Did Nikon really give up on amateur action?

[ZapoTeX]

I mean "action photography" - sports, birds, etc... whatever moves fast shot by non-professional photographers

I say this because:

1) The current range of telephoto lenses is either non-stabilized (300 F/4) or horribly expensive (300 F/2.8, 600 F/4, etc...), while Canon has some pretty great stuff, such as a 400 F/5.6. Will Nikon ever release a 400 F/5.6?

2) The new FF model has a zillion of megapixels and a fairly low speed burst rate (6 fps). What about an "amateur D4"? No matter whether APS-C or FF, is it ever going to be released? Apparently not, given that the D400 is expected to have 36 MP too.

I'm not complaining (I have a lot of fun with my D90 and I'm not planning an upgrade), but I'm a little surprised. Few years ago, there was the D300 and Canon had not released the 7D yet. The situation was opposite: Nikon had made a camera for amateur action photographers. Canon would only follow years later. Now it looks like the cheapest Nikon camera specifically designed for action costs 7,000 dollars.

What do you think?

 

[Aloicious]

I mean "action photography" - sports, birds, etc... whatever moves fast shot by non-professional photographers

I say this because:

1) The current range of telephoto lenses is either non-stabilized (300 F/4) or horribly expensive (300 F/2.8, 600 F/4, etc...), while Canon has some pretty great stuff, such as a 400 F/5.6. Will Nikon ever release a 400 F/5.6?

2) The new FF model has a zillion of megapixels and a fairly low speed burst rate (6 fps). What about an "amateur D4"? No matter whether APS-C or FF, is it ever going to be released? Apparently not, given that the D400 is expected to have 36 MP too.

I'm not complaining (I have a lot of fun with my D90 and I'm not planning an upgrade), but I'm a little surprised. Few years ago, there was the D300 and Canon had not released the 7D yet. The situation was opposite: Nikon had made a camera for amateur action photographers. Canon would only follow years later. Now it looks like the cheapest Nikon camera specifically designed for action costs 7,000 dollars.

What do you think?

I haven't heard anything about the d400 specs, I would highly doubt that it'll be 36mp, that just wouldn't make any sense to me since they already have the D800 why would they need 2 different super high MP cameras in the same range...A D400 that is DX in the 16-18mp range would make more sense to me, like a upgraded D300s or something. but that is just what would make sense to me, so who knows what it'll be.

 

[ZapoTeX]

Thanks for your thoughts!

I was wrong, according to Nikonrumors, the D400 will be 24 MP, still too many I believe. My computer struggles with 12 MP!

My dream camera is my D90 with the AF system of the D4 Am I the only one?

At the same time, I understand that people like me are a minority. Canon was ahead with the race for pixels and Nikon wanted to gain the lead.

Have a great day everyone!

 

[Aloicious]

I'd even doubt those specs, that post is very old too, just a month earlier than that one they claimed the D4 was going to be 32 MP, which it wasn't even close to:
Nikon D4 with 32MP, D400 with 24MP sensors from Sony? | Nikon Rumors
and in this post which is only 2 months ago, the poster says that they don't have any info on what the D400 will be...
Nikon D400 will not be announced before the D800/D4 | Nikon Rumors
I think we'll need to just wait and see...

 

[Trever1t]

as far as lenses you only mention the primes that are fairly costly but the 70-300 is both VR and quite decent for consumers it's just not fast and fast costs $$$ in any range.

 

[cgipson1]

as far as lenses you only mention the primes that are fairly costly but the 70-300 is both VR and quite decent for consumers it's just not fast and fast costs $$$ in any range.

I second that! It is a "Rocking" lens for the money!

 

[KmH]

There is a fairly sizable body of amateur sports/birds photographers that can fairly easily afford $10,000 long telephoto prime lenses and $6000 camera bodies.

 

[ZapoTeX]

Thanks everyone for sharing your opinions!

@Aloicious: that's great, so there is still some hope that the D400 has 16 (or even 12) MP and a lightning-fast, blade-sharp autofocus!

@Trever1t and cgipson: agree, I have the 70-300 lens and I'm enjoying it a lot
Only thing is, sometimes I'd like to go more than 300mm. In that case, the only available options are hugely expensive. Even a 70-200 with a 2x multiplier would end up costing 2,500+. Or, there is the 80-400, which is no AF-S though. I'd love a 400 F/5.6 or even 500 F/5.6

@KmH: in US, it could very well be true. In Europe it's extremely uncommon to see anything more expensive than a 70-200 in the hands of a non pro. Most expensive I've seen in a shed for bird sighting was a 300 F/2.8 with a 1.7 multiplier Maybe one day I'll be into photography enough to invest the equivalent of a small size car into glass

 

[Patrice]

D700 with grip and Lithium batteries can blast exposure at pretty fast clip and has an excellent af system -perfectly suitable for an amateur wanting to shoot sports. Put a decent tele lens on it and nothing stops it from taking pictures of birds, even birds in flight. Put a tripod under it and it can do a fair job with landscapes. Put your go-to lens of choice and go for a walk you'll notice "street" and photojournalism is quite feasible as well.

Last time I looked D700's were a fair bit less than $7000.

Based on specs alone, a D800 should be able to do all those jobs as well. If you don't like high mp raw files you can go dx with this beast and still get a goodly amount of pixels to play with. $3000 is a little bit less than $7000 as well.

Heck, even a D7000, which if also a bit less than $7000, can do any of those jobs with aplomb.

So, in my opinion, I don't believe the amateur/enthusiast wanting to do sports and birds has been forgotten by the Mitsubishi group company, Nikon Corporation.

 

[ZapoTeX]

Hi Patrice,

thanks for your thoughts as well!

When I wrote "give up" I was obviously exaggerating. What I meant was that out of the NEWLY RELEASED models, there was not one SPECIFICALLY intended for non-professional sports/birds.

Of course there are Nikon cameras that do the job well, even my D90 which I love and its newer sister D7000 which I borrowed for a weekend are great all-rounders and do the job well enough for me to have fun and learn. On top, the D300s and D700 are designed for the job.

What my post meant was that there is still no actual "heir" of the D700 and D300s.

I'm pretty sure the D800 does the job very well too, but a very large part of the price to pay for it is for a super dense sensor, which is not very useful in situations where motion blur (on turn, influenced by high-ISO performance) and AF-accuracy influence the quality of the final print a lot more than raw size.

Thanks again!

 

[chuasam]

There is a fairly sizable body of amateur sports/birds photographers that can fairly easily afford $10,000 long telephoto prime lenses and $6000 camera bodies.

I used to work in a camera store. I can testify to that fact. A lot of the $10,000 400mm f/2.8 are bought by amateurs. Very very few professionals actually own that lens.

 

[MLeeK]

You seem to have completely missed the D7000 in your cameras. It is the amateur answer to everything here.
As for Nikon giving up on the amateur shooters I think it's quite the opposite. While canon has the 7D available, the 5D2 has crap for specs for the action shooter and your only other option besides the 7D is to jump in, sell your soul, house a couple of kids and a kidney to get into the 1dX. So, while we may have lenses, we don't have much option for camera bodies.
The ideal? Nikon bodies and Canon lenses. I have read that many many many times!!!