Steve Perry wrote:
Looking over the tech PDF it seems like maybe they have made AF fine tuning automatic.
Interesting to note that in 4k, the record limit for the D5 is 3 minutes (makes the 5 minute recording time on the RX100IV seem like a epic motion picture), but the D500 is 29 minutes, but * that it records in seperate files.
johnctharp wrote:
That, and it's hard to see where the D500 is a solidly better choice aside from the F-mount.
No resolution advantage- why this sensor rather than the 24MP DX sensor in the D7200? Better high-ISO? Was low-ISO DR sacrificed?
More 'sophisticated' AF system, but does that really make a difference? This can get in the way as much as it can help.
4k video? But is this a reason to buy the camera, rather than an alternative, and how is the focus tracking, which is a major selling point of the 7D II? Will it be a tripod-only, prefocus video queen as current Nikon DSLRs are, and if so, how does that help?
Wireless options? Sure, but again, is the 'connected crowd' a market for Nikon's nearly-pro DX camera and it's US$2,000 pricetag?
Where else do you upgrade a camera these days if not for AF, sensor, buffer, video capability, connectivity, etc? They pretty much hit every mark and exceeded everyone's expectations while they were at it. Sensor performance is unknown, but I'm going to guess it outperforms the 7D2 sensor. You're basically discounting all the same things that Canon added from the 7D --> 7D2 and asking if they make a difference. Was the 7D2 better than the 7D1? I'd say so. The 7D2 is also (still!) plagued with AF issues unacknowledged by Canon, and sensor performance is unimpressive compared to the latest APS-C offerings from the competition.
There are a lot of unknowns about the D500, its tough to speculate. The fact that they went with a 20 MP sensor suggests they prioritized speed and ISO performance which makes sense given that this camera is aimed squarely at the sports/wildlife crowd. Hopefully the DR is as we've come to expect, and I think it will be. There are also no details on the AF system other than number of AF points - rumors pointed to some more technology there, and I'm curious to see if that is true. Lots of unknowns yet - too many to be making any meaningful comparisons to the competition.
CanadaMark wrote:
Where else do you upgrade a camera these days if not for AF, sensor, buffer, video capability, connectivity, etc? They pretty much hit every mark and exceeded everyone's expectations while they were at it. Sensor performance is unknown, but I'm going to guess it outperforms the 7D2 sensor. You're basically discounting all the same things that Canon added from the 7D --> 7D2 and asking if they make a difference. Was the 7D2 better than the 7D1? I'd say so. The 7D2 is also (still!) plagued with AF issues unacknowledged by Canon, and sensor performance is unimpressive compared to the latest APS-C offerings from the competition.
There are a lot of unknowns about the D500, its tough to speculate. The fact that they went with a 20 MP sensor suggests they prioritized speed and ISO performance which makes sense given that this camera is aimed squarely at the sports/wildlife crowd. Hopefully the DR is as we've come to expect, and I think it will be. There are also no details on the AF system other than number of AF points - rumors pointed to some more technology there, and I'm curious to see if that is true. Lots of unknowns yet - too many to be making any meaningful comparisons to the competition....Show more →
snapsy wrote:
Not sure that this is actually a good thing. The 7DM2 was out there for a full year to entice any D300/D300S shooters without a hint of the D500 from Nikon.
johnctharp wrote:
That, and it's hard to see where the D500 is a solidly better choice aside from the F-mount.
No resolution advantage- why this sensor rather than the 24MP DX sensor in the D7200? Better high-ISO? Was low-ISO DR sacrificed?
More 'sophisticated' AF system, but does that really make a difference? This can get in the way as much as it can help.
We'll need to seem some cameras in the wild before making any serious remarks, but I'd guess that the d500 sensor will be cleaner, with more DR, than the 7dII. Whether or not that is a huge deal remains to be seen. Same with the AF. Both cameras having the best pro level AF to be had, it would probably be silly to say one is really significantly better than the other. But, for Nikon users, I think that this new AF system is going to be a huge hit for all action shooters.
I'd also guess that this camera will be like the d300, ie the "best" DX camera available and will snag a bunch of single camera, general purpose users. If this camera lives up to the specs, there will probably be a lot of d7100 and d7200 cameras on the used market come April or May.
Personally, I'll be on a couple of pre-order lists and will be checking B&H every day. I'll either sell my d7100 or make it a dedicated IR camera.
johnctharp wrote:
That's actually what I'm interested in- see, the 7D II, which is the D500's only real competitor (sorry about your lenses, Pentax!) has great high-ISO performance for a cropper- usable images are as good or better as those produce by the excellent Exmor in the D7200, for example. Nikon's own (assume Renesas-produced as you suggest) sensors tend to behave a lot like Canon's in-house jobs, with great high-ISO performance and average low-ISO performance.
I'd be hoping that this camera has both- like the D750, for example, where you have competitive high-ISO performance and great low-ISO performance, making it as much of a 'jack of all trades' camera....Show more →
I'm in a similar position, have been considering switching from Canon to Nikon D750, but this might be a better option. Serious competition for the 7D2, including a swivel screen and some other extras (and hopefully better low ISO DR and an AF system with less 'issues'). Competition is good :-)
The weight is higher than I would like and I don't need very high framerates. If it doesn't have IS trouble with the 300PF lens (like the D750) it would still provide a very light and competitive combo compared to what Canon has at this focal length ;-)
And who knows, maybe there is room in the lineup later on for a D400 or a D750 type camera with higher res sensor (enabling better crop mode)?
CanadaMark wrote:
1 XQD slot and 1 SD slot, interesting. At least you can share cards with the D5 now.
That seems like an odd move....would have thought CF and SD would make more sense for a $2000 camera. The more odd move is producing a D5 with dual CF....move on to the new standard or just forget about it....
CanadaMark wrote:
Where else do you upgrade a camera these days if not for AF, sensor, buffer, video capability, connectivity, etc? They pretty much hit every mark and exceeded everyone's expectations while they were at it. Sensor performance is unknown, but I'm going to guess it outperforms the 7D2 sensor. You're basically discounting all the same things that Canon added from the 7D --> 7D2 and asking if they make a difference. Was the 7D2 better than the 7D1? I'd say so. The 7D2 is also (still!) plagued with AF issues unacknowledged by Canon, and sensor performance is unimpressive compared to the latest APS-C offerings from the competition....Show more →
Agree, the 7D2 looks technologically outdated compared to the D500 on many points. Which doesn't guarantee the D500 takes better pictures, but for e.g. wildlife shooters having a tilt screen and the option of good quality video will be a nice bonus. However, the 7D2 isn't the only recent camera with 'issues' so lets hope it has mature technology right out of the gate.
, 