Associate
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 1,348
Damn you! Now I feel like i'm being challenged lol but thanksIf they're as good as your still pictures, I'll look forward to them!!![]()

Damn you! Now I feel like i'm being challenged lol but thanksIf they're as good as your still pictures, I'll look forward to them!!![]()

No snobbey, we just don't want to pay for R&D on a feature that is already available elsewhere and also have it slow down the progress of the rest of the camera - which is the most important thing for me. For example, if say giving us autofocus on video capture is slowing down the release of a noise free ISO 6400, then I (and many other photographers) are going to be unimpressed.
There will never be the '£1k less option', because it doesn't cost £1k to include in the first place!!
They won't do the with/without option either I don't think, because that would involve added production schedule complexity and increase costs.
Good DSLR's will always be around, it's just that some of them will have HD video capability/GPS modules/Wireless Broadband/whatever capability. At their heart will always be the ability to take great pictures...
You watch what happens now...this time next year I'll be posting 'my latest video' threads lol!!
But a sensor designed for video is clearly not the same as one designed for still pictures.

Personally I would rather Canon / Nikon spent the £1k extra id be paying for HD video on better quality images, or iso performance etc.
Then buy a seperate video camera!


Any reason for the 13 month bump other than this fascinating insight?
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you're not exactly adding anything.
Just thought I'd pop back in this thread to say...I'm actually considering buying a 5DMKII to play with video whilst I wait for Nikon to get their act together, as I'm getting the video bugYou watch what happens now...this time next year I'll be posting 'my latest video' threads lol!!

