Free: Contests & Raffles.
16 megapixels and aps-H. Nothing revolutionary but looks like a good camera. I'm surprised it is only 10 fps. I think the latest D300S from Nikon is doing 12 fps. However, that's 12 fps at 12 megapixels vs 10 fps at 16 megapixels. I think I would rather have the extra megapixels but if I was a sports shooter I'm not so sure... There better not be any autofocus problems like the Mark III...
Quote from: popeshawnpaul on October 20, 2009, 01:08:49 PM16 megapixels and aps-H. Nothing revolutionary but looks like a good camera. I'm surprised it is only 10 fps. I think the latest D300S from Nikon is doing 12 fps. However, that's 12 fps at 12 megapixels vs 10 fps at 16 megapixels. I think I would rather have the extra megapixels but if I was a sports shooter I'm not so sure... There better not be any autofocus problems like the Mark III...I will always, or should I say prefer the full frame, and a crop for the second body.All that aside, being in my profession, just look at the quality of the video. Insane!By the way, it's $5k.