Nikon released it's new camera early today, Nikon D7500.

File: 1d1.jpg (58KB, 700x479px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 700x479px

>no AI tab

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:04:03 19:37:27
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	479

>>3055798
first page on google
>The Nikon D7500 is the Nikon D500's Little Brother
> Nikon D7500 is looking to capture the hearts of so many consumers that don't need everything that the Nikon D500 has an offers

So it's the usual budget trash intentionally handicapped by Nikon™ because they don't want the affordable camera to be able to compete with their pro/semi-pro bodies on useful features or performance.

>>3055803
It's an artificially gimped D5x00 body.
The D7x00 line has died today, press 'F' to pay respects

That's not of an effort to give the consumer a chance.

It's like they want their consume to think that they have the same 'pro-consumer' camera in all ranges. But it's just a false statement, isn't it?

>>3055805
>But it's just a false statement, isn't it?
Yep, it is even more gimped than their earlier beginner lineup. It is just not funny anymore.

F

>>3055808
Nikon last pro camera truly was D4s.

F

I was debating saving up to upgrade to the D7500 from a D3400, but now I'm wondering if I should just save up more and get a D500. What's the difference? Almost everything on Nikon's site says they are the same.

>>3055798
https://www.dpreview.com/news/2885741290/nikon-d7500-what-you-need-to-know?slide=3

this kills the 80d.

>>3055798
>2.25 4k crop
might as well get a panasonic.

>>3055813
Get a used D7200 instead.

>>3055820
Seems like not that big of an upgrade. Am I wrong? I thought it be worth it to spend a bit more to get a bit more. Still not sold on full frame either... :/

>>3055813
I would advise waiting until stores get them in stock, and hopefully you'll be able to just put them side by side and compare

I suspect the difference is mostly in software and menu options

Shit like this is why I don't like this industry. Improvements are minimal and they solely rely on this consumerist attitude that gearfags promote.
A lot of manufacturers have shit software for their devices, while mobile manufacturers achieve so much with way inferior hardware.
When's someone going to do something in the trend of Android or the other way around: provide a good open hardware platform on which everyone can develop cool stuff, and drive these crazy prices down

>I want to install gentoo on muh camera

>>3055824
You are wrong, t is a whole world of difference.
The D3400 has an excellent sensor but the UI on the D7200 gives a lot more not to mention the weather sealing the reinforced body plates and the bright and accurate pentaprism OVF.

>>3055829
>>3055824
Oh, and if you want to know truly awesome UI, try a Pentax out at a local shop. My friend has a K-3 and it just sinks into your hand, feels more of an extension of your arm, even more so than my D7100.

>>3055830
I've never really thought of the UI as a game changer. I'm still relatively new to photography and have a lot to learn, but I figured if you have dials and buttons to adjust your settings, the UI isn't incredibly important.

>>3055833
That is because you are new. The D3400 is capable but once you bump into the gimped UI issue you just can't look past that. For example with the two dials being able to change shutter speed and aperture or ISO/exp.comp. on the fly without having to dive into the menu is a big game changer, having that AI tab and use old and budget friendly but otherwise excellent AI-s and screwdrive AF lenses with proper metering is also a game changer.
The D7500 is the newest but is very far from being the best. If you want the best you will want a D7200 or a D7000 depending on your primary subject interests.

>>3055828

It's not the industry, it's the market.

Consumers are retards.

>>3055798
The reason why the D500 is so amazing is that it has 10 fps and an insanely huge buffer. The D7500 has neither of these things. It's just a decent upgrade from the D7200 instead of phoning it in like D7100->D7200. I'm happy.

>>3055855
>D7500
>decent upgrade from the D7200
The D7200 is the better one, no matter how big of an ISO number you pack in a sensor. The body features got gimped hard in the D7500 making it a shitty pleb plastic rebel-like piece of shit.

>>3055856
D500 has the "pro" button layout
D7500 doesn't.

That should be enough for professionals who already have a D4/5/700/800/810 to go for the D500.

And I must be getting old but I don't get why /p/ complains that a much cheaper camera is too similar to a higher end model.
So.../p/ would be happier if it were more gimped?

I wonder if it was even Nikon's choice to go with the D500 sensor, or if Sony cockblocked them.

>>3055862
The 24MP sensors in the D7100 and D7200 were made by Toshiba.

>>3055859
>body features got gimped

Such as?

>>3055864
-single card slot vs two in D7200
-the whole body is plastic vs reinforced plates in D7200
-no metering tab for AI lenses, meaning D7200 has the better compatibility
just to name a few. There are massive stepbacks in some important parts of body design making it more similar to the entry level bodies. And no, the D500 reference is not true, just a PR tag. In fact, it is the only thing Nikon can use to sell it. Expect the older D7000/7100/7200 prices going up on the used market.
Also worthy to mention that Snapbridge is also included which alone is a massive downgrade. It doesn't work, too iffy to use, eats up battery life like there's no tomorrow and is vastly outperformed by a third party wi-fi SD card or even Nikon's own old wifi plug.

>>3055802
Why are autistics like you and the angryphotographer saying it has no AI tab?

>>3055865
They probably did a bunch of research before removing features. I own a D7100 and I don't care about any of those things except possibly the card slot, but I have to admit that I usually have one in there for the speed improvement.

>>3055867
see
>>3055798
Compare the mounts, D500 has the AI tab, D7500 does not.

I can get behind all the changes. The new Expeed features and metering are welcome. The change to a single card slot differentiates it from the D750 and D500. Great.

Losing the AI tab is horse shit though. Next they're going to drop the screw drive motor from this line of cameras.

>>3055875
The dual card slot is not for being different you special snowflake libtard bitch! It is for redundancy!

>>3055870
That picture is not from nikon. plus the site says it will meter with non cpu lenses.

>Center-weighted: Weight of 75% given to 8 mm circle in center of frame. >Diameter of circle can be changed to 6, 10, or 13 mm, or weighting can be based on average of entire frame (non-CPU lenses use 8-mm circle)
>Matrix: 3D Color Matrix Metering III (type G, E and D lenses); Color Matrix >Metering III (other CPU lenses)
>Spot: Meters circle with diameter of about 3.5 mm (about 2.5% of frame) centered on selected focus point (on center focus point when non-CPU lens is used)

>>3055887
Maybe it will use software metering or stopdown metering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp3Qws1yMb0

>>3055865
I don't care if it has dual card slots, but I understand those who would like that feature. However, the plastic body literally doesn't fucking matter.

>>3055901
It does when you go outside. Even studio work can wear out a camera, hence why the high-end bodies are made out of magnesium alloy.
The D7x00 line just stopped being a serious enthusiast range and went down to the level of the D3x00 and D5x00.
Also I hope you like to pay $1300 for plastic when you could get magnesium alloy and other pro body features for $800 or less with a D7200 and D7100, or even a D7000.

>>3055902
Well, sony has magnesium alloy frame but it is still shit.

>>3055906
That's just botched design. Think more along the lines of Canon and Pentax Mg alloy bodies.

>>3055860
they'll still moan

>hit a homerun with the d500
>the d7500 does the opposite of everything that people liked in the d500

>>3055911
Like what?

>>3055860
/p/ complains because the "much cheaper" camera is not much better than an entry level one and is actually vastly overpriced.

>>3055867
Lack of AI tab is the only non-autistic complaint here.

A cheap body that can use cheap AI lenses (without going through hoops) is a great way to start with photography.
In fact they really should have given the 3k series one.

>>3055902
Has a plastic DSLR ever actually cracked?

I mean in the entire history of DSLR's and many tens/hundred of millions used on a regular basis.
Any documented cases of a cracked plastic body?

>>3055930
Every case where it was dropped, magnesium alloy just take more beating.

>>3055862
>implying Sony is the only company in the world that makes sensors

File: 1454248922303.gif (2MB, 643x539px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 643x539px

>>3055798
>mfw it actually doesn't have an aperture-feeler ring thingy

>>3055798

Looks like gimped trash. I swear I'm going to ditch Nikon if this gets any worse.

>>3055946
It will, because economics. Blame all the "iphone photographer" people

>>3055862
What sensor does Sony make right now that would even make sense in this camera?

>>3055918
>not much better
It's a LOT better. It's not even just about specs, it's about having more buttons to access key features, a larger viewfinder, and better build quality.

I'm probably just spoiled now but I held the D3200 for the first time a few months back, after owning an 810 for years. The difference is pretty night and day, it felt like a massive drop down in everything.

>>3055946
>I'm going to ditch Nikon
Why are you going to "ditch Nikon"? Do you actually feel obligated to the brand? Is the camera you have now good enough? Do you require a false sense of superiority by knowing that "your brand" is doing well?

>>3055954
The sensor can have as many numbers to make you cream your pants, but if the body features are lacking it just won't cut it. Think of it like the D3300, awesome sensor in an entry body, but it is just an entry body, you don't see serious professionals running around with a D3300.
At least the D3300 has a good price and value where the D7500 offers not much more than a D5500 for $1300.
Money talks, you know, people will either go for a D5500 or a D500 depending if they are hobbyists or serious enthusiasts or pros. The D7500 in this form is just redundant.

>>3055877
No shit, dumbass. And how many people would buy the D500 if the D7500 had 2 card slots, having already 8 fps, the new metering and focus modes, a proven focus system, the same sensor and touchscreen, and a larger buffer?

>>3055957
Looks more like a lighter D500 for $800 less. That's money better spent on a lens, perhaps.

>>3055961
If it was priced at $900 it would be a good deal.
The camera, as a camera is fine but it is way overpriced at $1300.

>>3055963
Hasn't the D7xxx line always been priced new at $1200 or so body only?

The plastic body isn't a real big deal. Even a D7100 feels like a toy compared to something like a F100. You can tell just by feeling its heft and how it feels in your hand. If you don't pay pro money you don't get pro features, simple as that. The promises of more weather sealing are nice.

The loss of the AI tab is pretty shitty of Nikon. Might as well drop the AF motor while you're at it. And UHS-I? In 2017? What the fuck are they thinking there?

>>3055964
There's no use telling him. If it were up to him, full frame cameras would be $1000 new with the feature set of an a7rii combined with a D5.

>>3055964
The previous models had better designs

>>3055911
>hit a homerun with D500
>'consumers' ask for a entry level D500
>kills the entire D7000 family
>Nikon still deliver

>>3055956
>Why are you going to "ditch Nikon"?
Because they are falling behind.
>Do you actually feel obligated to the brand?
Obligation? No, but see how you feel once you've built up a lot glass in one system
>Do you require a false sense of superiority by knowing that "your brand" is doing well?
All I want is a system that works for my needs and it sucks to be deep in something and watch it get shittier year after year.

why did those losers skip 200 full numbers

>>3055798
>Nikon D7500
one SD card slot

>>3055798
I will just keep my D7100

So it actually sounds like it should just get a D500 instead. I assume that works better in low light too.

>>3055798
One cards slot
Lower back screen resolution
No magnesium allow body

Seems more like an D5500 on steroids.

>Still releasing crop sensors
>2017

>>3056039
Ignoring price, what's a better camera? D500 or D610?

>>3056046
D610

Or just buy a second hand D600 for about half that.

>>3056046

full frame every time. better glass

Full frame over crop all day.
Even a cheap modern full frame is superior to a modern crop right off the production line.
Better lenses, better image quality, great gradients and lower noise.

>>3056046

Well, that really depends on what / how you want to shoot, because they are very different cameras. There is the crop factor of course, but also:

D500 max shutter speed is 1/8000, D610 is 1/4000.

D500 ISO 100 - 1640000 while D610 is 100 - 25600.

D500 has no built-in flash.

D500 has 153 focus points, D610 has 39.

D500 continuous shooting is 10FPS, D610 is 6.

It all depends.

>>3056058
>D500 has no built-in flash.

I kinda wish my D810 was like that. Hate the fucking built-in flash

>>3056058
>D500 has no built-in flash.

Why would it need one with an iso that high?

>>3056074

>what is fill flash

>>3056086
You're probably not gonna use the built-in for that anyway.

>>3056086
Whoever buys the D500 is expected to have a speedlight.

>>3056086
It's shit anyways. Also,
>2k for a body
>can't afford a flash

I really wanna convert to Nikon but my camera and all my shit is Canon and to sell it all wouldn't get me much/be a hassle.

>>3055867

Mostly because my D7000 has one.

File: 1305032952663.jpg (108KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 554x439px

>>3055798
>What's the point then?
It's their 100 year anniversary.
They had to release ~Something~
Anything. Really. Maybe you have a better suggestion?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.4.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	256 dpi
Vertical Resolution	256 dpi
Comment	Paint Tool -SAI- JPEG Encoder v1.00

>>3055798
Why did they skip the 7300 and 7400?

>>3056017
Nikon isn't falling behind. D500 is one of the best cameras ever released, and the D4/D4s still on the market as the best pro camera. Doesn't mentioning the glasses from Nikon. The market nowadays is fucked up with Sony releasing any shit as a 'ground breaker new tech' and the memeless cameras being sold almost as phone cameras.

>>3056134
releasing a D810 replacement maybe was going to be a better choice than merging D5x00 with D7x00 and killing them both. Or even better, keep D500 sensor to itself and just upgrading D7x00 with something more 'pro-consumer' mid-range tier, instead of trying to allude consumers to think they're 'protogs'
just my opinion

>>3055909
If we're talking about minimalism and efficiency of design, sony leave everyone in the dust. With the mg bodies of the mirrorless range providing strength where plastics would be too weak at this size.

If you want a big hunk of metal that offers no space or weight or strength savings over plastic, choose the canon or bentax.

What one's a botch? The one that uses mg for it's structural properties or the one that uses it for the spec sheet?

>>3055954
>what sony sensor
The 20mp sony sensor in the d500 is going in it.

>>3055964
Yeah, but full frame cameras have dropped below this and if you're gonna spend that much on a nikon crop, you'd probably get the d500.

File: Nikon-D500-vs-Sony-Alpha-7-II-size-comparison.jpg (52KB, 720x384px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 720x384px

>>3055798

Why should I buy this over the roughly equally priced Sony a7ii?

>>3056198
Battery life, burst speed and crop factor.

So unless you're a bird watcher you definitely shouldn't.

>>3056212
>battery if you do stills only
>crop factor is a feature
cuck

>>3055802
Lolol piece'o'shit.
>>3055798
>What's the point then?
Noobody knows.

>>3056215
Crop factor is a feature if you're a twitcher you dumb cunt.

>>3056235
>implying you can't crop a full frame in post.

>>3056243
Then you would need to double your data rate so burst would drop to 4fps, or only have ~10mp of usable photo, not great when the best bird shots pick up the detail in the plumage.

Jesus you cunts are dumb.

Specialist jobs are best done with specialist tools.

>>3056246
>not on 5dsr or a7r2
nikon cucks

File: [HorribleSubs] Hibike! Euphonium S2 - 01 [720p].mkv_snapshot_32.03_[2016.10.06_06.53.21].jpg (164KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1280x720px

>>3056246
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o2OGTVEVB0

>>3056264
Are you serious?
You're comparing $3000 bodies with a $1000 body...

You're dumb, i'm out.

>>3056212

So if i buy the equally priced a6500, I would be better off in every way?

>>3056279
Unless it's 100% critical to have one battery that lasts all day, yes.

ibis on long lenses is a fucking godsend, and focus mag means nailing focus isn't quite the poopshoot it is on a dslr. Also, dat burst rate and focus tracking is top tits.

>>3056286

It is not like it is hard to switch batteries, plus it will charge over usb while in use.

>>3056271
>ARE YOU SERIOUS?? *drools cum from mouth*
>I'm out *walks away to mom's basement*
Please out yourself from the planet.

>>3056264

cancer post of the thread

>>3056017
>objectively best cameras on the market
>falling behind

>>3056054
>t. idiot who bought a D750 or 5D and can't figure out why his pictures are still shit

>>3056198
if Sony cameras aren't shit, why do Sony have to pay shills to praise them on the interwebs?

File: 1471384854000_IMG_671233.jpg (42KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 750x750px

>>3056264
>not having a decent 200-500 for $1400
try to keep up lads

>>3056286
but nearly all Canon and Nikon telephoto lenses are stabilised lad

>>3056344

But I can just use that on the a7rii.

>>3056344
almost bought this lens, but purchased a 300mmF4 instead. Did I do good?

>>3056352
I dunno, maybe. Did you get the PF 300mm? Apparently it's very small and light

>>3056345
Canon 70-200 2.8
is version - $2000
non is version - $1300

lol, you're being mugged the fuck off son.

>>3056362

I would take 300 f/4 over 500 f/5.6 any day.

this means they're going to fuck over the d750 upgrade too, doesn't it

>>3056438
in 2020 I guess. No need to upgrade D750 yet

>>3056344
Sigma and Tamron 150-600 is cheaper and lighter while has the same sharpness.

>>3056478

>same sharpness

No.

Also:

>f/6.3

>>3056500
The new sensors can do well at ISO 3200 so it is better to pack light and be able to handhold instead of having to lug around a tripod and a heavy ass f/4 telephoto lens.
You would use f/8 anyways to have enough DOF.

>>3056127
Just get the 80d

>>3056505

I'm forced to use ISO 3200 all the time at f/4.

f/8 is a recipe for disgusting backgrounds in many wildlife shots, and is too slow for 90% of my situations.

Just my 2 cents...

>>3056511
I didn't mean using f/8 all the time. It is just a good point to start and adjusting accordingly for the subject. Typically a big bird like a grey heron or similar sizes need to use f/8 when filling the frame, at least on my APS-C, going up to f/6.3 wide open can get some parts, wingtips and sudden movements out of the DOF so I don't like to take the risk.
A deer going sideways or a small bird will fit into a smaller DOF, also static subjects like perched eagles and owls can fit inside the narrower DOF as well until spooked of course.
I consider going f/8 as a rule of thumb and deviate if needed. At least that is my birding experience so far.

>>3056508
Nikon D7500 kills the Canon 80D. Nikon isn't even trying, Canon is already dead...

>>3056342
I'm not paid, I'm just really keen on sonys new products, having shot for over 30 years, their new mirrorless range and the lenses they're producing are the most exciting thing to happen to photography in my career.

If you're going to skim past that to hold on to outdated ideals and project a negative attitude, be my guest, the licensing fees of Sony sensors only further their r&d department.

>>3056581
what a load of garbage

>>3056581
In case you didn't know, the sensor development and manufacture has been split off from Sony due to quasi-monopoly issues. They are not the same company as the consumer electronics part.

>>3056599
Typical rebuttal for an anti sony fag

>>3056603
Every dept is split off, PlayStation is split from sony music is split from sony imaging, etc. This is completely normal, but it all falls under sony corps profit margin and all the departments utilise each others specialties. Setting up separate subsidiary companies allow them to be made bankrupt, sold off, whatever without having a direct effect on the umbrella. And it means if they get in legal/financial trouble, only one set of assets will be frozen instead of the entirety of Sony.

>>3056743

Yea, it is pretty much how all large companies on Japan work.

They are usually under a large bank that can also bail them out of financial troubles too.

>>3056753
It's how every large company works worldwide.

I'm new to this DSLR stuff and the guy at the store was quite enthusiastic about the D7500 so I pre-ordered it with the standard lens. Reading this thread it seems like that was a bad idea

>>3056824
image quality will be very good tho
if you're new to DSLR this is a good first one you got. But don't expect it to be a D500

>>3056824

>being new to DSLRs
>buying D7500

Yeah, you did good.

>>3056824
very bad. you could buy sony a6500...

>>3056828
>>3056855
>>3056890
>falling for this bait.
/p/ is easy.

>>3056907
>Falling for the bait-on-bait tactic in 2017
Lol cucked

>>3056907

Just because you lied doesn't make it bait.

It's not expensive, or too much camera for a beginner... nothing about the statement was out of place.

If you're going to jump into photography, can't go wrong with the 7K series.

>>3056914
As much as I dislike that bald guy on yt I do think he is correct for putting the d7500 in th d5x00 series. It fits more as 'd5700'

>>3056916
he's an asshole lol

but yeah, Nikon fucked it up merging the D5x00 with D7x00 series. but as >>3056914 said you can't go wrong if you want to get real into photography with this new camera

>>3056438

if there is an upgrade, all we'll get is a MP increase when they throw in the 810 sensor.

>>3056917
I think saving just a little more for d750 would take your dollar way farther

Question:

What camera do you have, and why do you need an upgrade?

>>3056926
Nikon d3300
I've had it for a couple of years, I got some decent glass with it and stuff. My problems with it is the af mostly and then partly bc dx. Wanting to be able to do real portraiture is what I want. Considering either a used d800 or used d750 bc kinda poor

>>3056926
D800

And I don't.
Not for another 10 years I think.

>>3056928
>>3056932

Legit.

So who is perpetuating this annual "upgrade" cycle?

>>3056941

Sony

>>3056925
you have a point. But DX format have more and cheaper glass. You can't go wrong with a 55-300mm vr or 18-200mm vr. Lightweight and a good IQ for the price

>>3056926
D700, I'm thinking about a D800 because of the better dynamic range.

>>3056942
>annual upgrade
>sony

it's almost bimestral

>>3056926
Had a D3100, pretty much upgraded for the same reason as >>3056928. Got a D7100, because 2poor4D7200. I deal with the buffer by shooting my sports at 2x crop/12-bit compressed/5 fps.

>>3056942
it's funny what a bit of innovation does for the market eh?

>>3056953
Always too scared to shoot with more crop on dx, is it any good?

>>3056926
D700 and Ricoh GR
I'm not replacing either one until they break and I don't see that happening any time soon.

>>3056941
Marketing

>>3056957
Tiny incremental upgrades every 6 months is evolution and refinement, not innovation. A camera would be innovative if it allowed you to take photos you couldn't take before or if it completely changed the way you take photos.

>>3056926

D810. And I don't. Just need more lenses

>>3056926
D700 and D7000 here.

Don't really need an upgrade for the D700, although if I was offered to trade it for a d750 for free, I probably would go for it because of a second card slot, tilty screen, 24MPs. I would Not trade it for a d800/810 because those cameras don't fit my genres too well andd I haven't reached the point in shooting landscapes where I'm limited by the megapickles count and not my personal skills.
I'd rather spend the money on lenses.

I'd love to upgrade my D7000, don't really have the cash for it though. These days I use it primarily for macro, walkabout (cheap 2.8 zooms and wideangles) and wildlife. The prime issue with it is a mushy af, which actually makes me favor using D700 for birding: more reliable, has a better burst and VF. I'd also like better high-iso performance and more megapickles to crop from. Finally, I find the colours the d7k produces compared to the d700 off-putting, there's something wrong about them which makes me edit the photos I took with it more often and to a larger extent. Maybe the newer models are like this too, but they probably aren't worse. Buffer size is a joke too but it's a common thing in this price segment.
Lenses come first though. Some walkabout zoom or a 35mm for the d700, 100mm tokina macro, trade the dx wideangle I own for an fx version. Maybe an 85mm. Then and only then shall I consider upgrading, unless an exceptional offer comes before that which is unlikely.

I do not see D7500 as a direct upgrade to my D7k because despite the price difference it managed to lose some features I actually like about the d7k, making it less trustworthy. I'd rather upgrade to a d7200 instead. The "bald guy" is right, Nikon is probably not. I may be wrong here and it may be better for the company from a financial standpoint, however I believe that our type of consumers does not directly benefit from this camera being released at all.

>>3056926

Df and D7000

Don't need to upgrade, for a very, very long time.

>>3056926
A rabal

I don't because I do not believe in the "rabal is shit" meme because they're like any other entry level camera

>>3057059

It's the marketing that gets me.

>>3056926
K1, I don't, honestly I love this thing. I do need a short tele though

>>3056966
>completely changed the way you take photos

Top of the range dslr quality that fits in your pocket.

Short flange distance.

Ibis.

Wysiwyg viewfinder.

Bodies that specialise in low light or high mp, instead of incremental jack of all trades.

Smartphone as remote viewfinder as standard.

Variable stf lens.

Intelligent autofocus.

Video as more than an afterthought.

On sensor pdaf for better accuracy.

Native performance from adapted af lenses.

Highest quality lenses on the market.

Fastest lens release schedule, ever.

And coming later in the year...

Unlimited raw burst

New file format because .dng is too restrictive

No other company has a full frame camera with barely one of these features, all from a company and product line that's only been up 5 years. Pretty embarrassing for the competition.

>>3057103
Tamron 90/2.8 macro. The old screwdrive one. Cheap and an excellent portrait substitute until the new D-FA* 85/1.4 comes out.

Why do people in the camera world cream themselves over magnesium and zinc alloys when they're regarded as cheap and brittle "pot metal" in other circles?

>>3057195
Because you know nothing about material sciences.

>>3057181

Wait, I thought sony cameras were featureless memes and no one bought them because they're cheap?

File: 33112834622_87d1a00a66_o[1].jpg (254KB, 1911x927px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1911x927px

>>3057228
>The 200-500 isn't anything special. The Tamron 150-600 G2 is just as sharp
See pic related.
Now I can't confirm or deny the statement regarding the S Sigma, but I own the C version and it doesn't resolve my camera's 16Mp crop sensor, so excuse me for having doubts about the sports version as well.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	1911
Image Height	927

>>3057238
>crop sensor
There's your problem

>>3057324
nah senpai, it's not even as dense as a d800.

>>3057324
No, I'm pretty sure the lens (or rather its manufacturer) is to blame. Why do you think all those photographers buy 7d2s and d500s for birding? Think they can't afford a budget Sigma to mount on their fullframes?
Besides, as stated above, the d800 isn't that far behind in terms of pixel pitch. Actually, it should have the exact one: 16x2.25=36 Mpx. So yeah. That Sigma lens isn't too good and I don't mount it on my dx camera anymore, still keep it around because I like the subject separation and it doesn't look as shitty when mounted on an fx. Sharpness-wise a 70-300 vr mounted on a dx gives comparable detalization for half the price and weight

>>3057195
>they're regarded as cheap and brittle "pot metal" in other circles?

Are they?

I thought magnesium allows had some of the best strength to weight ratios?

In any case the amount of abuse professional magnesium DSLR's can take is astonishing.
Although personally I think all plastic is fine too.

>>3057371
Nah, mg is a boss metal, look at racecar wheels. Light and rigid af, but you have to keep a really keen eye on any cracks/dings.

Only real issue with it is it is pretty fucking soft and if it gets a chunk out of it, it can corrode quite quickly. These are pretty serious issues for many things, but not fancy electronics.

>>3057371
To weigh in on the subject, magnesium alloys are a popular material for aircraft hulls. The one downside I'm aware of is it catches fire and burns, especially when in powdered form, however I can't imagine an instance when it would matter in a dslr, this is only an issue when an aircraft crashes.

>>3057195
Magnesium and zinc alloys are light and hard, which makes them well-suited for rigid structural components (i.e. the inner frame) of electronics. For example, Thinkpad laptops and modern digital cameras. Steel would be worse regardless of grade; brass is right out except on the top and bottom plates of Leicas.

Rest assured that the "hard points" of cameras are less brittle steel: these being the tripod screw and the lens bayonet, and sometimes also the mounting holes for battery grips.

As for magnesium alloys being cheap: in bulk they can be. The cost is in working them in a mass production assembly line, rather than an artisanal gunshop in Tennessee.

D7500 have a better aesthetic than the other imo

>>3057373
>Only real issue with it is it is pretty fucking soft and if it gets a chunk out of it, it can corrode quite quickly.

That's probably why all the corners are rounded off.

>>3057472
Corner rounding is pretty much recommended for all mechanical designs due to physics.
Mg alloys are hard, resilient and most importantly low energy production.
There have been many advances with new kind of materials, even metal composites in the last few decades, even more so than in polymers. Good plastics are also light and resilient and hard to some degree but with lower temperatures, they like to go into a glass-like form with high rigidity and losing all the resilience becoming very brittle. This can be even above freezing point. Metals have a much lower transitional temperature where they become brittle.
For heavy uses in the widest temperature and impact range, metal casings are the way to go.

>>3055930
My d3200 cracked when I fell off of a bike with it in my bag.

File: qualityqueen.png (67KB, 155x207px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 155x207px

>no PC and sync ports for taking strobe off camera

FUCKING WEW

>>3057472
they are all coated with rubber, plastics and thick paint.

No grip option and single card slot are the biggest deal breakers. The plastic body is disappointing but I don't usually abuse my camera.

It's probably a decent camera for some but I want better ergonomics and need two card slots for safety.