Mike D Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 <p>I saw a blog a couple days ago with Scott Kelby praising the new Canon 7DII and the benefits of a high FPS, cropped frame body. The indirect quote in the title is borrowed from Mr. Kelby. I then went to a talk that included several real live Nikon NPS employees and the Los Angels Nikon representative. I fearlessly asked the group about a 7DII competitor from Nikon. Based on their response, the intonation of their voices, and some Nikon logic, it ain't going to happen. In fact, the Nikon's rep's response was something like, get over it and just buy a FF body. OK, so now I have to change plans for the future. I've decided that I would like to buy a 10 FPS, advanced FF amateur body from Nikon at something less than $3,000. After a second thought, that may not happen either because it's sounding more like an updated D700. Now what do I do and what does Nikon do? I want to shoot sports with my Nikon and Nikon mount lenses and I don't have modern sensor, advanced amateur DX or FX body to put them on. Why does Nikon require me to use a NFL quality body (D4S) to shoot high school sports!<br> As a consolation prize, according to DXO, my Sony A77 II kicked the butt of the 7DII. I use that with a 70-400 for sports until Nikon introduces something equal or better. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 <p>If you had asked a Canon rep, I'm guessing you'd have got a different answer.</p> <p>If they can't sell it to you now, it ain't gonna be any good.</p> <p>For years, when that was all they had, Nikon said 6MP APS-C cameras were plenty good.</p> <p>They were right, too.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 <p>Michael, we can keep on talking about the same topic over and over. To me, that is pointless. Back in February 2013, as soon as I learned about the specs for the D7100, which Nikon openly referred to as their "flag ship" DX body, I immediately made the call that any successor to the D300/D300S is simply not going to happen, as Nikon's strategy has shifted to FX from the prosumer level and up: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bNA6<br> That was almost two years ago. Now we are at the end of 2014; nobody on this forum should be surprised that no successor to the D300/D300S is coming.</p> <p>Therefore, if Sony and/or Canon meets your needs better, by all means switch to another brand. Keep on whining after Nikon's lack of a successor to the D300 is not going to change anything.</p> <p>For shooting sports, I would definitely use FX as plenty of sports take place at night or indoors. FX will have a distinct advantage under low light. And the human subjects in sports photography are relatively large so that DX isn't really an advantage. If a D4S is too expensive for you, there are plenty of used/refurbished D4 and D3S available, and they are a step or two better than the D700. I think the D750 is a pretty good general-purpose DSLR that can do well for sports, but it is not a dedicated sports camera and therefore cannot give you 10 fps.</p> <p>As far as Scott Kelby goes, I think he is great in teaching PhotoShop, but he is not particularly a great photographer. I think he is helping Canon sell cameras in these days.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 <p>Nikon can be very secretive about new products in development. Given the 7D Mk II's feature set and reception, I think it is very likely that Nikon is preparing a response. I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet no matter how much Nikon reps say that there won't be another high end DX. I think a 10fps "prosumer" FX body is less likely than a new improved high end DX model (be it a successor to the D7100 or a larger body) simply because the former would be a more direct competitor with the D4s instead of covering somewhat different applications needs as e.g. the 7D Mk II does. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 <p>It just doesn't seem to be something Nikon is interested in making. I guess that anything is possible, but if I were you I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for such a camera. I'd pick from what Nikon has now, or if that doesn't cut it for your needs stick with the fast Sonys since you're also in that system..</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 <blockquote> <p>I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet no matter how much Nikon reps say that there won't be another high end DX.</p> </blockquote> <p>I have hoped for a D300 successor for a long time (as those who follow this forum regularly might know) - but I finally have given up and purchased a D7100 about a month ago. Turns out that the small buffer isn't as much of a concern as I had feared - provided one uses fast SD cards. Can't say I am particularly fond of the mode dial on the left side of the camera - I wish for the old mode button on the right side instead. I believe it is fair to assume that something like the D300/D700 won't come around again.</p> <p>At this point, I don't care whether Nikon releases an answer to the 7D MKII and/or the successor to the D7100 - I am not buying for the time being no matter what features Nikon piles into those new release(s). Similar to the "too late" release of the 70-200/4; it's now "too late" for whatever DX flagship Nikon chooses to release (if any).</p> <p>I use DX now almost exclusively with my 80-400 AF-S - and if I had the feeling that the D7100 isn't sufficient - then with the 7D MkII there is now an alternative - together with a soon to be released new 100-400 lens. But since I never utilized the 8fps the D300 was capable of, 10 fps isn't something I feel I have a desperate need for.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 <p>Shun, perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. I meant to communicate that I've changed my mind and now I want a fast full frame camera. Therefore, since I shoot sports and surfing, I want a fast full frame camera that's not a $6,000+ professional camera. I want a fast, full frame body for advanced amateurs. Ironically, I've attended two slide shows in the last couple months by a Nikon sports shooter and a Nikon nature shooter and both couldn't over emphasize the need for speed and buffer. Finally, Shun I would gladly move totally to Sony or Canon if I hadn't accumulated tens of thousands of dollars in Nikon and Nikon mount lenses in the last 10 years when Nikon gave the impression that they were serious into sports for the advanced amateur with the D300 and D700 bodies which I still use. <br> I did notice that your comment was a little personal. I thought Scott Kelby's comment was very insightful and might be something worthy of further discussion. Since I'm primarily a Nikon user, I read the Nikon posts and thought Scott Kelby's take on amateur sports photography might generate a few more insightful comments. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 <blockquote> <p>Turns out that the small buffer isn't as much of a concern as I had feared - provided one uses fast SD cards.</p> </blockquote> <p>Dieter, that is another point I have been saying for a long time. Unfortunately, a lot of people merely repeat the buffer issue based on what they read, instead of from personal experience. While I too can use a deeper buffer than what the D7100 offers, it is not a fatal flaw or I wouldn't have bought one myself.<br> See my response to Keith Reeder on 23 October, 2013; 11:03 a.m a year ago: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00c5Yi</p> <blockquote> <p>Shun, perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. I meant to communicate that I've changed my mind and now I want a fast full frame camera. Therefore, since I shoot sports and surfing, I want a fast full frame camera that's not a $6,000+ professional camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>Then I wonder why you quoted Scott Kelby comments on the Canon 7D Mark II, which is an APS-C format DSLR? You even used his comment for the subject for this thread.</p> <p>If you want FX, I have already given you the answer earlier. If you are not prepared to spend $6500 (D4S) on a sport DSLR, there are plenty of used and refurbished D4 and D3S, both of which are considerably better than the D700, but of course they are also more expensive. I think you can find a used D3S in good condition around $3000.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Looks like you can pick up very clean D3s for under $3K USD or even a D4 for around $3.5K USD on eBay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4754088 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 <p>I'm gonna touch on the other part of the OP question, "Why do I need an NFL body to shoot a high school football game?"</p> <p>Because it takes better equipment to shoot a high school football game than it does to shoot an NFL football game. If you ever get a chance to do a Peter Read Miller workshop (Peter is a SI NFL photographer) ask him what he recommends for shooting High School Football and he'll say, "Throw money at it!"</p> <p>The lighting at most High School Football stadiums is pathetic, to put it mildly. You need a camera body that can produce good images at very high ISO, and lenses that can open up to f2.8. I use a D4 and have a D700 as backup (with grip and EN-EL4 so I can get 8fps, though I still jam up the buffer after 15 shots, which can happen after a few quick bursts of shutter). All my lenses are f2.8 and it is still really difficult to get good images. I usually shoot RAW and have been able to pull a few more stops out of the images. But it is just DARK, DARK, DARK.</p> <p><img src="http://www.timcarrollphotography.com/Forums/McCoy.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Best,<br> -Tim</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 <p>I think Tim makes a really good point and probably applies to most amateur photography situations; high school concerts, plays, indoor sports, etc. </p> <p>We learn to do the best we can with what we've got, but really there's no such thing as gear that's too good if we had unlimited resources. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Great point Tim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 <p>>>I would gladly move totally to Sony or Canon if I hadn't accumulated tens of thousands of dollars in Nikon and Nikon mount lenses in the last 10 years</p> <p>My strategy has been to buy very high quality lenses, yes, and to buy them used. I'm not really sure exactly how many $$ I have tied up in Nikon lenses right now--I've just spent ~$4,000 the past two weeks buying three more. If Canon or Sony were to come up with the perfect camera/system for me though, I'd dump ALL those Nikon lenses at the drop of a hat. By buying used in the first place, I won't get hurt all that badly. For the past three years I've been shooting a Chamonix 045n, Leica IIIc, D7100, and now D800E most of the time. I have zero loyalty to any of those companies. All of it will sell fairly quickly on ebay.</p> <p>I'll add the the Nikon people you talked to are low level and I would find it astonishing if they actually knew about any new products coming. Nikon is extremely secretive about that stuff.<br> Kent in SD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 "Nikon is extremely secretive about that stuff." And Canon is even more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 <p>The lens is more important than the body - fast glass is the 'secret'. Coupled with shooting RAW, good image processing software along with good hand/eye coordination and a good seat, you can get excellent results with just about any body. But a 'NFL' body is also nice to have but it is just not a necessity.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 <blockquote> <p>I think you can find a <strong>used</strong> D3S in good condition around $3000<br> <br> Looks like you can pick up very clean D3s for under $3K USD or even a D4 for around $3.5K USD on<strong> eBay</strong>.<br /><br> <br> very high quality lenses, yes, and to buy them <strong>used</strong><br> <strong> </strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Assuming Nikon needs our money to develop new kit, buying used is giving them nothing. If they made a D400 people would buy them instead.... thus giving Nikon some R&D cash.</p> <p>I'm not saying buying used is wrong, quite the opposite, but people seem to have the cash to buy a new D400 and Nikon doesn't seem to want it....Where-as Canon are making things prospective D400 buyers want.<br> </p> <p>Seems odd that Nikon seems to be, by default, encouraging defection.</p> <p>Unless Nikon pulls out of DX cameras entirely (unlikely) I wonder what the new DX 'flagship' will have? I suspect they won't call it that because that would draw too much attention to the superior Canon flagship model the 7D MKII. Speed sells, it always has and always will. Most punters don't even know what DR or Bit-Depth is, but they do know when something shoots 10fps!</p> <p>Various people have mentioned in the past as to who actually <em><strong>needs</strong></em> 10fps or 36Mpix? That's completely missing the point, they <em><strong>WANT</strong> </em>it!!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Used gear sales removes that item from the market which means likely someone who was looking for a nice used item will have to buy new instead. This assumes that there are not vast stacks of idle D3s or D4 bodies just sitting somewhere waiting for a buyer. I think the bodies that exist are mostly serving either primary or backup roles. F5? Now that is another matter. ;-) It is not some trivial matter to develop a "D400". A camera with very high frame rate and fast AF tracking that can deliver 8-10 perfectly in focus 24 MP DX frames per second with very large aperture lenses used at longer distances than they'd be used for the same size subject on FX is difficult. 12MP or 16MP on FX is an easier goal to meet since the lens does not have to be focused quite so precisely in the very limited time available between frames. I noticed this again as I was shooting figure skating with the D810 and D7100 using the same lens. There must be a combination of reasons for why this happened but I got a much better focus keeper rate with the D810. The lens was a 200/2 II which arguably is among the most able to deliver high resolution images on 24MP; and it is, if the shot is in focus. Easier subject such as musicians on stage, results from the D7100+200/2 have been fantastic. I think the quality potential for this combination really surprised me but focus continues to be challenging at longer distances whereas with the D810 I have no complaints about focus. Canon interviewee at dpreview's post photokina interviews suggested that the five year interval between updates to the 7D was something they'd have to ask the engineers about, presumably it was due to technical difficulty of development of such an instrument. I think that a 300/2.8 AF-S Nikkor would probably have the most impact on large field poor light sports photography. The figure skating rink is smaller obviously, so the 200/2 serves me well but a 300/2.8 could also be used as an alternative. I prefer the shorter lens as the close end pics generally look more intimate and I can get fast shutter speeds and avoid the risk of accidentally truncated body of the skater. So maybe a recommendation: either D750 + used AF-S 300/2.8, or used D3s with the same lens? 400/2.8 is beyond the means for most of us and maybe the 300mm is more versatile. If you get the D3s then use a D7100 for the long shots? Although I don't have the 300/2.8 I've seen outstanding results from such Nikkors with the high pixel density DX camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebu_lamar Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 <p>What's Kelby said is Nikon doesn't make a camera for you so buy a Canon. So you can determine for yourself whether or not Nikon makes a camera for you. Each of us has different want and need. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 <p>I shoot full time on two 5D MK2s I bought in 2009. I travel constantly and they really take a beating. I just send them in every year to Canon for service, and they come back fine. I really don't know why people have to climb on board the latest bodies, do they make you a better photographer?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 <blockquote> <p>I really don't know why people have to climb on board the <strong><em>latest</em> </strong>bodies, do they make you a better photographer?</p> </blockquote> <p>The 5D MKII came out at the very end of 2008 and you've had 2 of these since 2009... and you're complaining about people and the 'latest' bodies?? Really? Amazing! </p> <p>I guess you thought differently then? So why aren't you using a 1Ds?<br> <br> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Helmke Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 <p>As has been said, shooting high school football is one of the more difficult tests for a modern camera. I've shot hundreds of them using anything from a Nikkormat Ft-2 through a D100, 200, 300 and D2 series. I have no idea why anyone needs 10 fps for anything much less HS football. I'm as disappointed as the next person that there won't be a D400 so I'll move to a FF body next time I feel a need to upgrade. Some high school stadiums have lighting so poor you simply can't get decent results from even the latest models. </p> <p>Rick H.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 <p>So, either a well-used D3/D3s and reach more or less the fps you want, at the risk of needing longer lenses that'll cost a whole lot more because you won't have megapixels to throw at cropping, or sacrifice the fps and get the D750, but have some cropping room to play.<br> If your D300 still works and does what you need it to do, I'd keep shooting it till it falls apart, and see what's available then. If that moment is now - well, I'd really give the D7100 a try. Because if budget is tight and your longest lens is currently exactly long enough, loosing the crop of your camera may turn out to be a whole lot more expensive.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 <blockquote> <p>I have no idea why anyone needs 10 fps for anything much less HS football.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Rick, it's like shopping in 'those' shops that don't have price tags on items. If you have to ask, you can't afford it. Just because you don't need 10fps, doesn't mean others don't. For an event that takes 1 whole second, such as a horse/rider/fence crash, I can and do sell all 8 frames from my D700 + grip. If I could get 10 in the same time, I'd sell the extra 2 no problem!<br> <br> There are 2 aspects to wanting high fps, although by definition they are directly related. One is how many shots can I capture of a fast event in a second... the second is how far something can move in the dead-time between frames. <br> <br> As an example, something travelling 25mph (or 40kph) covers v.roughly 11m/s. Now if I manage 8 exposures of 1/1000th in 1 second, the non-recording time is 992/1000ths.... or rounded a-bit, it's in effect closed for 1/8sec between every frame....or ~1.3 meters. Panning helps mitigate this to the extent of the horse not leaving the frame, but it's progress over the jump stays the same. 10 fps just makes that distance smaller. Equally however, it gives the client more choice.<br> <br> One of these fps aspects that's always got me curious is that if someone can't understand why anyone wants 10fps, just what is 'enough' for them? Do they think 5 is enough? Why do they want anything that isn't effectively single shot? Do they ever take the camera off S? Just why did people ever want motordrives on film cameras? <br> <br> If you need more than 1 fps, then you want as many as you can get. I think it's a mental hangover from the old film days when every frame was 1/36 of some cash going down a one-way slot. Period. <br> <br> 10fps doesn't have to mean filling a card with 1000's of near identical shots. Just 5 frames can tell the story of some fast paced action....whereas 2.5 just doesn't cut it.</p> <blockquote> </blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 <p>Even for amateurs, if anyone has ever chased a bunch of kids around, will appreciate the ability to shoot at 10 FPS. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 8, 2014 Author Share Posted November 8, 2014 <p>Michael C, I think that's why Samsung just introduced the 15 FPS, NX1. I hope Samsung doesn't do to the Japanese photo industry as it and LG have done to the Japanese TV industry. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now