the D3, D700 or the D300...
>> Anonymous
>>244816You should update your copypasta. The D50 and 90D are announced now.

Um, doesn't change the fact the 40D is still $1,000, and bears little relevance to the 50D and D90 being announced.

>> You keep frickin' shooting. I'm quite happy with my 40D. Would I like a 5DII when (if) such a thing ever actually gets released? Of course. Am I going to stay up at night worrying that I don't have a camera between the 40D and 5D that I can lust after? Nope.

Uh, what? That is written for someone who actually needs to upgrade. What does someone who has a 20/30/40D do when he wants to upgrade? Do you understand this simple statement?

>> And $300 more expensive

Try $200. MSRP for XSi is $799 and the D90 is $999 for bodies.

But an easily justifiable $200. I'll note right now this is under the premise the buyer knows exactly what he's doing and not random Joe going in Best Buy.

For $200 more, you get an actual pentaprism, you get faster everything: processing, dual control wheels, image performance, superior AF. High resolution LCD screen and that gimped video recording.

And same thing for the rest. For a small premium you truly get a better camera for the serious photographer. And I think everyone can agree to that.

When you make your livelihood, you don't choose the brand that offers an equivalent, even similar system, you choose the brand that is a trustworthy and time-tested tool. Thus, Nikon. There are always distinctions to be made between Nikon and Canon, but I've often heard this statement, and I believe it: Canons are the best cameras made by engineers, but Nikons are the best cameras made by photographers. It's a generalization, but that feels very true to me.
>> Anonymous
>>244816They have done so for decades. They are likely to continue doing so.

Oh wow, I hate when people throw that "leapfrogging" expression around.

No, they have not been fucking bouncing back and forth for fucking decades. Are you fucking dense? Have you missed the last 30 years where Nikon stomped the shit out of Canon until they decided to risk it all with the EOS system?

Learn your history, guy.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244932
Hah, I almost responded to you, but then I got to the Heavyweather copypasta. Like I seriously had a logical response all typed out and everything. 8/10.

>>244933
>Have you missed the last 30 years where Nikon stomped the shit out of Canon until they decided to risk it all with the EOS system? Learn your history, guy.
So your thesis here is that they haven't been leapfrogging for decades, just for the last 20 years? Are you perhaps unaware of what the word 'decade' means?
>> Anonymous
>>245002So your thesis here is that they haven't been leapfrogging for decades, just for the last 20 years? Are you perhaps unaware of what the word 'decade' means?

Is it because I called you dense that you are raging so much you can't read properly? You know.. dense.. thick.. fat?

>> Have you missed the last 30 years where Nikon stomped the shit out of Canon until they decided to risk it all with the EOS system?

Are you perhaps unaware of what the words 'stomped the shit out of' mean?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>245003
Why do you even come to /p/? Is trolling really that much fun?
>> Anonymous
I called you dense and now I'm trolling?

Are you too much of a Canon fanboy that you can't accept the fact that Nikon was stomping the shit out of Canon for the last 30 years?

It's not big secret, everyone can enjoy the story of one of the greatest comebacks in history. Going from underdog to market leader is no joke.

They have not been "leapfrogging" for decades, I'm sorry if that's how you want to see the past as. I think everyone else can stay in real life.

I'm really offended you said I was a troll just because I don't agree with you and called you out for spouting bullshit. But you did that a few times already in this thread.
>> Anonymous
>>245008
>>245015
>>245003...etc

How can you even try fighting anonymously you failtards
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Holy fuck guys will you get over it. It wont matter when Sony start making high level cameras anyway.