Friday, 24 August 2007
Nikon sent me their publicity for their new D300 camera. I frequently use Nikon cameras and think they are excellent; even the base-line D40 is a very good piece of kit. As the cameras get bigger numbers they get more expensive, except for the ones with only one number which are REALLY expensive.
I think the D300 is really the souped-up D200 with a new wibbulator to shake dust off the sensor when lenses are changed and better waterproofing than the cling-film that I sometimes use on my Nikons. There's some new LiveView preview technology for when the mirror is up, though I'm so used to SLRs that I'm not sure whether this is slightly like a consumer feature. They have also added an HDMI output for links to HD televisions, though I don't think I'd use one of the HDMI slots on my television for an SLR feed.
They also announced an eye-watering D3 (one digit, so pricey), which is really for folk of the press. To be honest, I find the intermediate cameras more useful for my type of photography. The really expensive ones have big built in battery compartments and bulk which equates to weight. Not as easy to wrap up in a T-shirt and chuck into a backpack.
I see that DX and FX are now the designations for the size of the capture areas in SLRs. DX is the smaller size used by most digital and FX is a bigger format like 35mm film. Of course there needs to be a bigger and bulkier lens for the FX format, so I guess thats where the press end of the market is headed.
The dichotomy is that sometimes its better not to look too professional when out with a camera, because it can either put people off or even prevent entry to some things (has happened to me). On other occasions, a super-duper camera is what's needed to 'look the part' like when were hyping the Warhol production in Edinburgh. Big lenses equated to 'press interest'.
I still believe its finding the shot rather than the camera, and there are some excellent people on flickr who prove this time and again.
Posted by rashbre at 17:14