CanadaMark wrote:
Some manufacturers cook the RAW output too. Canon has been caught doing this in the past, Nikon probably does it to some degree as well.
Agreed- Sony is horrendous about this as well, they make Nikon and Canon look good .
But in the end, there's nothing about cooking RAWs that's going to actually increase DR or decrease noise at any ISO, at least not without some other issue being introduced (less detail, etc.), so a 'cooked RAW' is just a matter of learning from experience to shoot around it, which we all do anyway.
RSHPhotography wrote:
How do you guys feel about the body construction compared to the D300?
It's a bit of a hybrid between the D750 and D810, from what I understand; has a magnesium half-shell, with a carbon fiber front, which should make it fairly sturdy while also resistant to mount damage from mounted lens impacts.
TMaG82 wrote:
The screen resolution looks tremendous, maybe I was the only one to notice it. Having a 2 million+ rear LCD looks really nice.
DMZamora wrote:
A "small" resolution of 1440x900 (1.3 million pixels) is actually enough for 525dpi in a screen of 3.2".
Other than possible better colors/contrast/antiglare/etc, it's only a marketing gimmick, as with the stellar ISO.
You'd be correct that 525dpi would be a marketing gimmick, but it's not actually that high-resolution. You're being confused by another marketing gimmick: the difference between "dots" and "pixels". Each pixel has three dots (R, G, B) so your 1440x900 resolution is 1.3M pixels but 3.9M dots.The rear display is probably 1024x768, which is 786K pixels and 2.4M dots.
For a 4:3 screen with a 3.2" diagonal, I get 400 dpi. As high as you need to be beautiful, but not excessively so. I wouldn't call that a marketing gimmick.
RSHPhotography wrote:
How do you guys feel about the body construction compared to the D300?
My thoughts in the build is I expect it to be better than the D7XXX class and very close to the D300. Although the right side grip area does look a bit like the D750 IMO. So maybe the shape is closer to the D750.
I think Nikon went with the carbon fiber / plastic front because of integrated WiFi and Blue Tooth. The 7DM2 doesn't have those features built in, and I remember reading something about the full metal shell causing signal issues for Canon.
That may be true since the D5 does not offer WiFi built in either. I think carbon fiber can be made stronger than Mg, it has a higher tensile strength. So if its done right, no reason why the D500 build with carbon fiber can't be as strong or stronger than the D300/ D800 equivalent.
DMZamora wrote:
Forgot the quotes on "stellar", sorry, I was being ironic.
The new cameras may have 1 to 2 stops better ISO than the previous ones in their respective categories, but c'mon, 1.640.000 ISO is not a marketing gimmick? Can you really use an image taken with anything more than 102.400 ISO?
I didn't believe I could get any use out of an ISO 102400 file before the D3s was announced, but I was surprised to find out that technology had improved to the point where I did use it sometimes, and got reasonable results out of it. Obviously as you go from Hi1 to Hi2 through to Hi5, the quality decreases... but at what point does it cease to be useful?
In reality, the answer is always going to be "it depends". I won't be making a 30x40 print of a landscape at that ISO. But a newspaper photographer might care very little about quality beyond a certain minimal standard, because the end result (newsprint) can support only low-resolution images anyway.
We'll see how useful ISO 1.6M is when we can try it out. Until then, I'm not prejudging anything.
RSHPhotography wrote:
How do you guys feel about the body construction compared to the D300?
Nikon claims with the carbon fiber front it's both stronger and more durable than the D300. Sounds good to me. I wouldn't be surprised if all future pro bodies adopt this build if it's superior - except maybe the D5 type cameras. Magnesium is very strong but it's actually quite brittle - it wouldn't surprise me if the CF ends up being the better way to go for some areas.
Went back to Nikon's booth yesterday. Here are some answers, derived from working with the camera:
Q: Does the D500 have touch AF outside of LV like the D5500?
A: No
Q: Is the EFCS any easier to use; specifically, does it still require MUP
A: Doesn't seem any easier to use, still requires MUP
Q: Do the banks still store all changes to the active bank in use
A: Yes
Q: Which functions can each of the camera's buttons/control be configured to
A: I took a video of all the options. I'll post it tomorrow
Q: Has supported been added for separate wide/tele AF tune values for zooms?
A: No
And here are some LCD captures of High ISO images. Wasn't going to post these because I don't think they're very useful but since NR posted someone's D5 images I figured some may want to see them. These are all with High ISO NR set off though I saw evidence of NR in the images. The LCD was photographed with an RX1 at ISOs from 1000-2500:
snapsy wrote:
And here are some LCD captures of High ISO images. Wasn't going to post these because I don't think they're very useful but since NR posted someone's D5 images I figured some may want to see them. These are all with High ISO NR set off though I saw evidence of NR in the images. The LCD was photographed with an RX1 at ISOs from 1000-2500:
Before I saw the pictures in the NR post, I thought that was going to be completely useless, a picture of the back of the camera, but it does appear to at least tell you that Hi1 and in some cases Hi2 are going to be pretty useable. on the D5. Which is pretty amazing. This camera might even give me an itch to upgrade my 3s, which the 4 and 4s never really did.
Thanks for yours from the D500, which definitely appears it might be pushing the APS-C boundaries. Can't wait to play with this one.
reggieb wrote:
Before I saw the pictures in the NR post, I thought that was going to be completely useless, a picture of the back of the camera, but it does appear to at least tell you that Hi1 and in some cases Hi2 are going to be pretty useable. Which is pretty amazing. This camera might even give me an itch to upgrade my 3s, which the 4 and 4s never really did.
The entire native ISO range of the D500 looks pretty darn good.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
You'd be correct that 525dpi would be a marketing gimmick, but it's not actually that high-resolution. You're being confused by another marketing gimmick: the difference between "dots" and "pixels". Each pixel has three dots (R, G, B) so your 1440x900 resolution is 1.3M pixels but 3.9M dots.The rear display is probably 1024x768, which is 786K pixels and 2.4M dots.
For a 4:3 screen with a 3.2" diagonal, I get 400 dpi. As high as you need to be beautiful, but not excessively so. I wouldn't call that a marketing gimmick.
You probably nailed it. In fact, I never really noticed that manufacturers throws us the screen resolution as dots and not pixels. So, 2.4M dots will approximately double the actual available resolution from 200dpi to 400dpi, which is an effective evolution, I have to agree.
Here's a video I took of a Nikon rep demonstrated the buffer capacity with a 260 MB/s SD card. The result was 74 frames. Using the same settings on a 400 MB/s XQD produced 200 frames. This was for 14-bit compressed NEFs.
Reviews on that card suggests it does around 170MB/s write sustained, which could be one reason for the smaller buffer. 74 frames is still pretty good for most people I would think, especially if you don't want to buy into XQD. I'd be curious to see what it did with a mid-range XQD card, or something below the 440MB/s ones.
I actually think the touch screen is a move in the right direction...imagine if Apple thought touch screens were gimmicks when they launched the iPhone. I think it's just a matter of getting it right and perhaps taking a lesson from Apple/Samsung with their tough "gorilla glass" thing to these cams. Needs to be at least as tough as phones!
.
30+ mentions in one post. 