>I look at all of the new camera bodies that Nikon has >introduced over the last eight or so months and it seems each >is lacking a feature or two.
And this differs from the past 50 years of cameras how?
>Or has something that you don't >want. Example, D800, pixel count way too high. I think it >would sell much better at 24 megapixels.
Too many megapixels for who? I want 50MP. Hell I'd take 100 if they look as good as my D800 does.
>D600, a cheap compact >body, overpriced with good features.
Funny, my D600 doesn't feel cheap. Certainly feels better than anythin Canon puts out that doesnt start with the number "1" in the name. Not to mention the image quality SLAUGHTERS my D3s.
D3200, D5200, more >pixcels then they need for low end bodies.
Consumers buy Megapixels. The iPhone 5 has the same megapixels as the D200 and Nikon 1. Consumers "get" that.
>D7100, buffer to >small.
For what? Hell I shoot college sports and have never run out of buffer. D800, D7000, D200, whatever.
>Why does Nikon do this, what are these designers >thinking about when they create these bodies.
Designers think about all the same things you do. Engineers think about the things Stan and I do. The CEO thinks about how to make money. Awesome how that works.
>If I were going >FX I would have loved to buy a D800, but for openners it's >frames per second is to slow and as I said the pixel count is >way to high. I've handled the D600. It felt like my D70s >from years ago or my D90 backup to my D300. I'm not about to >run out and buy the latest model just to have it. It has to >have what I want and so far each of these bodies falls short >in some way or form.
And the camera you have now doesn't fall short in any way?