Latent Images wrote:

You're in denial. The D800 is the replacement for the D700. Done.

I agree.  But I think the reason people don't see it is that the D800 took a HUGE hit in FPS.  Sure, only went from 5 to 4, but with the grip and proper battery, the D700 could do 8 FPS.  The D800 can't.  I think the D810 is a better replacement equivalent of the D700, minus the ability to do 8 fps.

Latent Images wrote:
You're in denial. The D800 is the replacement for the D700. Done.

No, the D800 was the replacement for a hypothetical D700x.

A D700 replacement - or any replacement in general - needs to be a Pareto improvement. The D800 was not the D700 replacement any more than it was the D3x replacement, or any more than the D4 was the D800 replacement. A camera without a vertical grip is not a replacement for one with a grip, a camera with a 16 or 24MP sensor is not a replacement for one with a 36MP sensor, and a camera that can only shoot 4 fps is not a replacement for one that can do 8 fps.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Sounds like you want a D4.

Wtf is a "proper physical size body"?

The people who complain that their chosen brand doesn't make their fantasy camera irritate me. Chances are, they do, you just refuse to make any compromise at all on the ONE criteria that doesn't make sense to the rest of the people buying cameras.  Or they don't want to pay the price premium for the existing product.

How does video on your still camera affect your ability to use the camera effectively?

That's the crux of this whole discussion, every damn time it comes up. There are exceptions on course, including some people in this very thread. Some.

People want a more expensive camera, and then dream up ways it could cost less, and think they 'deserve' that cheaper model. I really want a nice pair of stereo speakers - something in the $4,000/pair range. I can't afford that right now ... But I don't think the fact that I have a good ear for music and am knowledgeable about audio means that I deserve them any more than any other rube without 4 grand to blow.

It seems like most of the people that want some of the specs of a pro camera in a cheaper body have convinced themselves that they deserve that camera more than everybody else that can't afford it. Otherwise, they'd just buy the pro camera.

Most. Not all.

And don't bother posting to tell me you're an exception because you 'only want...' We know who the exceptions are.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Nikon seems to be more focused on full frame.   I think it depends on how they think the 7Dii affects their sales.  As an example, do they feel that a D400 will drain sales from the low end full frame?  Who knows.  I see the value of a high end APS-C camera.   Nikon appears to have a different idea.  I think they see the D7100 as their offering.  Anything is possible though.

If Nikon were to produce a "D400" camera that had at least 16 MP, could shoot at 12-15 fps (like the new Samsung shown at Photokina, with 28 MP), and had dual-slots that were *not both SD slots (preferably 2 CF's, but if it had 1+1 I'd be cool with it....better, 1 XQD 1 CF/SD), then I'd very very very strongly consider changing-up my entire kit. Oh, and iridescent buttons like the D4 as well as the AF system used in the D4. I'd very possibly sell my D4 and buy one brand-new, and be happier. I barely use my D4 nowadays compared to my D800E, which is a little back-asswards if you think about it! I'm looking at it from an ROI perspective, not a value-for-money perspective. I've been open-ears & open-eyes for a true D300/s replacement since *before the D7000 was released!

Ðaniel A Betts (Danny)
DBIphotography Toronto

BBM# 2BCC0DFE
(416) 727-8685 (mobile)
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.dbiphotography.com

“The vilest deeds – like poison weeds – bloom well in prison air; it is only what is good in man that wastes & withers there.”
~Oscar Wilde

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

If Nikon were to produce a "D400" camera that had at least 16 MP, could shoot at 12-15 fps (like the new Samsung shown at Photokina, with 28 MP), and had dual-slots that were *not both SD slots (preferably 2 CF's, but if it had 1+1 I'd be cool with it....better, 1 XQD 1 CF/SD), then I'd very very very strongly consider changing-up my entire kit. Oh, and iridescent buttons like the D4 as well as the AF system used in the D4. I'd very possibly sell my D4 and buy one brand-new, and be happier. I barely use my D4 nowadays compared to my D800E, which is a little back-asswards if you think about it! I'm looking at it from an ROI perspective, not a value-for-money perspective. I've been open-ears & open-eyes for a true D300/s replacement since *before the D7000 was released!

Ðaniel A Betts (Danny)
DBIphotography Toronto

BBM# 2BCC0DFE
(416) 727-8685 (mobile)
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.dbiphotography.com

“The vilest deeds – like poison weeds – bloom well in prison air; it is only what is good in man that wastes & withers there.”
~Oscar Wilde

I too changed the way I shoot. I used to own the D300 and did rapid fire shooting. But with my D800...It is more careful planning and truly setting up the looks and shots.
When the D9300 comes out...IT will be 24mp or more and be able to shoot at least 10fps or more, with the help of a battery grip. But, it seems that Nikon wants everyone to have a Full Frame.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

I too changed the way I shoot. I used to own the D300 and did rapid fire shooting. But with my D800...It is more careful planning and truly setting up the looks and shots.
When the D9300 comes out...IT will be 24mp or more and be able to shoot at least 10fps or more, with the help of a battery grip. But, it seems that Nikon wants everyone to have a Full Frame.

I know, hey? (Shooting-style) I thought I was pretty hawt shit until I got the D800, but once I got it and started shooting in studio settings I dropped the word "hawt" from that self-observation   I previously was making about 220-305 captures/session, in a 2-hour Portrait session. And selling diddly-squat (selling no service packages to actual clients, only doing a few small events for chump-change). Now, I'm still doing a very few events as a financial crutch, but I'm doing 2/3 portrait sessions every 90/100 days I'd guess. I'm making between 70-110 captures per session! My session Saturday, I made 68 captures, for example!

My ISO Speeds used dropped dramatically as well, once I realized how much IQ I was losing all along by using higher ISO speeds   Then of course, I was introduced by the green-WB issue below ISO 400! A1 + M1, and desaturate the green channel while slightly raising magenta & amber channels in Capture One 7, and I'm awesome now. That camera taught me that I wasn't as good as I thought I was. If anything, I was like the 23-y/o kid who thinks he knows it all   (I'm 38)

I'll keep my eyes posted for that D9300. Ironic fact, for anyone reading this post: when the D800/E was initially only a rumor, I laughed at DOUGLAS in disbelief. Well, not only was he spot-on about the D800 that was coming - but as it turns out, I ended up buying one!! (Wasn't planning to) Thanks, man

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site)
   
“The vilest deeds – like poison weeds – bloom well in prison air; it is only what is good in man that wastes & withers there.”
~Oscar Wilde

GPS Studio Services wrote:
I think it depends on how they think the 7Dii affects their sales.

+1

Viator Defessus Photos wrote:
For what it's worth, the D610/D600 makes me happy and I expect it to continue to do so until they break.

Word up... same here... super happy with mine... they need to go down in price even more so I can buy another as a backup... ... either that or I'm gonna havta bite the bullet and buy a D750...

Light and Lens Studio wrote:
If you have a crop frame sensor digital camera and you are satisfied with it, why the need for more discussion. 

Personally, if you think you need 10+ FPS or more to shoot sports or wildlife, or action, that says loads about you and your technical skills. 

I won't be getting one because I already shoot a D800 and the D750 would be a step backwards.  Not sure all the votes are in on the D810, but I'd really like to see some one start a thread now that there are a number of them in use in the real world.

Excuse me?  this is so completely laughable.  Anyone with at least a jr. high education should be able to understand the benefits of having as many FPS possible for sports, wildlife, and other action related subjects.

Light and Lens Studio wrote:
If you have a crop frame sensor digital camera and you are satisfied with it, why the need for more discussion. 

Personally, if you think you need 10+ FPS or more to shoot sports or wildlife, or action, that says loads about you and your technical skills. 

I won't be getting one because I already shoot a D800 and the D750 would be a step backwards.  Not sure all the votes are in on the D810, but I'd really like to see some one start a thread now that there are a number of them in use in the real world.

Yeah, it says that you know what you are doing and don't want to mess around with gear that does not meet your needs.

For some reason, many people get blinded by the idea of "spray and pray" and totally miss the reality that the faster the FPS, the faster the camera can take a second photo, so it can be a huge help even if you're not shooting like a machine gun.

For example, when one is doing a pan shot, you often get far better results by trying to have your second frame be the money shot, since the first frame often can have bounce... but, when that second frame happens will be HUGELY different whether you're shooting a 4fps, 8fps, or 11fps body.

Does not mean that with 10fps that you only will shoot 10 frames, it may just be that you're shooting 4 frames in less than 1/3 versus shooting 4 frames 1 one second.

Everyone that I know who has really good technical skills for shooting sports, strongly prefers high FPS, NOT because their technical skills are lacking, but because combined WITH their technical skills, it allows them to get amazing results they cannot get with slower bodies.

What does it say about me and my technical skills?  It says that I care about the shots, not just one shot that is "good enough", but that I prefer getting many great shots that result in a "these are all so great, how the fuck do I choose".

Quite simply, I don't believe in good enough, I believe in doing my best, and feel my camera manufacturer should be delivering gear that is built to the latter standard, not the former that thinks consumer specs are "good enough".

Light and Lens Studio wrote:
If you have a crop frame sensor digital camera and you are satisfied with it, why the need for more discussion. 

Personally, if you think you need 10+ FPS or more to shoot sports or wildlife, or action, that says loads about you and your technical skills. 

I won't be getting one because I already shoot a D800 and the D750 would be a step backwards.  Not sure all the votes are in on the D810, but I'd really like to see some one start a thread now that there are a number of them in use in the real world.

Your kidding right?
Just try to shoot sports and fast action with a slow frame rate and focus system. You will starve to death as I don't care how good you are you will not keep up with the intense competition.
The d810 for sports? ha ha ha. A d4s yes but not a d800 or d810. The work flow alone of the 36megapixel files will be enough to just say no.
They aren't shooting 10 or 14 fps to get a good shot they already know how to do that. they are doing it to catch the full cycle of a action.
Like a hard hit... flip then loss of the ball. All would be impossible to really predict.
The buffer speed and size is also very important.

I am shaking my head here after your statement.
Why camera mfgs have several different models and not just 2 or 3. For different style of shooters. I don't use my 5d mkIII or 6d for sports and action. My skills tell me to reach for the right tool for that job. My 7d. and soon the 7d mkIII. Just like I don't use the 7d for portraits, real estate, weddings etc... Again that is what my 6d and 5d mkIII are for. My MF when I get a new back for it for studio.

I still can't believe you said that.

Light and Lens Studio wrote:
If you have a crop frame sensor digital camera and you are satisfied with it, why the need for more discussion. 

Personally, if you think you need 10+ FPS or more to shoot sports or wildlife, or action, that says loads about you and your technical skills. 

I won't be getting one because I already shoot a D800 and the D750 would be a step backwards.  Not sure all the votes are in on the D810, but I'd really like to see some one start a thread now that there are a number of them in use in the real world.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Yeah, it says that you know what you are doing and don't want to mess around with gear that does not meet your needs.

For some reason, many people get blinded by the idea of "spray and pray" and totally miss the reality that the faster the FPS, the faster the camera can take a second photo, so it can be a huge help even if you're not shooting like a machine gun.

For example, when one is doing a pan shot, you often get far better results by trying to have your second frame be the money shot, since the first frame often can have bounce... but, when that second frame happens will be HUGELY different whether you're shooting a 4fps, 8fps, or 11fps body.

Does not mean that with 10fps that you only will shoot 10 frames, it may just be that you're shooting 4 frames in less than 1/3 versus shooting 4 frames 1 one second.

Everyone that I know who has really good technical skills for shooting sports, strongly prefers high FPS, NOT because their technical skills are lacking, but because combined WITH their technical skills, it allows them to get amazing results they cannot get with slower bodies.

What does it say about me and my technical skills?  It says that I care about the shots, not just one shot that is "good enough", but that I prefer getting many great shots that result in a "these are all so great, how the fuck do I choose".

Quite simply, I don't believe in good enough, I believe in doing my best, and feel my camera manufacturer should be delivering gear that is built to the latter standard, not the former that thinks consumer specs are "good enough".

It is interesting.  First, I find the 7Dii to be an impressive camera, so this is not a criticism.  I did notice, however, that the 10fps spec is quite interesting.   It is only 10fps at 1/1000th of a second and wide open aperture.   The 1/1000th isn't an issue.  I can see you wanting to shoot that fast for sports.  The wide open aperture, is more of an issue.  You may well want more depth of field.

I was trying to do a comparison.   If you are shooting at f8, the 7Dii and the D7100 aren't that different in performance.   The bigger difference, isn't the frame rate but the buffer size.  That is where I find the 7Dii to excel.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
It is interesting.  First, I find the 7Dii to be an impressive camera, so this is not a criticism.  I did notice, however, that the 10fps spec is quite interesting.   It is only 10fps at 1/1000th of a second and wide open aperture.   The 1/1000th isn't an issue.  I can see you wanting to shoot that fast for sports.  The wide open aperture, is more of an issue.  You may well want more depth of field.

I was trying to do a comparison.   If you are shooting at f8, the 7Dii and the D7100 aren't that different in performance.   The bigger difference, isn't the frame rate but the buffer size.  That is where I find the 7Dii to excel.

Either Nikon has the D7100 slowed down to account for the aperture for example, or it slows the effective frame rate even further.  It takes time for the camera to stop down the aperture and open it back up, but shooting wide open does not require that mechanical action to take place.  Sure, you can still shoot f8, but the mechanical time for the camera to stop down will slow how fast the camera can shoot, although it will only do so measured in milliseconds.

Thinking logically though, if the 7Dii is shooting 10 fps at 1/1000, wouldn't it make sense that if you're shooting at 1/60th that the camera would have a harder time still pumping out shots at 10fps?  However, it would still be ready for the second photo nearly 2x as fast as a D7100 at the same shutter speed.  I have not seen such detailed specs for either camera, but Nikon seems to love to exaggerate on such things, so yeah, I have a strong feeling the differences are quite significant.  Even the size of the D7100 is too small... the size of the D300s/D700/D800 is perfect.. I just wish they would stop moving the ISO button around.

Lets not even talk buffer, they are all too small.

Then again, I even have bitches about the D4s.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I said "well", not perfectly.  I think the 7100 matches up well against even newly announced 7Dmk2...except for the buffer and FPS.

The 7100 isn't even a match for the 7d. It isn't even close to being in the same class as the 7d MKII.

JohnEnger wrote:
I just wish that Nikon would get their heads out of their @$$es and make a camera with the essentials needed for photography... A proper follow up to the D700... I'm just sick of their video toys! If they don't get their stuff together, I'll be switching brands (Color copier, camera maker her I come!)...

Here's what I want:
- 24ish MPX
- FX sensor
- More than 6 fps
- Solid build and weather sealing.
- CF cards, at least one effin' slot...
- Proper physical size body (Like the D700/D800)
- No video / or less focus on video.
- I don't need 200 focus points.
- Less focus on 400 million iso (Who shoots in complete darkness anyway?)

John

Sounds like a D3x to me.

Caitin Bre  wrote:

The 7100 isn't even a match for the 7d. It isn't even close to being in the same class as the 7d MKII.

Caitin.....we have trouble respecting the opinion of a poster whose work we cannot use to judge the value of their words & opinion. Since you're posting from a model-account, that tells us 2 things. One, you're either more 'model' than 'photographer' and you're likely a model with photography as a hobby. Number 2, although judgment of quality is extremely subjective - especially on social networking sites like MM - when you post your opinions, we have no examples of your work to look at to decide "hmm, her stuff isn't bad. And she does this p/t [or f/t] for a living, and she's a member of a group or two. She may have a valid opinion", OR think "what amateur stuff! Her opinion is without merit to me! She's not even affiliated with a professional association???".

To speak to your post directly, I suspect you've never used a FF camera or processed the images made by one. 10 fps on a FF camera is far more digital information being processed, and furthermore pro-body cameras like the 1DX or my D4 shoot at those speeds with a reasonably consistent rendition of the images. I use my D800E at its full speed, and only every 3rd or 4th image has proper WB and accurate exposure. (It's not a camera meant for speed!) My D700 compared to the D3 I had at the time, same story. For speed and megashnitzels, if I were wealthier I'd have the new Samsung NX1 with its 28 MP captures made at 15 fps, in a cropped-image/sensor body.

Until then, I'll be pleased to shoot with my D4 or D800E in 1.2x or 1.5x (crop) mode with larger photosites being captured per-image. (that's where the information is btw, in the photosites - not the MP)

This wasn't a troll-post, btw. My intention was to hopefully share some information with you that you clearly hadn't considered. (Posting as a model, primarily)

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site)
       
“The vilest deeds – like poison weeds – bloom well in prison air; it is only what is good in man that wastes & withers there.”
~Oscar Wilde

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. Anyone who questions the weight of my opinion(s) is free to validate my words based upon their review of my work (website) – which may/may not be supportive.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Canon's new 7D mk2?

Nikon already I think matches up well with this camera except for the 10 fps and the buffer.  Two features which are critical for sports and other action related photography.

10 fps for under $2,000 is such a huge feature that I believe that can get Nikon users to switch brands. I already know one wildlife photographer considering ditching his D800e for it.  he does AMAZING work with a 4 fps camera.  He's gonna really knock it out at 10 fps.

Unless Nikon has been very very awesome in keeping secrets and they'll have a huge announcement at the end of this week, I don't think we'll see anything in less than 6 months.

I don't shoot sports so having high FPS means little to me. But, 10fps isn't new.  Sony A77 already had that in 2011.

  I don't think Nikon will bring out the D400.  Personally, I don't see anything above $1500 with APS sensor is worth the money. 

  The future for pro and semi pro DSLR will be FF.  Small mirror less and consumer DSLR will be APS.

JohnEnger wrote:
I just wish that Nikon would get their heads out of their @$$es and make a camera with the essentials needed for photography... A proper follow up to the D700... I'm just sick of their video toys! If they don't get their stuff together, I'll be switching brands (Color copier, camera maker her I come!)...

Here's what I want:
- 24ish MPX
- FX sensor
- More than 6 fps
- Solid build and weather sealing.
- CF cards, at least one effin' slot...
- Proper physical size body (Like the D700/D800)
- No video / or less focus on video.
- I don't need 200 focus points.
- Less focus on 400 million iso (Who shoots in complete darkness anyway?)

John

Complete darkness? Nobody, cuz it'd be pointless I'm sure, but for the rare occasion you're out shooting with your D800/whatever and the sun drops it's nice to be able to create acceptable images up as high as ISO 10,000 even!

Gary Melton wrote:
The existence of Big Foot will be confirmed before we ever see a Nikon D400!!!

What I read...D400 will be FF and D9300 will be a Crop Sensor.

ChanStudio wrote:

I don't shoot sports so having high FPS means little to me. But, 10fps isn't new.  Sony A77 already had that in 2011.

  I don't think Nikon will bring out the D400.  Personally, I don't see anything above $1500 with APS sensor is worth the money. 

  The future for pro and semi pro DSLR will be FF.  Small mirror less and consumer DSLR will be APS.

...and that new Samsung can do 15 fps, plus it is mirrorless... and Sony A77 could already do 10 fps in 2011. Seems like the new Canon is slow to the party, with their new/old camera.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

What I read...D400 will be FF and D9300 will be a Crop Sensor.

Sometimes I think Nikon's Camera model naming convention really mess up a lot of people. 

Since the D750 is a small camera with FF, would the D400 have even smaller body with FF?

ChanStudio wrote:

Sometimes I think Nikon's Camera model naming convention really mess up a lot of people. 

Since the D750 is a small camera with FF, would the D400 have even smaller body with FF?

What I seen was...D400, D600, D700, D800, D900 are FF

D3300, D5300, D7100, D9300 will be Crop Sensors.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

...and that new Samsung can do 15 fps, plus it is mirrorless... and Sony A77 could already do 10 fps in 2011. Seems like the new Canon is slow to the party, with their new/old camera.

You know, I was thinking about that the other day.  If a camera that shots at 5fps and has an average shutter life of 150K to - 200K.  Shouldn't a camera kicks in at 15fps have an average shutter life of 450K - 600K?   But it didn't, the 10fps camera still have a shutter life of 150K. 

  I think Camera manufactures find a way to increase their revenue. More fps means shutter will get replace quicker or people would buy new camera sooner.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
Nikon have abandoned any "professional" camera development in the "DX" sensor size and are concentrating on prosumer cameras in that range -

instead I think that the introduction of the D750 further supports the notion that they are focusing more on the "full frame" sensor sized cameras for advanced amateurs and professionals alike....

Can you actually cite any official word from Nikon that they HAVE abandoned that, or are you just giving your opinion and claiming it is a fact?

Claims like you offered in the first sentence, which serve to try to encourage people to give up on any hope or desire for professional DX bodies essentially tries to create and further a self-fulfilling prophecy, while such claims are offered without a shred of evidence.

For profit companies tend to give in to demand.

Those that want these types of cameras MUST continue to make their voices heard, and frankly I don't care if that annoys or irritates the people who are not interested in these cameras.  If you already have what you want, fantastic, but please have the courtesy to shut your pie hole long enough so that the people who DO want other cameras (such as professional dx bodies) because they are best for their needs, can make their voices heard in hopes that they can get Nikon to build the cameras they want.... just like those who are tickled pink with what is already on the market have the luxury of enjoying.

It is great that some people have what they want, so now have some courtesy and let people who want something different than what you want have a chance to get what they want too.

That is the reason why supporters of pro dx bodies need to have their voices be heard, and it would help a lot of other photographers were not constantly trying to put roadblocks in the way of something that won't impact them because they don't need to buy it.  Stop trying to make it harder for other people to get what they do want.   

Just because you don't want it does not mean that other people should not be allowed to get what they want.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/09/23/nikon … lity.aspx/


Few other points from the interview:

4k video is coming to the Nikon DSLR lineup
"You can expect some new DX lenses in the future. We haven’t forgotten about our DX customers"
Nikon is still "studying the demand" for a D300s replacement
Nikon is also "studying" the possibility of a D3X successor (D4s body with a high MP sensor)

If they introduced a D4x, I would sell my D4 and D800E, buy a D4x and use some cropper as a backup. Probably. Most likely.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
To speak to your post directly, I suspect you've never used a FF camera or processed the images made by one.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up FF since we're talking the Nikon D7100 and the Canon 7D.  Both are APS-C sensors.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I'm not sure why you're bringing up FF since we're talking the Nikon D7100 and the Canon 7D.  Both are APS-C sensors.

Read the post I responded to, and you'll know why. As well, I didn't see the part of your post that spoke to the topic of the forum thread, Chris. I'm sure you weren't just trolling me without having read the posts leading up to my post (which would further enlighten you as to why there was talk by a number of us regarding FF cameras), so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're more mature than that and you simply hit "Post" or "Edit" or "Reply" or whatever early/accidentally. Have a nice day.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
Read the post I responded to, and you'll know why. As well, I didn't see the part of your post that spoke to the topic of the forum thread, Chris. I'm sure you weren't just trolling me without having read the posts leading up to my post (which would further enlighten you as to why there was talk by a number of us regarding FF cameras), so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're more mature than that and you simply hit "Post" or "Edit" or "Reply" or whatever early/accidentally. Have a nice day.

She was responding to something *I* wrote. And I didn't write anything about FF sensors.

Besides, the topic of this thread is about Nikon releasing a higher FPS DX sensor camera (though I, personally, would prefer a high FPS Nikon FX).

Did you perhaps mean to respond to something else she wrote?

Christopher Hartman wrote:

She was responding to something *I* wrote. And I didn't write anything about FF sensors.

Besides, the topic of this thread is about Nikon releasing a higher FPS DX sensor camera (though I, personally, would prefer a high FPS Nikon FX).

Did you perhaps mean to respond to something else she wrote?

Sorry, I don't have time to go through all the posts that led to my posting making a referral to FF cameras as well as other things. I'm working atm.