There is a concern amongst sports shooters about the slow fps with the D800. 4 fps. Shooting a D200, I find that when I shoot in C mode, I can shoot a burst of frames only to have to wait while the camera catches up writing to the cf card. (I use the sandisk extreme III). That being said, should I be concerned about the D800 and its slow 4fps? I shoot pee wee football and am still trying to catch the action. The D200 is extremely limited for my shooting higher iso, which is why I am interested in the D800. Any thoughts?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The FPS can be upped using the battery grip to 6FPS but that only works in DX mode. I was on the preorder list and decided to wait and see what the D400 brings.

Visit
My Nikonians Gallery
NorcrossPics.Com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

If you need a camera that us faster than a D200, the D800 is not your camera. Maybe a D3 would suit. If you want to stay DX then a D2x maybe or wait on the D400.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>If you need a camera that us faster than a D200, the D800 is
>not your camera. Maybe a D3 would suit. If you want to stay
>DX then a D2x maybe or wait on the D400.

Yeah... but the D800 in DX mode (if you are happy with cropped and light the reach) has 29 shots, or 38 if in 12 bit, which is quite a lot.

So if your concern is you want more than 4fps, I agree, something else.

If your concern is the length of time you can shoot at 4fps, there are options. Fast card, 12 bit, DX mode, you probably get a lot more than 38 as there is some buffer emptying as you write, but that's near 10 seconds. Pee-wee football rarely has a 10 second play does it?


Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

Ther are two issues at play. The first is the FPS and the second is the buffer. If I recall correctly the D200 buffer is spec'd for 21 RAW frames whereas the D800 is 17 for FX. So, the D800 will shoot slightly less shots before you have to wait. The D800 can probably write to the card faster (assuming an appropriatly fast card) but of course the files are bigger so the two are probably comparable. Of course, in DX mode the FPS are higher and the files are smaller (so the buffer is effectively larger). But I don't think I would be buying a D800 to use primarily as a DX camera.
The FPS is a matter of the one's shooting style and sport. If you are trying to get that "moment" (like when a bat hits a ball) its more about anticipation. But sometimes there are unpredictable events (bicycle crashes) where you just fire away and sort it out later.
Personally, I find buffer size and flush speed to be the more important of the two.
The non-existent D400 seems to be a better fit for your needs. If you want something now, maybe consider a used D3. It will get you the low light performance(same sensor as D700) with a nice FPS and buffer. Being two cameras back, the D3 should now be pretty well priced.


Brian

I've ordered the D800 and waiting for my dealer to call me when it comes in so I cannot speak about real life performance. I do shoot many wildlife; over the years I've learned to shoot bursts using my finger to determine fps rather than leave finger on the shutter and sort later.

When I shoot long burst of pictures, many of the pics may not be perfectly composed or even focused. Over the years I learned to slow down and exert more "control" over the pictures when I need successive pictures.

My opinion; I hope I did not offend anyone.

http://galleries.gorji.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hello Daniel,

The following and the half dozen associated posts should answer any other questions you may have:

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=226&topic_id=39657&mesg_id=39657&page=4#39790

...and I wasn't even obsessed...

Regards...