1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

If the D90 can do video the D300 should also be capable of it too,

Discussion in 'Nikon DX DSLR Forum' started by thrdprophet, Aug 27, 2008.

  1. thrdprophet

    thrdprophet

    684
    May 13, 2007
    Modesto, CA
    I don't see why the D300 can not do video like the D90.

    They both have simular sensors in that it is both CMOS, capable of live view. The hardware for it is already in the D300. However I wonder if Nikon has something down it's sleeves for a software upgrade for the D300/D700/D3 (x) to do video.

    The video might be limited but creativity behind the camera matters most. Also if one has a telephoto lens one can basically record some really nice wildlife from a distance... 24fps is much faster than eh hum 11fps.

    Anythoughts?
     
  2. mattsteg

    mattsteg

    455
    Aug 10, 2007
    MN
    Similar isn't same. It's quite possible (and rather likely) that a few specific new hardware features were needed to implement video. I'd hold more hope for a D300 refresh than for a firmware upgrade.
     
  3. thrdprophet

    thrdprophet

    684
    May 13, 2007
    Modesto, CA
    Yea I figure, but a D300 refresh just for video though? I have a feeling the D300 will be around for a while w/out any refreshes.

    They have almost every segment filled except pro studio right now.

    D40, beginner on a budjet making minimum wage
    D60, beginner on a budjet making 11-15 bucks an hour
    D90, amatuer (s) that makes more than enough to get by
    D300, the enthusiast that cares about not only IQ but also build Q
    D700, same as above, but loves wide and high ISO, $hould be no issue
    D3, The professional or just rich amatuer's that are on the cafe a lot
    D3X, MIA (for now)
     
  4. jafo

    jafo

    238
    Jun 11, 2008
    Chatsworth, CA
    You think they could implement video without dedicated video circuitry and chips to encode video? You have to be kidding, right?
     
  5. mattsteg

    mattsteg

    455
    Aug 10, 2007
    MN
    Well, such a refresh could potentially be as simple as swapping in an updated chip and adding a mic. I agree that I wouldn't expect a refresh soon (and certainly not a big one) but a D300s that adds D-movie isn't outside of the realm of possibility. Heck, what changed for the D-70s? Screen size and a firmware update, iirc.

    I'm somewhat torn between lusting for the D90 and D300 at this point. Both offer stuff I'd really like to have.
     
  6. sambru

    sambru In Memoriam 1957-2014

    What's with the video craze? I personally don't want a camera with video. I have Panasonic P&S & a cell phone with video and never ever used that option. My D300 is just great the way it is.
     
  7. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    me either,
    but apparently many do
     
  8. jeremyInMT

    jeremyInMT Guest

    Novelty, baby!!! yeah!!!

    I stopped to think about this as well and without AF for video, it's a little on the crappy side IMO.
     
  9. mattsteg

    mattsteg

    455
    Aug 10, 2007
    MN
    Live view requires a certain amount of video circuitry. The encoding used is (m)jpeg - a format that the existing processor is obviously good at compressing. It's not *that* ridiculous of an idea.
    I'd venture a guess that 720p HD video captured by a DX-size sensor is a wee bit different from what you'd capture with a cell phone or P&S. The craze is due to the feature putting cinematographic capabilities that formerly cost (tens of?) thousands on their own into a sub-thousand dollar camera body that just about everyone here already has glass for. That's pretty substantial.

    The way I see it, a lot of people are interested in capturing high-quality images, still or moving. In many cases the cost to get good video equipment, especially stuff that offers similar control and capability to what they've been spoiled with shooting DSLRs, was previously so high as to put things pretty much out of reach for most people. That could well mean a lot of pent-up demand for such a beast is out there.
     
  10. thrdprophet

    thrdprophet

    684
    May 13, 2007
    Modesto, CA
    Not kidding persay, but Nikon might have something hidden in the D300/D3's that maybe they will relveal later on... HIGHLY UNLIKELY but at any rate just a thought.

    I was a former video game nut and had many consoles through time and many of the old consoles had hidden hardware for future applications. Which was hidden from public knowledge.

    I highly doubt it is the same for the DSLR world
     
  11. thrdprophet

    thrdprophet

    684
    May 13, 2007
    Modesto, CA

    The difference between a 5,000 dollar HD cam you can buy at a camera store and a D90?

    YOU CAN USE NIKON LENSES!!!!!!

    Think of the wide, the tele on HD???? you can't touch that though with ANY HD cam under 4-5 Grand PERIOD.
     
  12. Nikon is in the business of selling cameras. They are not going to make a do-it-all camera; that would put them out of business. The D90 will give us basic video capability. The D110 will up it to 1081i; the D120 will add audio input jack and full frame.
    The D800 will have more megapixels and 1080i but won't add the audio input. That will be on the D4, which won't have the incredible 20-stop dynamic range of the D5, which won't have video capability. That will be on the D6.

    And so it goes ... and before you know it, your life is over trying to keep up with the DSLR game.
     
  13. RGB Bob

    RGB Bob Guest

    I'd never want my D700 or D300 to do video. That's what I have a video camera for.
     
  14. thrdprophet

    thrdprophet

    684
    May 13, 2007
    Modesto, CA
    I bet you can't mount a 70-200 on your video camera, or a 400 2.8 either... or a 10mm fisheye...

    I have an HD cam myself... but it does not have Nikon Optic Capabilities.
     
  15. iLLMaCK

    iLLMaCK Guest

    who buys a dslr for video anyways?
    i think it's pointless
     
  16. Leif

    Leif

    Feb 12, 2006
    England
    I know from first hand experience that when a company is developing a new product, the design team come up with huge numbers of wizzy features and neat ideas. Only some of these make it to the product stage. The reason for this is simply cost and time constraints. Basically you work in a competitive market, and each feature takes up resources. And price is important if you want the product to sell. Sometimes it is just ROM (read only memory) or equivalent, and costs limit the amount of memory. Sometimes the feature needs new circuitry, and there is not enough time to design and test it. Sometimes the extra feature would take the cost beyond budget.

    My guess is that the D300 was quite a step up from the D200, and they thought that video was more of a consumer feature, and of less interest to serious amateurs and pros. I also suspect that the D90 is largely based on the D300, so they already had the basic platform, and so it was not so hard to go on and add video.
     
  17. Leif

    Leif

    Feb 12, 2006
    England
    Me too. But I suspect many people will disagree with us. And I suspect it will sell well. (Well, that is not such a hard prediction to make these days given Nikon sales. :redface:) 
     
  18. Zee71

    Zee71

    Apr 1, 2007
    Queens, NY
    I could care less about whether my camera can do video! I'm into photography, if I wanted to do video, I would have gotten a video camera instead.
     
  19. isayx3

    isayx3

    Apr 12, 2008
    Corona, Ca
    People use digital camcorders right? Now imagine HD video what works with all your lenses...You can get DOF/wideangle/macro shots that you could never get even with a $1000 sony digital video camera.
     
  20. mattsteg

    mattsteg

    455
    Aug 10, 2007
    MN
    What if your D700 or D300 could do the job better? Heck, what if the D90 can do it better?
    Well, obviously up until this point, no one (other than people doing time-lapse stuff).

    It'd be pointless (other than for sales) if the quality was terrible, but from all appearances that is not the case. Instead, it's offering capabilities currently not available except for thousands of dollars more. If anything, the lack of a consumer-friendly feature like AF while taking video points towards a focus more on cinematographic videography than pedestrian feature checklist filling. As it is, it fills a niche that hasn't been touched, and that niche could well be extremely profitable as it brings some pretty exciting capabilities to a price point that they previously did not approach.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.