... Who is going to get this without a battery grip? No person that I know of.
Thom Hogan believes Galen Rowell would have made that transition with the D200. I imagine the D3 would have been a harder sell for Galen because of the larger body and that he would have heartily welcomed the D300.Someone like Galen Rowell might have made the move to digital for a camera like this.
I already own 3 1.4 primes (but I do wish they'd update them)I don't hear about wanting 28 to be 28. Could be 27 or 29, no matter. I agree with you a lens is just a tool. With FX v DX there is the trade off between wide angle lenses and telephoto lenses. But the limited DOF is not a non issue. You may not need less DOF with a 1.4 prime, but you don't get 1.4 zooms. Lenses like the 24/28-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 will really benefit from the ability to have shallower DOF (for same distance to object and field of view).
wow are you wrong on this one Gary....Anybody here think this blending of two cameras is a little like what Fuji did with the S5?
To offer a sensor that is the same after a camera has been out using that sensor for 18 months is foolish in today's fast paced technology marketplace. If this offering would have been 14 or 16 or 18MP, then it would grab some headlines.
I think this effort to make another D3 in a smaller D300 body with the same old sensor is an error in judgment. And the viewfinder is only 95%!
From what I see released so far about this camera, it does not offer up anything not already offered on the two flagship cameras it offers now except less viewfinder.
So why the Momma bear offering?
Who is going to get this without a battery grip? No person that I know of. So once you saddle this with a grip, you have a $3500 camera. Once you add D3 batteries and a charger, you now have $3800. The D3 will be at $3995 in a month, it is already below $4500.
So to save a hundred bucks or a few hundred bucks, people are going to order a two piece body, striped down version of the D3?
Not me! Not interested. Give me the 24MP offering hinted at over the past months. I don't want a compromise camera that tries to do everything to everybody.
Nikon, IMHO, this offering is a fairytale straight out of the three bears. I'll keep my D3 & D300!
The original post is what i was expecting to eventually hear from some D3 users that might not need all the D3 has to offer over a D700.
Most who could, bought the D3 for low-loise work or just plain and simply lower-noise, some for it being full-frame...the 9 FPS, 300.000 shutter cycle, dual-card slot or integrated grip are a well payed bonus which make more sense on the hands of actual working PJ's or sports photogs.
The introduction of a D700 will make some very happy (those who skipped the D300 and waited for a D700, those who got a D300 but couldn't afford a D3) or those who wanted full frame and still have a D2X on their bags.
To some D3 owners (with the exception of working pro's), this annoucement might have a bitter taste since they bought an awesome but very expensive camera recently and most likely a D700 would do just fine for most of their applications. It's how this works....always....remember the D200 vs D2X...lots of complaints from D2 owners...or even D300 vs D2Xs.....now it's all about justifying how much better a D3 can be over a D700....enjoy your camera without feeling the need to diminish what seems like another awesome piece of kit from Nikon, which will allow much more Nikon shooters the access to the same IQ that fewer are already enjoying on their D3's.
P.S: i'm not planning on getting a D700 anytime soon...:tongue: