Oops! Should've spotted that. Thanks Jim. Fixed now...

Thanks Richard. I hadn't noticed that... but then again my default position is to (at least) squat down anyway. I often end up lying on the floor. Even if it's muddy...'P

The ace up Canon's sleeve in the 'small, light but good quality' arena is the company's f/4 L lenses: pro quality but in a size and weight that's sane for carrying out and about. Nikon has no equivalent. What Nikon does have, though, and has had for some time, is reasonably small, light and tough dSLR bodies. The D200, D300 and D700 in particular are plenty rugged enough for adventure sports. But the DX bodies throw up another problem: Nikon hasn't invested enough in really high quality DX lenses. Pro DX users have needed a 50-135mm f/2.8 for, ooh, the past 5 years. Where is it, Nikon? I suspect the issue is limited resources and allocating them in a way that makes sense. Canon is a much, much bigger company than Nikon. In dSLR sales, Nikon punches way about its weight.

I wonder if Nikon has actually put any serious market research into how many D3s users actually use video (and how many D3 users want it)? I'll put money on it being a relatively small proportion of the user base. My issue is with the cost and design compromises necessary to build in a feature set that I suspect the majority of D4 owners don't need and won't use. Anyone who thinks there's a pot of untapped gold at the end of the video rainbow is in for a nasty surprise, too. Videographers have suffered in the same way that photographers have over the past decade: falling budgets, static or falling fees, increasing client expectations. Stills photographers who own a video-enabled dSLR might be able to use video as a value-added enticement for clients, for sure. But good video production remains time-intensive - and therefore expensive. Let's not forget that nearly £5k for a dSLR is a lot of money. 15 years ago an F5 was 1/3 of that, would probably last longer... and fees haven't gone up in the meantime. You do the math.

Hi Jon, The point? I suspect it's selling cameras :) Paradoxically, if the D800 does have that many pixels I reckon it'll keep demand (and prices) for used D700s high. I can see the point of 16-18mp, though - A3 will need little or no interpolation at 300dpi. But still. It's a very small hop up from the 12 we've already got.

Oops. Of course it's Patterdale. Corrected - and thanks for the heads up! I keep getting my 'dales mixed up...