>Hi Perrone, > >My point was simply that a 192 mpx/second bandwidth camera >does not exist today in a Nikon camera. What they might be >able to do I don't think we are privy to so at least from my >point of view I assume "they can't or won't" until >they do. It is a big incremental step up.
Speaking of big steps...
>Even if they could do it in a D5 today, that does not mean >they would do it in a sub-$2000 D300 replacement camera. And >the fact that the replacement would likely not have an >integrated grip means that there is less internal real estate >to stuff the needed parts in. That could be a factor- we >can;t divine that but can only accept the possibility.
Well, the D800 was a pretty darn big step up, AND it was done against an $8k flagship. And it doesn't have an integrated grip. Six months ago, the idea of a 36MP camera in the D700/D300 sized body was ludicrous. Today, it's a welcome reality.
>I know there is a 12 fps/24mpx camera out there but it is not >a Nikon camera and is a bit different. I know you believe the >D4 has "only" 16 mpx because the sports market >doesn't want it but I'm not convinced. There is no other >market segment that has said "I don't want as many pixels >as you can give me". We just have to disagree on that.
You didn't hear that from me. I'm the guy waiting on the D400 with 24MP, and I'm the guy shooting sports on the D800.
>A lot of people here yawned over the D4's 16mpx.
Yep, I was one of them. I said I'd buy it at anything 20 or over. Didn't happen, I cancelled my order, D800 was announced shortly thereafter, and I put my money down.
>If it had >been 20 or 24 there would be far more upgrading going on. As >it is a lot of people will stick with their D3's since there >is no huge increase in low noise performance and the >resolution is not game changing.
Exactly where I am. My pair of D3s are very comfy right now. Unless that 24MP D400 gets announced.
>>> I don't disagree that we cannot keep increasing >resolution in large jumps, but I think it will continue, and I >don't think it's a matter of "not thinking it >through". > >Actually I'm suggesting they *can* increase resolution in >substantial jumps. But that does not mean bandwidth can >necessarily keep up. The day may come when buyers have to >trade quantity (fps) for quality (resolution). I don't think >the market is quite ready to do that yet but some day it will >simply have to (in my opinion).
The success of the D800 seems to fly in the face of your argument.