What good is a Porsche in NZ..there are all of those dam* sheep on the roads.*g*
Steve
Well, for starters, it's still a Porsche, and therefore handles better, so you could whiz around the sheep easier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Except get you to your destination safely; perhaps more safely.
Nonsense. All of the safety features favor the Porsche ... well, unless you are driving a silver Porsche too fast at dusk like James Dean ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you still shooting with a P&S? That's the photographic equivalent of a small station wagon with a 4 cylinder engine.
True, but in the camera world I am still just a student driver
We could also start discussing putting a lousy driver in a Porsche and having him race against a professional race car driver in a Mazda -- but then we might need to discuss the gas they put in the cars, the tires they drove on, the road conditions, etc, etc -- but that would all be nonsense as it relates to whether a D3x is worth $5000 more than an A900.
All could be parallels drawn, actually. However, when you put equally-talented drivers in the Mazda and the Porsche, it won't be the Mazda winning the race
That's what why I said I didn't want to overstretch the metaphor.
Are we over-stretching the metaphor---or missing the point? The Porsche costs more because it is a better car, on every level, except economy. And I would venture to guess that the Nikon D3x will be a better camera in every way than the Sony, except for those who can't afford it (or who just don't want to go that high-end).
As for the A900 compared to a hypothetical D700x or an actual D3x; at or near base ISO using optimal technique and skills there will be very little to distinguish them from one another in landscape and nature photography.
Sure, just like sitting in traffic, or calmly put-putting down the street, there will be little to distinguish the Porsche from the Mazda (except look and feel). However, I would imagine that when called upon to "push the limits" the metaphor will again apply when a person will now be able to see where that extra money's going ...
As Thom Hogan wrote today: either the A900 is underpriced, the D3x is overpriced, or Nikon has spent $1000 making the D3x sensor better than the A900 sensor upon which the D3x sensor is based -- and that last possibility is highly dubious.
I don't know why it is "highly dubious" at all. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but my money is betting that there will be a lot of "oohs" and "aahs" when it comes to nut-cuttin' time and the comparisons are made, just as there was when the D300 came out, and just as there was when the D3 came out. In both cases, Nikon delivered and justified its price.
Jack
.