Nikon 1 V3

[JerryLove]

Lets say one thing about all of this, its nice to have options with photography.

Agreed.. but whats the best Nikon option for a sports shooter? There really isn't one... its a choice of compromises.

D4. Highest frame rate, highest ISO (indoor sports), most AF points.

 

[TheLost]

Agreed.. but whats the best Nikon option for a sports shooter? There really isn't one... its a choice of compromises.

At what level? Mom n dad taking pics at soccer, a D7100 will do just fine.

At pro level when there are other shooters your photos will be matched with? You want top of the line D4/D4s. If you are shooting basketball with a D7100 f3.2, 1/800, 1600 ISO and a guy next to you could be a'using a D4 f4, 1/1250, 3200 ISO.

For argument sake ignore all other variables such as timing and position. The camera will perform better.

I should preface this by saying... I am the guy at the high school basketball game with the D7100 next to the guys with the D4s's. I shoot HS Football, Basketball, Rugby, Water Polo along with Youth sports (inside/outside). I'm also one of the first people to shout how great the D7100 is..

.. but the fact is... its a compromise. You will hit the buffer wall.. and you will miss a shot every now and then.

The D300 was a GREAT camera..
The D700 was an AMAZING camera..

Pick the D7100, D610 & D800 and then settle on what your giving up.

The V3 is an enigma... 20fps.. great AF speed.. no weather sealing.. only sold as a KIT in the US.. micro-sd.. and priced higher then the 'flagship' DSLR D7100. Its targeted at sports/action shoots.. just look at the website:
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Nikon-1-Cameras/Nikon-1.page#PerformanceCameras

 

[TheLost]

but whats the best Nikon option for a sports shooter? There really isn't one... its a choice of compromises.

D4. Highest frame rate, highest ISO (indoor sports), most AF points.

The compromise on the D4 is: 16mp in a 24mp world and $6k of your hard earned money (not to mention lenses... a 300mm f/2.8 isn't cheap)

 

[JerryLove]

but whats the best Nikon option for a sports shooter? There really isn't one... its a choice of compromises.

D4. Highest frame rate, highest ISO (indoor sports), most AF points.

The compromise on the D4 is: 16mp in a 24mp world and $6k of your hard earned money (not to mention lenses... a 300mm f/2.8 isn't cheap)

While one might compromise cameras because of cost, cost itself isn't a compromise.

That's like saying "what's the best car for going fast", me saying "a Veyron" and you saying "but a Corolla is cheaper". The question needed to be different like "what's the best $1k and under camera for sports photography".

16MP is a non-issue for likely real-case sports scenarios where you wouldn't be resolving it by moving to Hasslebald or the like. Notice that professional sports digital photography existed 5 years ago when 24MB wasn't an option.

 

[JacaRanda]

Just had a meeting with the main Canon dude. Told him they better put out the 7Dmkii soon and it better have a better sensor than the 70d. He said okay but tell all the idiots to stop buying those cheesy 18 mp cameras with the crappy sensors. Once I get the message out we are in like Flynn. Give me just a couple of months to spam the world.

That will trigger Nikon to get the D400 out and we all will be happy campers...................until the next thingy.

I keep getting a mental block on the whole dynamic range and low light issues with the 7D because I see so many doggone people out and about using them. Unless folks are cleaning the crap out of their gear, a number of them look new or barely used (those that I am able to spy).

For sports, I get it with crappy lighting on fields at night and in gyms, but I am too much of a wuss to be chasing hawks and bobcats in the dark.

When I see a great picture on Flickr or 500px or anywhere else, I try to check out what camera was used. Many times it is a 7D for wildlife. I hope those photographers understand what a crappy sensor that camera has and that they are holding me back from getting my 7Dmkii. :evil:

 

[JerryLove]

Just had a meeting with the main Canon dude. Told him they better put out the 7Dmkii soon and it better have a better sensor than the 70d. He said okay but tell all the idiots to stop buying those cheesy 18 mp cameras with the crappy sensors. Once I get the message out we are in like Flynn. Give me just a couple of months to spam the world.

Can you tell me how this story related to the Nikon 1 v3?

 

[JacaRanda]

Just had a meeting with the main Canon dude. Told him they better put out the 7Dmkii soon and it better have a better sensor than the 70d. He said okay but tell all the idiots to stop buying those cheesy 18 mp cameras with the crappy sensors. Once I get the message out we are in like Flynn. Give me just a couple of months to spam the world.

Can you tell me how this story related to the Nikon 1 v3?

Nope

 

[TheLost]

While one might compromise cameras because of cost, cost itself isn't a compromise.

That's like saying "what's the best car for going fast", me saying "a Veyron" and you saying "but a Corolla is cheaper". The question needed to be different like "what's the best $1k and under camera for sports photography".

16MP is a non-issue for likely real-case sports scenarios where you wouldn't be resolving it by moving to Hasslebald or the like. Notice that professional sports digital photography existed 5 years ago when 24MB wasn't an option.

Cost is a HUGE factor.. If it wasn't we'd all be shooting D4's with f/1.4 and 2.8 lenses.

Who is going to fork out $1.2k for a V3? IMHO.. $699 would have been better.

 

[JerryLove]

Cost is a HUGE factor..

Being a factor doesn't make it a compromise.

If it wasn't we'd all be shooting D4's with f/1.4 and 2.8 lenses.

That's true for the "best for sports" criteria you originally set (though only when discussing Nikon exclusively). For macro photography, you'd likely do better with a D800 and its 36MP sensor.

Who is going to fork out $1.2k for a V3? IMHO.. $699 would have been better.

I agree: the N1 seems a bit cost un-competitive.

Though I suppose it depends on how you look at it. If it actually meets the specs... if it can actually take 20 full-resolution, focused, DSLR-quality images per-second: then this has just become a better sports camera than the D4... it's a bargain.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon V3 First Impressions, article published by Thom Hogan. Nikon V3 First Impressions | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

"I can sum everything up about my first day of shooting with the V3 in four words: what were they thinking?"

A litany of complaints follows. Targets were left missed. Clean, well off-target misses.