D4s... I hate this

[Jorgen Udvang]

What Nikon could do, but probably won't attempt, is to make a smaller D4 style body with a DX sensor. Something along the lines of a shrunken D2X. Add to that a new 300mm f/4 and a perfectly matched 1.4x TC, and many sports shooters who mostly shoot in daylight would be all over it, particularly if it could take the new D4s battery.

Apart from the lighter body, the weight saving using a DX sensor is considerable when long lenses are counted in. There's a very, very long "waiting for the D400" thread over at FM.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Maybe the more useful product as a addition or even the D4 could be a 24mpx 6fps cam. The 11 FPS seems like a little overkill to me and with that frame rate it had to go to 16 mpx. Maybe addition too would be better and I think a good product. Maybe a touch smaller as well. It's that concert and hobbyist market that I keep thinking about. The D4 is certainly more aimed at Pros and reality is we are a small market. The bigger market is more liken to a 24mpx and 6fps at least I think so. More a 3500 dollar product.

 

[D&A]

I used to shoot a lot of ice hockey on film using an F3HP.
The fps is not the point, although the bird shooters I know think it is.
For me it is the optical viewfinder and the low latency for shutter press.
I used to use two cameras, one shooting, one being reloaded. We would get assigned out portholes by the arena, and there we stood poking our lenses out through the holes in the glass.
We watched the play through the viewfinder, and yes tried to anticipate the action. Following the puck was paramount and pressing the button at just the right time was important for the money-shot. Some shot with motor drives, and usually ran them full tilt when the action was close to the net. There is only about 2 tenths of a second between when the shot starts and when it bounces off the goaltender's chest.
Today, I look at what folks do with their fast rate bodies and it is sort of variable rate. A whole lot is one frame at a time, but when a shot looks like it is being set-up the practice seems to be to take one a touch early but then to keep the button pushed down at max rate because the play of the game can be so unpredictable. What folks say today is that about half of the keepers happen when planned, about half taken somewhere during the burst.
In these games, there are usually 4-6 shooters working the portholes and the competition amongst them is just as fierce as what is happening on the ice.

-bob

This has precisely been my experience shooting hockey. It always a combination of being patient and anticipating when to shoot decisive key moments vs. pray and spray when the action required it.

Sure, in the "film only" era, with lower FPS or single shot cameras, whether it be sports, wildlife or other type of photography (especially in the professional arena), one's style of shooting and learning how to anticipate and develop a sixth sense when it was time to press the shutter, separated those getting the shot(s) from those that didn't. It reminds me of a portfolio of a professional NFL shooter for a major big city newspaper in the 50's and 60's I had the privilege of looking at, that his son had in his possession, along with many of the stories of how his dat "got the shot". He had years of front page sport section images and yet he often captured the action with use of a single shot frame rate. He had to rely on his intimate knowledge of the players he was shooting and taking well educated guesses where the play and action was possibly heading even before the ball was in the hands of the quarterback. It was no different from professional wildlife shooters during same era. In other words, know your subjects!

Expectations from editors and publishers back then were different to and they have risen along with capabilities of equipment over the decades. So yes, it still takes a skill to time those shots and also intimately know the subject or activity you're shooting with a keen knowledge of what's likely to happen just ahead of when it actually does, in order to be ready for that moment.

Of course there are so many other unexpected moments that no amount of preplanning can adequately prepare for publishable images and that's where the capability of the equipment (AF speed, FPS etc.), play an important role.

Intimate knowledge of the subjects and activities that one is shooting + having the right tool to take advantage of both anticipated and non anticipated moments. for me are some of the most important keys in capturing the shots that are both expected and required both for professional, client, or even personal use.

Dave (D&A)

 

[D&A]

Maybe the more useful product as a addition or even the D4 could be a 24mpx 6fps cam. The 11 FPS seems like a little overkill to me and with that frame rate it had to go to 16 mpx. Maybe addition too would be better and I think a good product. Maybe a touch smaller as well. It's that concert and hobbyist market that I keep thinking about. The D4 is certainly more aimed at Pros and reality is we are a small market. The bigger market is more liken to a 24mpx and 6fps at least I think so. More a 3500 dollar product.

Guy, there already is that camera you described....it's called the Nikon 610 . Frame rate is just about 6 FPS and it has 24mp, but believe me, for the professional concert shooter, this is not the camera one wants to be using. It's AF speed, AF tracking, AF sensor layout and AF lock on and any # of other attributes, just aren't suitable when it comes to high demand, fast paced shooting of this type.

Now if Nikon made a 24MP D800 sized and build quality body along with it's sensor layout but with at least 8FPS and the AF and tracking speed from at least a D3s...that for this type of shooting I believe it would be a sensational camera. Heck, if it even was 6FPS, I'd take it! I know from experience that for more causal type shooting, the specs of a D600/610 are more that adaquite for getting files that are of superb quality (think of downsized D800 files)...but for the types of shooting I described, the specs of the D610 fall short by a tremendously wide margin....and that comes from attempting to use it along side a D3s and D4 and see if it's able to be used as a higher MP adjunct to those cameras. It wasn't, unfortunately.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Bryan Stephens]

I shot a ton of tennis, basketball and baseball right out of college (as well as during college), and I was using an F3HP with a winder, with a normal F3 as my backup.

With tennis and baseball especially, the high frame rate was very helpful as you had a better opportunity of catching that precise moment of when the ball connected with the racket or the bat.

Nowadays, with everything being digital, it doesn't cost anything more to have 20 frames instead of 2 or 3. That is the nice part about the digital age.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Guy, there already is that camera you described....it's called the Nikon 610 . Frame rate is just about 6 FPS and it has 24mp, but believe me, for the professional concert shooter, this is not the camera one wants to be using. It's AF speed, AF tracking, AF sensor layout and AF lock on and any # of other attributes, just aren't suitable when it comes to high demand, fast paced shooting of this type.

Now if Nikon made a 24MP D800 sized and build quality body along with it's sensor layout but with at least 8FPS and the AF and tracking speed from at least a D3s...that for this type of shooting I believe it would be a sensational camera. Heck, if it even was 6FPS, I'd take it! I know from experience that for more causal type shooting, the specs of a D600/610 are more that adaquite for getting files that are of superb quality (think of downsized D800 files)...but for the types of shooting I described, the specs of the D610 fall short by a tremendously wide margin....and that comes from attempting to use it along side a D3s and D4 and see if it's able to be used as a higher MP adjunct to those cameras. It wasn't, unfortunately.

Dave (D&A)

The D610 is rather close. If they doubled the buffer size and halved the buffer empty time, it would be better, adding an integrated vertical grip and the D4s battery would make it very cool, make a brother with the 24MP DX sensor for longer reach (similar to the D300/700 combo) but the same buffer and grip would make me run to the camera shop :clap:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The D610 is rather close. If they doubled the buffer size and halved the buffer empty time, it would be better, adding an integrated vertical grip and the D4s battery would make it very cool, make a brother with the 24MP DX sensor for longer reach (similar to the D300/700 combo) but the same buffer and grip would make me run to the camera shop :clap:

Agree put the vertical grip in the mix , make it a little more durable. Weather sealing and all that. Give us 6fps 24mpx sensor with a crop factor added if needed and a buffer that just won't quit. Keep the D4 focusing system charge about 3500 and every wanna be sports shooter would buy it. That's a lot of people too.

Be a great backup or second body for the Pros as well.

 

[JohnBrew]

IMO, Nikon has STILL failed to produce a D700 replacement. Not sure where they are headed these days. To me, it appears that they have introduced a new body which no one needs (D4s) in that the D4 is still relevant. Love that D4 sensor - but to be an improvement would have to include a few more mp's.

 

[D&A]

Agree put the vertical grip in the mix , make it a little more durable. Weather sealing and all that. Give us 6fps 24mpx sensor with a crop factor added if needed and a buffer that just won't quit. Keep the D4 focusing system charge about 3500 and every wanna be sports shooter would buy it. That's a lot of people too.

Be a great backup or second body for the Pros as well.

This is basically the camera I described "above" except without the integrated grip....although an optional add on matching grip from Nikon is available (I tried it). Actually if they marketed it with a removable grip (even though less desirable)...Nikon can be sure it would appeal to a wider market. Those that want these features in a very compact camera and those that want the size and heft of their pro oriented cameras.

All in all its the camera many, including myself have been clamoring for. 24mp (a good resolution for a wide range of manageable options) in a pro oriented built body with pro level Af and sensors , Af speed,, a decent frame rate, WR and more I think would be a major hit. All the other models as good as they are, dance around these specs in one form or another but don't offer them in a single package. Heck even a D700 built body with these capabilities I bet would be embraced very quickly.

Dave (D&A)

 

[sisoje]

...

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.
....

Seriously???

This is coming from the professional who changes gear with every new "game changer" on the market...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yea love the challenge. Its a game every day to succeed. There a tool the brain and instincts are not metal, glass and plastic. Never was never will be and they can't think just like AF has no idea what you want.

What you don't understand is the gear is the most boring part of the process. Anything that gets you excited is a bonus.

I admit also at one point in this thread I was ready to walk away from this forum entirely. Thats how pissed off I was. So take that quote with a grain of salt. But I will still defend the fact it's all about us as the shooter.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

FYI I shot the Phoenix Suns for a season on the floor under the basket like all the PJs but I was working for the Suns. It was one shot every 2 seconds as I was connected to the arena strobes. So no help with motor drives, FPS and stuff like that and half the time I shot with a Hassy. Plus I used remote cameras hooked up to the strobes.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

This is basically the camera I described "above" except without the integrated grip....although an optional add on matching grip from Nikon is available (I tried it). Actually if they marketed it with a removable grip (even though less desirable)...Nikon can be sure it would appeal to a wider market. Those that want these features in a very compact camera and those that want the size and heft of their pro oriented cameras.

All in all its the camera many, including myself have been clamoring for. 24mp (a good resolution for a wide range of manageable options) in a pro oriented built body with pro level Af and sensors , Af speed,, a decent frame rate WR and more I think would be a major hit. All the other models as good as they are, dance around these specs in one form or another but don't offer them in a single package. Heck even a D700 built body with these capabilities I bet would be embraced very quickly.

Dave (D&A)

I believe the most important reason many don't buy a camera with a vertical grip is that most of those cameras are expensive. A relatively compact camera with the integrated grip would be more compact than one with an add on grip, lighter, have better weather sealing as Guy mentions and be easier to handle. Fuji did this with the S3, and apart from lacking command wheels when being used vertically, it worked very well. For handheld use with long telephoto lenses, there's simply no comparison.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

IMO, Nikon has STILL failed to produce a D700 replacement.

Funny that. Maybe it sold too well. I know a few sports shooters who use it instead of a D3/4. It was much cheaper and does much of the same (8 fps and a relatively decent buffer). Second hand, a D700 with a grip isn't very much cheaper than a D3 and twice as expensive as a 5D Mark I. That says a lot.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

You do see a lot of comments on all the forums how upset D700 folks never felt they got a replacement cam.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

You do see a lot of comments on all the forums how upset D700 folks never felt they got a replacement cam.

Interestingly, the D300, which shares the body with the D700, hasn't been replaced either. Many are complaining about that too, particularly sports shooters who don't want to go FX due to lens cost and/or weight. The 5 year old D300s is still a current model and the mother of these two, the D300, was launched in 2007!

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Not too bad from Thom Hogan this:

What Happened? | byThom | Thom Hogan

 

[GrahamWelland]

You do see a lot of comments on all the forums how upset D700 folks never felt they got a replacement cam.

A Df without the retro stuff in a D700 body and at a cheaper price would do it!

 

[D&A]

A Df without the retro stuff in a D700 body and at a cheaper price would do it!

Agreed, it would with a few minor tweeks and an increase of resolution to 24mp (in my opinion)...but that's because I need at least this much resolution for specific applications.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Maybe the more useful product as a addition or even the D4 could be a 24mpx 6fps cam. The 11 FPS seems like a little overkill to me and with that frame rate it had to go to 16 mpx. Maybe addition too would be better and I think a good product. Maybe a touch smaller as well. It's that concert and hobbyist market that I keep thinking about. The D4 is certainly more aimed at Pros and reality is we are a small market. The bigger market is more liken to a 24mpx and 6fps at least I think so. More a 3500 dollar product.

It should take D4 batteries, have the D4 low-light AF, and fast mirror (= short blackout). $3500 isn't important, $6500 would be fine.