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. 

Log in or register to post comments


Previous comments
Deleted Account's picture

Ad nauseum.

Deleted Account's picture

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....

Deleted Account's picture

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.

Marko Bradich's picture

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.

Alex Herbert's picture

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?

Douglas Turney's picture

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.

John Vander Ploeg's picture

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.

Douglas Turney's picture

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.

Douglas Turney's picture

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.

Douglas Turney's picture

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.

Douglas Turney's picture

LOL. The troll has spoken!

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.

Deleted Account's picture

I really love the desperate attempts at self-validation.

Douglas Turney's picture

What does the declining number of sports photographers have to do with the type of equipment that is needed to cover the sport?

Krzysztof Kurzaj's picture

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.

Krzysztof Kurzaj's picture

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.

Krzysztof Kurzaj's picture

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.

Douglas Turney's picture

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.

Luke Adams's picture

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.

Stuart Carver's picture

Or a know it all who knows f—k all.

Luke Adams's picture

Haha. You’re awesome man. Don’t ever change!

More comments