>Are people who use these lenses uninterested in a DX camera >with more of a pro build? Nikon seems to think that a smaller >sensor means a more down-scale market, if their Nikon 1 >cameras are any evidence.
Hey, I have a 1V1. I even took it birding! So there!
>But look at some M4/3 cameras like >the new Olympus OM-D, and the high-end lenses Olympus and >Panasonic are marketing for their M4/3 cameras. I'm not sure >who understands the market better, but if there's anything to >the M4/3 strategy, that would suggest that there is also a >market for higher-end DX.
The m4/3 industry was built by the video guys. Particularly the Panasonc Lumix series. It solved a LOT of early problems for us in the movie game that we had with the 5D. Other manufacturers and lens companies took note and it really has taken off well. For those unaware, m4/3 cameras can mount practically ANY legacy lenses. Including real cinema lenses.
>Which would imply a D400. Also, >I'd think Nikon would want to have this product just to >compete with Canon's 7D.
This was my thinking as well. The 7D has been kicking Nikon's butt for a while now. The D7000 was a nice answer, but not quite up to 7D standards in terms of performance. At least for my shooting.
>I've heard the idea that Nikon's FX cameras are an upgrade >path from their entry-level DX models, but that is at best >partially true because Nikon sells those cameras with DX >lenses that are only semi-functional on FX. So, if you have a >bunch of DX lenses you're not much more compatible with a D800 >than you are with a Canon 5D. It's not an upgrade path if the >stuff you have now doesn't work with the stuff they want you >to upgrade to; it's a whole new system.
Well, I can and have mounted DX glass on my FX cameras. And have shot with them. However, I've never purchased DX glass outright because that just seemed like a dead end. The only time I'd want DX glass on a DX body would be for getting WIDE. Once you get past 24mm or so, FX glass comes into play and can do it all, and usually with better quality.
On the Canon side, the APS-C glass is mechanically engineered NOT to fit on their full frame offerings. It simply will not physically mount. To me, that's a whole other level of incompatibility. And a very Canon one.
>But for many purposes DX gets >great image quality, and there are trade-offs in size, weight, >and cost that make it attractive to some.
Yep, that's why I have a V1. Just wish Nikon would have given me a connection for my pocketwizard for it.
>Lots of people >justified their desire for a D400 just by saying "I want >one," and that's reason enough for Nikon to make one (if >enough people actually want one).
I'm still interested in one. Not every environment I shoot it is as bad as that night soccer game. The sand volleyball, and daytime soccer games have pretty nice light.