Nikon D6: The Best Camera Nobody Cares About

The most advanced Nikon camera ever created is right around the corner. But does anyone care? 

Nikon recently teased the new D6, the successor to their $6,500 sports DSLR, the D5. Although we don't know the camera's exact specs or price yet, most people are expecting a standard upgrade with slightly more megapixels, ISO performance, focusing, and hopefully better shooting performance. 

But even if the D6 is the greatest DSLR ever made, how many photographers are actually excited to buy it? This genre of camera is so expensive and so finely tuned for sports photographers that the average shooter probably will never consider it. And with mirrorless cameras taking over the industry, do DSLRs in general feel like old technology? 

In the video above, Patrick and I have a conversation about the Nikon D6, its potential features, and the quickly shifting photography market. 

Lee Morris's picture

Lee Morris is a professional photographer based in Charleston SC, and is the co-owner of

Log in or register to post comments

Lol if you're interested then you're of the genre that it's aimed for of which no mirror less can compete.

Mirrorless can compete almost on everything, question is not when but how.

Photography is still everything about framing and timing of exposure.

It is not about megapixels, dynamic range, frame rate, focus speed or anything like that.

If mirrorless cameras would be like a wet plate cameras from 1880, then I would agree.
But we are talking already negligent differences.

Good that you corrected your sentence. The author of the original comment doesn’t seem to care about his grammar.

Well I mean this is an internet comment section. It's not like we're writing peer reviewed essays for a grade.

Of course not, it’s just embarrassing to write with mistakes. It’s not like it’s an extra effort to spell correctly.

Should have said "It's embarrassing to rite with mistakes."

*Mist steaks* FTFY lol

Who would be embarrassed? Lol get over yourself

If you're on a mobile device it's extra effort. On screen keyboards are garbage. If you have larger fingers it's even more difficult.

Peer reviewed essays aren't graded.

You get my point.

Photography is NOT just about framing and timing of exposure. If you are shooting sports, like the D6 is aimed at, it is about focus speed, dynamic range, frame rate and more.

and lighting

Amen, and even if you're not shooting sports, all of those things are still important. To claim they are not important is to pretend to be ignorant of all of the amazing things modern cameras do to enable all of us create the kinds of images we want to make. How nice it must be to simply take all of that power for granted and tell yourself that the "only" things that matters is composition and timing of exposure - only the first crucial steps, in a chain of crucial steps to create masterful images.

I'm with you on this. I'm still using my now vintage D4, and shoot mostly theatrical, dance, acrobats, etc. I need more than composition and exposure timing to get the images. Fast burst mode and high ISO capability for starters. The D5 wasman improvement, and the D6 will presumably further enhance capabilities other cameras simply don't have. Having said that I can often get good results out my FUJI XT3 as well but for particularly challenging lighting and performance situations it's back to the D4 every time. Alas my budget can't presently handle the Nikon upgrade.

Right so they will not be able to keep up with demand for months but nobody cares. Here's a hint. For action sports, nature, etc. there is no mirrorless that will be able to compete with it's focus capture and holding capabilities. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean nobody does. It isn't meant for the average shooter so step aside and watch the those whoa are above average take advantage of it.

Except that it's unlikely it will be able to keep up even with the a9, much less the a9 II.

thanks for that, we laughed a lot!

That's why we'll be seeing all those A9s at the Olympics right? I mean we already see them overwhelming those yesteryear Canons and Nikons right? #sarcasm #URAFanboy

We won't. There's not much money left in sports photography and the current gear people are using is good enough. Spending €30,000 to switch doesn't make sense. Both of these cameras will be bought by enthusiasts, and enthusiasts care about specs - the blackout free, 20+ fps shooting and the full sensor readout subject tracking of the a9(2) can never be beaten by a dslr for obvious reasons.

LOL yea there won't be any pro photographers at the Olympics, any pro or college: soccer, baseball, football, tennis, basketball tournament, etc.

Everybody wants whatever edge they can get and they aren't buying your apparent fanboy favorite.

You've made precisely 0 arguments so far, just sarcasm and shouting. How could your average college soccer photographer afford a ~30k system switch? They can't. Or your average, struggling news organisation? Nope, not happening.

Grow up!

What shouting? You seem very sensitive and have some vested interest in this. Yes I am being sarcastic because you are making silly arguments. Everybody here other than you knows that 99% of the cameras at sporting events are going to be Canon and Nikon. Keep rationalizing but people who are still Nikon pros will buy 2 or more of these bodies replacing their old ones and your claims won't change a single mind on it.

Again, personal insults, then a repeat of something silly you said before already. It doesn't matter what you'll see at the Olympics. Those pros are the tiny minority of the people buying these cameras. And, as I said, their selection criteria are completely different as well. What a joke... You're arguing against something I never said, because you don't have arguments against the actual point.

You're so clueless, it isn't even remotely funny to "argue" with you.
Where can one start ?
The fact that you're thinking that any mirrorless can produce more tack sharp focused shots in a big burst than a D5/1Dx Mk II ?
The fact that you don't know that most professionals at the Olympics work on equipment provided for them by their media house or loaned/sponsored by the manufacturers ?

Really, think twice before replying to this, it will save you from any further unnecessary humiliation.

You're not just clueless, but can't even read apparently. I mentioned that a lot of equipment is provided by employers - it's obvious - but do you really think these organisations are doing any better? Get your head out of your fantasy dream world, no media outlet will spend hundreds of thousands to switch their photographers to a different system, when the current one is good enough. Unlike you, they are not stupid.

As for the A9, with the latest update? - it easily beats D5 in AF. That's a fact. There are loads of tests with it, including tests by professionals.

I think the semi-casual crowd are way more likely to buy a new camera because of functions. I think if you're a pro sports photographer then whatever you're currently using (along with the very expensive glass you've been collecting over the years) is going to be good enough. You would have learned to use your gear in the best way to serve the kind of work you do. Faster autofocus really isn't a reason to change up all of your equipment.

I don't think you have used a D5 in demanding situations. If you had you wouldn't write such things.

Yeah, you are right, if you dont get it then its not for you. I will never buy it but it exist for a good reason.

I agree - Nikon / Canon on the field, Sony in the stands.

Ad nauseum.

ha, ha! I stand corrected, I should have googled it like yourself. I was however correcting both you and Pat. You were hardly ad libbing, more the nauseating bit....

Obviously, I don’t believe you! On this forum there would be let’s say… people who believe you. Studying Latin for 8 years, and you still don’t know your ad’s - unbelievable! (I mean seriously -by the quality of your posts I had your age pegged at around 8 years).
What I do believe is that you’re probably eating pizza and drinking coke, trolling on various forums under different alias’, and you are too scared to post any images on your F-stoppers profile or go with your proper name. Also, I’ll bet you’re single and not by choice.

I see a new trend emerging here, the fusion of photography and language/ grammar. I wonder which manufacturer will be the first to release a model with built-in dictionary and thesaurus.

I don't think most people are pedantic enough to consider anyone a 'laughing stock' over the improper use of a latin word. You're boring Mark

Superiority of the optical viewfinder?
No..... It doesn't have had any superiority for last decade really....

Why would someone need 100mp for sports photography even in the future? Do you envision sports photos being blown up to huge proportions and people standing a foot away pixel peeping them?

I would be dead if I had to try and upload 100mp files to my editor from a sports stadium. I want to upload them as fast as I can and get out of there. I can't think of too many sports photographers who are screaming for 100mp files. Why would they??

I fully agree Doug. Some of the points people make here are rationalizations that just don't make any sense.

I’m no sports photographer so don’t bite my head off here, but I like high res files when I’m shooting nature because it gives me more room to crop. That being said, I would bet you guys are usually pretty close to the action.

I don't have to ask my editor. I know that they do not need 100mp files. So many of my images go right to their social media. Social media does not need 100mp files. The web doesn't need 100mp files.

There are editors. I have articles on here about some of my professional jobs. Just search. There is a thing called google that you can search for me. Would you like to reveal who you are so that we can do the same? To put some weight behind what you say you are? To put some weight behind your wonderful comments? Put up or shut up!

Also you won't find my name to numerous images on the internet because those sports images were sold to companies for their marketing efforts. And needed to be supplied just as fast so they could get it on there social media. Those companies don't want 100mp files. I guess you died in the sports market because you couldn't pivot to additional revenue sources that is required be today's market.

I'm going to watch video to find an image to upload to my editor when I have 15 minutes to view the video, capture a frame, caption it and load ITPC data, and finally upload the image? Get real! Also most of the professional sports don't permit you to be shooting video, goes against the contracts they have with the big TV networks. Ever see those vests we have to wear that say "Photo" or "Video" on them? There's a reason for that. Dude I doubt you have ever shot a professional sports event. You've been trolling this site for some time now without one image loaded to your profile or any proof you have shot professionally. Perhaps you have, but there is no evidence you have and your comments give the impression you haven't. You can use words that say you have, but the thought conveyed in your comments indicates otherwise.

Time to put up or shut up.

So who's going to buy "sports" dedicated cameras?

The people who want every edge they can get so they remain employed in that field.

LOL. The troll has spoken!

Not for a very long time.

continua stultitia

Whatever you feel about DSLR cameras, these are workhorses that paired with the Nikon lens vast ecosystem are still compelling to the pros that use them, and have lots invested in glass

What pros? The ones still doing the jobs, as far as I know, sports photography still exists, or do you think they'll be using their cell phones or medium format cameras for the next Olympics? How many super telelens does medium format has or how good is it for action shots? is the cell phone quality enough for a publication?

So I'll ask then, who is doing the photography for sporting events?are they using cellphone or medium format nowadays?also since we are at it, why would you need so many megapixels?
Sorry the business model changed and pulled the rug under you, but we are talking about the merits of equipment.
Photojournalism is a different topic which I understand you wouldn't need specialized equipment.

More comments