The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

D4s... I hate this

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I think you're a bit unfair here, Guy. In my case, I pointed out that an EVF is a disadvantage for some kinds of sport. I've tried it countless times the last 4 years, and an optical viewfinder is far superior. I couldn't care less about the fps, but I know it's important to many. I never use more than 5fps anyway and more often than not I'm on single shots, also for sports. Manual focus lenses too, even a 500mm mirror. But I mostly prefer what has now become a "traditional" form factor, which is one of the reasons for using Panasonic, even after 30 years with Olympus OM. I thought I wanted to go back to that shape, but for work, I don't.

Why Sony is here should be obvious. They have launched a camera that is suitable for lots of professional uses, but has a totally different form factor than what has been dominant for more than 20 years, different viewfinder and different ergonomics. It's interesting to discuss where the limitations are, which style of camera is suitable for what kind of work. Obviously that will change as technology evolves, but that shouldn't stop us from discussing what is available at the moment and how they compare.

I do shoot sports with all kinds of old and new cameras, if I have time and no obligations. But if I'm at a car race and someone pays me to take photos of a certain car, I must use the gear that is the most suitable. That car might crash on the second lap, so I must assume that I have only one chance. The perfect camera to get that shot would be the D4s, but since I can't afford that, the D2Xs does the job beautifully. I would love to have something that was half the weight and size, like the A7, and some time in the future, a Sony or a Panasonic will probably do the job. But right now, they don't. Not for me.

And I am disturbed by the orange grunch. Colours are a part of the composition and if half the viewfinder is filled with alien stuff, it's harder to "see" the image, at least for me.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I was being a wee bit sarcastic. We can't compare a 36mpx cam intended for higher quality capture to a cam clearly designed for speed and high ISO. Why the sony even came up is very wrong comparison.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I was being a wee bit sarcastic. We can't compare a 36mpx cam intended for higher quality capture to a cam clearly designed for speed and high ISO. Why the sony even came up is very wrong comparison.
So the A7 is too off in this comparison. Maybe it is. Another niche product from Sony. But that's exactly what makes the D4s so strong. If you don't need more than 16MP, and many don't, the camera doesn't have other limitations than size, weight and price, and price is relative, since these Nikons hold their value amazingly well. This kind of camera works just as well at sports events, for portraits, at weddings, PJ work, runways, press conferences etc., and there are so many lenses available for it that there's hardly any need at all that cannot be taken care of. It's a universal camera if there ever was one. Some of us need that.
 

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
Just my two cents, but currently, there is nothing in the Sony lineup that can compare to the D4 / D4s and the only camera out there that is the direct competition for the D4 / D4s would be the Canon 1D-X.

These cameras are for the sports shooters (like me) and the only glass I am keeping for my Nikon is my 24-70, 70-200 and my 300 f2.8. The remainder of my gear is aimed towards what I use it for, so my Sony gear has both Zeiss and Leica lenses, my Leica is the same, and my Phase DF has my LS lenses for when I shoot the bodybuilders, etc.

Now where is that 2cents emoticon when you need it.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
I would really liked to have seen a bit more resolution and removal of the AA filter. My intended use is for it to go on the back of my 500/4 VR, with and without TCs, to shoot wildlife. I'm not terribly interested in "head-and-shoulder" type wildlife photography, but want more of a stopped-down inclusive, environmental image that marries subject and landscape. Since print sizes are bigger I feel 16MP is just a touch subpar and doesn't make it an obvious candidate over the D800E. The sweet spot would be higher resolution, still low noise so I can bump up the ISO and get a good looking print out of it while capturing motion yet shooting at f/16, better frame rate than the D800 -- but I don't need 10+ fps. 6-8 is plenty. It just misses the sweet spot for me. Frankly, I think I'm inclined to get a D3x instead. Or just stick with the D800E...
 

RVB

Member
I would really liked to have seen a bit more resolution and removal of the AA filter. My intended use is for it to go on the back of my 500/4 VR, with and without TCs, to shoot wildlife. I'm not terribly interested in "head-and-shoulder" type wildlife photography, but want more of a stopped-down inclusive, environmental image that marries subject and landscape. Since print sizes are bigger I feel 16MP is just a touch subpar and doesn't make it an obvious candidate over the D800E. The sweet spot would be higher resolution, still low noise so I can bump up the ISO and get a good looking print out of it while capturing motion yet shooting at f/16, better frame rate than the D800 -- but I don't need 10+ fps. 6-8 is plenty. It just misses the sweet spot for me. Frankly, I think I'm inclined to get a D3x instead. Or just stick with the D800E...
Jan the D3X is very slow in RAW,I would take a D800 before a D3x.
 
M

mjr

Guest
Morning,

Interesting discussion, I am also surprised to see comparisons between Sony and the D4s, it does seem strange to decide one isn't enough of an advancement so will look at the other, horses for courses though! I'd say if you needed a D4s then the 1DX is the only comparison.

For me, having used the A7r a few times now, although not in anger, I don't see it as a pro camera, sure, a pro can use it and take great shots but it isn't a system. It is difficult to read about crappy adapters, the fact adapters are needed at all, sticking bits of felt inside them, wondering about how they are getting loose and replacing for different ones off ebay, that is in no way a professional solution. I find it funny to see a small camera celebrated for size and weight mounted on huge rails, supporting the lenses separately in order to get a sharp image!

It's obviously great for those with old lenses who want a modern solution but until theres a proper line up of native lenses it won't be worth looking at. I have read a lot of Guy's posts on leaving Nikon and I think he's a brave man, I'm sure there's a part of his decision that was just about making a change and enjoying the challenges a new system brings but I remember reading a post of his about how he had a mixture of none nikon lenses or only 1 and the rest were adapted Leica, Sigma or Zeiss etc. I remember thinking that I am in the same position but at least they are native mount! To move from that to a couple of lenses that fit and the rest that rely on third party adaptors of varying quality, just seems very brave, to then use them in a pro setting, well of course you can get shots but why make life difficult for yourself? I think there's potential and the quality of the 55 appears superb but it has a long way to go.

The D4s is a pro solution if you need the speed and ISO as already mentioned, fast, rugged, weather sealed, huge battery life, it does what it was designed for. People mention size and weight but I'd also mention balance, if you're shooting sports then you've likely got something long on the front and a monopod or a tripod, a tiny camera just appears unbalanced in those situations.

Anyway, it's all about your own choices and the output, does it really matter what you use if you like the results? I guess not!

Mat
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I am not a pro and neither intend I to shoot the D4s or the 1Dx as I have fortunately better things to do with my money. Would I need a workhorse camera as Pro and not want (be allowed) to rely on anything which could let me down during work, I would get one of them.

BUT I think it is safe to say that the only real comparison of the D4s can be the 1DX - which BTW I would prefer just from the specs and the sensor and my personal experience with both systems.

The A7/A7r - as great as they may be - they never were designed as cameras for (and I meanwhile hate to use this word) Pro usage. This is alone reflected from the battery life and the AF speed and capability. Maybe these types of cameras will evolve and I am almost sure they will, as the system around them and then they would become maybe really comparable.

Of course it is right if you are a good photographer you can almost every camera and lens combo make work perfectly for you and we see this in some examples only here in this forum. But finally this does not make a new system a pro system - at least not IMHO.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I don't get all the frizzle-frazzel.

Professionals shooting high action images for a living, (and all those mimicking them), have their camera. If there wasn't a demand and a need, they wouldn't make the things any more. When some smaller camera delivers the same performance for 1/2 the price, they will go bye-bye.

Pros like Guy, and his versatile applications, need more image than these cameras deliver. No pro wants to pay $6,500 for a camera they use occasionally … at least, not anymore. The economy saw to that.

@ Mat: the A7/A7r isn't limited to adapting legacy glass or other brands to the Sonys. The A7/A7R is a Sony product and all the Sony A mounts work on them with the SLT dual AF adapter … so the lens selection is not small, nor particularly limiting.

Those that think the Pro tanks are suitable wedding and event cameras haven't been paying attention. NO ONE (except a few die-hards) wants to drag around a bag of bricks for 7 to 10 hours anymore … regardless of "balance". The 5D pounded the first nail in that coffin.

When the next gen EVF and an AF system like the A6000 are put into the next wave FFs … then the game will be afoot.

Meanwhile, camera's like the D4 reign supreme for what they were intended.

- Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I am not a pro and neither intend I to shoot the D4s or the 1Dx as I have fortunately better things to do with my money. Would I need a workhorse camera as Pro and not want (be allowed) to rely on anything which could let me down during work, I would get one of them.

BUT I think it is safe to say that the only real comparison of the D4s can be the 1DX - which BTW I would prefer just from the specs and the sensor and my personal experience with both systems.

The A7/A7r - as great as they may be - they never were designed as cameras for (and I meanwhile hate to use this word) Pro usage. This is alone reflected from the battery life and the AF speed and capability. Maybe these types of cameras will evolve and I am almost sure they will, as the system around them and then they would become maybe really comparable.

Of course it is right if you are a good photographer you can almost every camera and lens combo make work perfectly for you and we see this in some examples only here in this forum. But finally this does not make a new system a pro system - at least not IMHO.
While there are all sorts of cameras built for all types of applications … a pro camera is simply the one that's in the hands of a pro.

Likewise, a so called "pro camera" in the hands of a novice doesn't necessarily make for pro results, experience does that.

I'd venture a guess that more professional work is now done with prosumer cameras than ones designated as professional. I know that for a fact in the wedding/event/portrait world. Even the top wedding shooters use Canon 5D-II & IIIs at best.

The paradigm shift that caused that was digital obsolescence.

- Marc
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I don't get all the frizzle-frazzel.

Professionals shooting high action images for a living, (and all those mimicking them), have their camera. If there wasn't a demand and a need, they wouldn't make the things any more. When some smaller camera delivers the same performance for 1/2 the price, they will go bye-bye.

Pros like Guy, and his versatile applications, need more image than these cameras deliver. No pro wants to pay $6,500 for a camera they use occasionally … at least, not anymore. The economy saw to that.

@ Mat: the A7/A7r isn't limited to adapting legacy glass or other brands to the Sonys. The A7/A7R is a Sony product and all the Sony A mounts work on them with the SLT dual AF adapter … so the lens selection is not small, nor particularly limiting.

Those that think the Pro tanks are suitable wedding and event cameras haven't been paying attention. NO ONE (except a few die-hards) wants to drag around a bag of bricks for 7 to 10 hours anymore … regardless of "balance". The 5D pounded the first nail in that coffin.

When the next gen EVF and an AF system like the A6000 are put into the next wave FFs … then the game will be afoot.

Meanwhile, camera's like the D4 reign supreme for what they were intended.

- Marc
Obviously, only the rich and spoiled would buy the D4s to use occasionally, but for a working pro who uses it on a regular basis, it's not that expensive. The D3 was $5,000 when it was launched in 2007. Currently, they sell for $2,000 with 200,000 or more clicks on the counter. That's less than $10 per week for the tool you make a living from. Even if you buy a D4s now and give it away after 6 years, it's only $20 per week. And it isn't that much heavier than a 5D III, around 400g. Plus, you need 2 extra batteries for the 5D III to get the same number of shots, of which you need to carry one in case you run out of sauce. Mount a vertical grip on the 5D III, and it's larger than the D4s and just as heavy with two batteries.

Then, take the 5d III to the race course and the D4s to a wedding. I know who will miss shots. Not even Guy can get the shots of a car going up in flames if his buffer is full or his battery empty. Or that unexpected field goal. Or the facial expression of a football player after he scores. Not a problem for those who do only weddings or only food photography etc. But around the globe, there are scores of photographers who do an assortment of assignments for different reasons.

Horses for courses. That's why many of us have more than one system of course. If I didn't do action photography at all, I probably could survive with the Panasonic or a Sony or an Olympus or a Fuji. If I had only a D4s and a backup Nikon body, I could do anything. Since I prefer to have two systems to avoid carrying heavy stuff when not needed, I have the extra cost of the extra system, a cost that would more or less pay for a D4s.

It's a dilemma sometimes. Even the choice between two cameras as different as a D4s and an A7r can be a dilemma. Do I make enough money and/or have enough fun shooting action to make the big Nikon cameras worthwhile? If I don't, the A7r may well be able to replace that D4s, or in my case the D2Xs plus D700. They are all great tools.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Obviously, only the rich and spoiled would buy the D4s to use occasionally, but for a working pro who uses it on a regular basis, it's not that expensive. The D3 was $5,000 when it was launched in 2007. Currently, they sell for $2,000 with 200,000 or more clicks on the counter. That's less than $10 per week for the tool you make a living from. Even if you buy a D4s now and give it away after 6 years, it's only $20 per week. And it isn't that much heavier than a 5D III, around 400g. Plus, you need 2 extra batteries for the 5D III to get the same number of shots, of which you need to carry one in case you run out of sauce. Mount a vertical grip on the 5D III, and it's larger than the D4s and just as heavy with two batteries.

Then, take the 5d III to the race course and the D4s to a wedding. I know who will miss shots. Not even Guy can get the shots of a car going up in flames if his buffer is full or his battery empty. Or that unexpected field goal. Or the facial expression of a football player after he scores. Not a problem for those who do only weddings or only food photography etc. But around the globe, there are scores of photographers who do an assortment of assignments for different reasons.

Horses for courses. That's why many of us have more than one system of course. If I didn't do action photography at all, I probably could survive with the Panasonic or a Sony or an Olympus or a Fuji. If I had only a D4s and a backup Nikon body, I could do anything. Since I prefer to have two systems to avoid carrying heavy stuff when not needed, I have the extra cost of the extra system, a cost that would more or less pay for a D4s.

It's a dilemma sometimes. Even the choice between two cameras as different as a D4s and an A7r can be a dilemma. Do I make enough money and/or have enough fun shooting action to make the big Nikon cameras worthwhile? If I don't, the A7r may well be able to replace that D4s, or in my case the D2Xs plus D700. They are all great tools.
I think you are making my point for me … and one of my points was that these cameras reign supreme for what they were intended to do.

However, photographers like Guy have diverse needs, and he has already clearly explained that resolution is a necessary party of his "delivery" on many jobs. While he can use his experience to make an A7R camera work in most, if not all circumstances, he can't make a 16 meg camera act like a 36 meg one.

Funny thing, all those intense action, decisive moments you mentioned used be caught, and very well, with a buffer of 36 … per roll :rolleyes: … not to mention the lack of modern Lithium batteries. Using cameras that are snail slow compared to what we have now.

One does wonder how they did it.

Perhaps they did it with skill, knowledge of the subject, and anticipation.:facesmack:

I watch my less experienced second shooters scramble and fluster, and still miss shots all the time with their wonder cams (including "Pro" models in past). They have yet to hone their skills of anticipation and observation … and some of them never do, no matter what I may teach them … probably because it is part of what we call talent.


- Marc
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Funny thing, all those intense action, decisive moments you mentioned used be caught, and very well, with a buffer of 36 … per roll :rolleyes: … not to mention the lack of modern Lithium batteries. Using cameras that are snail slow compared to what we have now.



- Marc
50 years ago, one single photo would be published on all front pages around the world. The photographer who shot it got money and fame. The others got little or nothing. That's what you got with ancient equipment. Photography is more democratic these days. There are zillions of websites wanting their unique photo of an event. Increasingly often, I shoot next to people shooting sports with an iPad, and I know that some of those photos get published, simply because the editor of a website wants his own photo as shot by his own people at the location. If you give typewriters to a million monkeys, one might turn up with a novel.

I prefer the old approach and the uniqueness of each photo, and I occasionally shoot events, including sports, using film, also ahooting with an Olympus OM. But it's a different art form. Few clients today accept to choose between 2 photos of a highlight when he knows that other photographers offer 10 or 100 times as many to choose from, even if those 2 photos happen to be superior to any of the 200 from the shoot-and-pray guy. I prefer to shoot for those who do accept the approach of uniqueness, but I cannot often choose, and the customer is more often than not right.

I don't have any motorsport assignments coming up this year (Competing with the Canon Rebel crowd who shoot for free isn't my cup of tea. Better to stay home drinking Oolong), and if nothing turns up, I might shoot motorsports exclusively with film for at least parts of the season, 35mm for the races and MF at pit lane, mostly for fun, but also to improve my shooting discipline.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Interesting insights Jorgen. Thanks for sharing them.

The proliferation of the all-seeing, all-dancing digital cams has impacted so many sectors of photography it isn't funny.

I have a Pro friend that shoots amateur sports and I wouldn't wish that duty on my worst enemy. What used to be a reasonable income supplement, now involves impossibly long hours for incredibly low pay. A Nikon D4 is only a distant dream for him. Too many parents with cameras better than he can afford. He lives on his skill and wits to make ends meet … but only barely these days.

Except for a small sliver of the market, wedding photography has become less about insightful and unique images, and more about marketing prowess and gimmicks … at ever lower profit margins. If a Pro Nikon shows up at a wedding it is more likely in the hands of a guest than the hired photographer. It is similar to being an actor now … a few highly visible Stars and those that copy them, while the remaining practitioners bus tables or take Barista jobs to survive.

Law of natural selection I guess.

- Marc
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Regardless of what camera one uses, having a unique signature or style that sets you apart is tantamount to success. Not so easy with sport shooting, but Jorgen proves it can be done. Oddly, wedding shooters with film cameras have become a niche industry reaping huge profits such as wedding shooter Jonathan Canlas. Whatever sets you apart in this industry flooded with iphones, ipads and 46mp point and shoots is going to get you closer to success.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Obviously, only the rich and spoiled would buy the D4s to use occasionally, but for a working pro who uses it on a regular basis, it's not that expensive. The D3 was $5,000 when it was launched in 2007. Currently, they sell for $2,000 with 200,000 or more clicks on the counter. That's less than $10 per week for the tool you make a living from. Even if you buy a D4s now and give it away after 6 years, it's only $20 per week. And it isn't that much heavier than a 5D III, around 400g. Plus, you need 2 extra batteries for the 5D III to get the same number of shots, of which you need to carry one in case you run out of sauce. Mount a vertical grip on the 5D III, and it's larger than the D4s and just as heavy with two batteries.

Then, take the 5d III to the race course and the D4s to a wedding. I know who will miss shots. Not even Guy can get the shots of a car going up in flames if his buffer is full or his battery empty. Or that unexpected field goal. Or the facial expression of a football player after he scores. Not a problem for those who do only weddings or only food photography etc. But around the globe, there are scores of photographers who do an assortment of assignments for different reasons.

Horses for courses. That's why many of us have more than one system of course. If I didn't do action photography at all, I probably could survive with the Panasonic or a Sony or an Olympus or a Fuji. If I had only a D4s and a backup Nikon body, I could do anything. Since I prefer to have two systems to avoid carrying heavy stuff when not needed, I have the extra cost of the extra system, a cost that would more or less pay for a D4s.

It's a dilemma sometimes. Even the choice between two cameras as different as a D4s and an A7r can be a dilemma. Do I make enough money and/or have enough fun shooting action to make the big Nikon cameras worthwhile? If I don't, the A7r may well be able to replace that D4s, or in my case the D2Xs plus D700. They are all great tools.

Yes this is part of the issue and like my Phase back if there is just not enough work to justify a specialized camera. Than the occasionally use of it makes no sense. I can't justify the D4s as I just don't shoot enough sports but if I did it would be a perfect tool for it. Also for me I want , need or desire at least 36mpx as my main tool. 16 is not enough but it is for PJ shooters that need to transmit before they even leave the field of play.
Even if it was a high ISO. Concert shooter this would be a interesting choice as the D4 is one but we have lessor value cams that can get that high ISO stuff so for that type of shooter it maybe a tougher decision. But for hard core action this and the 1dx are really the only game in town.

Now I will say I wish some of the marketing spin on other cams not designed specifically for sports would not exist. It's really not the intention for lets say a A7 to do sports. But more like its occasionally capable between us folks but Sony like others would not be that honest about it in the marketing if you know what I mean. Sure soccer mom types would use it but that's really not a Pro use type cam for this stuff. As we always say tools for different styles is the route to take. If I shot one of the Pro sports than this tool would certainly be in the bag. Interesting fact and I honestly still don't no why it is but at Suchi canon usage was about 75 percent and 25 percent Nikon for the Pros at that event. Surprises me but I'm not a big Canon fan at all, to me Nikons are a nicer cam to shoot. At least for me it is.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Regardless of what camera one uses, having a unique signature or style that sets you apart is tantamount to success. Not so easy with sport shooting, but Jorgen proves it can be done. Oddly, wedding shooters with film cameras have become a niche industry reaping huge profits such as wedding shooter Jonathan Canlas. Whatever sets you apart in this industry flooded with iphones, ipads and 46mp point and shoots is going to get you closer to success.
Nice fairy tale that all photographers like to foist off as the truth. Unfortunately, a unique signature alone isn't enough in the wedding industry … it has to be one that panders to the tastes of the consuming public … and is fueled more by contacts, marketing and PR presence … those resistant to these market pressures usually had a vast client list, and a well oiled machine prior to the industry falling off the cliff some years ago.

I've watched some pretty unique shooters take the roller-coaster ride up and then free fall not long afterwards. As the saying goes … "He got so popular, no one goes there anymore".

As I said, there are stars and those that mimic them serving a small cross section of lurcative weddings, but the fact of the matter is that there are fewer weddings now, and those getting married are older and tend to pay for their own wedding.

I know a huge amount of wedding and portrait shooters that are very successful as a business and not one of them is all that unique.

Not saying one shouldn't try … but trying doesn't assure anything IF what and how you see the world doesn't have a wide appeal for a lot of different people.

- Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
To add video is not helping the still guys either. I have been pondering doing more video but I just really don't like shooting it. To me its just boring to do. I know others love it , I just can't wrap my head around it.
 
Top