>Hi Perrone, > >We are moving much closer > >When I said that sports was a market for the D400 I was not >thinking about Pro sports. I think you are in agreement that >that last stop of high ISO performance that goes with FX is >critical for a pro sports shooter and the high end Pros - the >ones that Nikon appears to be primarily marketing the D4 to, >on the NFL sidelines and Olympics - can afford the 600/4 if >needed, or the 400/2.8, to make the whole thing click >together. Plus the subject isolation that is so important in >a stadium shot with a crowd background that distinguishes a >truly high end sports shot worthy of an SI cover.
I think you truly underestimate or simply don't know what it's like for most pro sports shooters.
In terms of most pro level sports, we have LONG since passed the time when ISO performance was the major issue. That got solved with the D3. The reason is this. At the pro level, the lighting requirements have to be suitable for TV. And in the era from the D2x to the D3, the change was that it had to be suitable for HDTV. The *minimum* broadcast spec for HDTV puts the still photographer at about 1/800 at ISO 1600.
In speaking with several guys headed to London this summer to shoot for SI, USA Today, and other large publications, the trend is moving in the OPPOSITE direction. The cameras are so good ISO wise, they are leaving the 400/2.8 and 600/4 at home. Instead they are keeping the 300/2.8 and the 200-400/4. They get to travel MUCH lighter, and rely on the superior performance of the camera.
>Anyone that can afford a D4 and 600/4 is >already there and rightfully not thinking about DX.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Every sports shooter I know is DYING to get their hands on the next DX camera. And many were VERY upset on the Canon side to lose the 1.3 crop factor when Canon decided to go full frame on the sports cameras. DX for these guys means they can carry shorter, and MUCH lighter glass. I can absolutely guarantee you that everyone out there would MUCH rather shoot on a 70-200 than a 300/2.8. When I have the light to leave my 300/2.8 at home, and just use the 70-200 with a 1.4 extender, it feels so good I feel like I am cheating!
>For subjects that don't require huge investments in long fast >glass (no reach problems) I have trouble figuring out why >someone would spend $2K on a high end DX body when FX is >available at about the same price, with about the same sensor >density, with certain inherent advantages of FX, and then it >all comes down to another $1000 for glass, at most.
If reach isn't an issue, then I would certainly agree. But for the vast majority of sports, it IS an issue. In fact, it's the primary issue now that the ISO/Light issue has been solved mostly. At least at the pro level.
>Just to say that high end DX will be an ever narrowing >niche...
You have a LOT of guys out there shooting sports, wildlife, etc. that would love to have a high density DX sensor in a D4 body.
>>> 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. > >Yes, yes yes!!!! That is exactly why I believe Nikon was >bandwidth limited on the D4. Othrewise they surely would have >matched Canon or gone to 20mpx just to get 2mpx on the right >side of that critical competitive number.
I'm going to address this again in a moment.
>>> ...Nikon, has moved far enough along since the spec >for the D4 was locked for the D400 to give us 8fps and 24MP > >Here I may still disagree. The D4 was only announced a couple >of months ago. If a D400 were announceed today, its design >would have been locked just acouple months at most after the >D4, and maybe at the same time (or even a bit later) since >within that short of a time frame marketing issues may have a >fairly significant control of the back end length of the >design cycle.
You are presuming that Nikon requires the same development time for a D4 as they do a smaller body. I've not found that to be the case at all. Nikon's development cycle for the full sized pro bodies has ALWAYS been longer than for any of it's other bodies. The D300-D400 is a flyer. And again, it's my belief that it has been held up by what I believe was a spec change from the 16MP chip on the D7000 to the 24MP chip we see on the D3200. I really do believe they changed their minds mid-stream on this and have had to rework things to make sure they get the 8fps people are going to expect.
> >Now, if a D400 were announced 6 months from now, that is still >less than a year. Look how long Nikon had between the D2x, >which could not properly handle 12 mpx at the sports frame >rate, and the D3. It took years to get there.
I am betting the D400 will be announced this fall with a Christmas time delivery.
>The D300 owners feel abandoned and many >have said exactly that here because they do not have their >replacement NOW. Yet they are also demanding (collectively >for sure and in too many cases, individually) both the >resolution of the now lowest end 24 mpx entry model >(reasonable I think), and also the 8fps they have now (not >necessarily a reasonable "demand, in my opinion).
Yep. It's a tough spot. I understand the frustration of the D300 people. I have a D200, but the D300 replacement is a GIANT hole in my camera lineup.
>Before >the D3200 the general thinking here was 16mpx with good low >noise performance to meet or beat the D7000 would be great, >and hey, I can wish for 20mpx too . But now the bar went >even higher and that backed Nikon into a corner...
I think this is the nail on the head. And I've said that if the D400 doesn't arrive in time for fall sports, I will buy another D7000 and that will be my remote camera setup. D800 in hand, D7000s on remote. D3s if necessary.
> That corner they are backed >into is a bunch of wildlife shooters that for some reason >insist on spending serious money for bodies, even bigger >ultra-serious money for the highest end glass, but just won't >accept FX yet even if it is basically the DX camera they want >within an FX frame.
But it's NOT the DX camera they want in an FX body. That's the problem. And it's the same for me with shooting sports. There does not yet exist an FX body that can match in DX what a D7000 can do or a D300. The D800 can almost match the D7000 resolution wise in DX, but it's slower and more than twice the price. The D4 has the speed, but crops down to where the D200 is. Neither of those is going to be acceptable.
>>>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. > > >Even in the here and now the D800 is quietly chipping away at >that market and the camera wasn't even designed to do that. >If the D800 were intended to do that it would (and surely >could) shoot 8fps in DX mode.
Agreed. My D800 has taken over nearly every role in my shooting. And that's saying a LOT. I did use my D3s this past weekend. With an on-camera flash no less. I didn't want to carry more than 1 body or more than 2 lenses, so I had the 50, and the 85. The place was very dark.