[Dave Williams]

Canon's 400mm f5.6 (not IS) is just over £1K, the 800mm f5.6 IS is just under £10K.

How much would you pay for a 500mm f5.6 VR ?

[pe'rigin]

"I don't print A2+ sized prints (D800) or work in a dark cave (D4)". BY JPAC

I thought that in all the tosh that has been written on the Nikon/photo forums, this was the most sensible statement I've seen.

It points out the extremes of the cameras specifications which people argue about.

Most peoples skill levels pre and post production do not match the capabilities of these cameras.

JPAC sums ups perfectly, a camera should suit your needs.

Now the D800 might be that camera, the same question should be asked do you really need a 400mm, with this camera?

[Jaff]

Originally Posted by rioja

Canon's 400mm f5.6 (not IS) is just over £1K, the 800mm f5.6 IS is just under £10K.

How much would you pay for a 500mm f5.6 VR ?

I'd think if it could be priced roughly the same as the 300mm f2.8 (realistically be a little more though) then that would be an interesting proposition, especially with these new AF systems being more sensitive at f5.6 apertures.

Although with Nikon's cameras having good ISO performance for improved shutter speeds a 500mm f5.6 non-VR might be do-able, especially if given good support as most do with big tele's.

Yet still the glaringly obvious candidates for updating are the zoom and 300mm, even just one would be a triumph. Also a cheaper f4 alternative to the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII like Canon do would be a nice addition. It's ironic that Canon have quite a few lenses that don't really need to be made and Nikon could certainly stand to add a few more.

Yet more views and news filtering through http://www.dpreview.com/articles/289...ssionals-think

[Helios]

Chipped extension tubes should be first on Nikons list. It's a mystery why the 80-400 VR and 300/4 AFS havn't been updated yet.

[Jaff]

Do you know I've only just noticed in the blurb of the D800 about a 25MP 1.2x crop mode. That would keep file sizes to a more manageable level for general shooting but I don't know if you would get a bigger buffer out of it, I'd hope so! FPS of 4 I think stays the same. If I had this camera I'd only use the full 36MP for special occasions or birds and even more so if they were quite distant, otherwise 1.2x sounds like a nice 'standard' shooting mode more so than the DX mode.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Jaff

Do you know I've only just noticed in the blurb of the D800 about a 25MP 1.2x crop mode. That would keep file sizes to a more manageable level for general shooting but I don't know if you would get a bigger buffer out of it, I'd hope so! FPS of 4 I think stays the same. If I had this camera I'd only use the full 36MP for special occasions or birds and even more so if they were quite distant, otherwise 1.2x sounds like a nice 'standard' shooting mode more so than the DX mode.

Jaff,
I wish people wouldn't keep confusing me with the facts. I'm a "swinging" purchaser at the moment as I like features of both cameras. Overall though I would like to use one of the best cameras in the world on a more regular basis eg holidays and family events. I don't use my D3/D3s for this as they are just too heavy to hang around your neck all day. The D800 would be ok to travel with and could still be used for bird photography. I'm now "swinging" in this direction but I will be influenced with which I can get my hands on first.
To those who "quibble" about why this feature/why that feature I would say that Nikon knows what pros want and has been good at delivering it over the years. If you don't want hi iso capability but want a great camera, pick up a used D3 with low mileage. One was sold here recently for US1500.
Neil.

[Helios]

Originally Posted by Jaff

Do you know I've only just noticed in the blurb of the D800 about a 25MP 1.2x crop mode. That would keep file sizes to a more manageable level for general shooting but I don't know if you would get a bigger buffer out of it, I'd hope so! FPS of 4 I think stays the same. If I had this camera I'd only use the full 36MP for special occasions or birds and even more so if they were quite distant, otherwise 1.2x sounds like a nice 'standard' shooting mode more so than the DX mode.

Still stuck at 4 fps. I would want 6 at least in DX mode (meaning the vertical handgrip). Buffer speed would improve but there's a big difference between 4 fps, and 7 or 9 fps (D300s or D3). When the bird is close enough so that you have control of the framing, it really is difficult to make use of all of the pixels because of DOF and focusing errors (and thats with 12MP). When I reduce the files to 200kb for the web, nobody notices anyway. I think the 36MP thing is mainly for studio or landscape (where nothing moves). Still the D800 sounds like a great camera as it could perform exactly as a D7000 in DX mode, and better than a D3X in FX mode (apart from pro-body and slightly less fps). All at less than half the price.

[RJM]

Moose Peterson and Thom Hogan both have made a case in their blogs for 6-8fps as the baseline fps needed for a great wildlife/sports camera. Certainly when I upgraded to the D300s from a D90 it along with the far superior AF improved my BiF shots. I think Nikon has done a brilliant job of differentiating who the D4 and D800/E are for.

[JPAC]

Unfortunately the D800 only produces a raw NEF at full FX and DX. A jpg setting of M in FX mode will not make a 20MP NEF file. :(

The 1.2 crop on FX will give 5fps with or without the battery grip MB-D12.

The 'low' of 4fps in FX doesn't bother me that much because it has a good buffer so you can get about five seconds of holding the shutter release down - depending on shooting settings of course.

Having a 104MB file using a 600mm f4 and TC20E has a certain appeal. :)

There should be a chart or database of how close you can get to every bird before it flies off.

There's a lot to think about.

[Jaff]

I think everyone posting on this thread is having a serious think about the D800 as their next purchase Neil, myself included really. I suspect most considering the D800 will wait until they see what the D400 has to offer in comparison though. For me though I need the ISO performance of the D4 which acording to the pre-production samples used by the pros in the DPReview article is supposed to be better still than the D3s so I'm still sticking with it. It's important for me to state actually that my photographic interests are not purely restricted to wildlife and nature so a D4 would help me pursue my interests outside of that. I'm happy with the 10MP of my MKIII so 36MP would simply offer more creative options for cropping as opposed to me really needing any more reach.

I think you already know Helios that you need the D4 batteries or AA batteries to get that 6FPS with the battery grip.

Oh and Neil finding a good travel bag or strap that hangs the D3s over your shoulder instead of around your neck might alleviate your burden somewhat.

[GYRob]

Iv always used Canon but im not brand loyal ,i have to say this d800 looks to be a stunning camera on paper so looking forward to when its used out in the field it will make canon have to have a rethink or it should as the d800 ticks lots of boxes.
Rob

[capdegat]

Can somebody give me a really good argument as to why anyone needs more than even 4 FPS for birding. I can understand for sports but why do you need more even for BIFs. Surely this is more down to technique and experience i.e. panning with bird etc.

[Dave Williams]

Originally Posted by capdegat

Can somebody give me a really good argument as to why anyone needs more than even 4 FPS for birding. I can understand for sports but why do you need more even for BIFs. Surely this is more down to technique and experience i.e. panning with bird etc.

Lots of instances as far as I'm concerned. Slow moving subjects might not be as critical but even then a slight turn of the head might make a difference in the way the light catches the eye. With fast moving subjects like a Kingfisher or a Gannet diving and hitting the water or appearing with their catch, an Osprey striking a fish, or an Heron striking it's prey it makes a huge difference between catching the action at the critical moment or being a little too soon or too late.
I see just as much need for faster frame rate in nature photography as in sport. cheers Dave

[Helios]

Action photography for wildlife happens in a blink of an eye, just as Wayne Rooney striking a ball or a knockout punch from a boxer. With a fast FPS camera with an adequate buffer, you can get a sequence of say 20 shots, rather than say 5 with a slower one. This can make all the difference to the end result as you'll get a better chance of catching the perfect action shot.

Some examples: -

[capdegat]

Why not buy a video !

[Dave Williams]

Originally Posted by capdegat

Why not buy a video !

Why not take up another hobby !

Seriously , part of the magic of still photography for me is capturing a moment that the eye and brain can't register as it happens too quickly.
One like this for example
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/sho...0/ppuser/53820
You wouldn't see this on video no matter how slow it was replayed
cheers Dave

[ericbowles]

At a professional level or in major contests, the right head position or eye contact at critical action can make the difference between a good image and a winner. Head position and a catchlight are very important - even with critical action. Being able to fire a burst of 8 images in a second of action doubles the chance of a perfect capture.

I usually find that a short burst of 2-4 shots is plenty, but there are subjects and occasions where more really is better. You can develop an understanding of your subject and know whether you need short or long bursts of images. It also takes practice to be able to switch between short and long bursts of images.

[Dave Williams]

Originally Posted by ericbowles

At a professional level or in major contests, the right head position or eye contact at critical action can make the difference between a good image and a winner.

At an amateur level and in minor contests it's exactly the same for me. We can all aspire to capture the ultimate image, it's when we stop dreaming that we have to query what we are doing ! cheers Dave

[Neil]

Originally Posted by capdegat

Why not buy a video !

Les,
I wonder how long before we are all shooting HD video at hi rez and "frame grabbing" for stills. For those who are happy with record shots at 1920x1080 we are already there. The Nikon V1 is shooting 60 frames in full Raw in one second. With 4K HD video the quality might be enough for most of us and Japanese Researchers are developing an 8k sensor.
Neil

[capdegat]

Neil,
I don't disagree, its just that this lust that every camera that now comes out must shoot in moonlight and have video the bbc could use. Great for those who want all this , the rest of us obviously have no choice.

[Jaff]

Yes you do. We're talking about what are semi-professional bodies here and many full time pros would probably want one too and indeed would have had a great deal of input as to what they want to see from these bodies. If you're needs out of photography don't match what cameras of this level and above deliver then the answer is simple, buy from the lower end like a D7000. The capabilities will always reflect the price so if you don't need a super low light camera or one with high end movie quality then you don't have to have one.

So what I'm getting at is these cameras are aimed at professional togs and they tell Nikon what they'd like to have in them, which is superb lowlight shooting and high quality movies and so Nikon produce cameras that deliver what this segment of the market wants to see.

[capdegat]

Are you saying I can't have a ff camera then, as only pros use them ?

[Steve Tucker]

Can somebody give me a really good argument as to why anyone needs more than even 4 FPS for birding. I can understand for sports but why do you need more even for BIFs. Surely this is more down to technique and experience i.e. panning with bird etc.

Why not buy a video !

Originally Posted by capdegat

Are you saying I can't have a ff camera then, as only pros use them ?

Are you being deliberately pedantic?

[capdegat]

yes , when it is 'suggested ' that I should accept lesser quality so some people can do movies. Thanks and goodbye

[GYRob]

One thing that will always be the case if haveing to buy things on a camera we neither want or use .
Take the 7d my main camera i dont need P tv av or a popup flash i dont need auto iso or any iso above 1600 for that matter ,i dont need the level indicator or 90% of the custom fuctions ,i dont need a light in the LCD or AI focus and quite a few more things BUT the 7d has the things i do want 6fps spot focus point and fast and very good af plus af tracking control M and micro ajust and yes a few more bits .
So its just a case of buying a camera that does have what you want and forget about the bits that are there and you dont want.
Rob.