jonrock wrote:
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.
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?
Or did you mean lossy?
Absolutely none. Lossless compressed is truly and completely lossless. There is literally no loss during the compression. Nobody should be shooting uncompressed without a very unusual reason. The only reason I have ever come across is there is a way to get NEFs from the latest cameras into Nikon Capture NX2 for the software die-hards if you shoot uncompressed. 99.9999% of people should be shooting lossless compressed if their choice is RAW rather than uncompressed.
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 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. ...Show more →
Ah... that endless discussion. Your argument only holds water when you shoot at maximum aperture and require the light gathering and/or shallow depth of field that the aperture allows. Most of my sports and action shooting happen stopped down one or two stops. The reality is also that when shooting a D5 and a D500 side-by-side, the extra reach of the D500 is indisputable, since they have the same megapixel number. I could always use the D810 in crop mode to get a similar (15MP) resolution compared to the D500, but I would only have access to half of the viewfinder and since the D810 isn't designed for action, frame rate would be lower.
The D500 would pair up very nicely with either the D5 or the D810 for exactly these reasons.
dispr wrote:
Can't find the MSRP in Canadian dollars, anyone know? I would love to take advantage of the US dollar's strength.
$2699 is full Canadian MSRP ($1930 USD). Unfortunately not the best deal right off the bat even with the exchange. It will sell for a bit less at some of the better stores and with a 2 year factory warranty. Give us some time with the new stuff before you come in and buy it all at a 40% discount
Canadian MSRP in the D5 is $8499 ($6075 USD). No way will they stay at those prices for long. The D5 is the better deal if you're buying North of the border, $500 savings and double warranty. Give it a little time, our prices will come down a bit and they will be a steal.
I can see one reason for annoyance when the D500 is used side-by-side with an "older" Nikon body: the ISO and Mode buttons have switched places. I can already hear myself swearing when hitting the wrong button
CanadaMark wrote:
$2699 is full Canadian MSRP ($1930 USD). Unfortunately not the best deal right off the bat even with the exchange. It will sell for a bit less at some of the better stores and with a 2 year factory warranty. Give us some time with the new stuff before you come in and buy it all at a 40% discount
Canadian MSRP in the D5 is $8499 ($6075 USD). No way will they stay at those prices for long. The D5 is the better deal if you're buying North of the border, $500 savings and double warranty. Give it a little time, our prices will come down a bit and they will be a steal....Show more →
The Canadian price is sad and depressing....I'm just glad that Nikon didn't go above $7000 to hopefully keep the 1DX2 price in line and not up into the 1DsIII price territory. Thank goodness for CPS Canadian pricing on pro bodies....$8000 is hard to swallow.....Hopefully CPS will drop a grand off the 1DX2 for us members.....
As for the naming standard, it mostly makes sense:
Pro bodies, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 (D1-2 are DX, D3-5 are FX)
Enthusiast bodies, D100, D200, D300, D500, D600, D610, D700, D750, D800, D810 (D100-500 are DX, D600-810 are FX)
Amateur bodies: D3000, D5000, D7000 (All DX)
What would have made more sense was if the FX enthusiast bodies were 2-digit. The reason why they're not is probably that when the D700 was launched, the amateur Nikon bodies where still called D40, D50, D60, D70, D80 and D90, so those numbers were already taken. I guess I can live with the confusion
Jared is ok (like him or hate him)
