trenchmonkey wrote:
Haven't used a pop up flash in over 6 yrs
You don't know what you are missing. The pop up flash technology has advanced tremendously...not.
I just like having the ability to fill in from time to time that's all. I hardly use a flash anyway, but would prefer to have one on board just in case.
Steve Perry wrote:
Looking over the tech PDF it seems like maybe they have made AF fine tuning automatic.
If this AFT system works, and I am confident it will, it will be one of the biggest things people will talk about once the D500 is out in use, at least for a lot of us!
jmacd270 wrote:
There's been an awakening...... have you felt it?😛
Yup - in the bank accounts of Nikon!
Personally, I'm going to wait it out though - Nikon doesn't have the best track record over the last few years and I don't want to be one of the beta testers anymore.
Is there any reason to shoot uncompressed 14bit, vs lossless compressed 14bit? If they're truly lossless, and lead to a deeper buffer, why would anyone shoot uncompressed?
goto_dengo wrote:
Is there any reason to shoot uncompressed 14bit, vs lossless compressed 14bit? If they're truly lossless, and lead to a deeper buffer, why would anyone shoot uncompressed?
I can't think of any reason why you'd shoot uncompressed 14-bit RAW. Lossless is what it says, saves about 35% of the space (meaning you can store about 50% more images on a given card) and gives a deeper buffer, so no downside.
This D500 looks like a killer for what I shoot, but my D4 with 300/2.8 is perfect as my prime shooter now. A crop sensor would put me a little closer than I need. My D7100 with 24-70 is my second rig for when action gets close.
The only reason why I would replace the D7100 with the D500 is the bigger buffer, but it'll be a while before prices come down to do that. By then my D7100 will be worth $200.
Likewise, I can already see some smokin' deals on D3, D3s, D4, D4s, D7100, D7200 as beta testers flock to the D500.
Why couldn't Nikon bring this out last year instead of the D7200? Yeah, it wouldn't have had the D5 focus, but hell, the D4 focus is still kick a**.
gdsf2 wrote:
How is a DX sensor better for long-focal-length needs than just cropping on a full frame camera?
Several ways:
1. Weight savings for a given FOV. If what you want is the FOV of a 600mm lens on FX, for example, you can use a 400mm lens which will be lighter and more portable. For a given FOV, the camera and every single lens become lighter. If you use DX lenses, they project a smaller image circle and can thus be physically much smaller and lighter than the FX equivalent.
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.
3. Cost. DX cameras and glass are generally significantly less expensive than FX equivalents.
4. DX versus cropping can sometimes yield more "pixels per duck" as is often said. You can crop a D810 file to get a 16MP DX file, and if you're comparing to a 16MP DX camera then it's better to crop: more flexibility, no real downside. However, when comparing a 21MP DX file to a 16MP crop, then you have more pixels with the DX camera than if you crop the equivalent FOV from an FX image. (And since not everyone can afford the D8xx series, they might be cropping from a 24MP or even 16MP image on FX, yielding much, much smaller files when cropping.
5. Frame rate and buffer. The only cameras who can compete with the D500 on paper are the D4/D5 (for framerate) and the D8xx series (for pixels). But you can take a fast burst on a 21MP D5 and then crop down to about 10MP DX (not ideal), or you can lose fully half your frame rate on a D8xx, shoot at 5fps, and then crop down to 16MP... also not ideal. Either way you give something up.
So how low will a used d7200 or used d7100 go for now...was waiting until the spring sales to add a dx body as a pair to my d750 but this surprise changes everything...if the iso performance is good on the d500 though I would be tempted to go single body system but can't see a crop version lens as decent as the 24-70 2.8 Tamron VC that is currently welded to my d750...
Did anyone else notice the 1.0x magification finder?
The viewfinder, auto AF fine tune, -4EV center AF, wide AF sensor, little joystick selector thingy, and tilting touchscreen make me very hopeful for the D810 successor.
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.
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 when making these conversions for them to have any meaning.
In other words, a 600/4 on crop sensor is still a 600/4, but with a 900 FOV. Bokeh and compression characteristics remain the same, just with a narrower FOV.
If we accepted the rampant multiplication of FL and not aperture, we'd have to accept that superzoom cameras touting a 1000mm F2.8 lens is a thing, when in reality, it is patently absurd. Can you imagine a real 1000mm F2.8 lens? It'd be the size of a truck.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
The number 4 sounds like the word for death in Chinese (Mandarin, I believe). When that is said, Nikon did have the D4 and Panasonic has the GH4, so superstition seems to be mostly for the amateurs
I have no idea how I forgot about the D4 and GH4. Hmmmm....maybe it's because if you bought both of those cameras it meant the death of a fat wallet
After seeing the body of this camera, I kind of wished they used the body of this camera for the D750.
