Here are a few questions. These are real, unloaded, non-rhetorical questions coming from a position of relative ignorance. As a preface, or post-preface preface, what I am interested in is how to judge digital cameras. To me the current ideal would be a 5 megapixel slr that uses my current lenses (late model AF lenses with CPU) and costs around $1000 US. Well the CP5000 has 5 megapixels and costs around $1000. The D1 has a bunch of pixels too, uses F mount lenses but costs a lot more than a grand.
The questions are:
1) Do you need expensive Nikon F mount lenses for 5 megapixel CCDs? Isn't it overkill? Can the CCD record the extra sharpness you get from a high end Nikkor? Or do the little lenses made for the digital cameras work just as well? And how much do they cost? What variety do you have with them?
2) Is SLR technology that necessary for a digital camera? I know LCDs are hard to see in bright light. When you get a D1 is it the SLR configuration and the lens choice that accounts for the huge price difference?
3) Why is Nikon neglecting the middle ground? Wouldn't it be smart to make a $1000 consumer/amatuer SLR digital that keeps interest up in their extensive line of F mount lenses? As it is now the D1 is way out of reach for your typical consumer/serious amatuer and the CP5000 is pushing into that segment with its 5 megapixels and price. I don't get it, but that is why I'm asking. They, and many others, must know something I don't. Maybe the SLR configuration is an unecessary throwback and F mount Nikon lenses are not necessary to improve digital imaging. As film cameras become less popular wouldn't it be smart for Nikon to maintain their already designed and produced Nikon F mounts rather than establishing a whole new line of digiatl lenses. Will ditial photography mark the end of the F mount?Thoughts?