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

D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
No, the Sony is not for me.
It is not innovation for the market it is aimed at, it is crap.
-bob
Tough crowd (spoken in my best Rodney Dangerfield voice)! :ROTFL:

Joe
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I will agree with you about your evaluation of the D4s, but I will add a nuance.
We don't know if they solve the issues, just thar they address them. In particular they continue to use the same AF module (no more cross sensors). I will say that the jury is still out in this one. But they DID address it as you say.

Best regards,
J. Duncan
True, They addressed them, now we need to see if the package actually gets delivered.
-bob
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
With the introduction of new, advanced fully electronic cameras (E-M1, GH3, A7, X-T1), it's been so easy to write off these dinosaurs that on paper are inferior in almost every aspect. But for some kinds of photography, there's no competition at all. I went to Singapore Airshow a couple of weeks ago, bringing the D300, the D2Xs and the GH3. First attempt to shoot aerobatic display with the Panasonic: of a 20 shot burst, the subject was within the frame in 2 of them. Back in the bag.

I love the GH3. It's one of the best cameras I've ever had. But when it comes to certain kinds of photography, it's simply not there. I tried the A7 too a while ago. Nice camera. I'm sure the image quality is perfect. No lenses unfortunately, and the viewfinder, although relevant by EVF terms... I happened to have the Contax RX with me when I tried it. Game, set and match, 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. Ergonomics: same thing.

Yes, many of these new cameras are very nice, and most of all compact, lightweight and cheap, cheap, cheap. But nice compared to what? When a 20 year old Contax has better ergonomics than the latest hyper-camera from Sony, there is something wrong, at least in my book. With the Contax, I can even focus precisely without filling the viewfinder with orange grunch. I'm sure the orange stuff works fine, but user experience? Evaluation of colour and composition? Switch off the grunch, there went the focus, wait a minute...

Yes, I'm ranting again, back to the D4s. Nikon know who their customers are, and as Bob points out: they make money on this. 16MP is perfect too. Batch processing 3,000 36MP RAW files from a car race takes... too long. Client is waiting.

I can't afford this thing, but D3 is getting cheaper. D3X too. And I have the D700 too, which for some reason I don't love that much. You probably won't see my Nikons up for sale just yet :)
 

Ocean

Senior Subscriber Member
I shoot my daughter's high school cross country/track team. I have tried Olympus E3 and Sony A900/99, and Nikon D3. There is just not comparison! Nikon pro bodies are just so reliable to achieve consistent results. I tried D800, it couldn't keep up with the D3 either. Having said that, with newer high MP sensor, Nikon does need to improve the accuracy of the AF system with more and accurate cross sensors!
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
No, the Sony is not for me.
It is not innovation for the market it is aimed at, it is crap.
I met with a group of "action and nature" photographers last night.
They are universally enthusiastic about it.
I guess if I shot birds with long lenses, or (hockey, football, basketball) games, or motocross events, or snowboard stuff I would be too.
But I don't.
But for what I do, the D800 and Df do just fine. The a7r makes my eyes bleed, gives me a headache, and is just too slow to use.
-bob
I have to reply to this comment. Firstly, I TOTALLY understand where you're coming from -- I don't particularly care for the Sony either, at least for the type of shooting I do. But I think it crosses a line to say it's crap. IMHO it is far from crap, at least from a technical POV to the quality of file it is capable of delivering. We -- meaning you and I -- may not like the EVF, the UI and even the diminutive form factor for our German sausage sized fingers. But while those are negative attributes for us, they may well be perceived as features by other shooters.

I've only shot briefly with them myself, and saw no reason whatsoever to abandon my Nikons as many others have. But I can see where if I had some legacy M glass or specialized C brand glass I wanted to shoot with, the A7 or the A7r just might be a very viable solution to getting a good sensor behind that glass.

Just sayin ;)
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
The sony is not crap as far as several types of shooters are concerned, but it IS crap in the market the D4s is aimed at, at least as far a several sports and nature shooters are concerned. One shooter, the one who complained about its jpegs, shoots hockey and finds that the viewfinder refresh rate is just not up to the task of following a puck on the ice.
My screwdrivers are all crap at driving nails, so is a jackhammer.
-bob
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I have to reply to this comment. Firstly, I TOTALLY understand where you're coming from -- I don't particularly care for the Sony either, at least for the type of shooting I do. But I think it crosses a line to say it's crap. IMHO it is far from crap, at least from a technical POV to the quality of file it is capable of delivering. We -- meaning you and I -- may not like the EVF, the UI and even the diminutive form factor for our German sausage sized fingers. But while those are negative attributes for us, they may well be perceived as features by other shooters.

I've only shot briefly with them myself, and saw no reason whatsoever to abandon my Nikons as many others have. But I can see where if I had some legacy M glass or specialized C brand glass I wanted to shoot with, the A7 or the A7r just might be a very viable solution to getting a good sensor behind that glass.

Just sayin ;)
Ah, the "it" in my post was not very clear.
Crap for the market that the D4s is aimed at.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I expected a D4X at 24MP or a D5 at 36MP I guess.
Actually it would have been really neat if it were something in the 54Mpx range with a bin-down low-res option, but there are some viciously competing design criteria.
The problem with binning is that it really doesn't give you as clean of a high-iso file as a larger sensor well does.
-bob
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... But I can see where if I had some legacy M glass or specialized C brand glass I wanted to shoot with, the A7 or the A7r just might be a very viable solution to getting a good sensor behind that glass. ...
IMO, not for M-mount lenses on average. But for Leica R lenses it's fantastic. That's really the only reason I bought the A7, and it's so good with these lenses I'm considering selling nearly everything else.

Note: nearly ...
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
One shooter, the one who complained about its jpegs, shoots hockey and finds that the viewfinder refresh rate is just not up to the task of following a puck on the ice.

-bob
Same problem as with the airshow, and I'm afraid this is not only about refresh rates, but they way the viewfinder refreshes. The movements of a puck or an airplane are fluid but may change suddenly. An electronic viewfinder never refreshes fluidly, it's the nature of digital. However fast it may be, there will always be a certain degree of "staccato", which is tiring to the eyes if one has to follow movements in the viewfinder closely hour after hour (I've used EVFs for 4 years now).

Subjects that move along a predictable pattern, I have no problems following with an EVF, even sometimes when the EVF blacks out during short bursts and between frames. Unpredictable patterns I suspect will be hard to follow even if the refresh rate increases tenfold. It's more to it than speed.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I'm with Bob and Jack. The pixel fixation doesn't interest me and the Nikon (regardless of emotional feelings) really hits the image quality vs resolution/gizmos in my book. I also have manly sized hands/fingers so the toy sized Sony doesn't work for me at all.

I'm biased and admit it. If I want 36mp I'll crop my 60mp digital back! :banghead:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'm with Bob and Jack. The pixel fixation doesn't interest me and the Nikon (regardless of emotional feelings) really hits the image quality vs resolution/gizmos in my book. I also have manly sized hands/fingers so the toy sized Sony doesn't work for me at all.

I'm biased and admit it. If I want 36mp I'll crop my 60mp digital back! :banghead:
:ROTFL:

No matter how deep into the new tech stuff I get, (and it is fun) … there is a nagging feeing of being a defiant little kid resisting the adult cameras :)

I admit to being struck by the Canon 1Dx when launched … FF 18 meg, 2 CF slots, high ISO, lightening quick AF, fit my big hands, … sounded just right.

Then my weary old shoulders and back started screaming "Noooooooooooo! Not again. We'll punish you if you indulge". :(

- Marc
 

D&A

Well-known member
Same problem as with the airshow, and I'm afraid this is not only about refresh rates, but they way the viewfinder refreshes. The movements of a puck or an airplane are fluid but may change suddenly. An electronic viewfinder never refreshes fluidly, it's the nature of digital. However fast it may be, there will always be a certain degree of "staccato", which is tiring to the eyes if one has to follow movements in the viewfinder closely hour after hour (I've used EVFs for 4 years now).

Subjects that move along a predictable pattern, I have no problems following with an EVF, even sometimes when the EVF blacks out during short bursts and between frames. Unpredictable patterns I suspect will be hard to follow even if the refresh rate increases tenfold. It's more to it than speed.
This is my predicament too. Fast moving low light "Performing Arts" type shooting among other things like the occasional fast moving sports shots, had me thinking twice and three times about moving over to the Sony. There are a number of things to admire about the system but I keep asking myself above and beyond all else....is it the right tool for the jobs I want it to do? So far it's been more "no's" than "yes", even though for other applications it's ground breaking and often ideal.

It's been said a million times, but it simply comes down to selecting the right tool for the job and what feel right for a given type of photographic endeavor or assignment.

Dave (D&A)
 

turtle

New member
Why would the A7 ever be compared to the D4 for the purposes of what the latter was designed for? Its like saying Ferraris are 'crap' because they can't plough fields. It just doesn't need to be stated.

Back to the D4S, I can absolutely see why they released an updated D4, because that's perhaps the way to see this; not so much a new camera but an update.

A high MP D-something is surely coming, but all I have to say is 'lenses'.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Why would the A7 ever be compared to the D4 for the purposes of what the latter was designed for? Its like saying Ferraris are 'crap' because they can't plough fields. It just doesn't need to be stated.

Back to the D4S, I can absolutely see why they released an updated D4, because that's perhaps the way to see this; not so much a new camera but an update.

A high MP D-something is surely coming, but all I have to say is 'lenses'.
Not so much the A7 specifically, but the concept, and I'm sure Sony will develop models that have the fast frame rate and the AF. The A99 and E-M1 would probably more relevant comparisons. On paper, they look suitable for action photography, in the real world, not so much. When they launched the A99, they even used some sports shots, seen through the viewfinder, to market the camera.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
So I guess 11 Fps makes this the great sports camera. How soon you all forget where you came from. I shot better sports without a motor drive and a hand crank. One word spoiled .

What is even more revealing is the 5 minute arm chair comments with the Sony. Have you guys actually shot the damn thing in these situations. NO or even figured out how

How about doing runway all day long with a adapted lens. Seriously where in the hell did Sony even enter into this conversation or anyone say the Sony was intended for this type of work.

Tell you what meet me at the next football game bring your D4s and I'll still smoke your *** with a hand crank. REALLY did not know gear actually shot images.

Sorry it just had to be said from a guy that shot sports with even MF camera. Shot aerials with a 4x5 tethered to a helicopter. It's about talent not the gear. The only thing gear does is give you your options to help make it happen. It's up to you to score with it

I probably should not even post this. But this thread is exactly what's the worst thing about forums. We should really delete it to be honest. Your putting the gear as the premium and not the artist its a typical let's machine gun the **** out of it and see what we get mentality.

Is the D4s good at it , why yes my dear it's the best damn machine gun you can buy. No question it is.

I'm going golfing I read enough
 

RVB

Member
So I guess 11 Fps makes this the great sports camera. How soon you all forget where you came from. I shot better sports without a motor drive and a hand crank. One word spoiled .

What is even more revealing is the 5 minute arm chair comments with the Sony. Have you guys actually shot the damn thing in these situations. NO or even figured out how

How about doing runway all day long with a adapted lens. Seriously where in the hell did Sony even enter into this conversation or anyone say the Sony was intended for this type of work.

Tell you what meet me at the next football game bring your D4s and I'll still smoke your *** with a hand crank. REALLY did not know gear actually shot images.

Sorry it just had to be said from a guy that shot sports with even MF camera. Shot aerials with a 4x5 tethered to a helicopter. It's about talent not the gear. The only thing gear does is give you your options to help make it happen. It's up to you to score with it

I probably should not even post this. But this thread is exactly what's the worst thing about forums. We should really delete it to be honest. Your putting the gear as the premium and not the artist its a typical let's machine gun the **** out of it and see what we get mentality.

Is the D4s good at it , why yes my dear it's the best damn machine gun you can buy. No question it is.

I'm going golfing I read enough
Guy,you've probably forgotten more than I know about photography.. but I wouldnt argue with this comment,It reminds of something I read before,(maybe here on this forum),and that is that pro photography is about finding and applying solutions.which comes from experience and skill.not just gear.

Rob
 
Top