farlymac
PF McFarland
I'm not a pro (although I tried my hand at it a long time ago), so the D500 is right about where I'd want to be in digital photography. The Fuji X-T1 is beautifully tempting, but with a lack of a movable screen, and lousy video (not to mention the cost of Fuji lenses), I just couldn't see myself jumping ship for it.
The D5500 is more to my liking, with the fully articulated screen, but with the D500 I would gain a somewhat larger body with better AF, and ISO performance. And it sounds like a relatively inexpensive way to get into 4K video. I just need to justify the extra cost of the body.
As far as the discussion on warranty issues, yeah, you get what you pay for. Out Of Warranty is Out Of Luck with most companies. Leica may need to service out of warranty cameras to keep their clientele from running away, but Nikon doesn't look at it that way. It doesn't hit them enough in the back pocket to justify doing such repairs, unless enough folks make a fuss about it. As I recall, it took a long time for Nikon to even admit to the problem with the D600, and even then, some folks never got any satisfaction.
That's why I don't jump in the water right away when new products come out. I wouldn't buy a new Ford Ranger pick-up until they changed the design of the front suspension. And I've stayed away from Nikon's digital offerings until I found a model that fit my immediate needs (the P7700) at a price I could afford. It also gave me some insight into the Nikon Digital System workings without buying an expensive model, and not liking it at all.
So I'm ready to get a D500 if no reports of major muck-up crops up in the first few months of real world use.
PF
The D5500 is more to my liking, with the fully articulated screen, but with the D500 I would gain a somewhat larger body with better AF, and ISO performance. And it sounds like a relatively inexpensive way to get into 4K video. I just need to justify the extra cost of the body.
As far as the discussion on warranty issues, yeah, you get what you pay for. Out Of Warranty is Out Of Luck with most companies. Leica may need to service out of warranty cameras to keep their clientele from running away, but Nikon doesn't look at it that way. It doesn't hit them enough in the back pocket to justify doing such repairs, unless enough folks make a fuss about it. As I recall, it took a long time for Nikon to even admit to the problem with the D600, and even then, some folks never got any satisfaction.
That's why I don't jump in the water right away when new products come out. I wouldn't buy a new Ford Ranger pick-up until they changed the design of the front suspension. And I've stayed away from Nikon's digital offerings until I found a model that fit my immediate needs (the P7700) at a price I could afford. It also gave me some insight into the Nikon Digital System workings without buying an expensive model, and not liking it at all.
So I'm ready to get a D500 if no reports of major muck-up crops up in the first few months of real world use.
PF
pvdhaar
Peter
Maybe FF is not necessary, but the same argument can be held for APS-C, what with m4/3 being there as an alternative. All the way down to small sensors on phone cameras. Every one of those formats has its raison d'être..
Personally, now that I moved to FX a couple of moths ago, I can't see myself going back to DX; there's a distinct difference between them in how images are rendered. And indeed that difference is somewhat similar as to how 35mm film and 6x6 differed in the old days.. the one somewhat grittier, the other somewhat smoother. The latter is more to my taste, possibly also because I shot MF in the film days as well, despite such cameras being larger, less comfortable, and lots slower..
robert blu
quiet photographer
This is exactly what I mean, of course there is a difference but in the only film times most of amateurs were happy with 35 mm and only a minority was shooting 6x6.
robert
willie_901
Veteran
We obviously disagree. So I'll have to wait a year to see if Nikon's stock price recovers.
Vobluda
Well-known
Good point in that regard.
Dwig
Well-known
Exactly. FF is necessary only to those who would have thought MF or LF were necessary back in the old film days. For those who found the miniature formats (35mm FF & SF) good enough really only need the better 1" sensor models, or can step up to m4/3 or DX.
My "old" first generation m4/3 camera (Pany G-1) out performs 35mmFF color film (any, including K25) in just about every way. My comparison reference is the massive library of 35mm (K25 & Velvia) scans (Imacon) that I work with daily. The new images that I work with are digital from a D800 and the results from those are better that MF and much more like 4x5, in my experience (hand printing and commercial lab printing, both since the mid-1960s).
John E Earley
Tuol Sleng S21-0174
The D500 has a 100% coverage viewfinder offering 1.0x magnification
Huss
Veteran
Interesting that the new crop sensor in it is 20mp vs 24 in their other crop sensor DSLRs (D7200, D5500 etc)
ray*j*gun
Veteran
You may feel that way lol....but I think the company should have a little more pride in the product than that. Especially since the oil spot problem was notorious and apparently never solved on the 600/610 model....and I don't think my comment/caution would be considered a "rant" unlike yours. BTW the shots were taken prior to the end of the warranty (in the metadata) but I didn't notice them until post processing 2 weeks later. Didn't matter to Nikon.
Last edited:
Huss
Veteran
David_Manning
Well-known
All this new stuff coming out...wonderful time to enjoy photography. It'll be neat to see what Canon releases.
Interestingly enough, I just bought a Canon 1DX today from Adorama. There are some incredible deals out there...of course, it's a three--almost four--year old camera, but it's still awesome, and new to me
Interestingly enough, I just bought a Canon 1DX today from Adorama. There are some incredible deals out there...of course, it's a three--almost four--year old camera, but it's still awesome, and new to me
Highway 61
Revisited
This is what I wrote in a previous post. The D500 viewfinder is more interesting that the D750 and the Df ones (which offer 100% coverage and 0.7x magnification).
Totally nuts.
jschrader
Well-known
With a 50 mm lens. That is much better than 0.7, but still: 50 mm in APS-C is 70 mm in "full frame". With a 50 mm, it would be 0.7x magnification
I agree it is a major progress. I wonder why they did not manage to do this earlier.
jschrader
Well-known
no, it is the same. both magnifications are based on 50 mm lenses, which is a slight tele for APS and normal for FF.
In fact they should be similar then.
willie_901
Veteran
The answer is Nikon did everything they could to move DX customers into systems (bodies and lenses) with FX sensors. Besides camera specs and features, they under-developed their DX prime lens lineup as well. I assume Nikon thought this would increase their net profits. It didn't. Alternately Nikon's leadership was profoundly unaware of the pace of change and, or their internal politics (DX vs FX vs the slaughter of small sensor P&S market share) mired them in quicksand.
Nikon could not bear to cannibalize their traditional DX mirror-box cash cows, so other brands pecked away at them instead.
With Nikon's DSLR FX sales being flat and DX being supplanted by mirrorless and even smart phone products, they apparently decided to look to APS-C as a means to stop their declining market share. Apparently their J mirrorless line has failed at staving off the mirrorless barbarians. So, after 6 years (I giving them a two year grace period, it's actually been 8 years since the D300), Nikon can no longer pretend the sales growth enjoyed by M4/3 and Fujifilm has not cost them money.
robert blu
quiet photographer
So it's now time for a DFmini with aps-c sensor, physical dials, FM2 size, 100% viewfinder,...
Just kidding
robert
Just kidding
robert
jschrader
Well-known
Interesting point.
Is that how you try to make sense of their politics or do you have inside knowledge?
jschrader
Well-known
I mean, the other point is why they did not develop APS-size DSLRs into their potential is the size of the mirror box. You need a retrofocus to get just a normal lens. How that complicates these wide angle zooms.
I always believed they think that the APS size is a short period before larger sensors get affordable - just as it was with Leica.
So that fits the story
I always believed they think that the APS size is a short period before larger sensors get affordable - just as it was with Leica.
So that fits the story
I always feel that way too... but then again, they can also be used for longer reach i.e. a 1.5 tele converter built into a body. That could keep them around in the DSLR space.