Where's the speed?

Started Nov 11, 2012 | Discussions
ralittle2 Contributing Member • Posts: 724
Where's the speed?
1

With all the discussion of the ultimate "death" of DX one thing seems to be missing in the equation... where is the other speed camera?

At the moment with the obvious exception of the D4, Nikon doesn't produce a camera with the FPS for a sports camera.  For this reason alone I can't see Nikon not producing a speedier camera aka the D400.  Am I missing something?  Nikon used to produce three DSLR's with high FPS, the D3, D700, and D300.  Now they've updated the D3, but there are no direct replacements for the D700 or D300 with the necessary high FPS for a sports camera.  At some point I might become less concerned whether the camera is full-frame or DX, but I would think that there would have to be something that costs less than 6k that can do 7/8 FPS.  Doesn't this make at least a little sense?

 ralittle2's gear list:ralittle2's gear list
Nikon D300S Nikon D750 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II +3 more
Nikon D3 Nikon D300 Nikon D4 Nikon D40 Nikon D700
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Kerry Pierce
MOD Kerry Pierce Forum Pro • Posts: 19,757
Re: Where's the speed?

ralittle2 wrote:

With all the discussion of the ultimate "death" of DX one thing seems to be missing in the equation... where is the other speed camera?

If I thought that any of those folks predicting the demise of DX had even a little credibility, I might be somewhat concerned about their predictions.  But, I have yet to see any reason to believe their predictions are anything other than trolling.

At the moment with the obvious exception of the D4, Nikon doesn't produce a camera with the FPS for a sports camera. For this reason alone I can't see Nikon not producing a speedier camera aka the D400. Am I missing something? Nikon used to produce three DSLR's with high FPS, the D3, D700, and D300. Now they've updated the D3, but there are no direct replacements for the D700 or D300 with the necessary high FPS for a sports camera. At some point I might become less concerned whether the camera is full-frame or DX, but I would think that there would have to be something that costs less than 6k that can do 7/8 FPS. Doesn't this make at least a little sense?

I don't think you're missing anything at all.  I see no reason to believe that Nikon will abandon the amateur sports market.  Canon certainly isn't. They are currently having issues with competing with the latest generations of Sony/Nikon sensor performance, but otherwise, they're doing quite well in this area. Both the 7d, which recently got a significant firmware upgrade for high performance, and the 5dIII, which sports the new Canon pro AF, are both good amateur speed cameras. The 5dIII is a little short on FPS, at 6, but otherwise seems rather impressive. So, it's very hard for me to imagine that Nikon is simply going to concede this market segment completely to Canon.

Given that the d5200 introduction has been delayed in the US until January, 2013, I would assume that the d300 replacement will arrive within 6 months or so, after the d5200 hits the shelves. Whether or not Nikon is going to do a cheap FX speed camera, ie a d700 replacement, is anyone's guess.  Personally, as much as I'd like to see a d700 upgrade, I don't have much hope for that, at least for this generation of cameras.

But, the bottom line is that nobody here knows what Nikon will do, so the only thing we can do is wait and see what cameras they will deliver next year.  Personally, I've no need for any new cameras other than the d300 replacement.  But, it needs to be a true d300 upgrade.  I won't buy a slow, 24mp noisebox that they call a d400. My 12mp sensor already gives me all the noise that I need.

Kerry

-- hide signature --

my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 Kerry Pierce's gear list:Kerry Pierce's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC +17 more
jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,330
Re: Where's the speed?

ralittle2 wrote:

Nikon used to produce three DSLR's with high FPS, the D3, D700, and D300. Now they've updated the D3, but there are no direct replacements for the D700 or D300 with the necessary high FPS for a sports camera. At some point I might become less concerned whether the camera is full-frame or DX, but I would think that there would have to be something that costs less than 6k that can do 7/8 FPS. Doesn't this make at least a little sense?

I've been making this same point too.

The D800 is a great high res camera.  The D600 is the most affordable FX camera.  Neither is particularly optimized for shooting action.   The D800 has the right AF, but not the fps.  The D600 and the D7000 have neither.  While all of those can be used for action, none are as optimized for it as either the D700 or D300 (AF, fps, buffer, AF-ON, etc...) were in their day.

So, what I think we're seeing now is a bit of a pendulum swing.  Nikon came out with a couple innovative FX cameras and apparently prioritized those above new cameras at the the top end of the DX line or even an action camera in the FX line (e.g. a D700 upgrade).  But, DX is still a huge portion of Nikon's overall sales and will likely remain so for a very long time.  And, as you and Kerry point out, the need for great action cameras is still there and Nikon likely doesn't want to cede that to the competition.

I think we'll see the pendulum swing back the other way in 2013 and get some great new DX cameras, including one optimized for action.  Whether we see both a 7100 and a D400 or just a D7100 that moves upscale from the D7000 is unclear yet.

-- hide signature --
JimPearce
JimPearce Veteran Member • Posts: 9,153
Agreed John...

If Nikon decides to bring back the speed either the D7000 successor or D400 is the place we should expect it to happen, as a high speed FX camera this early in the cycle would likely steal sales from the D4, D800 and D600. Of course it's quite possible that 6 fps is all we'll get.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D500
Karld70 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,549
I'm sure they will have higher FPS Body

JimPearce wrote:

If Nikon decides to bring back the speed either the D7000 successor or D400 is the place we should expect it to happen, as a high speed FX camera this early in the cycle would likely steal sales from the D4, D800 and D600. Of course it's quite possible that 6 fps is all we'll get.

-- hide signature --

Jim

I really can't see them not putting out a high FPS DX body.  The only mystery is if they upgrade the D300 body to a D400,.. or if they make the D7000 replacement the top DX body, step down the size body of the top DX body like they did with the move from D2 to D300.  Might be time to step down the body size again.

coudet Veteran Member • Posts: 3,969
Re: Where's the speed?

ralittle2 wrote:

At the moment with the obvious exception of the D4, Nikon doesn't produce a camera with the FPS for a sports camera. For this reason alone I can't see Nikon not producing a speedier camera aka the D400. Am I missing something? Nikon used to produce three DSLR's with high FPS, the D3, D700, and D300.

And before that, they used to produce one DSLR with high FPS - D2h.

There's no law in Japan saying Nikon must have three DSLR with 8+ FPS.

jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,330
Re: Where's the speed?

coudet wrote:

ralittle2 wrote:

At the moment with the obvious exception of the D4, Nikon doesn't produce a camera with the FPS for a sports camera. For this reason alone I can't see Nikon not producing a speedier camera aka the D400. Am I missing something? Nikon used to produce three DSLR's with high FPS, the D3, D700, and D300.

And before that, they used to produce one DSLR with high FPS - D2h.

There's no law in Japan saying Nikon must have three DSLR with 8+ FPS.

There's no law.  But, there are customers who want something that we know is possible to build because Nikon has built it before.  If Nikon doesn't build it again, then eventually, some of those customers will go find someone else who does.  It's Nikon's choice whether they want to serve that market segment or not (people looking for an action-optimized camera for significantly less than $6k).

-- hide signature --
seahawk
seahawk Senior Member • Posts: 2,763
D700 als misses a replacement

So while I agree that Nikon will launch another faster cameras in the future, it might not be DX.

-- hide signature --

hobby aviation photographer

ragspix Contributing Member • Posts: 995
Re: I'm sure they will have higher FPS Body; I'm sure too...

Karld70 wrote:

JimPearce wrote:

If Nikon decides to bring back the speed either the D7000 successor or D400 is the place we should expect it to happen, as a high speed FX camera this early in the cycle would likely steal sales from the D4, D800 and D600. Of course it's quite possible that 6 fps is all we'll get.

-- hide signature --

Jim

I really can't see them not putting out a high FPS DX body. The only mystery is if they upgrade the D300 body to a D400,.. or if they make the D7000 replacement the top DX body, step down the size body of the top DX body like they did with the move from D2 to D300. Might be time to step down the body size again.

But it might not be a dslr DX.

I wonder if Nikon will be taking the big step into the future with a mirrorless high fps 1.5 DX in this cycle

They got the AF engineering down in the V1, they need to reengineer the EVF & design a new chip to increase write speed

Rags

jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,330
Re: I'm sure they will have higher FPS Body; I'm sure too...

ragspix wrote:

Karld70 wrote:

JimPearce wrote:

If Nikon decides to bring back the speed either the D7000 successor or D400 is the place we should expect it to happen, as a high speed FX camera this early in the cycle would likely steal sales from the D4, D800 and D600. Of course it's quite possible that 6 fps is all we'll get.

-- hide signature --

Jim

I really can't see them not putting out a high FPS DX body. The only mystery is if they upgrade the D300 body to a D400,.. or if they make the D7000 replacement the top DX body, step down the size body of the top DX body like they did with the move from D2 to D300. Might be time to step down the body size again.

But it might not be a dslr DX.

I wonder if Nikon will be taking the big step into the future with a mirrorless high fps 1.5 DX in this cycle

They got the AF engineering down in the V1, they need to reengineer the EVF & design a new chip to increase write speed

I'd be surprised if Nikon's next step was to introduce a high speed FX camera between the D600 and D800.  It could come over time, but I would think they'd allow those cameras to sell for awhile and attack other pricing areas first that are much more in need of new blood (specifically the area covered by the D7000 and D300).

It seems unlikely to me that mirror-less will start at the top end of the DX line because you need great AF and a good VF for action and it doesn't seem like Nikon is there yet with mirrorless.  While, they could probably do high fps with mirror-less, there isn't a lot of point to expensive high fps if AF isn't awesome.  It seems more likely that we'll see a DX sensored mirror-less at the low end of the DX line where the VF and AF bar/competition isn't as high.  Since they just introduced the D3200 this year, I wouldn't expect this new DX mirror-less real soon either.  Perhaps as the D3200 starts to age in 12-18 months.

-- hide signature --
ragspix Contributing Member • Posts: 995
Re: I'm sure they will have higher FPS Body; I'm sure too...

Hmmm... I had the V1... very solid AF...

jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,330
Re: I'm sure they will have higher FPS Body; I'm sure too...

ragspix wrote:

Hmmm... I had the V1... very solid AF...

Are you talking about difficult action, in low light, with low contrast subjects? Like a dark-colored bird flying in the air pre-dawn against a messy background with an f/4 or even f/5.6 lens on where focus is evaluated with narrow DOF?

Or a completely black soccer uniform at significant distance in heavy overcast or after sunset?

It is the lower contrast, lower light, difficult background that separates out the really good AF from the OK-in-easy-conditions AF and it is the ability to not only accurate acquire focus on a stationery object, but to track and stay on the subject even if doesn't stay perfectly on the main AF sensor as the subject moves. FYI, for a non-moving subject of sufficient contrast and light, there's little difference between the results produced by the D3200, D5200, D7000 and D300 AF. But, it's these more difficult situations where the difference matters a ton.

Can you speak to how the V1 handles these more difficult types of conditions?

-- hide signature --
Kerry Pierce
MOD Kerry Pierce Forum Pro • Posts: 19,757
Re: I'm sure they will have higher FPS Body; I'm sure too...

ragspix wrote:

Hmmm... I had the V1... very solid AF...

That's interesting, but rather surprising.  How does it compare to the pro AF found in the d4 and d800, or even that found in the d300/d3 series?  The DPR review states that the V1 doesn't focus well in low light, which is a big deal for sports/wildlife/event shooters.

Kerry

-- hide signature --

my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 Kerry Pierce's gear list:Kerry Pierce's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC +17 more
ragspix Contributing Member • Posts: 995
Re: I'm sure they will have higher FPS Body; I'm sure too...

Can you speak to how the V1 handles these more difficult types of conditions?

The N1 system uses a dual function AF. I don't know the engineering, but it did focus well in low light, but didn't produce a good image because of other factors. I shot "Cirque" in the dark & it seemed equal to my 300S & 700; but not the images.

I shot in difficult conditions frequently with my 300s & D700; in desert racing & foggy surfers, where AF needs to be overridden due to low contrast.

I believe the N1 system uses colors also, but check that statement out.

They also use a different sensor (not Sony), which may explain some of the imaging issues

Rags

David314 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,790
Why isn't the d800 8 fps in dx mode?

jfriend00 wrote:

ralittle2 wrote:

Nikon used to produce three DSLR's with high FPS, the D3, D700, and D300. Now they've updated the D3, but there are no direct replacements for the D700 or D300 with the necessary high FPS for a sports camera. At some point I might become less concerned whether the camera is full-frame or DX, but I would think that there would have to be something that costs less than 6k that can do 7/8 FPS. Doesn't this make at least a little sense?

I've been making this same point too.

The D800 is a great high res camera. The D600 is the most affordable FX camera. Neither is particularly optimized for shooting action. The D800 has the right AF, but not the fps. The D600 and the D7000 have neither. While all of those can be used for action, none are as optimized for it as either the D700 or D300 (AF, fps, buffer, AF-ON, etc...) were in their day.

So, what I think we're seeing now is a bit of a pendulum swing. Nikon came out with a couple innovative FX cameras and apparently prioritized those above new cameras at the the top end of the DX line or even an action camera in the FX line (e.g. a D700 upgrade). But, DX is still a huge portion of Nikon's overall sales and will likely remain so for a very long time. And, as you and Kerry point out, the need for great action cameras is still there and Nikon likely doesn't want to cede that to the competition.

I think we'll see the pendulum swing back the other way in 2013 and get some great new DX cameras, including one optimized for action. Whether we see both a 7100 and a D400 or just a D7100 that moves upscale from the D7000 is unclear yet.

-- hide signature --

I have never understood why the d800 is not at least 8 fps in dx mode

unless there is going to be a high fps dx camera in the near future, and if there isnt another 8 fps camera this next year I I don't know to think think about nikon....

jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,330
Re: Why isn't the d800 8 fps in dx mode?

David314 wrote:

I have never understood why the d800 is not at least 8 fps in dx mode

unless there is going to be a high fps dx camera in the near future, and if there isnt another 8 fps camera this next year I I don't know to think think about nikon....

I would guess it's because it costs significantly more to go 8fps than 5fps and that extra cost wasn't worth it just for adding a feature to DX mode only.

-- hide signature --
David314 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,790
Does 6 fps in dx mode now

jfriend00 wrote:

David314 wrote:

I have never understood why the d800 is not at least 8 fps in dx mode

unless there is going to be a high fps dx camera in the near future, and if there isnt another 8 fps camera this next year I I don't know to think think about nikon....

I would guess it's because it costs significantly more to go 8fps than 5fps and that extra cost wasn't worth it just for adding a feature to DX mode only.

-- hide signature --

Cnsidering the d700 did 8 fps and the d800 does 6 fps I wouldn't guess it was a huge Stretch

if nikon really wanted to kill the pro dx camera, the d800 has the features, focus pixels

the fps is only thing that keeps me reaching for my d300

jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,330
Re: Does 6 fps in dx mode now

David314 wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

David314 wrote:

I have never understood why the d800 is not at least 8 fps in dx mode

unless there is going to be a high fps dx camera in the near future, and if there isnt another 8 fps camera this next year I I don't know to think think about nikon....

I would guess it's because it costs significantly more to go 8fps than 5fps and that extra cost wasn't worth it just for adding a feature to DX mode only.

-- hide signature --

Cnsidering the d700 did 8 fps and the d800 does 6 fps I wouldn't guess it was a huge Stretch

if nikon really wanted to kill the pro dx camera, the d800 has the features, focus pixels

the fps is only thing that keeps me reaching for my d300

Perhaps Nikon doesn't want to kill off the pro DX camera.

-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads