Why no D750??

<p>Sorry Elliot, I strongly disagree with most of your points on this thread, and there is nothing wrong with having different experiences, opinions, and requirements. However, it is rather silly to pretend as if we agreed with each other while we clearly don't.</p>

<p>The D800 is a fine camera and I have one (D800E), but it is by no means the solution to everything. Just a few days ago I was shooting tennis practice and I was mainly using my D700. I only took my D800E out at the very end when the coach asked for a few portraits for his web site. For that, I prefer the D800E for its potential for large prints.</p>

<p>I knew that since I was shooting sports so that I would end up with a lot of frames. I prefer the D700's faster frame rate and much smaller file sizes. 36MP on the D800E was too much and those big images files would just waste disk spaces as I replicate all of my images on several sets of hard drives.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The thing about the argument "I got great shots without the fast frame rate" is that you do not see the shots you did not get.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rick M. says it very well, you don't see the shots you didn't get, i.e. the ones you missed. Once you understand what you are missing, you'll realize that a faster frame rate is important for action photography. That is precisely why that capability is available on all modern DSLRs for sports/news/action photography.</p>

<p>An entire generation of fine photographers produced splendid photographs with zero-frame-rate cameras, a trained eye and intuition substituting for (and surpassing) the need for "high frame rate." Perhaps there is an alternative to wishing against the realities of physics and $$ to get a gee-whizz frame rate. The great photographers I have studied (the Alfred Eisenstadts and Morely Baers, et al) all had one thing in common, regardless of their equipment: time spent in the field, observing their subject, practicing their craft, developing the eye for the decisive moment. This is not to slight the OP's felt need for "high frame rate"--only to suggest another way of looking at the capture technology issue. I would consider the frame rate of the D600 a luxury--But then I am chronologically closer to that great generation of frame-rate-less photographers :- ).</p>

<p>Art<br>

ALFRED EISENSTAEDT did not shot sports or for that matter much in the way of fast moving action. And he shot in 35mm quite a bit and that would definitely have been a high frame rate camera as opposed to a Speed or Crown graphic. Once again with Morely Baers you pick someone who was not a sports or action photographer. It is very easy to photograph a barn with a LF camera.<strong><br /></strong><br>

If you are going to site photographers from the past who used slower cameras at least pick people who shoot things that move faster then a walk. Have you looked at what Harold Eugene Edgerton was able to do in the 1940's? Or how about Max Schirner? He shot automobile racing.<br /><br>

<br>

Eliot<br /><br>

Man I have to disagree with you whole heartedly. As some one who shoots sports for a living and started doing it with a Nikon F all I can say about your comments on eye hand coordination is hogwash. I play in several sports (Fencing, Martial Arts as well as competitive pistol shooting) I have what might be considered very good eye hand coordination as well as reasonably fast reflexes. And I can say that you are not going to get THE SHOT shooting one frame at a time. Can you get good images that way? yes but the 1/15th of a second after you hit the shutter may be even better. And I doubt that you are that fast.<br /><br>

</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>As some one who shoots sports for a living"</em> You are the type of person that I commented SHOULD be shooting with a high frame rate camera. I have stated this 2-3 times. I don't know how much clearer I can be.<br /> <br /> When shooting for myself, I take the time to plan my shots in advance so I know what I am looking for and do my best to get the shot I want. I like the challenge. I like using my abilities. I find this allows me to get better shots than just holding down the shutter button at 9 or 11fps and hoping for the best. More often than not, I get the shot I want. <br /> <br /> I was out birding this past weekend shooting for a time under very challenging lighting conditions. And while others were there firing off shot after shot with their higher frame rate cameras, I was patient and got most of the shots I wanted, and was thankful for the fast and accurate AF of the D800 even at 800mm (using a 400mm focal length with a TC - AF was exceptional). And because of the high resolution of the D800, my prints look great. My D3 would not have focused sufficiently with the lens/TC combo I was using, nor would it my prints have had the quality that I was able to achieve specifically because of the D800's resolution. Ultimately, I was glad I left my D3 at home. But then again, I was out shooting for fun. Frankly, I had gotten used to having a trigger finger and am enjoying personal photography now more than ever because of the slow frame rate. Go figure! but I guess I am alone in this thinking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I like using my abilities. I find this allows me to get better shots than just holding down the shutter button at 9 or 11fps and hoping for the best.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seriously Eliott. Is your intention just to insult us? Those of us who use high frame rate cameras when they are the right tool do not lack ability. We augment it. We know when the moment is coming and simply take extra advantage of it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Meh... Elliot's opinions are no more or less valid or relevant than similar debates over the value of VR, IS or any type of anti-shake. If you have shaky hands like mine, it's essential. If your hands are steady it's superfluous. The difference is that photographers who find they don't need rapid frame rates or anti-shake tend to assume that if they don't need a feature, nobody does. Video fits into this familiar debate niche too.</p>

<p>The manufacturers are going to offer these features anyway, so arguing about it online won't change anything.</p>

<p>Isn't this the same old adage with a twist ? ... You can have it Hi Res, Fast frame rate, or affordable ... pick two.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you have shaky hands like mine, it's essential. If your hands are steady it's superfluous.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do not agree : even the most steady hands can be in a "shaky"environment... :-)</p>

<p>My intent is not to insult anyone. I HAVE and use high frame rate camera (although lately it hasn't seen any use for personal photography). I USE IT for paid events involving fast action. I PREFER to use the D800 for my personal use (NOT PAID, JUST FOR FUN) sports photography and find I don't miss the high frame. DISCLAIMER: This is simply my personal opinion and I am not implying anyone else agrees with it, should agree with it or should adopt my philosophy.</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>assume that if they don't need a feature, nobody does"</em> I never stated or insinuated this. I simply stated my preference for non-paid photography. In fact, I clearly stated the opposite.</p>

<p>IMO the frame rate question really shouldn't be the issue here. The real question is "are you prepared to spend $10K and upwards on lenses Tom?". If not, then a high megapixel count and full-frame are very much an irrelevance.</p>

<p>There are almost no (affordable) telephoto lenses that can do full justice to a 36 megapixel full-frame camera like the D800. There are a few extremely expensive tele lenses that can do some justice to the 24 megapixels of the D600, and a fair few more that can survive scrutiny on a 16 megapixel D4. So why would Nikon produce a prosumer grade 28 Mp camera aimed at sports and wildlife use that's only going to show up the shortcomings of the glassware fitted to it? DX is the sensible choice of format for this genre, and Nikon already offers a good choice of DX body with reasonable frame rate and adequate pixel count.</p>

<p>Increases in pixel count and sensor size dramatically improve image detail rendition and sensor size also improves tonality if you're not severely focal length limited (or aiming for deepest DOF, in which case sensor sizes are roughly on equal footing). Because sensor MTF and lens MTF both decay slowly as a function of spatial frequency, there is a broad range of lens quality levels (in practice, all lenses) that benefit significantly from being mounted on a D800(E). The lenses don't have to be expensive; among people who can afford a D800, many if not most already have lenses such as 70-200/2.8 and 300/4 that cost nowhere near $10k yet easily saturate a D800 sensor with detail, properly used. And even if a lens doesn't saturate it still benefits from it, e.g. a VR 70-300 would give much better quality on a D800 than on a D300 or D700, as it does on a D7000 vs. D300.</p>

<p>Photographers make images which are typically either shown on electronic media or printed on paper. The end application is where the image quality is evaluated and that is the only thing that counts. RJ makes it sound like the image quality decreased when the image is recorded on a high resolution sensor which is of course total nonsense; the opposite is true. And it doesn't really have to be a big print either - the jump from 12 to 24MP was immediately obvious in A4 size prints when I went from D3 to D3X; texture was defined a lot more clearly. This is because of the differences in the AA filters for the most part, and of course the fact that the lens I used (like most decent lenses) was severely handicapped by the 12MP sensor. A3/A2 prints show even a greater difference. Of course, shutter speeds have to be high (1/1000s or faster) if you want high resolution images of subjects that are not totally stationary. Nowadays I make sure my shutter speed is very high before I even start thinking about stopping down the lens (in much of my photography which involves people subjects in complex, cluttered backgrounds) as I like the gradation from absolute detail to increased blurriness as we move our eye away from the main subjects.</p>

<p>To an action photographer catching the moment is sometimes very difficult if the camera is not capable of high speed shooting. High resolution and high speed have both benefits and given current level of technology the photographer has to choose a compromise that fits their needs best. For me the high speed is a lower priority; however the main reason I have the D800 and not D4 is price. I suspect that is true of a lot of photographers. Still, the recipe of affordable compact slow high resolution camera + high speed high cost camera is probably going to make more people happy than the opposite (affordable compact high speed camera + extremely expensive slow high res camera) that Nikon had in the previous generation. Perhaps within 10 years or so, both high speed and high resolution (to satisfy most practical applications) can be had in the same camera. </p>

<p>A bit of a rant, but still true:</p>

<blockquote>There are reasons that dedicated sports cameras from Canon and Nikon, such as those EOS 1DX, D4, etc. released earlier this year for the London Olympics can capture at 9, 10 fps.</blockquote>

<p>Yes, the reason is called marketing. Both want to be top dog. It is not 4 vs. 6 fps that gives the upper hand, it is still timing and knowing the sport in question. When I shoot show jumping I have little use of the D7000's 6 fps. I time the shot and can get excellent results even in single shot mode. Back in the 90s I got excellent bird shots with a mere 4.5 fps camera.</p>

<p>Talk to a seasoned sports/bird pro and it is not 10 fps that is the advice you will get. It is pratice getting your timing right. If all you want is frames per second, get a movie camera and print the still frame that looks best.</p>

<p>Andreas<br>

I am a seasoned pro and I know my sports and I shoot with a camera that will do what I need and right now that is a D4.<br>

When I shoot show jumping you are right high frame rate is not needed. At the higher fences a single shot can be all you need. The hang time sure helps. Try shooting Dressage where you need to catch the perfect extended trot or the Canter pirouette at the right moment. Sure it can be done with out a high frame rate in fact its not done by spray and pray it is only done by timing the strides but you still need to be able to shoot quickly, I used to do it shooting film with a manual advanced camera. When I got the motor drive life got better. Hey we even used to do it without auto-focus.<br>

High frame rates and big buffers are much more then just marketing they are a tool to be used as needed.<br>

As for the movie camera 24fps is not all that fast and will still miss lots of things. Its why they developed high speed cameras that run at much higher frame rates as high as 150 fps... Again its a tool to be used as needed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The EOS 1DX and D4 aren't the only cameras that get 9 to 10 FPS. I'm a Nikon shooter but didn't want to pay $6,000 for a 10 FPS body. Instead, I bought a 16 MP Sony A57 with 70-400 which shoots at 10 FPS with continuous auto focus and auto exposure. It will shoot at 12 FPS in 10 MP cropped frame mode. The only downside is that the lens must be at maximum aperture. This is OK with the Sony 70-400 since it compares more than fovorably to the Nikon 80-400 (very slow focus) or Canon 100-400. I believe the A57 is the only Sony SLT that does all of the above. Yes, it's a prosumer body but Sony will probably replace it next year with something better. However, you'll only be out $600, not $6,000. Once you've shot flying birds and sports at 10 FPS, it's tough to settle for lesser FPS. </p>

<p>I seem to have unleashed BlogZilla with my initial post. I do have some serious glass. 300mm 2.8 VRII nikon with a 1.4 TC. I did have the new TC-2xIII but sold it as I thought it wasn't a sharp enough combo (here come the comments). I have read articles that over 1/400 to 1/1200 shutter speed VR/IS can slow performance and actually cause more problems than it fixes. I have tried this philosophy and find it true. It would seem the best course of action for me at this time is to stay put with my current bodies and hope for the D400 folks are wishing for. Another thought is a low shutter count used D3s. I could come out even with what I could bet for my 2 bodies and the battery grip. All my lenses are FX. 24-70mm 2.8 Nikon - 70-200mm 2.8 VRI Nikon - 105mm 2.8 VR Nikon Micro and the aforementioned 300mm with TC1.4. I think I am pretty set until I can afford possibly the 500mm f4 Nikon. Again did not mean to turn this into an opinion war. But I did get a great scope of opinions from many knowledgeable posters.</p><div></div>

<p>Nice shot Tony.</p>

<p>Sure looks like you can get the best out of what you have. And that is the mark of a true craftsman.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are reasons that dedicated sports cameras from Canon and Nikon, such as those EOS 1DX, D4, etc. released earlier this year for the London Olympics can capture at 9, 10 fps.<br>

Yes, the reason is called marketing. Both want to be top dog. It is not 4 vs. 6 fps that gives the upper hand, it is still timing and knowing the sport in question.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nobody says knowing the sports (and wildlife behavior) and timing are not important, but having a fast frame rate is also important.</p>

<p>I am talking about the very best sports photographers that get to shoot at the Olympics. Those people certainly know what they are doing. Do you really think that they would waste $6000 on a D4 with features they don't need just due to Nikon marketing?</p>

<p>Brian McHattie just posted again to his thread from a month ago: <a href="00awge">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00awge</a><br>

On October 24, I wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00axNd"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 24, 2012; 08:09 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Elliot, when you have a chance, read the following article. Hopefully you'll understand why a fast frame rate is critical to sports and action photography and won't dismiss that "spray and pray" again.<br /><a href="http://www.americanphotomag.com/article/2012/07/masters-olympic-photography-rich-clarkson" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.americanphotomag.com/article/2012/07/masters-olympic-photography-rich-clarkson</a><br>

If all you do in sports and wildlife action photography is to anticipate and practice for what you expect to happen, you will end up with a lot of routine, cliche images and miss the completely unexpected moments. Those unexpected images are what I am after.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me, sports and action photography (including wildlife) is about getting the exciting, unexpected behavior, not the expected routine, cliche type action that thousands of people have already captured.</p>