>New flagship DX DSLR to replace D300s
stupid. Very rarely does a photographer change brands mid-life. You tend to stick w/ your original choice, be it good, bad, or indifferent. Once you have your lens investment made it is difficult to let that go regardless of new models/features.
That may be true, but for people looking to buy a pro aps-c camera and who have not decided on a system yet, this will undoubtedly sway people away from the 7d, given it's more robust tech specs. It's less about changing people's brand preferences and more about becoming a prospective buyer's brand preference.
The D300 has always had a small but incredibly religiously devoted fanbase and they've been bitching and moaning for a D400 for years. Over time the D7xxx cameras have sort of narrowed the gap that the D300 used to fill, but they are not 100% pro material the same way that the D300 and hopefully D500 are and are not really perfect replacements. The idea of the D300/D500 is to be as close as possible to a D3/D5 but with the vertical grip removed and the sensor downsized.
Well, you gave an extremely retarded reason why an APS-C camera should have the same naming convention as the D600 and D750.
I realize it's Nikon who is the retard and not you, but stilll.
Well, all I wanted to add is that they want a flagship camera and as a company they are not going to price a flagship camera below 2k, it just looks bad
They can't put a flagship into the four digit series because in Nikon's eyes those are baby enthusiast cameras
they can't use double digit and they can't really go with single digits cause they are reserved for the FF flagships in sequence so the only thing left is triples which already has both aps-c and FF
I agree its extremely confusing as a consumer but internally it makes sort of sense
Kek i can afford a D810 but chose to shoot a D7100 because it is lighter and is more than enough for my needs. I can't see any reason to upgrade. I also shoot film which is a money pit compared to shooting digital. What does D500 brings to the table that makes me want to buy it? Over 9000 autofocus points?
I wonder what's Nikon going to do once they numbers start to overlap, or they ran out of them.
I guess they can start again but changing the D for something else?
oh my fucking christ. shame about the launch price but that's competitive with the 7d mkII launch price. i'll wait till it falls a bit then snatch it with an employee discount. 7D mk ii has gone down to ~$1100 recently from authorized resellers and it's only a year old.
what if you were a photojournalist in a medium-income country? What if you absolutely loved shooting birds n shit? What if shooting Formula 1 was your jam? What if you wanted to autofocus in the dark but didn't have six grand to spare?
By sacrificing the full-frame sensor (which isn't a massive sacrifice really, I bet the D500 sensor turns out to be less noisy than the 5Dmk3) you can get nearly everything else the D5 has for a third of the price. Alternatively you can get a D750 and pay the same for a lovely huge viewfinder and marginally better quality but it's slower. Or you could keep half the money and get a D7200.
It depends entirely on what you want it for. Plenty of people who don't exclusively shoot weddings will want this.
>I bet the D500 sensor turns out to be less noisy than the 5Dmk3
Just to clarify this, all current gen, even last gen APS-C cameras are less noisy and perform better in low light than the 5DIII. D7100, D7200, K-5/II/IIs, K-3, A6000 etc...
We can all agree that Canon became so irrelevant that comparing anything to them is pointless.
One thing I'm curious about is that they didn't use the same low native ISO of 64 that the D810 has. In fact, the D810 is the only digital camera this side of MFD that I know of with a low native ISO of less than 100, and it seems like Nikon is keeping it that way for a reason.
Granted, the D500 will surely have amazing high ISO capability, and I'm sure they'll get rid of the OLPF like they always do for extra sharpness. I have a hunch it won't quite reach the dynamic range of the D810, and any future D850/D900/whatever. I'm still planning on buying this up though, to use it as a companion body to my D810 for extra reach on telephoto lenses and the video features.
Actually the numbers are already set to overlap. After the D500 is the D600...which can't be used again for obvious reasons.
The D5 could keep going up to the D9 or more, which assuming they keep their 4 year refresh cycle it'd give them another ~16 years, or until 2032. And there's no telling if D-SLRs will even be a thing almost two decades from now.
>use it as a companion body to my D810 for extra reach on telephoto
My thought exactly.
I have a D800 and if money stops being an issue I would probably buy this just for sports.
Better than using a teleconverter, and I could carry my D800 with a wider angle lens.
Being just 20MP is a little disappointing though. - just 4 more than my D800 in DX mode.
For an "extra reach camera" you do want megapixels.
The D610 was a model refresh that addressed the issue of oil being splattered onto the sensor.
The D810 seems more like a mid-life refresh. It's essentially a D800E with no true olpf (rather than just having it 'cancelled out'), a slightly lower native ISO and a slightly better video mode. They also seemed to have addressed the left-side AF bug that was plaguing the original D800/E.
And if you remember, the SB-910 speedlight was made to address overheating issues with the SB-900. The pattern here seems to be that the x10 numbering is used to denote models that are refreshes/"patches" of earlier, buggier models of the same thing, not true upgrades.
So I'm not sure if they'd make a D510 that wasn't just a mid-life refresh, or a "patch model" (God, I hope there isn't some massive issue with the D500, but Nikon's recent history is exactly why I don't want to pre-order it and just wait). The "true upgrade" might be called a D550 or thereabouts, or perhaps something totally different. We'll see.
Are you sure about that? I really do think that it was an artificial ISO of 80 as my Ex K-5 had worse dynamic range at ISO 80 tahn it had at let's say ISO 160, which is the 'real' base ISO for most CMOS sensors.
Yeah I agree. Coming from a 36 MP sensor, 20 is kind of "low", especially if you like making prints of a decent size. There's no denying this'll be a great video camera though; hell I read it even has a time-lapse mode built in, which would be awesome because I've been wanting to try those out as well.
>tfw dprevjew will review this before they bother to review the k3-ii
No, I meant just for cropping.
20MP really is plenty if you can use them all.
But if you shoot sports or wildlife you often crop in heavily.
20MP on DX only gives 12% extra reach over a 36MP full frame - that's hardly anything.
So the benefit of using a D500 over a D810 for sports/wildlife is only the higher frame rates and larger buffer.
Or any other prime for that matter with the exception of the 35 mm. Imagine, if Nikon had a full range of primes each costing only 200€. Some pro lenses would also be nice, any kind of tele without a plastic mount, something with constant 2.8 aperture...
You guys know there's another thread, right? >>2735410
Pretty much. A new 1Dx is definitely on its way, but there won't be a 5D4 for a long time, and the 7D2 just got outclassed.
Of course, the 7D2 has been out for a year now, and the prices are rock fucking bottom with that thing. $1200 grey market is insane.
Timelapse modes are built into beginner and mid level cameras. My Pentax has one. Also you don't need a built-in mode for that, just an intervalometer on Bulb mode. Your phone or a Texas calculator can do it.
If your camera can do more than 8MP, you have 4K high res timelapse option.
They went with low MP to support 10fps for 20 seconds RAW, and didn't bat an eye doing it because the D500 isn't for people who need massive resolution. It's for sports and wildlife where the moment is really all that matters. Though I'm sure that it affords them some impressive high ISO in the process.
Those cameras have always had those numbers incriments. The D800 was the next "semi-pro" FX DSLR right after the D700. Only thing I can think is that they're not actually tiered camera releases in chronological order; they're model lines. The D800 represents the high resolution landscape/portrait segment, the 700 is like a lower res, higher ISO semi-pro alternative to the D800. 600 line is entry level, and below that is the semi pro DX cameras. The 3000, 5000 and 7000 series cameras are for complete beginners and enthusiasts on a budget. I guess that'd make sense too.
How hard is it going to be to get a D500? I'm nervous about pre-ordering and having it recalled, which is what's happened to the D600, the D810 and the D750. But I also don't want to wait six months on backorder to get it, and I get the feeling it's going to be flying out of warehouses as soon as they get shipped in.
Yeah that's all true. But I'm wondering if this makes it any less complicated, or less likely to get screwed up. It could just be a nice idea, but not the greatest if you want to control the final output; same goes for features like AF in video, or built-in HDR modes.
You only set the same things on camera, awkwardly, the have to place it back on the tripod and set it again.
I tried it on mine and I'm going to get a separate intervalometer for this. Much easier.
>tfw Nikon will never make a D5l designed for long exposures and landscape photogs
>tfw it will never have the capability to go down to an ISO sensitivity of 6
>It will never have a build in ND filter with a maximum density of 12 stops
They have the D810A, which is supposed to have D750 levels of ISO performance even at 36 pickles. And it's supposedly quite a bit better at long exposure compared to most other digital cameras that start seeing noise and hotspots if you try to expose more than a few minutes.
Otherwise I can't imagine having a camera with a built in 12 stop ND filter. It'd be nigh unusable outside of a select few situations, and most cameras are manufactured with a balance of versatility and specialization; not full blown niche photography.
Sounds good. I'll have to get up off my ass and try it sometime.
The D810A is a factory modified D810 for astrophotography, meaning wide spectrum sensitivity on both IR and UV parts. It is meant to be only used on telescopes with various filters like Hydrogen alpha or Oxygen filters. I'm not sure but it is possible it also lacks a bayer filter.
It is not meant to be used for regular photography, same as the Canon 6Da or 60Da.
>My hope is that they went with a low mp sensor to get exceptional iso performance.
That's largely a myth.
Once you scale down to the same megapixels the noise is pretty much identical.
The one exception is video.
High megapixel sensors usually have more noise in video because they simply skip pixels to scale to 4K.
This is true for the A7 series for example, except the A7s(ii) which has a nice 1:1 pixel ratio for 4K video.
then they're Sony sensors, you autist fuck.
>Hey this Nvidia graphic card is assembled in Taiwan, you don't have an Nvidia card, but a Taiwan card!!!
In any case, what you said is false. Sony has his own sensor branch, and some sensors are built in Sony factories, some in Toshiba factories. I guess they can't handle all of it. It doesn't make a difference, they're both reliable producers of consumer electronics.
Nikon does tend to get a little better performance out of the "same" sensors.
This is usually attributed to better processing or less interference.
But maybe the Toshiba made sensors are a little better than those made by Sony themselves?
>so they can sell sensors for a wider range of customers.
Such as who?
Which company on this planet is dumb enough to believe Sony doesn't own 100% of Sony Semiconductor Solutions?
>before, this company was named Sony, this insulted me so I didn't want to do business with them
>Now, this company was named Sony Semiconductor Solutions, this is suddenly acceptable to me I need their sensors
>153 AF points, including 99 cross type and 9 F/8 sensitive points
>insanely good metering and AF tracking thanks to borrowed D5 hardware/software
>ridiculously huge buffer, XQD slot for emptying huge buffer fast
>likely best low light performance and dynamic range of any APS-C camera ever
>auto PDAF finetune via liveview
>constant bluetooth connection to phone
>dedicated AF-ON button and AEL via joystick, just like D4s/D5 etc
this is going to be an absolutely amazing camera for wildlife/sports. Especially birding
Hope you're ready to wait another 9 years. Or actually given Nikon's recent history I guess it wouldn't be surprising if the D500 came with some glaring flaw that Nikon will completely refuse to acknowledge and then in 6 months they'll release a D510 that solves the problem but still without admitting to it or offering any compensation to D500 owners.
I'm actually on the fence been researching between the two systems to buy into for wildlife, landscape, nature things in general. This is enticing as well is the d810 from what I've read but I still just don't have the knowledge to say what is really the better system for me.
Canon does have a few things overall that I like and the 7d is a very alluring camera I like that they aren't made overseas for the most part and other irrelevant details.
I'm so lost as to what to go for pee there's too much to consider on both sides that keep swaying me back and forth.
See your error right there. We are talking about 'homemade' cameras and Leica produces them in Germany. They can 'also' produce their stuff in Portugal or even In Burundi if that satisfies you, but that is irrelevant regarding the current discussion, anon.
You didn't quite get it. 90% of a Leica camera is done in Portugal. In Germany they slap the sensor in and cover it in leather. That final assembly is done in Germany in order to convince people that Leica's are actually 'Made in Germany' by the master race beginning to end. Homemade is a very relative term, but yeah, technically its not made overseas at least and 10% of the process does take place in Germany.
Higher end Nikon cameras (like the D810) are made in Japan.
I'm certain the D500 will be made in Japan as well.
Photography is one place where you can still buy top quality equipment that will last decades.
If you're willing to pay for the higher end stuff of course.
Canon and Nikon are really the same in that regard, brandwhoring aside neither is clearly better/worse than the other.
so is my 700D and honestly place of manufacture is for consumers surplus
would you rather be gouged for a sticker that says made in japan or have it manufactured for cheaper in a different country with the same quality assurance just because you associate more positive feelings with nipland