I know this seems petty, but there is a tough psychological barrier for me at 18MP. And that likely comes from my time with Canon. Canon's entry level "serious" DSLRs like the T2i and T3i have offered 18.2MP for several years. This is in a sub $900 body. The Canon 7D has offered 18MP with 8fps for several years. So when I said that the mission of the top sports cameras didn't need to be high megapixel that is true. BUT in terms of Nikon, I feel that they should at LEAST match what Canon has had for years now. At 18MP I would have considered the D4. At 16, I say no because my D7000 offers that. I think most sports pros would consider 24MP a bit on the high side right now for the amount of images being processed. At least on a primary body. But MANY would like to have 24 in the remotes or the backup body. Those images are often heavily cropped.
>We had this discussion before. You've raised the point that >both Canon and Sony have beat Nikon in bandwidth. That is >true.
The question is why.
>Remember, I'm addressing the idea expressed here that Nikon >can "simply" drop an existing 24mpx sensor in a D300 >body and, voila!, we have an 8fps body. I think that is a >huge leap of faith that assumes Nikon can do it. That idea >assumes the bandwidth required is "simple" and you >are now agreeing with me that a D4 with 20 mpx or more would >have been a better camera and a better seller, yet they didn't >do it. Since Nikon is behind on this spec, we can only assume >they would have done it if they could of done it.
Yes, but the decision as to what they could and could not do would have had to happen YEARS ago. That is my point. I firmly believe that thre is a gap of time between when the design specs for the D4 was writting, and the possible D400 was written. I also speculate that the delay we've seen with the D400 has been to get exactly the kind of bandwidth necessary to do what we are talking about here. Again just guessing, but it seems reasonable to me.
>>> The success of the D800 seems to fly in the face of >your argument. > >No, it doesn't. I view the D800 as a "studio >camera", not *primarily* intended for the >action/sports/wildlife market. That does not mean that it >can't or won't be used for that, just like I know D3x shooters >that shoot wildlife with that "studio camera". They >would like the D3x to do it all and shoot 8fps but they are >willing to make that compromise in order to use a camera not >specifically designed for their application. You are doing >the same with your sports shooting- you've talked at length >about the carefully considered compromise you are making with >the reduced frame rate of the D800. You make it up in >resolution .
I can see how this argument could be made.
>The D400, on the other hand, would be, at its core, purely a >sports/action/wildlife camera. It would not be a "studio >camera" because FX undeniably does a better job at those >tasks (which include landscape work). And it is the wildlife >shooters that are leading the drum beat for the D400, not >sports shooters or landscape shooters.
I think sports shooters, at least the one's I know, are busy updating primary bodies right now. Either D4 or waiting impatiently on the 1Dx. Their current bodies will move to backup status.
>As yields increase even further, sensors will get denser. >That is a certainty because pixel counts are the primary >seller of new updated cameras.
Particularly in the absence of other major features.
>You seem to be agreeing with me now yet disagreeing at the >same time. You agree that the D4 is relatively pixel poor, >based on your own statement above- not enough for you to >upgrade. Nikon lost two sales just from you. Yet you are >also suggesting bandwidth is not the issue (with the D400) and >that is contradictory. So I'm not sure exactly where you are >coming from on this.
Again, I say the D4 is pixel poor because it didn't go quite far enough. It didn't even go far enough to mimic where Canon was 3 years ago. That is more a "me" thing than a technological thing. As to the D400, I am saying I don't feel it's a bandwidth issue because I believe the technology, even at Nikon, has moved far enough along since the spec for the D4 was locked for the D400 to give us 8fps and 24MP. Just my beliefs and I could certainly be wrong.