D5100 arrives -- where's the D400?

[vince-p]

<p>I've never bought a new camera before, not once. But the D5100 has such a great sensor at such a great price I couldn't resist getting one to complement my D700, and replace a noble old D70 as backup. </p>

<p>Initial impressions: it's too small; I cannot stand seeing and even knowing about the half dozen "scene" modes on my mode selection wheel; the viewfinder is very bad. But the image quality: OMG. And the video! And the ease of Live View ! Etc etc. Video was a chief reason to get the D5100 as well. And the articulated screen of my old Lumix G1. </p>

<p>But I have some questions: I was not prepared not to have the ISO, WB, QUAL buttons to hand, as on D70 (never mind the D700 or my old D300, sold in order to get the D700...). Okay, I can get used to it. But the VF is a problem because I like to use manual focus lenses (I put my AF 50mm f/1.8D on there and after a few minutes said, how much is the f/1.8G going for now?) and I cannot tell with my glasses whether I'm in focus in low light and the red dot is not reliable because I also cannot figure out -- if there is even a way -- how to isolate the AF to one spot instead of 11 or whatever. So sure, at f/2, I'm focused on something in the relative middle of the frame but probably not what I want to be focused on.... I worked through it. But I cannot see any way to control the AF mechanism -- is there a way? </p>

<p>All this is preamble to my main question: except for being able to autofocus the AF/AF-D lenses, I don't imagine the D7000 is much better than this. Better VF? Dedicated buttons? I remember playing around with one when it came out and it felt TINY. But it is now the lead DX camera in the Nikon line. Is it a broadly accepted truth that the D300s will not be replaced? Or effectively has been replaced by the D7000/D600 either/or choice? Because as I played with this camera I thought, I'd really love to have a more solid, more pro-oriented DX camera with this kind of image quality and video capability. Not that I'd be able to afford it, but I'd like it. </p>

[vince-p]

<p>Oops. Green dot. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I don't imagine the D7000 is much better than this. Better VF?</em></p>

<p>The D7000 optical viewfinder is <em>much</em> better than the one on the D5100. Basically what you want for good manual focus is a pentaprism viewfinder (a whole prism made of glass, not a construction made from mirrors) and preferably something like a Katz Eye focusing screen, and then calibrate the position of the screen to give accurate manual focus.</p>

<p><em>Is it a broadly accepted truth that the D300s will not be replaced?</em></p>

<p>No. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't imagine the D7000 is much better than this. Better VF? Dedicated buttons?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you're dead wrong there. The viewfinder of the D7000 is as good as the D300 one. Compared to the D300, it misses the AF-ON button, and otherwise the lay-out is different, especially the buttons for the AF mode - but the buttons are there. Sure, there are reasons to rank the D7000 below a D300, but not these reasons, to be honest. But indeed it's a bit smaller and lighter than the D300. Not by all that much, though.<br>

So, try a D7000, it might actually fit the bill just fine.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is it a broadly accepted truth that the D300s will not be replaced? Or effectively has been replaced by the D7000/D600 either/or choice?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it is not broadly accepted. At this moment, it simply seems unclear what will happen. There is clear demand for a high-end DX body, though it will be more "niche market" than the D300 was - how Nikon will deal with that.... plenty here would like to know. Do a little search, and you will find plenty of threads discussing the "D400" already.</p>

 

[vince-p]

<p>I remember many D400 discussions before and after the D800 was announced but the D600 seemed to end them. Perhaps a misimpression. </p>

<p>Ilkka have you used a Katz eye screen in a DSLR? They seem to mess up the AF. At least the one I had in the D300 did. </p>

<p>Anyway this is no big deal. These complaints just led me to think -- whatever happened to the once much talked about pro-DX camera to come.... it will indeed be precariously priced, with the D600 already popping up here and there for $1800, but let's say listing and remaining at $2000, and the D7000 at $1200 (currently with a $300 rebate I see...). So yes, Wouter, niche market indeed. And no the D7000 is a LOT smaller than the D300, which, as I recollect it, is the same size as the D700. I think about putting a 300mm lens on there and imagine it flipping over like an old Corvair. </p>

[vince-p]

<p>PS When Shun wakes up in California he's going to see that last remark and point out that he uses his 300mm on the D7000 all the time. All I'm saying is, it's hard to imagine. Like learning how to handle one of those big floor waxers. </p>

[jonb]

<p>I routinely put an AF-S 400/2.8 on my D7000. Or maybe I should say I put the D7000 on the 400/2.8! Of course, I'm not hand-holding that lens, so camera size and balance aren't much of an issue.</p>

<p>I've also been known to put a 1 V1 on the 400/2.8 via an FT-1, which does look pretty silly, I'll admit.</p>

<p>But I've never used a floor waxer.</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"But I cannot see any way to control the AF mechanism -- is there a way?" - Try reading page 43 of the manual. I just put "autofocus" into the search box of the PDF version of the manual and it took me straight to the relevant section.</p>

<p>As for speculation about a D400. Why are people so concerned about a camera that isn't available, perhaps doesn't exist yet, or may even never exist? Why not just <strong>use</strong> the cameras that we've got? They're already far better than anything we could have dreamed of 10 years ago.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>lkka have you used a Katz eye screen in a DSLR? They seem to mess up the AF.</em></p>

<p>Yes, I've used their screens on three cameras; the D70 (where the alignment of the viewfinder was poor leading to discrepancy between left and right sides, not the fault of Katz Eye Optics); the D200 and D700; on the latter two the screen was excellent; I still use the D700.</p>

<p>I find it very difficult to believe that they would "mess up the AF" since the AF sensor is under the main mirror and the focusing screen is above it; they don't get the same light at all ... how would it be possible that one messes up the other?</p>

<p>However, spot metering can be affected. Katz Eye note this in their web page, how much the error is approximately and under what conditions. E.g. if I use a slower than f/3.5 lens on the D700, the spot meter will read erroneously, but normally I use faster lenses than that so I haven't had problems with it; of course, I need to be aware of it when using e.g. macro lenses or the 24 PC-E.</p>

<p><em>Why are people so concerned about a camera that isn't available, perhaps doesn't exist yet, or may even never exist? Why not just <strong>use</strong> the cameras that we've got?</em></p>

<p>I am sure that's exactly what people are doing - using what they have. But the possible future existence of the D400 affects people's decisions on which <em>current</em> cameras they might buy, or even which <em>format</em> to choose for their future needs. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I maintain that there's nothing stopping a high-end DX body from being priced higher than the D600 - there's plenty of precedent for the 1 system costing more than the D3xxx series, so Nikon aren't wedded to sensor = price. This might be an easier sell for Canon, since to my mind the 6D is more heavily crippled compared with the 5D3 than the D600 is w.r.t. the D800, but something with D300 build that can hit 8-10fps with a new sensor and a decently-large buffer ought to sell. The question I see is whether it would have a 16MP (D7000) or 24MP (D3200/D5200) sensor [it may be hard to justify the top-end DX body not having top-end resolution, especially if people want DX for pixel density], and whether something that can shoot 24MP at that speed would impact D4 sales - at least for people shooting in good light. Still, the A77 can do it (with, admittedly, a trick mirror) so at some point the market might take notice of Sony and the D400/7D2 should do something to keep up.<br />

<br />

My feeling is that, with the AF and metering from the D7000 hitting the D5200 (I didn't expect this), some refresh of the D7000 or D300s is going to be good enough to make a lot of people happy - whatever it may be.<br />

<br />

Diversion aside... I'd not trust any modern camera's focus screen to try to manual focus, especially at f/2 (you won't see any depth of field beyond about f/2.5 anyway, because of the fresnel). Electronics are your friend. While the green dot isn't as helpful as the three segment confirmation on the D700, the D5100 can do a trick that several low-end Nikons can do (and I wish the D800 could - especially since it's got extra read-outs on the screen for the electronic level...): it can use the exposure display to give a detailed electronic rangefinder read-out to tell you how far in front of or behind focus you are. I believe this uses a single spot, like on the D700, and that you can specify it in the normal single-point autofocus way. One thing I miss from Canon is the ability to activate all the autofocus points in manual focus mode and have them light up when they detect focus; I suggested a way around this to Nikon some years back, and Sony have done something fairly close to my proposal with their A99.<br />

<br />

I could be wrong, though. I just had a quick in the D5100 manual, and didn't spot anything that would suggest different behaviour from the higher-end Nikons. Though I'd love to know why the manual doesn't have an index...<br />

<br />

I hope that helps.<br />

<br />

Jonathan: "Of course?" That shows a lack of ambition with working your biceps. I've never used a floor waxer either...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>A little over two years ago, on the first day I used my then brand new D7000, I mounted it on my 500mm/f4 to photograph birds. It did not take very long for me to find out that the D7000's memory buffer is very shallow, and it filled up quickly and I could not photograph for a little while, waiting for the buffer to clear.</p>

<p>Later on I captured some video, and the on-camera microphone mainly captured the sound from the 500mm's AF-S motor. So I bought an external mic fairly quickly.</p>

<p>I prefer DX bodies mainly to combine them with long telephotos. I use my D7000 with the 500mm/f4 and 200-400mm/f4 regularly. When I need wide angle or low light, I use the D800 and D700.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I've been using a manual focus lens on my D5100, lens was made by Darlot. I have camera on a tripod and use live view. The D5100 is a great compact travel camera, but I'm not sure it's a good match for what you are doing.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[vince-p]

<p>I'm not doing anything in particular. My interests are far ranging and despite my various pronouncements about this and other matters digital -- 90 percent of what I do is on film. I was basically stating this: while Nikon, I think, needs a pro DX camera in its lineup, which the D7000 by my lights doesn't qualify as, the company hasn't left itself much room in that lineup for a new one.... And yes, live view on the D5100 is great and would solve any focus issues I had if the matter were serious. And yes, I'll get to the manual. I only got the camera yesterday, went though all the menus, started playing: the usual. </p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>The magic of the D80, when it was released, was that it was basically the D50 body with a D200 viewfinder tacked on top of it. The D90 and D7000 continue this tradition, so the viewfinder on the D7000 is about as good as what you had on the D300. It has an ISO button. The D5100's viewfinder is as good, if not better, than the "noble" D70's. If you don't like scene modes, don't use them. For a long time, many photographers used the same argument you do for scene modes against video. You aren't being forced to use any feature you don't want on a camera.</p>

<p>With qual and WB buttons, do you not shoot in RAW? If not, then I suggest doing so, and those buttons become obsolete. Which is why I think it's funny that full-frame guys tout that "advanced" feature as a selling point especially: if you're shooting full frame and using JPEG, you're throwing away quite a bit of the advantage of full frame. JPEG is 8-bit compressed, and when you shoot in it you're forced to choose a color space when the photo is taken, what a waste! Lightroom is a program that will pay itself back in time saved uploading and organizing alone, even though most consider that a secondary feature of the program, as it's one of the better RAW converters and batch editors on the market today. As for the ISO button, re-map one of the function buttons to it, and problem solved, unless you have it mapped to something more pressing.</p>

<p>As for the 50mm f/1.8G, its optics are enough improved over the older f/1.8D version that even if it didn't autofocus on your "lesser" camera, it would be worth upgrading to it. However, it does autofocus, which makes it a no-brainer, especially since you mention shooting wide open, and the bokeh alone of the new version versus the old is a stark difference. Again, looking at the full frame guys talking about how they could never live without a built-in autofocus motor, but if you look at Nikon's lineup today, most all of the worthwhile lenses are AF-S anyway, making the built-in motor redundant. As for using larger lenses, before I sold my 300mm f/4 due to lack of use, it was mounted on a D80, D200, D90, and D3100. All without issue. If you really want to increase your ability to frame with it anyway on a DX camera, which provides such a narrow angle of view, buy yourself a $40 tripod, especially since the Nikon f/4 version doesn't have VR. The advice of an old college professor pop into mind: "Blessed are the flexible, for they shall never be bent out of shape." Don't worry so much about what things are "supposed" to be. I, like you, thought that I "needed" a worthwhile upgrade to the D300, to give me something to upgrade to my D200 from. A friend handed me his D3100 on permanent loan, that a lab bought him for a project and scrapped. Yes, it has fewer controls, but I enjoy throwing my 18-70mm or 35mm lens on it every once in a while and taking it out. I understand the shortcomings that it has, and just work around them.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Oh yes, I'd meant to comment on the 50mm. It's really not my favourite focal length, and I don't like the behaviour of any of the f/1.4 options (though I'm keeping an eye on the new Zeiss), but I've had the 50 f/1.8 AF-D for a long time - it's small enough to be useful, although annoyingly not as small as the manual focus ones which were nearly pancakes; I don't see the point in the recessed lens.<br />

<br />

However, the AF-D's performance at wide apertures is very iffy. I got my D800, tried to test it for autofocus issues, and put the AF-D on it. The areas at the extreme focus points were so blurred when they were <i>in</i> focus that I essentially couldn't tell anything. I promptly got the f/1.8 AF-S; it's significantly better, though admittedly also appreciably bigger. It comes with a hood though, which is nice.</p>

[DrBen]

<p>The D5100 has excellent image quality, and at the currently discounted prices is a real bargain. As someone else mentioned, the easiest way to read the manual is to use the PDF version so that you can search the entire document by keywords. Also, some features that seem unclear in the manual are often better explained in a third-party book. One that I like is "Nikon 5100" by David Busch (ISBN 1 4354 6085 5)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>while Nikon, I think, needs a pro DX camera in its lineup, which the D7000 by my lights doesn't qualify as, the company hasn't left itself much room in that lineup for a new one....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I tend to agree, but I could understand Nikon not finding it top priority to fill this gap. Or maybe Nikon does find the D7000 pro enough. Or maybe the spec update of the D5200 (which has the D7000 AF) is a pointer on how the D7100 will be (re)positioned in the line-up. Or.... darn, my crystal ball fails.<br>

And it's not like there is a real definition on what a "pro camera" is anyway. Nikon will introduce what they think they can sell, and some will be very happy and some will be disappointed. As always.</p>

[themaz]

When I manually focus with my D5100, I use the live view and zoom it in so as to see the focus pop in to perfection.

Although I must admit that the AF is so good that I have little need to manually focus, and I have replaced all of my older

glass with G lenses.