I don't see any specs other than 1.5x FOV crop, black body and no metering with manual lenses. They seem to say that Nikon has not made public the specs on the image sensor or the kit lens for it. Are there more details that I'm not seeing?
Got me. Keep in mind the "specs" were written by a third party (not Nikon) *before* yesterday's "announcement" so they may not even be completely correct. Take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt
It would seem from the little bit of hard data plus speculation that the D70 will be the digital N75 much as the D100 is the digital N80. I think the make or break issue for most of us enthusiasts will be if it is set up with all the auto modes like the N75. If it does, and it probably will in order to compete with the digital Rebel, most of us, at least me, will probably not be all that interested and will wait for the next better version of the D100 or a D2X. Right?
However, I am _thrilled_ to see Nikon releasing such a camera. It reassures me that they are still in the game and that I can expect significant progress from Nikon, albeit never as quickly as I wish.
The pressure (desire) to go digital builds everyday. Even though the D2 does not inspire me personally because of its MP figures, I am impressed with the body in general. I feel like I'm getting to the point where a pro, F5 type, body is becoming more appealing to me. If I can get that type of body, which the D2 seems to be, and 6 or 8 MP I might be ready to take the high dollar plunge. That being said, if there was a successor to the D100 with better meter, AF improvements etc, and about the same price as the original D100, I'd probably be just as happy. Can't wait to see what happens.
The MP count on the D2h doesn't bother me in the least, having seen the output the camera can produce. At 4.2MP, the images it produces can easily compete with those produced by the 6MP D100 when seen on screen or printed to A3 size (how many people print larger often enough for that to be an issue, and be honest here...?).
The only thing that puts me off from buying one (and I until lately thought I'd never go digital unless it was at least a 10MP sensor) is the €4000 pricetag.
any size is fullframe for a given definition of frame
The MP count on the D2 bothers me tremendously. If it does this magic with 4MP (which I'm very skeptical about but trust the judgement of those Nikonians who have actually seen it), what then with 6 or 8? And for $3000+ that's what I want. Stick the 4MP sensor and processor in a D100, swear that it looks as good as 6 and then I'd say fine. But if I'm going to get a top of the line camera I want _TOP_ of the line pixel count.
And just to qualify, since such statements frequently get D2 fans in a tizzy, 1) I know this camera has a niche audience and I get it, 2) I'm not asking for 12 or 15 MP, 6 or 8 would be very convincing for me 3) I'm not comparing it to _anything_ else. When the time comes, I'll be willing to pay the price for an 8MP D2X given the same processing capabilities.
Well, the low-ish 4MP count on the D2h is a technical compromise IMHO because the D2h is designed for speed rather than resolution. Similarly, the D2x will have higher resolutions but lower frame rates (as we can all probably surmise). I don't believe Nikon willingly chose a 4MP sensor but rather was forced due to technical limitations.
I'm technically ignorant in such matters but it seems to me that the answer to that problem would be to give the user a choice. Start with 8 MP. If you want a high frame rate then choose a lower resolution. If you want all 8 then deal with the slower frame rate. But this may be more technically difficult than it seems.
But, if the D2X is 8 MP with all else (besides frame rate) being the same (and roughly the same price (fingers crossed)), I'll get one. Even if I have to knock off a liquor store or sell one of the children.