cohenfive wrote:
It is a bit of a bummer on the dual card slot issue, imo. The d500 isn't even compatible with its sibling the d5 on that front...cf and xqd or just cf on the d5, and sd and xqd on the d500. So if you get both of these bad boys you will need three different card formats. Good for sandisk/lexar!
It'll actually be 2 formats unless you buy a CF version D5 (unlikely, since you'd have the dough to afford the faster format).
Coincidentally the 2nd card format on the D500, SD, is the cheapest of the 3.
Brad Barr wrote:
i have zero issues w sd cards actually...they are plenty fast for me, and nice and cheap. SO are the card readers. If they really want qxd to make headway, they need to make them at a competitive price and the hdware as well. I'm not opposed to more advanced technology certainly...but again..to what end, and at what cost.
SD cards are getting faster and faster....if it aint broke...
XQD 2 exceeds functional expectations. if you think that SD and that's even the new UHSII version is enough you don't need this camera. anytime SD gets faster it only to play catch up.
It won't stop me from possibly getting a d500, but I wish the card situation was different is all. And you have to buy a reader as well as the card, so at least $100 outlay. Not a big deal on a $2k camera, but choice is better than no choice imo. At least with the d5 you have a choice of old, lousy and dog slow cf cards vs sparkly, shiny new xqd cards...that nobody else is using.
I always use the second card as a back-up, so I'll get one 64Gb XQD card that probably never will leave the camera and work with the 32Gb SD-cards I already have plenty.
For ME a buffer of 30-40 images is more than enough and about 1500 images will do for a day.
sjms wrote:
XQD 2 exceeds functional expectations. if you think that SD and that's even the new UHSII version is enough you don't need this camera. anytime SD gets faster it only to play catch up.
Slow down there skippy....Unless you shoot a LOT of 4k video. Or maybe make a living shooting sports. SD's are more than fast enough. I've been making my living with a camera for 25 years....so I might have an idea what camera I need...or dont need thank you very much. The things that make me want this camera....have ZERO to do w it having a xqd card. Frankly, Id rather have dual slots of any one type than mixed. Not to mention the fact that Canon has its own competing cfast cards...In all likelihood one of these will become as betamax of this generation.
I'm in the same camp as Brad Barr. I'd much rather have 2 of the same card slots.
Mixed format memory slots have always been a minor annoyance. Right now I prefer SD because it is used widely across so many platforms. So for me, at least the D500 has an SD slot. Not the best of setups IMHO but neither are my D810s in that regard.
no need to slow down skippy. as i have too but maybe a lttle differently. and i too have sort of a clue too. it has nothing to do with 4k video that i don't shoot. i do my share of high speed still work and there is just a little difference between SD (UHS II) and XQD in buffer maintenance and clearing as a start. we do agree in that it should 2 of the same but as i said previously it is a transition camera for most. if i'm purchasing i prefer to get the most i can out of the item.
Canyonlands wrote:
I'm in the same camp as Brad Barr. I'd much rather have 2 of the same card slots.
Mixed format memory slots have always been a minor annoyance. Right now I prefer SD because it is used widely across so many platforms. So for me, at least the D500 has an SD slot. Not the best of setups IMHO but neither are my D810s in that regard.
the 810 should have had XQD when it came out. a bit too much FUD out there at the time though.
sjms wrote:
i do my share of high speed still work and there is just a little difference between SD (UHS II) and XQD in buffer maintenance and clearing as a start.
we do shoot pretty much differently.
Point is...that while technically the qxd is faster. In real shooting, it wont really make a difference. I shoot pro and college sports and its already not an issue with cf or sd cards. Plus the 500 is already faster, so there is no desperate need for most shooters to have this jump in speed; which will never be realized. I mean if you cant get your shot in a 74 frame burst you really need to find something else to do. 4k video...yes i can see you want/need all the speed you can muster. But contrary to your idea of this being some sort of bridge camera....it will not be. It will be a purpose camera. It is purpose built for speed on the long end of the F/L scale. It excels where FF sensors do not...and that is apparent reach. It makes my 400 2.8 into a 600 2.8. Every nikon sports shooter I know has these on order already. Many already have the d5 in house and are still anxiously awaiting the 500 to take advantage of its extended reach. Most oft them also ordered the d5 in CF config not qxd....why? Cause they/we just dont need it. The cards cost several times as much, and CF cards and readers are what we all have lots of already. Maybe....when/if the cost isnt so ridiculous we'll all switch (if the format lives that long). Or maybe cfast will win out...who know. Who cares really? so long as they all get to where CF and SD pricing and availability is now. Shooting from long range like in the shot below really makes the dx sensor advantage show itself off
Brad Barr wrote:
Point is...that while technically the qxd is faster. In real shooting, it wont really make a difference. I shoot pro and college sports and its already not an issue with cf or sd cards. Plus the 500 is already faster, so there is no desperate need for most shooters to have this jump in speed; which will never be realized. I mean if you cant get your shot in a 74 frame burst you really need to find something else to do. 4k video...yes i can see you want/need all the speed you can muster. But contrary to your idea of this being some sort of bridge camera....it will not be. It will be a purpose camera. It is purpose built for speed on the long end of the F/L scale. It excels where FF sensors do not...and that is apparent reach. It makes my 400 2.8 into a 600 2.8. Every nikon sports shooter I know has these on order already. Many already have the d5 in house and are still anxiously awaiting the 500 to take advantage of its extended reach. Most oft them also ordered the d5 in CF config not qxd....why? Cause they/we just dont need it. The cards cost several times as much, and CF cards and readers are what we all have lots of already. Maybe....when/if the cost isnt so ridiculous we'll all switch (if the format lives that long). Or maybe cfast will win out...who know. Who cares really? so long as they all get to where CF and SD pricing and availability is now. Shooting from long range like in the shot below really makes the dx sensor advantage show itself off ...Show more →
your assuming that is being used for your purposes. there are others. actually i'm hearing th opposte of buyers of the D5 from my suppliers. they are selling out of XQD models with CF available. i was offered a D5 CF if i wanted available immediately. i guess its the geographical difference. i'm in no hurry. i really want to see if the DX body does what i need it too also.
i prefer a good regulation 175gm sport Discraft disk bending on impact myself during a good Ultimate game. the only sport that i covered is highly dynamic and very fast in comparison to the standards and is hopefully heading for the Olympics in the not to distant future. pretty challenging for the shooter. i have a feeling the D500 will do the job.
I shoot what I am hired to shoot. I do have my personal preferences though.
Because you don't need it is a bit over the top that other don't! I shoot group dance, there are often 10-50 girls on the floor. The routine runs 5'. When I want to capture great shots of each girl you are talking crazy shooting for a 5' routine of a fast moving dance routine, easily fill the buffer!
Since I shoot JPG not a problem with D4 but D810 stalled very quickly.. then I need to choose to shoot selectively, tough choice.. but you work within the bounds of the equipment. Looking forward to the D5 / D500
well, the file size on the 810 is huge....and its not meant to be an action camera...so thats not really a relevant comparo. The stated number of jpegs the 500 is capable of....even w sd cards is more than ample for the vast majority of shooters.
depending on the situation I can/will shoot either/or or both raw/jpg. if in post I see a shot that I feel will benefit from a little TLC I then have a few more options. its worked more times then I can remember. also allows me to go back in time and within its limitations review and rework with greater agility images made by other cameras in which post products have improved.
1- D810 second afternoon using it. hadn't quite dialed it in yet. Chinatown, NYC
2- early morning walk at Solberg.
outstanding camera. but, in the end, just not for me.
davidnholtjr wrote:
I think we maybe ok, that's why it got pushed back a month I think so they would have a good amount on release day. I hope.
Very true, and I do hope that the delay was significant enough to allow for a smooth release without any additional delays. I've waited awhile for a new DX body to be released, so waiting a little while longer is not going to be an issue. I just want the ability to tinker with something new. Until that happens I'll keep trucking along with my D300.
