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.
I really love the desperate attempts at self-validation.
What does the declining number of sports photographers have to do with the type of equipment that is needed to cover the sport?
24 megapixel is not enough for you? What do you need more for? Asking seriously, not trolling. I mean, unless you are planning to do some work for further large scale reproductions (we are talking billboards) or some very specialized photo applications then how many of those 100MP can we realistically expect to be lost through process of editing.
I am one of those idiots who prefer lower resolution sensor (say 16MP) because me files are not overly heavy. Yet, I understand for someone else it may be a laughable matter.
Are we talking about evolution of photography or evolution of photography equipment market? If you talk about photography itself then sure there are few things changing. Most notably we publish more content online than ever before. Whenever you are using Instagram or more advanced platform the paradox is a 100MP image is an overkill for any of those. Meanwhile manufacturers are telling everyone how badly they need all those megapixels.
This discussion is clearly nothing new. It seems like every few years consumers get into this pixelomania. My first camera had 6MP. Not much but hey, at the time it was enough. I have even some large printouts and don't see any problems with them. Is 16MP better? Of course it is. Does it make a difference for me if I use 16MP or 24MP camera? Probably not much. Do I think my photography will reach next level with 100MP cam? I doubt it.
Also, I trust you know the limitations of a 20MP smartphone camera vs FF or even APS-C sensor of the same density.
I see your point. If you are right and in the future competence of photographers will be measured by number of pixels on their cameras, then indeed some sad times are ahead of us. But as you point out as well, those few that still remain in the editorial sport photography or photojournalism are competing directly with video grabs and cellphone shots and so time becomes a crucial aspect. If you want to send out your work to multiple news outlets before aunt Susan realizes it could be fun to send her cellphone photos to a local newspaper, then I think a camera like D5 is not a bad choice. It's reliable, it's fast, files are not to heavy and there are various communication options.
I understand what you say about lack of good editorial photography and journalism being on decline. I think the problem is not with aunt Susan and herr callphone thou. The ones responsible for this are the viewers of the content, or the end users, to say so. There seem to be general lack of understanding and sensitivity when it comes to photography. A girl posting half naked selfies on IG will get way more followers and hits than anyone posting an editorial work. Sociaty just settled for a mediocre content and cheap thrills when it comes to an art of image.
So speed in getting the content out there is important in covering sports today. I agree with you there. So how does a 100mp file help with that vs a 24mp file? How does using video to get that image to upload help with that? Your arguments add time to the process.
A person or persons being out of a job doesn't equate to nobody does it. Watch any sporting event and it is evident that there are a huge number of photographers. I am truly sorry you had this misfortune and agree that there are fewer of those jobs but the jobs do still exist and there still is a competition for equipment that will give one an edge to keep those jobs that are still there.
You were the guy who was going to humiliate others by giving them Latin lessons above, because you were an expert in that as well. You're a talented fella.
Or a know it all who knows f—k all.
Haha. You’re awesome man. Don’t ever change!
Wow you really might want to think about letting go of that whole bitter about being let go thing. Others are still in the business. Others still buy and use the latest equipment. I'm sure you were God's gift to sports photography at least in your mind but you just aren't the target of these cameras. It will be fine. These photos from the last week didn't come from cell phones or 100mp cameras. https://www.google.com/search?q=nfl+sideline+photographers&rlz=1C1CHBF_e...
You don't understand why the jobs are disappearing. It is not because of the camera technology. The number of people needed to cover an event is reduced by other advances in technology. Since you are so wise about this subject I don't need to tell you what that technology is.
I was watching (insert sport's name here) on Saturday and there were loads of people on the sidelines with cameras. I assumed they were professional photographers, but perhaps they were just fans with really good seats. And cellphones, with really long lenses.
You talking Crop MF or MF? I kinda got lost in your BS
I came for the comments
Those DSLR are becoming "specialized tools".
Not many people are excited to see a new blind rivet gun go on sale. Except for some shop workers.
Same applies here.
Becoming?
People live in the fantasy that the people who wants to do photography, cares or even admires these DSLR.
No!
The photography has always been about pocket cameras. Since Eastman released first KODAK brownie the photography has been all about "You Press the Button, We Do the Rest".
It has never been about these high end cameras, not even about interchangeable lens cameras! For 135 film it was not SLR that sold and was wanted, it was pocket cameras. The SLR cameras from Canon, Nikon, Olympus etc were minority, a clear minority in sales. All the money in photography was done with family photos. The big professional industry was media, but a paper didn't need 50000 photographers with a SLR to get a paper published everyday to tens of millions of people.
It is same thing with everything, no one really is driving a Ferrari, Lamborghini or such luxury cars, Compared to what the people really drive... AFAIK even today the most mass produced car is the original WV Beetle. A simplest car you can almost have. It took you from A to B and did it well.
With cameras, no one really is shooting with a DSLR compared to phones with camera. Ratio is likely 100000:1 and there are 2.5 billion phones....
And the cameras that are sold, 85-90% of them all are some cheap DSLR with a kit lens, a $399 kits that you buy from grocery store even with bonus coupons.
The high end cameras has always been specialized gear, always. Some hobbyists, better income people etc will buy a luxury, but it is mainly professionals and amateurs who put more money to these.
The same kind people who buy Ferrari, Lamborghini etc.
I would be excited about big extremely robust tank camera with great ergonomics if it gets a d850 sensor and a tad muffled mirror/shutter sound.
Just like the D850. Nobody cares.
Boring! No one cares about the latest bullshit coming out of digital camera manufacturers and people's clickbait and ignorant videos.
Just shoot what you have or be an artist and shoot alternative mediums of photography.
All the gear head pundits will sound like CNN soon
I'm usually lazy to comment but I logged in just to say something. Another one of those "product A is inferior to product B, why did it need to exist" posts.
I've read this in some many Canon related posts and yet they are still selling well. There are people out there who still prefer an OVF over an EVF. I'm not the only one, I know a lot of people who do. If you don't like it then obviously the product is not targeted at you.
We are in the age of cameras similar to what happened in the transition from film to digital.
Agreed. For me personally very low iso to not carry 6,8, 10 and sometimes 15 stop filters would be awesome.
It is a bit like the Nikon F6 when it came out.
<shrug>
Don't need one, won't be buying one.
Non-issue. ;)
Who cares? Judging by all the butt hurt comments, those guys do.
Implying your own thoughts and attitudes on the entire industry is a little, presumptuous, wouldn't you say? It's also important to remember that many working professionals are oftentimes busy with contract/rate negotiations, client networking, growing their business, etc. than spending excess time reading blogs online, and offering their own viewpoints to toss into the mix. That's one of the flaws that fstoppers, dpreview, slrlounge, etc. often make. Their body of readers is made-up of semi-professionals, and their views and expressions are extrapolated to reflect the entire industry as a whole. When was the last time a National Geographic photographer wrote (or even commented) on this site, or anyone who regularly photographs for top tier magazine publications, olympics/major league sports, NY Times, etc. You catch my drift. Don't misinterpret my words as means of discrediting your blog. I think it's a very useful tool for observing general trends and topics. But lately, headlines on fstoppers have had a tendency of letting their click-bait nature take over editorial merit.
Personally, I have yet to come across a working professional here in NYC who uses a mirrorless as their primary body, but that's just me. I'm clearly hanging out with the old crowd.
For what it's worth, I intend to upgrade to the D6 as soon as pre-orders are announced, and I photograph children's portraiture, not sports.
+200. It seems a lot of amateurs and semi-pros get their self worth from the brand of camera they identify with and any one else's brand gives them shpilkas. And second, the grammar police need a laxative.
Michael Kormos out of curiosity, why the D6 for children's portraiture? Why not a D850 for instance?
Since the D3s, I've always stuck with the series. Many of our clients have active children. Lifestyle sessions in outdoor settings have steered me towards bodies that excel in quick, exact, and consistent focus. In that regard, many of the shooting situations I find myself in have more in common with sports than portraiture.
Ahh, gotcha. Thanks for the follow up.
I am an amateur and I mostly use mirror less cameras but I know many who are professional. Contrary to this title many are eagerly waiting for this new camera. They have a range of lenses ready at hand that they can use. I would love to see what the D6 would with the F 300 mm 2.8 lens for instance.
Click bate!!!!!
remember dropping my D4S from the top of cage, bounced off the perch, the catwalk, onto the cement floor of the event center, .... someone grabbed it, handed it to me, I strapped it back on, and continued shooting, ....... TANK, .... dropped a few D(n) over the years, only twice have i had to send the lens in for repair, but never the camera body, .... can't wait to get my hands on the D6. Glad others aren't interested because sometimes, even with NPS priority, you have a wait until round two
Stupid article with a title that makes no sense. sigh.
Too bad mirrorless cameras don't feel like a DSLR. I have both and the DSLR behavior just feels right, it feels better in my hand and it feels better as I shoot.
As for "flagship" products like the upcoming D6 they serve two purposes similar to car mfr's that race. Yes bragging rights is one of the reasons but it also helps to push product development that will filter down into the lower product lines For Nikon it's been the EXCEED Processors and Auto Focus that filters down primarily.
As for low ISO performance I'm not sure there's much of a need for something similar to Kodachrome 25 ASA (which I use to shoot). I used it then because of fine grain, color saturation and the warmth of the film (slide actually). It also meant you were lugging around a tripod in order to shoot on a regular basis because of your shutter speed. Yes, you could push the film if you needed to but you had to push it for the entire roll. Sports Photographers typically shoot with poor lighting especially at night, so having a camera that performs well at hi ISO is more important than low ISO because of the shutter speed you need to freeze the action.
There sure a lot of strong opinions on a camera that hasn't even been released yet, nevermind the fact no one even knows the specs either.
Ha ha ha.... I thought the same thing when I read the title of the blog....
Fstoppers, the blog nobody cares about.
And yet you are here reading and responding to our articles. Thank you for caring!
At least wait till the specs are out to shill for Sony Lee.
It is not even announced and FS guys already pushing feeds with it and any clickable titles to the top of SEO rankings ... like they did not care about it haha... and they do, since once it is announced the links to purchase it from their own FS site linked to BH, Adorama, Amazon etc... will be here before the dust settles down after the announcing speech...haha... it is called a business practise and selling you without selling haha... but we are here reading it so we do care Patrick+Lee about D6 :)... not that much about the video bait around it , but we live in free country so keep it coming... Happy shooting guys.
Would someone mind explaining how the D5 could be a better choice than the A9? Not being facetious, I just don't understand why people say that the D5 is the sport king when the Sony A9 exists. The A9 has more megapixels, is a faster camera, and has a ridiculous AF system. Plus the D5 has an audacious price tag of 6 grand. What is the D5s edge?
People have Nikon F lenses, it’s simple.
...
As the best editing teacher (newspapers/journalism - remember those?) I ever had said, "Never us a $25 dollar word when a $5.00 word will work just as well. RIP John Bremner from the University of Kansas.
That seems to be the same amount of caring I have for wholly inexperienced speculation about a product not a single person has any experience with. This site has once again proven why I take them about 50% seriously at best.
Meh.
"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 how is this exactly different in respect to D5, D4s, D4 and so on? It was always the top line of Nikon cameras and a lot of people were talking about them but few owned and used them because they were not affordable for those average shooters.