Quote:
Originally Posted by
GQgeek 
I'm glad i didn't buy in back them. Thankfully we're at a point where the technology is extremely good and will advance a little more slowly now (so less temptation to constantly upgrade).
I think you're right about the advance rate, at least functionally for most photogs. It's like computers now -- you don't need a seriously trick box to run Word, Photoshop, whatever. Then again, there people who lay up eight-CPU boxes for weeks.
My motto is to get a camera that does what you need and don't worry about it. The E-10 did that for me for a loooong time, and I'm so glad I bought it for all the fun I've had. It's now time to move on and I'm looking for a D200 to use all my better Nikkor glass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GQgeek 
Not in 3 years. The MP race is slowing down. Nikon just released it's new $5,000 pro-level D3 and it only has 12.1MP, which isn't an increase from the D300.
Nikon could have easily put more photosites on their D3 sensor but they made a wise design decision that they would rather have larger photosites and less noise at higher ISOs. The D3 is the new low light king, ousting Canon from an area they have dominated for a long time.
Bear in mind that Nikon have always been MP conservative on their top-end DSLRs. The D1 had a pathetically low MP count compared to their consumer cameras, as did the D1x when it came out. While I think you are correct generally, I don't think the D3's seemingly low MP count supports it, that's just Nikon's way for whatever reason.
~ Huntsman