Nikon Announces D780, 120-300mm/f2.8 F Mount, and 70-200mm/f2.8 Z Mount

Can one operate the camera while the battery is being charged in camera? In other words, does this in-camera charging replaces the AC-adapter that so far had to be used (if available) to power the camera for long time lapses etc?

I just tried that on my Z6 (i.e. it could work differently on a D780). I can plug a USB-C cable into the camera to charge the battery and also take a picture. However, if I remove the battery, the Z6 turns off even though it is plugged in.

Don't have time to check time lapse.

Thankjs Shun! I get it now.! Regarding charging the battery in camera, could ta laptop's USB port be used in the same manner as a USB charger?

That should work too, but the laptop's USB port needs to supply sufficient current to charge the EN-EL15B.

See my image above. I was using a USB charger from an iPad to charge my batteries. A charger from an iPhone might not supply sufficient current or may take forever to charge.

That should work too, but the laptop's USB port needs to supply sufficient current to charge the EN-EL15B.

 

See my image above. I was using a USB charger from an iPad to charge my batteries. A charger from an iPhone might not supply sufficient current or may take forever to charge.

There's a huge variation. The USB on a laptop might only be 0.5A at 5 volts so 2.5 watts. The charger for my phone can charge the phone at IIRC 15 watts. Some newer ones are even more I believe.

I'm sure I've come across the 'charge but not use' somewhere for the D780, but can I find it again?? :(

USB-C can supply a lot more current if the camera can accept it. One of my powerbricks charges at almost 3A!

Since the burst depth has been quadrupled, it can't have happened by merely taking advantage of the faster UHS-II cards, simply because the ratio between the fastest UHS-II cards and fastest UHS-I cards isn't quite 4x even in theory. Typical Nikon cameras write to UHS-II cards at 140MB/s. I think what Nikon did is they increased the physical memory buffer size but also gained some burst depth by taking advantage of the faster UHS-II cards, so it must have been a combined approach. I guess we will just have to wait for user reports to see how the buffer is with UHS-I and UHS-II cards. I just got a new UHS-II card which is of intermediate speed (250MB/s read and 130MB/s write) from Prograde Digital, it was discounted by 25% during the holidays. That's my first UHS-II card and I have to say it was not ruined by price. The faster cards that can write at 250MB/s (in theory) were substantially more expensive.

 

I am guessing that Nikon might allow the AF-L/AE-L button to be reprogrammed to activate autofocus with different settings than the AF-ON.

I don't think the relationship is quite like that is it? As the data rate from buffer to card gets close to the rate from sensor to buffer, the net buffer fill rate drops rapidly and the apparent buffer size grows rapidly.

For example. Data rate from sensor 120 MB/s. Data rate to card 60 MB/s. Net fill rate 60 MB/s.

Now increase the rate to the card by 50%.

Data rate from sensor 120 MB/s. Data rate to card 90 MB/s. Net fill rate 30 MB/s.

So a 50% faster card resulted in a doubling of apparent buffer size.

You're right, my thinking was too simplified. I will now try to do better.

The D750 has a 17-image maximum burst, and the average write speed on the fastest UHS-I cards is (from cameramemoryspeed.com) 68.8 MB/s. 6.5 fps with estimated 25MP 14-bit lossless compressed NEF size would mean the camera produces data at 162.5 MB/s and if we subtract the write speed from it we have net memory buffer accumulation rate of 93.7 MB/s. The burst duration until memory buffer is full is 2.3 s and thus the physical memory buffer size would be about 215.5 MB.

The D780 has a 68-image maximum burst, and the averate write speed on the fastest UHS-II cards on other Nikon DSLRs is about 140 MB/s (yes the cards could do better but this is what is typically reported). Now we have a buffer accumulation rate of (7*25 MB/s - 140 MB/s) = 35 MB/s. The burst lenght is at maximum 9.7 s so we have a buffer of approximately 340 MB. If we use UHS-I cards on the D780, and if the write speed is the same as with the D750, we should get a 3.2 s burst (or about 22 images) before the buffer is full and camera slows down.

So, with this analysis the physical memory buffer was likely increased to in addition to the utilization of faster UHS-II cards. However, if the actual average write speed of the camera with UHS-II is faster then my results are invalid. (I am not saying that my calculation could not have other errors, it could). It would be interesting to compare these guesses with the actual performance of the camera with various cards.

Too late..., too expensive...(D780)

I am not concerned about the price at all, as that is the easiest thing to adjust. Nikon is reusing a lot of components from the D750 and Z6, such that R&D for the D780 cannot be all that high. Features are a different story. I am afraid that the remaining market for DSLRs and even mirrorless cameras is going to be much smaller than it was 7, 8 years ago.

Just like with the Z6, Nikon will adjust the price downward soon enough when they realize that sales expectations aren't met.

The "too late" part is debatable - it all depends how many feel the need for what the D780 offers and aren't willing to move to mirrorless (yet or at all).

Just my thoughts, but a D780 with the 36mp sensor from the D810 would have made a killer combo in that package.

I realize that Nikon has decided 24mp is correct for a video oriented camera, though(Z6) which could also explain why it keeps the same resolution as the D750. Nikon has a really good track record with FX format 24mp sensors, and to me at least they're a nice compromise between resolution and huge files.

Just my thoughts, but a D780 with the 36mp sensor from the D810 would have made a killer combo in that package.

 

I realize that Nikon has decided 24mp is correct for a video oriented camera, though(Z6) which could also explain why it keeps the same resolution as the D750. Nikon has a really good track record with FX format 24mp sensors, and to me at least they're a nice compromise between resolution and huge files.

24MP is easier to make full frame video up to 4K but that would exclude 8K video.

4K is plenty unless one is into professional film making to display it on a cinema screen.

At CES, Sony showcased some new 8K TVs. Therefore, I am sure 8K is coming.

Whenever I capture video, I pretty much always capture at 4K, and if 8K is available, I'll capture at 8K, if for nothing else, I'd like to make my video as future proof and I can. I would imagine at by year 2100, long after I am gone, people would look back and find our current video footage have low quality, very much like my reaction watching silent movies.

How are the file sizes at 8K? I always worry that my PC tech is way behind what's really needed to work with ever increasing file sizes.

Huge. How Much Bigger is 8K?

While technology allows increasing resolution of video recording and display, I am not convinced that it makes a practical difference in most applications. I am perfectly content viewing films on DVD (standard definition) and while I can see the difference in blu-ray (FullHD), after a couple of minutes, I don't really notice the difference in such a way that it would affect my viewing experience. In broadcast TV, SD does look a little soft and artefacty in comparison with FullHD. In streamed 4K content, I can basically only differentiate it from FullHD from the sharper fonts in the texts displayed, but not really in the actual video itself. I use a 50" 4K TV.

Most people whom I know to shoot video professionally tend to use FullHD rather than 4K. Therefore, I can't really see much point in the development of 8K video.In stills it is different as the photograph stays still for a longer time and the eyes have the time needed to scan the image to find the details (the human eye can only see fine detail in a very narrow region of the visual field, and forming a detailed overall view requires scanning the view by moving the eye and the brain then memorises those details), but this time is not really available when watching a video, unless it is really a static view of a landscape. Furthermore, the quality is limited by the bandwidth available. With increasing bandwidth, the consumption of electricity increases and this could become a problem in the future. The cost of producing the content will also increase if the resolution is increased.

I bought a new display last summer and it has a resolution of 2560 x 1440 (27"). I find it nice as it allows viewing FullHD resolution images in the editor and all the tools around it. I could have gotten a 4K screen, but at the same quality level and size it would have been too expensive, and a larger screen rather than a higher-resolution one was recommended by basically everyone for editing photographs. I did prepare my images in 4K resolution for my website, but it is sometimes displaying some slowness as a result of this. Normally I upload images in FullHD resolution when posting online. I find it a bit funny that when websites can choke in displaying 4K images, how would they show 8K video? It really doesn't seem so realistic to me. The higher resolutions are great for printing images but even then it can be hard to see the difference between 24MP and higher resolutions at normal viewing distances i.e. when the image is displayed behind glass and viewed when normally standing in the room where the images are displayed. I can see the difference between 45MP and 20MP in A3 or A2 size prints, when looking at the prints at reading distance, but this is closer than one would normally look at framed prints.

For still images, I am afraid that the D780 has very limited advantages over the D750. If one wants a D750, you can wait until February and see whether Nikon will have another round of fire sale before the end of its fiscal year (March 31), or just buy a refurb for $1050 or used.

I am dreading that.

It was HARD to resist the D750 at $1,000 after Thanksgiving. If it happens again, I may break down and get one.

But I am thinking that I would be better for me to cut from the dSLR and switch to the Z6.

As it is, I stopped using my AF and AF-D lenses on my D7200, so that is not an issue for me.

but 10 years from now 8k(32Mp)

Seems like the a JPEG from a D810/D850 (with space for a bit of cropping) is the 'happy' place for stills on 8K.

Remotely affordable 8K60P is a ways off yet...:D