I think last time I said something about nikon lenses you said i was an idiot. but, so be it--I'll play on this one. I would buy the camera if one of mine where to magically disappear and I needed a replacement. (I have two D3 models). Sensor cleaning just isn't a big deal for me as I have shot the heck out of mine and manage to keep the sensor's fairly clean with an occasional blast from my big rubber blower thing. CA might be an issue, but can't you fix it in photoshop for the rare occasion it's a problem? I did an NHL game last night and 2500 ISO was all I needed. I have gone to 5000 with my current D3 and all is good enough for the editors. I would like the larger buffer though. If I want to do video--I'll rent a video camera.
At some point a D4 will show up with all of the D3s features but more mega pixels to stay up with the new Canon. At that point I probably will pull out the credit card. I really want these D3 models I have to pay for themselves first. The biggest problem I have with Nikon is the lens situation: the long primes are priced too high compared to canon; the pro zooms (14-24 and 24-70) are fickle in their construction--too much plastic leads to repairs; and as noted, poor fast primes in the lower ranges.
Hmm, I don't believe I've ever called anyone an idiot except perhaps myself. Could you point to the post where I did, and I'll issue a public apology immediately.
Your points concerning the camera are all well taken.
When I did have a D3, I also never found dust to be an issue either, and an occasional application of the Arctic Butterfly took care of any that did get in.
The high ISO performance is one I go back-and-forth on continuously. It seems that attribute has replaced meg count as the new "arms race" for the camera makers.
But your real world experience tends to mirror my own. One of the exercises I suggest in an article on Wedding and Event equipment is to study the exif data from a number of folders to see what you are really using as opposed to what you think you need. I found my ISOs overwhelmingly bunched up in the 500 to 1250 area ... which most any modern DSLR can handle these days. In short, I rarely used the best attribute of the D3.
I also agree that the lens situation is Nikon's weakest attraction. However, so far, the new AFS zooms seem to be holding up far better than the Canon counterparts I previously used ... especially the much relied upon 24-70. I had my Canon version break on the job 2 different times, and a replacement break with-in the first month. Pricing on all Pro level lenses has become breathtakingly high. The new 70-200/2.8 VR-II is estimated at well over $2,000. Outrageous!
No joy from Nikon concerning updated or new fast primes either. For my work, the manual focus Zeiss lenses aren't an option. I didn't pay for a state-of-the-art AF camera to send it back to the 1950's in performance.
If Nikon could have managed to keep the current D3s ISO performance to ISO 5000, while increasing the meg count a little bit more (like 16-18 meg), it would have been of more interest to me.
I do hope the camera makers start to think more of useful features other than meg count and ever higher ISO claims.
The "rumored" new Sony flagship camera not only boasts 34.8 meg .... more importantly it allegedly provides a 1/12,000 top shutter speed with a true sync speed of 1/1000.
Both of which I most certainly could use in my line of work it the spec's are true. For what I do, Alpha mount Zeiss AF lenses are not an issue ... and while Sony has stalled further lenses in the line-up it may well be due to the impending launch of this new camera. We'll see.
-Marc
