Gee, I was holding off buying a used D4 until the D5 came out. Was hoping the prices on the used D4's would tumble significantly after the D5 came out.
Now this !! Wahoo, thanks for the belated Christmas present Nikon! Back to DX I go!
moconnell wrote:
From what I can see is that 4K UHD will be limited to 3minutes...
from the Nikon website: "Movie Maximum recording time 4K/UHD 3 minutes; 1,080 50/60p 10/20 minutes (HQ/Norm); 1,080 30/25/24p and 720 50/60p 20/29:59 minutes (HQ/Norm)"
I believe the new autofocus system itself is being underestimated. This new feature alone may put the D500 in a class all alone amongst other DX cameras out there.
With 153 points and 99 of them being cross-type and able being able to focus down to -4EV light sounds incredible.
What say you guys?
It's pretty good the points are a bit more spread across the viewfinder instead of just being concentrated in the middle. I think only the center focus point does -4 EV while all the other points do -3 EV.
jonrock wrote:
It's pretty good the points are a bit more spread across the viewfinder instead of just being concentrated in the middle. I think only the center focus point does -4 EV while all the other points do -3 EV.
The DX AF point coverage has always been great, but the D500 makes it slightly better yet going right to the very edges. The AF module on the D5 covers 30% more area than the D4S, so there is a significant improvement on the FX side as well. Also all 8 middle points are rated to F8. You're correct that only the center point is -4 EV, the other 152 points are -3 EV, which is as sensitive as the D750's center point.
Buffalonian wrote:
I actually feel underwhelmed, considering the offerings in other cameras. 4K in a DX makes sense, but kind of a year late. I guess if you have a ton of Nikon glass, you are drooling over it. Being on the Sony and Pentax platforms, my IQ on images and ISO performance are amazing. The Pentax 645 D I own is always on a tripod for amazing landscape work w/ great glass. Nikon with the D800 made me wondering why you wanted to ever be in the DX camera in the first place.
IMHO, it's a toy .. but I guess if you do video, it might compete with the Sony A7s. Oh well. Nikon fanboiz like Sony's base, will love it. However, its to late for me to consider a full DSLR for video > choosing mirrorless all day/everyday....Show more →
"It is better to remain silent and appear foolish, than to speak and remove all doubt." --Proverb
All of these images taken in 2007 and 2008, handheld with a D300 toy (original, not D300s). Show me how you get images like these with a medium-format or mirrorless camera, and I'll consider your statements. Let me know how your AF tracking performance, weather-sealing, and frame-rate work out...
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
2. Potential for more reach. If what you want is the narrowest FOV possible ("greatest reach") then you can use your longest FX lens, and get the FOV that you'd get from a lens with a 50% greater focal length... with no loss of light. Your 600/4 becomes a 900/4, which is impossible to do on FX.
jmai86 wrote:
Great points, but I have to stop you at this one.
A 600/4 does not magically become a 900/4. Aperture is a relative number and directly depends on the focal length, and the focal length is a physical measurement. The more accurate statement would be that a 600 F4 becomes a 900 F6. You have to multiply not only the FL, but also the f-stop [...]
From a physics point of view, you're correct. From an image-making point of view, I can tell you that I get the same FOV and exposure parameters (e.g. shutter speed) from a DX+600/4 as I'd get from an FX+900/4. I get more DOF, because the effective aperture did change as you say, but I get the same light-gathering capability and shutter speed which is often why I wanted the faster lens in the first place.
Impressed by Nikon for this bold move. Hopefully this will help recover from the knee jerks of recent years. Personally not interested in new camera, but it still got me excited.
moconnell wrote:
From what I can see is that 4K UHD will be limited to 3minutes...
from the Nikon website: "Movie Maximum recording time 4K/UHD 3 minutes; 1,080 50/60p 10/20 minutes (HQ/Norm); 1,080 30/25/24p and 720 50/60p 20/29:59 minutes (HQ/Norm)"
Am I missing something?
I believe this is due to the individual file size limit on the memory cards. If you use an external recorder you can record much longer. I don't imagine too many scenes are shot greater than 3 minutes, but if you're a serious video guy you've likely got an external recorder in your arsenal anyway.
D500 should be able to do 29.59 minutes splitting files every 4GB at full 4K.
3 minutes is ridiculous for action, unless you are able to time your recording exactly when the action will happen, which is pretty much an impossible task in wildlife or sport video recording.
Remember you need head in and tail out for video, is not just snapping the right frame.
Of course you can get an external recorder, but that's some extra $ right there, plus an extra setup to mount it properly, and is cumbersome for basic setups. Agreed that you'd need that if you are a videographer.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote: "It is better to remain silent and appear foolish, than to speak and remove all doubt." --Proverb
All of these images taken in 2007 and 2008, handheld with a D300 toy (original, not D300s). Show me how you get images like these with a medium-format or mirrorless camera, and I'll consider your statements. Let me know how your AF tracking performance, weather-sealing, and frame-rate work out...
A BO105! And I have no idea what the environment is for that 3rd pic but it looks pretty darn cool.
