robert blu
quiet photographer
Beside the announcement of the "monstrous" D 5 Nikon announced also a new D500 with very high specs and APS-C sensor in it.
Personally I'm not in the market for a DSLR but I find interesting such an investment on what many consider a "minor" sensor not being full frame.
IMO APS-C can be compared to the 35mm film and FF is more what in the film is MF...
I'm the only one thinking FF is not so necessary?
robert
Personally I'm not in the market for a DSLR but I find interesting such an investment on what many consider a "minor" sensor not being full frame.
IMO APS-C can be compared to the 35mm film and FF is more what in the film is MF...
I'm the only one thinking FF is not so necessary?
robert
jschrader
Well-known
No, you are not alone thinking so, I agree APS sensors would fit for most situations.
What I hate about the APS DSLRs is the small finder. Approximately 0.75 magnification at 50 mm (!), which is equivalent to a 70 mm tele.
My M6 has 0.72 magnification at 35mm, this means the picture on my retina is 4 times as large.
What I hate about the APS DSLRs is the small finder. Approximately 0.75 magnification at 50 mm (!), which is equivalent to a 70 mm tele.
My M6 has 0.72 magnification at 35mm, this means the picture on my retina is 4 times as large.
ABrosig
Well-known
I was interested reading about the D500 - until I read it was DX/APS-C. That was my primary objection to all the previous digital slr cameras I used, starting with the D1. To my mind, the DX sensor is limiting, wasting all that beautiful wide glass I love to use.
If I'm shooting with a 17mm (or 20, 24, 28, you name it), I'm doing so because I want that wide look to an image. Not because I have to as a compromise because of the sensor in my camera.
I currently shoot the D4S for digital (D700 for work) and have shot the D3 and D4 at previous newspapers. Having "grown up" shooting film, it was a real pleasure getting back to a full-frame format when shooting digital. I just can't see going back, despite the other, impressive features of the camera.
And I can't really justify the expense of the FF D5 right now. I'm not saying don't jump on the D500. It sounds like an amazing leap forward in technology, with the 4K video, increased ISO/Sensitivity and new processor. It's just not for me.
If I'm shooting with a 17mm (or 20, 24, 28, you name it), I'm doing so because I want that wide look to an image. Not because I have to as a compromise because of the sensor in my camera.
I currently shoot the D4S for digital (D700 for work) and have shot the D3 and D4 at previous newspapers. Having "grown up" shooting film, it was a real pleasure getting back to a full-frame format when shooting digital. I just can't see going back, despite the other, impressive features of the camera.
And I can't really justify the expense of the FF D5 right now. I'm not saying don't jump on the D500. It sounds like an amazing leap forward in technology, with the 4K video, increased ISO/Sensitivity and new processor. It's just not for me.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I understand if you have a collection of "old" lenses the APS-C sensor is a limiting factor specially if you are used to shoot wide angles.
robert
robert
maitani
Well-known
it is great news to finally see something for the DX customers (D500) of nikon, personally i think this is the real D300s successor, the 7x00 body were' a little different target/direction, also great to see 4k in such a body, it might appeal videographers and birders too.
2 strong announcement from the nikon camp, let's see how canon replys. personally i think it's great news for the nikon user base.
2 strong announcement from the nikon camp, let's see how canon replys. personally i think it's great news for the nikon user base.
Bille
Well-known
Freudian slip?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
ray*j*gun
Veteran
As much as I love Nikon (film and digi) I have to point out that the company has been VERY poor backing up the cameras when there are issues. I bought a D610 and 15 days out of warranty it developed the oil spots that were such an issue with the D600. The company would do NOTHING about it under warranty. I have read that this is how they deal with issues like this. BTW I had just over 1000 clicks on the body when the spots developed.
I wound up having to learn how to clean the sensor myself and buy the necessary tools to do it correctly. Beware the customer support on these cameras.
I wound up having to learn how to clean the sensor myself and buy the necessary tools to do it correctly. Beware the customer support on these cameras.
Vobluda
Well-known
And what is the rant about since your camera was OUT OF WARRANTY?
The moment you bought it you were aware about the length of warranty period. Once when it is finished it is finished.
It is like complaining that you ate yogurt that was 15 days after expiry date and that you stomach hurts even if you know that it was expired.
The moment you bought it you were aware about the length of warranty period. Once when it is finished it is finished.
It is like complaining that you ate yogurt that was 15 days after expiry date and that you stomach hurts even if you know that it was expired.
willie_901
Veteran
Whether not not a 24 X 36 mm sensor is necessary depends entirely upon the lenses available for the APS-C platform of interest.
Some people have thoughtfully curated a collection of lenses intended for 24 X 36mm media. While there is some overlap (24 ≈ 35, 35 ≈ 50, etc.), there are gaps. Some people's goals depend on working with the thinest possible DOF. And some require the very highest signal-to-noise ratios/dynamic range for their projects. Otherwise the physical advantages of increased sensor area are minimal. This was not the case only 3-5 years ago with older, less efficient sensor technologies.
At the risk of invoking the dreaded automobile analogy, a friend of mine had a Porsche that would do 150 mph without straining. We were at a party once and someone challenged him asking, "Why on earth would you pay extra for a car that can go more than twice as fast as the speed limit?" He replied, "Because when I drive it on road racing courses during Porsche Club outings its performance is exhilarating... it makes me happy."
willie_901
Veteran
I don't see these as strong products. The D5 is a niche product for journalists (as explained in a recent post here regarding the D5).
The D500 is too late. Frustrated D300 users were either forced to buy a Nikon 24 x 36 mm camera or left the fold. How many of them will return years later because of the D500?
A glance at Nikon's stock chart reveals investors' lack of confidence. In my view Nikon's corporate culture is stuck twenty years in the past. I bought a lot of Nikon gear and was proud of it. But I just gave up and started over.
It's important because the tech will trickle down into its other cameras in the coming years.
Seems like there is some excitement for this camera around the internet...
taemo
eat sleep shoot
to be honest I always thought the D7200 to be the D300 successor, hah!
I still cant grasp Nikons naming convention and while I'm beginning to understand that D100-D500 is their DX line-up, what happend to the D400?
Is the D810 successor imminent and what will it be, D820, D850 or D900?
Full frame cameras are important to me since I shoot both film and digital so I want the equivalent FOV on both medium.
On a side note, I impulsively bought a D610 over the weekend, I received the camera yesterday, held it and nope... didn't like it.
I still cant grasp Nikons naming convention and while I'm beginning to understand that D100-D500 is their DX line-up, what happend to the D400?
Is the D810 successor imminent and what will it be, D820, D850 or D900?
Full frame cameras are important to me since I shoot both film and digital so I want the equivalent FOV on both medium.
On a side note, I impulsively bought a D610 over the weekend, I received the camera yesterday, held it and nope... didn't like it.
robert blu
quiet photographer
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
D500 Looks good to me
D500 Looks good to me
The D500 looks good to me. My D300 is definitely out of date.
I like:
- Pro body and interfaces (controls, 10-pin plug)
- Top of the line AF
- Next step in high-ISO performance
- Tilt screen, touch to set focus point, joystick to move focus point
In particular, I use DSLR for action and bird photography, mostly tele. For these, a DX body is a great advantage.
All things equal, I prefer a DX body overall, except for a few special situations.
D500 Looks good to me
The D500 looks good to me. My D300 is definitely out of date.
I like:
- Pro body and interfaces (controls, 10-pin plug)
- Top of the line AF
- Next step in high-ISO performance
- Tilt screen, touch to set focus point, joystick to move focus point
In particular, I use DSLR for action and bird photography, mostly tele. For these, a DX body is a great advantage.
All things equal, I prefer a DX body overall, except for a few special situations.
Highway 61
Revisited
Nikon are definitely doing very strange things nowadays.
That D500 has the round eyepiece with the integrated eyepiece shutter (thanks to which you can easily screw the very important DK-17M lupe) and a standard PC flash socket.
Those two things putting the camera into the "semi-pro" league are just missing on the D750...
If the D500 is clearly the successor of the D300s, the D750 is an evolution of the D610.
And the D700 has no real successor yet.
I'm very happy to see that they give-up with the pop-up flash on another "prosumer" body than the Df ; if the D500 had been a FX body it would have been the one for me, sure !
So :
That D500 has the round eyepiece with the integrated eyepiece shutter (thanks to which you can easily screw the very important DK-17M lupe) and a standard PC flash socket.
Those two things putting the camera into the "semi-pro" league are just missing on the D750...
If the D500 is clearly the successor of the D300s, the D750 is an evolution of the D610.
And the D700 has no real successor yet.
I'm very happy to see that they give-up with the pop-up flash on another "prosumer" body than the Df ; if the D500 had been a FX body it would have been the one for me, sure !
So :
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I don't understand this. FF = 35mm film in terms of lens focal length and DOF. Digital MF is close to medium format film.
We can't be talking about resolution, right?
To me, FF is entirely necessary. I won't buy an APS-c camera. Not even a P&S.
I want more DOF control, not less. I'd rather not have everything I shoot look like it might have come from a cell phone, for one thing. I don't like doing lens "equivalency conversions." To me, APS-c always seemed like a compromise made only for tech development reasons, and then some people found some incidental advantages in it (telephoto 'reach?').
Ronald M
Veteran
People want DX because it is small and light compared to flagship D5. Also the crop factor for long lenses. Of course you lose on wide angle.
Notice the round eyepiece. Somewhere I read there is a magnified view so the actual view is not .5 like all the other nikon DX.
Notice the round eyepiece. Somewhere I read there is a magnified view so the actual view is not .5 like all the other nikon DX.
GaryLH
Veteran
Plus one.. Rather the d7000 series. I thought the dxxx would be reserv d for full frame after this.
Gary
kshapero
South Florida Man
I applaud Nikon. New models are the sign of a robust company and a robust industry. Although I am not interested in either, I am glad to see a successor to the D300 for my wedding photographer buddies.