Nikon Announced D5, D500, and SB-5000

<blockquote>

<p>When I returned from England and perused those portraits I learned my first lesson of pop-up-flash - never use a lens hood. Every shot had an ugly half circle of shadow in the lower half where the flash couldn't reach.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh no. If you use a big lens hood on a, say, 24-70 or a long lens, do plan for NOT using at the lowest part of the image. The position of the flash is not high enough. It is fine in most cases on a regular wide angle with a short lens hood. I guess you didn't "chimp" at all. ;-) </p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Although I never photograph as a professional I never mind the weight of the camera. Yes at times I want smaller camera but not lighter. Besides to me the D500 or D5 are the same for me as far as carrying it. The lens (or lenses) would be more of a problem. The only reason I would use the D500 instead of the D5 is because if I don't make money I might not be able to afford the D5.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A D5 has a lot going for it, but these bodies are pretty close in feature sets, so it comes down to DX vs. FX. I could see a lot of sports pros using both, with the D500 primarily on long lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, my view on the 7D Mark II discounts is quite different. When Canon figured out that Nikon would introduce a high speed, cropped frame body, they discounted the 7D Mark II to prevent any leakage to Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why, essentially nobody saw Nikon was coming out with a D500. The usual rumor sites had zero info. Folks such as Thom Hogan had been predicting some D400 about twice a year in the last 4, 5 years. Essentially nobody paid attention to such rumor any more.</p>

<p>If Canon were concerned about leakage to Nikon, they should discount the 7D Mark II after, maybe immediately after, Nikon announces the D500, not months before. The simple reason is that after Canon and Nikon convinced people to move to FX, the market for high-end DX is much smaller now.</p>

<p>By the same token, by pricing the D500 almost twice as expensive as the 7D Mark II, Nikon is going to have a hard time selling the D500. Therefore, my speculation is that the price for the D500 will fall very rapidly as the 7D II did a year ago. This is of course not what Nikon, DPReview (owned by Amazon.com), B&H, Adorama ... want to hear. They want you to pre-order now, at the highest price so that they make maximum profit.</p>

<p>the D500 being able to maintain its initial price point might depend on whether Nikon can avoid QC issues in the first batches. i suspect many will not pre-order for that reason. </p>

<p>Your're absolutely right that none of the bloggers knew that Nikon was coming out with the D500 but it's highly probable that some people on the production side in Japan, including Canon's strategic planning department, knew it was. If I were Canon, I would definitely want all my customers that were sitting "on the fence" about buying a cropped frame sports body to make a decision to buy my body before they even had a clue that something was up at Nikon. Every Canon body not-sold probably results in several Canon lenses not-sold. In the sports shooters case, that's probably several very expensive prime and zoom telephotos not-sold. Brilliant strategy but not new to other industries. January 5, 2016 was a great day to start off the new year for non-professional sports shooters like myself. It makes me feel that all the whining about a D400 may have had some affect. (humor) LOL</p>

<p>I'm probably not getting DSLRs any more, but I think its great that Nikon came out with this one. The D200, 300 and FF D700 were great work horse cameras and I think this will be a popular camera with a lot of working photographers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The problem is that whoever was desperate to get a high-end APS-C body should have jumped to Canon a long time ago or found other alternatives years ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well maybe, but there will be a lot of people who were invested in high-end glass who limped along with the lighter weight 7000 series cameras. And a lot of people with 800 and other FF series cameras and glass wouldn't have switched. That would be very expensive to shift brands, especially if the Fx camera is a second camera.</p>

<p>Just did a size compre of the D500, D300s, D7000.<img src="http://www.kohanmike.com/uploads/D500%20size%20compare.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>Nice size!</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=67577">Michael Dougherty </a>and <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=299288">Barry Fisher</a>, it is kind of funny that the two of you are posting totally opposing opinions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well maybe, but there will be a lot of people who were invested in high-end glass who limped along with the lighter weight 7000 series cameras. And a lot of people with 800 and other FF series cameras and glass wouldn't have switched. That would be very expensive to shift brands, especially if the Fx camera is a second camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Barry, the key word in my earlier post is "desperate." I am one of those who got along pretty well with the D7000 series. In fact I own all three of them.</p>

<p>In October 2010 I upgraded from the D300 to the D7000 and when Nikon introduced the D7100 in 2013, they told me that they expected D300S owner to upgrade to the D7100, which they referred to as the "flagship" DX model. While they are not perfect, the D7100 and D7200 are pretty powerful cameras with Nikon's best AF module at the time. I also started using the D750 a lot for wildlife work and am now convinced FX is the way to go.</p>

<p>While the D500 is nice, the desperate need to get high-end DX is gone because we (Nikon and their customers) have developed alternatives over the 5 years when a true successor to the D300 was absent.</p>

<p>However, it is indeed expensive to switch brands. Therefore, Michael's entire idea that by lowering the price for the 7D Mark II from $1800 to $1100 (and $1050 last month) would help prevent brand switching makes no sense. Selling a bunch of lenses and then buy them again in another brand, plus many accessories such as batteries, flash ... will cost thousands. The $700 price drop for the 7D Mark II is essentially irrelevant.</p>

<p>The 7D Mark II price drop started pretty quickly, within 3, 4 months after Canon started shipping it, but it was gradual. It started dropping by $100 in early 2015, and then it was $300 by mid year. Towards the end of 2015, it became $500 to $600 and finally $750. Hopefully Canon has recovered their R&D cost from the earlier sales, but at this point it is doubtful that any additional sale of the 7D Mark II is still profitable for Canon.</p>

<p>The downside for this kind of quick and steep price drop after a year is that it sets up a very negative precedence for Canon. In the future a lot of people would hold off purchase of any new Canon camera in anticipation for a quick price drop. Canon's problem was that it took them 5+ years to upgrade the 7D to 7D II, so people also developed alternatives. For Nikon, the time gap from the D300 to D500 is 8.5 years. (I don't count the D300S since its electronics are the same as those on the D300.)</p>

 

<p>I think the 7D Mark II doesn't quite match the Nikons for image quality which together with the D7200's lower price put pressure on Canon to reduce the price of the 7D II. This doesn't automatically mean the D500 will quickly lose value as it's likely to match D7200 for image quality for the most part yet offer a new, more advanced AF system. Canon in my opinion has been able to maintain market share because of their lenses and some other advantages such as being popular for video but I think the clock is ticking and they can't hold their position indefinitely without catching up on image quality even at base to intermediate ISO.</p>

<p>I saw many 1.6x / 1.5x images at the Natural History Museum's Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2015 contest in the printed gallery and IMO Nikon's image quality was better in the crop cameras. In fact the D7100 did very, very well in image quality and also was very popular among the photographers that made it to the gallery. I think thanks to the sensor advantage Nikon has been able to maintain position in the market. By offering both the best image quality and 10fps, with high speed cards and large buffer and new state of the art AF I think the D500 will improve Nikon's standing further and they are gradually getting their light weight superteles in the market as well, even though the FL lenses are very expensive thus far. I do agree with those who say that the 1.5x/1.6x bodies help sell the expensive long glass as well, and know several Canon users who use both a full frame 5D/6D series camera and 7DMkII for their photography and mostly the latter. I also know some Nikon users who have done the same with the D7200 and D8x0. I think those who absolutely must have the 10fps frame rate are in the minority but they do exist of course.</p>

<p>While there are those who switch brands, then there are those who stick with what they have and wait it out. I am happy to see the D500 even though some users seem to have given up in waiting. I am happy also that I didn't switch to Canon while waiting for a Nikon full frame DSLR ten years ago. I see Canon users bracketing a lot in landscape photography whereas in similar conditions I get a single image with the D810 at ISO 64 and it prints out fine. I roll my eyes in thinking about how much work it is to blend those multiple exposures. ;-) But Canon 5D/6D bodies seem to be working more reliably than my D810 in the cold and humid environment where the sea is freezing. So there are good sides and bad sides to every brand and I think as a whole, switching brands rarely pays off. The Canon 17/24 tilt shift lenses are excellent but Nikon has the 14-24. And so on.</p>

<p>Ilkka, you should know as well as anybody else on this forum that the quality of images in displays such as Wildlife Photographer of the year are mainly the result of the photographers, not the cameras and lenses they use.</p>

<p>The fact that the 7D Mark II, originally introduced in September 2014 at $1800 is now selling at the same $1100 price (after mail-in rebate) as a Nikon D7200, introduced in March 2015 (about 6 months after the 7D II) at $1200, is definitely not a good sign for Canon. Not to mention that the D7200 is merely a rather minor upgrade from the D7100 from two years earlier.</p>

<ul>

<li>Canon 7D II @ B&H, with a free printer: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1176700-REG/canon_eos_7d_mark_ii.html</li>

<li>Nikon D7200 @ B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1127271-REG/nikon_1554_d7200_dslr_camera_body.html</li>

</ul>

<p>As I said, I currently still own the D7000, D7100, and D7200. They are fine cameras. The D7100 may have a shallow buffer, but that is corrected in the D7200. Nikon's marketing may try to convince people to buy the D500, but it definitely faces competition from their own D7200 just as the Canon 7D Mark II does.</p>

<p>I think the "street price" for the D500 will drop rather quickly because, first of all, Nikon prices it high at $2000, while the D300 and D300S were $1800. Nikon learned a lesson from the D800 introduction, where the initial price $3000 was set too low, leading to shortage for months and worse yet, scalpers jacked up prices by a few hundred dollars: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aC7r<br /> Rather than letting scalpers make some extra profit, it might as well be Nikon who profits from those who must be the first kid on the block to own one. When Nikon introduced the subsequent D810, it went up to $3300 and then dropped back down to $3000 after a few months.</p>

<p>Otherwise, the D500 is facing competition from the Canon 7D Mark II, Nikon's own D7200 and D750 as well as various used D4 and D4S.</p>

<p>One of the worst cases of DSLR price drop was Sigma's SD1 as I pointed out on January 4 on this recent thread: <a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00df1h">What on earth is Sigma up to now?</a><br /> The SD1's price went from $6899 in May 2011 to $2300 in February 2012, i.e. losing 2/3 of its value in 9 months. Needless to say, Sigma hasn't introduced another DSLR since that occasion 4 years ago.</p>

<p>As consumers, we may prefer lower prices, but a company loses credibility and customers lose confidence when prices take a free fall. I am sure that the D500 won't be like the Sigma, and I hope that its value won't fall nearly as fast as the 7D II.</p>

<p>comparing the D500 to the Sigma SD1? ok then... i'm kinda getting the feeling Shun doesnt want to pay full MSRP for one...</p>

<p>Well, I don't think anyone was under the impression that the SD-1 wasn't overpriced when it was launched. I know Foveon has a few fans, but it's never looked like sweeping away Bayer. Nor has X-Trans.<br />

<br />

Belatedly on the flash front... I like having an on-camera flash, it has opened in a bag, but I've never broken one. Especially now I'm carrying better LED flashlights, I'm less worried about its emergency use, and I was vaguely interested in Nikon just replacing the top of the prism housing with a U-shaped infrared emitter and forgetting about the pop-up. My concern with the flash-less design is less about not having an integrated flash and more about needing an (expensive) external flash master; possibly two, if you're mixing flash types, both extras to carry around. And those could certainly break off if you left them attached to the camera. Integrate the master (which I'll pay for) and I'll be way more interested. I don't use flash all that often, and don't want too much extra to carry when I need it. As for the integrated flash making people blink, there's always the SG-31R, which is tiny and cheap (if a bit of a hack). Or you could tape some film over your flash...</p>

<p>Eric, nobody is "comparing the D500 to the Sigma SD1." However, the SD1 is among the worst case for a failed DSLR with a free fall in price, and I am merely pointing it out as an obvious example. As far as paying full MSRP (manufacturer suggested retail price), I would much rather pay less for everything, not merely the D500 or D5. But wouldn't you as well?</p>

<p>There are Nikon examples for fire sales too. They announced the D2H @ $3300 in July 2003: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1387833406/nikond2h<br /> In a little over a year, suddenly Nikon USA dropped the price from over $3000 to $1999: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00AQk2<br /> The idea to buy a single-digit, flagship Nikon DSLR for below $2000 was an attractive one, and a number of members on this forum went for that fire sale. However, I realized that 4MP was very restrictive and resisted. As it turned out, the D2H indeed had some metering and other issues. Nikon quickly replaced it with the D2HS to bring the price back to $3300, still 4MP and no competition against the 8MP Canon 1D Mark II at the time. Professional photography (especially sports and news) would be totally dominated by Canon for 3 more years until the D3 finally turned things around for Nikon in late 2007.</p>

<p>Lex Jenkins was one of those who bought a D2H during the December 2004/January 2005 fire sale. His camera needed repeated repairs from Nikon. It is not hard to find his complaints on this forum.</p>

<p>I just re-read that 2004 thread <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00AQk2">D2H Price Drop-Just in Time for Christmas? </a>You can find <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=67577">Michael Dougherty</a> and my comments on memory card price drop back in 2004. Back then, he paid $1200 for 3 cards at the beginning of the year. By the end of that same year, those cards would cost $400. I paid $240 for a 1G CF card (don't laugh) in March 2004. By October, that same card cost $70. In other words, XQD may appear to be very expensive now; it could change really quickly. Especially the presence of the D500 may increase XQD's popularity and bring the price down.</p>

<p>For memory cards, I would always buy enough for what I need but not one card more.</p>

<p>Any rumours on the forthcoming D6?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any rumours on the forthcoming D6?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>January 2020 announcement, ahead of the Tokyo Summer Olympics in that year. :-)

<BR>

Since the Olympics are in Tokyo, Nikon will introduce both the D6 and D7 simultaneously.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, nobody is "comparing the D500 to the Sigma SD1." However, the SD1 is among the worst case for a failed DSLR with a free fall in price, and I am merely pointing it out as an obvious example.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if you prefer, i can use the word 'analogy,' but i dont really see a lot of similarities with the SD1. it's highly doubtful, for instance, that Sigma fanboys were clamoring for its release for years as was the case with the mythical D400. the SD1 is probably a closer equivalent to the D3x, which was priced at $8000 USD upon release, which was unreasonably high, considering that you can get a 24mp FF sensor for $1500 or less nowadays. Also, Sigma had a number of challenges with that body Nikon doesn't face. Not just the available lens issue, but also the poor UI and software implementation. Nikon's UI is not only tried and true, but appears to have been improved with the D500. Of course there are dozens of available lenses, and you're not limited to quirky OEM software for post-processing. this probably belongs in a different discussion, but i think Foveon's biggest issue isn't necessarily the sensor, but the fact the sensor hasn't been deployed in responsive bodies -- that goes for the DP series too. The idea of a fixed-lens compact with a trick sensor in 3 different focal lengths isnt a bad one in and of itself, it's just that those bodies aren't particularly suited to the type of applications you'd normally think of for a compact camera, plus the DP models had to compete with the Fuji X100, Ricoh GR, and other large-sensor compacts which were much more responsive.</p>

<p>Anyway, i also think it's premature to speculate excessively on a price drop or "fire sale" before the camera is even out. maybe there's nothing more to say about the D500, until it's actually released.</p>

<p>Eric, I wasn't making any analogy between the SD1 and D500 either. If there is any comparison, it should be the Canon 7D Mark II and Nikon D500. At least I didn't at all expect the 7D II's price to drop so quickly, but that pales compared to what happened to the SD1, which was not only way overprised, which could have been fixed by reducing it, but also a failed product. In that case you can cut the price by 90% and there will still be few takers.</p>

<p>The Nikon D2H also went into fire sale after just over a year because it had problems. Back in late 2004, I talked to Lex. He had searched over the web and determined that the D2H was generally problem free. Therefore, he went for the $2000 fire sale and unfortunately got burned by it.</p>

<p>I sure hope that the D500 won't have any major issue. However, we do know that it is priced about the recent $1900 sale price for the D750, and Nikon introduced the D7200 merely 10 month ago. The D500 is priced at 81% higher than its main competition the 7D Mark II. All of those are simple facts which lead me to believe that it will be difficult for the D500 to hold the $2000 price point. However, I have never suggested that there would be some "fire sale" for the D500 any time soon, maybe when its replacement the D600 is introduced 8 years from now, but not soon. Oh, didn't Nikon already introduced the D600 back in 2012? :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While the D500 is nice, the desperate need to get high-end DX is gone because we (Nikon and their customers) have developed alternatives over the 5 years when a true successor to the D300 was absent.</p>

</blockquote>

Probably true Shun. And its interesting that after Nikon chose to not develop that camera that they've seemed to re-evaluate and brought out the DX version D500 after all this time. I do however think a lot of people especially those having suitable glass, including FX lenses and are attracted to a DX camera is a useful tool or toy, will come back to this new camera when they want to upgrade. I won't because, not to beat a dead horse, these beasts kill my back, but just for the "feng shui" of the camera world, I think Nikon finally did what they should have done 5 years ago. Though you may be correct that it is too late. Time will tell:)

<p>I think I will wait until the D510 comes out in 2023. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it will be difficult for the D500 to hold the $2000 price point</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This gets even weirder when one considers the current cost for the D750/24-120/4 VR combo vs the D500/16-80/2.8-4 VR combo - FX is $570 cheaper! Does the - likely - better AF of the D500 and the faster frame rate (actually needed for shooting anything with that combo?) justify that price differential? Given that the D750 likely holds the edge on high-ISO performance?</p>

<p>I gave up on building my system around a DX body because - as Lannie pointed out above - the lenses were (and to a large extent still are) missing. There's no DX UWA zoom that covers 10-24 and has VR - the FX 16-35/4 VR was the lens that drew me into the FX world. <br>

Now at least with the FX 24/1.8 there is a modern fast 35mm-FX-FOV equivalent lens for the DX format - but the widest I can go with fast primes in Nikon land is 20/1.8 - that's a 30mm FX-FOV equivalent and not nearly wide enough for me). <br>

Even now with the appearance of the D500, I still can't build a DX system equivalent to what I can (and have) for FX. Still curious why Nikon came out with the 16-80/2.8-4? Who is it for? From what I've read, it performs quite well even on high MP sensors - which makes it sit fairly lonesome in DX land. Are there going to be others - like a 10-24/2.8-4 VR coming? Is Nikon going to make an effort in the DX lens area or is the D500 really just going to be market to the fast-and-furious niche? Why even continue with the D7x00 series? Is "good enough" enough of an excuse for the continuation of the D7200 and the design of a D7300? </p>

<blockquote>

<p> its interesting that after Nikon chose to not develop that camera that they've seemed to re-evaluate and brought out the DX version D500 after all this time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if you look at camera lineups as ecosystems, it's not that irrational. Nikon pressed reset like Star Wars, and essentially tried to wipe the memory of the d600/800 QC snafus away by returning to a simplified product line: d5500/500/5, which harks back to the d300/3. that's vertical alignment. even if the d500 drops in price sooner rather than later, nikon has clarified its line and given folks exactly the well-iterated products we asked for 5 years ago. it might be an odd move to some, but it's not quite desperate. yet. </p>

<p>I dont understand all that exitement, D500 buyers will know why they buy it , and others think its too expensive, but nobody is forced to get it, D7200 and D750 and all the other cams are still on sale.</p>

<p>Agree, Eric, its not irrational at all, ". . . pressed reset. . .". Yeah, like the way you put that. <br>

Now, I either will get (maybe) a new Fuji XPro-2, or sell everything I have including some Nikon pro lenses, Leica film bodies and cash in my retirement fund and get a Leica SL...:) oops, wrong forum.</p>