I really do not know if there is such thing as the holy grail of cameras – what I can say is that if I were doing an assignment like the one I highlighted I would probably not want to use my big giant pro body with my big giant pro zoom lenses.

I personally miss having something really small and unobtrusive that can produce fantastic quality (technically and aesthetically) in low light. In other situations focal length flexibility, speed, and being able to make a lot of shots in a hurry is better. I think I mentioned that the D700 and a smallish prime might be the best answer but I would bet people would kill to buy a reasonably priced full frame sensor RF sized camera with M-mount lenses or there about.

RB

I’ve only been serious about photography for the past few years, but if size and portability were key factors in designing a journalism-type camera, why have all the pro bodies gotten physically larger from both Canon and Nikon? Surely the outcry for performance and portability is not a recent trend among journalism pros. I can’t see Canon and Nikon simply ignoring a market segment driven by professional photographers, but this appears to be the case.

The D700 without grip doesn’t look too much bigger than the original Nikon F. Nikon seems to be ignoring potential in the D300/D700 by not offering at least a few small, fast primes as you point out. It may weigh more physically, but I guess that could be offset by not having to carry rolls of film and keep up with what has been shot and what hasn’t.

Thanks also for your brief but direct comments about the new 4-3 cameras.