Next Pro series Nikon

Next Pro series Nikon

11 posts
14 July 2014
LaurenceJPower
Photographer
LaurenceJPow..
Well whether it's called the D4x or D5, here are the specs that I would like to see

24Mp - since 16 can easily do a double page spread, 24 should do it cropped to a 5 x 4 format, and still be over 12K in DX format, 30+ is too many, it clogs up the computer needlessly as far as I am concerned
Full frame
Widen the focus points and accept that people using DX lenses will loose out, sports users will welcome the ability to let faces closer to the edge of the frame.
8 fps - surely nobody needs more than that, and the body needs some time to check focus and exposure
Max iso 102.4K - again this may seem retrograde, but just how often have people actually used anything close to that
D4 style body - tough, designed for heavy usage.

Price no more than the D4s, let people choose insane spec with lower pixel count or reasonable spec and the opportunity to crop images to a greater degree.

 

Posted 14 July 2014
paule
Photographer
paule
24mp D610 is what I'm considering after I totalled my D800... 36mp is nice but focus is not as instant as my D700 & D3 are esp in low light... so may downgrade to 24mp..

A 24mp D4x would be excellent..



Posted 14 July 2014
LaurenceJPower
Photographer
LaurenceJPow..
I too have looked at the D610, but like the weight and the powerful built in motor of the single digit (D2, D3, D4) bodies.

Posted 14 July 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
paule
24mp D610 is what I'm considering after I totalled my D800... 36mp is nice but focus is not as instant as my D700 & D3 are esp in low light... so may downgrade to 24mp.. A 24mp D4x would be excellent..
I can't say that my experience of D700 v D800 focusing tallies with yours. I would say they are about the same with the lenses I use and scenes I shoot and I wouldn't argue with the spec which says that the D800 is fractionally better in low light (or technically that it focuses at - 2ev rather than -1 ev with D700. The D810 is reputed to improve on focus ( I thought it said same as D4, but that may just be speculation / forum chat).
Posted 14 July 2014
LaurenceJPower
Photographer
LaurenceJPow..
Just done the maths, 24Mp full frame should give me 20Mp as 5 x 4 shape and for DX 10Mp. that's plenty. One spec on the D610 that I don't like, the max iso, I would like a little more than 6400, that's what I've currently got on the D3's that I use, 12800 would just give me that edge (boost giving me extra leeway if things get tough).

Posted 14 July 2014
paule
Photographer
paule
D800 has missed a couple of wedding shots for me.. D700 never has.. always tough low light or low contrast.. and off centre FP... it's a superb camera I just don't need 36mp for every photo... 24 is about perfect.

I agree 6400 ISO is a low ceiling... though I'm loath to go over 3200 ( D3 & D700 )so 6400 should be more than enough.. I must search out some high res D4s high iso images... interested to see what they look like..

the other little issue is 4000/s shutter... I mainly shoot manual so not a big problem and with UK summers.. I'm rarely going to hit a ISO 100 x f/2.8 v 4000+ barrier... I'm normally ISO 400-800 & f/5.6..

going to wait until the 17th and see what offers the sites introduce.. tempted by WEX's DSLR exchange (£150 upto) with an old DSLR... Fuji S5 56k I've asked for a quote... cracking camera but it's business not pleasure all tools are replaceable..

Posted 15 July 2014
Kiboko
Photographer
Kiboko
I reckon you lot would be pretty hard pushed (no pun intended) if you had to use a low ISO, the figures you quote are almost beyond comprehension! For years I used Kodachrome 25 and then moved on to the speedier Fujichrome Velvia rated at 50 but gave better results when used at 40ISO. I now use a Nikon D610 so I'm not fettered by ISO, but I do wonder how modern day photographers would cope if they found they were tied to say, 50, or 100 ISO for any reason. I think we could expect a lot of blurred images! If you could master the skill of acquiring sharp images at 25, 40, 50 or 100ISO in poor light, you might then find that you don't need treble figures.

Posted 15 July 2014
LaurenceJPower
Photographer
LaurenceJPow..
You're right of course, but I spend most of my time now shooting horses, much of which is indoors. I'm working at f2.8 and need 1/300th just for dressage, Show jumping really needs 1/500th or above. People buying photos want everything sharp and hoof and tail/mane movement is faster than body movement. Forgot to mention that flash is definitely out, and I'm normally using an 80-200 mm lens, although it's not unknown for me to use either an 85 f1.8 or 50 f1.4, both really need to be stopped down to 2 or 2.8 to give me a little depth of field

Posted 15 July 2014
Edited by LaurenceJPower 15 July 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Kiboko
I reckon you lot would be pretty hard pushed (no pun intended) if you had to use a low ISO, the figures you quote are almost beyond comprehension! For years I used Kodachrome 25 and then moved on to the speedier Fujichrome Velvia rated at 50 but gave better results when used at 40ISO. I now use a Nikon D610 so I'm not fettered by ISO, but I do wonder how modern day photographers would cope if they found they were tied to say, 50, or 100 ISO for any reason. I think we could expect a lot of blurred images! If you could master the skill of acquiring sharp images at 25, 40, 50 or 100ISO in poor light, you might then find that you don't need treble figures.
Why would you deliberately ignore the best tools available to you ? Kodachrome 25 may have been suitable for you, but are you saying it wasn't the best technology available at the time - that you deliberately ignored Kodachrome 200 because you were a luddite or did you not use it because you didn't find the results satisfactory. Why didn't you use a more traditional (and slower) process on plate cameras ? What made you decide to stop at developing in the 1970s rather than the 1870s (pun intended)
Posted 15 July 2014
LaurenceJPower
Photographer
LaurenceJPow..
stolenfaces

Why would you deliberately ignore the best tools available to you ? Kodachrome 25 may have been suitable for you, but are you saying it wasn't the best technology available at the time - that you deliberately ignored Kodachrome 200 because you were a luddite or did you not use it because you didn't find the results satisfactory. Why didn't you use a more traditional (and slower) process on plate cameras ? What made you decide to stop at developing in the 1970s rather than the 1870s (pun intended)


Well I have to disagree with you. I wish I could still use Fuji velvia shooting beauty with an Elinchrom pack and head using a 1m softbox with reflectors. Unfortunately that does not pay the bills, indoor sports does and light levels with the added problems of weird colour balance - it not just low pressure sodium lights which give a lovely orange glow it's the fact that some of these places have a colour belance which changes every few feet as the bulbs have been changed individually. Oh I forgot one has to add the problem of daylight changing as it comes through the windows. Just to end this off I still have both my Blad and a Gandolfi which go out on certain jobs where speed is not an issue.
Posted 15 July 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
LaurenceJPower
Well I have to disagree with you. I wish I could still use Fuji velvia shooting beauty with an Elinchrom pack and head using a 1m softbox with reflectors. Unfortunately that does not pay the bills, indoor sports does and light levels with the added problems of weird colour balance - it not just low pressure sodium lights which give a lovely orange glow it's the fact that some of these places have a colour belance which changes every few feet as the bulbs have been changed individually. Oh I forgot one has to add the problem of daylight changing as it comes through the windows. Just to end this off I still have both my Blad and a Gandolfi which go out on certain jobs where speed is not an issue.
Are you disagreeing with me ? Doesn't look like it to me.
Posted 15 July 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join