Nikon Announced D5, D500, and SB-5000

ShunCheung · January 6, 2016

Gup, exchange rate change for the Canadian dollar has a lot to do with your figure. Nikon introduced the D100 in 2002 @ US$2000, the D200 @ $1700 in late 2005 and then $1800 for the D300 in 2007.

The last time I went to Canada in August 2012, Canadian $ and US$ was around 1:1. Today, US$1 is about C$1.4.

The real comparison is that the Canon 7D Mark II's fire sale is still in progress. You pay $1100 and they throw in a printer. I can assume that the Canon printer hardware is essentially worthless since they mostly make money from the ink: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1176700-REG/canon_eos_7d_mark_ii.html

Of course, the 7D II has been out for a little over a year and is now greatly discounted. The question is how fast the D500 will feel downward price pressure?

Two23 · January 6, 2016

I use radio triggers a LOT in my photography. I'm still using "dumb" triggers because they work equally well with my Nikon F3/T, D800E, and my Chamonix 4x5 (with Copal shuttered lenses.) I have about a dozen CyberSync triggers plus two PW2 Pocket Wizards. While more convenient to have the trigger built into the flash, there are several downsides. The first is it's generally cheaper to buy the triggers separately (there are several brands that offer iTTL with Nikon.) The second problem is the way I use triggers now if one goes down, I simply plug another one on. I.e., I don't end up having to send the entire flash in for service. Third downside is that radio trigger tech is still rapidly improving. I tend to keep flash a long time and it's cheaper/easier to just upgrade triggers, not the whole flash. A positive is I assume the new system will be far more reliable and have greater range than the current infrared CLS. It would also be simpler to not have to attach triggers/receivers every time you go to use them. For me it will come down to (1) cost (2) range. Would be nice to have iTTL flash with a quarter mile range. I could always use the Nikon flash to trigger my monolights using their built in opticals.

I'm going to assume the price on the D500 will fall pretty fast, unless Nikon keeps the quantity somewhat low until they can better gauge demand.

Kent in SD

Dieter Schaefer · January 6, 2016

Congratulations to the D400 loyalists, you have your prize

</blockquote>

Well, we actually never got the D400 ;-( But something better ;-)

That aside - I wonder if there is indeed anyone who held out with a D300/D300S and did not purchase ANY other Nikon (or other brand) camera in the interim in the hope the D400 would eventually make an appearance?

And how many switched to another brand because of the no-show D400?

chuck_crutchfield · January 6, 2016

The high ISO may allow photographing night landscapes illuminated by the glow of a single firefly it would seem.

bebu_lamar · January 6, 2016

I am sure the D500 is an excellent camera and will attract some buyers. What surprises me is the camera's size. If you read the description on the Nikon website site they mention its compact size in nearly every paragraph trying to lead the reader into believing it.

They provide a spec chart that compares the D500 with the D7200 and the D300s. About the only thing that is left out are the sizes of the cameras. There is a reason for this and that is that the D500 is larger than both of the other cameras. For that matter, it is larger in every dimension and heavier than the full frame D750. It is the same width as the D810, .3" shorter and only .1" thinner.

Hmmm. I thought that one of the attractions to DX was being able to carry around a smaller camera? I guess Nikon doesn't think so.

</blockquote>

That is a good thing that the D500 cost less than the D750 if you think in term of dollars per pound. I wouldn't buy the D500 but only because it's DX otherwise it seems a perfect camera and the price is right.

bebu_lamar · January 6, 2016

Andrew this is the D5/D500 thread so don't talk about the Df. I like the Df fine except for what someone is complaining about the D500. Unlike the D500 the Df is too light for my taste.

eric_arnold · January 6, 2016

I wonder if there is indeed anyone who held out with a D300/D300S and did not purchase ANY other Nikon (or other brand) camera in the interim in the hope the D400 would eventually make an appearance? And how many switched to another brand because of the no-show D400?

</blockquote>

i held out. actually i bought a d300s after my d300 was stolen instead of a d7000 because i wanted proven performance features rather than new tech in a less performance-oriented body. but, i got antsy and intrigued by Fuji in the meantime and picked up 2 XE1's and some lenses for less-strenuous shooting and travel. i was getting kind of resigned to maybe getting a d7200, but... it didnt excite me. i also considered an XT1 and just divesting myself from DX altogether, but had concerns about AF-C performance, which didnt seem quite there yet. if i do buy another Nikon DX body, it would probably be the d500, although im gonna need to get my FX body replaced soon, or at least get a new shutter.

Javier Gutierre · January 7, 2016

When the road in front of you is much shorter than the road behind you, one tends to do stupid things. I pre ordered a D500 today from Nikons site. It sounded like it was available until I went to check out. I was going to go gray market, but thought it wise to have a U.S. warranty just in case.

The autofocus is what has me most intrigued. The group focus in the D750 is killer for street photography and I was pleased to read the D500 has it as well. I am still convinced Nikon can add that to the D7200 via firmware, but up to now they have released NO firmware updates for the D7200.

eric_arnold · January 7, 2016

The autofocus is what has me most intrigued. The group focus in the D750 is killer for street photography and I was pleased to read the D500 has it as well.

</blockquote>

Every successive generation tends to tweak the performance metrics of every previous generation. that's why EXPEED 5 will always be better than EXPEED 4. i would certainly imagine that Nikon paid a lot of attention to AF performance and high-ISO (although i did see some noise in the music photog's live shot, it was well-controlled for an APS-C sensor) in the d500. It basically needs to be a home run and they had 8 years to get it right (if we're going from D300 launch). fingers crossed.

ilkka_nissila · January 7, 2016

The group focus in the D750 is killer for street photography and I was pleased to read the D500 has it as well. I am still convinced Nikon can add that to the D7200 via firmware,

AFAIK, group focus utilizes the high-resolution matrix meter (for subject identification) that is available in the D750, D810, and D4s. The D7200's matrix meter is probably too low res for this (2016 pixels vs. 91000 in the D750). The D500's matrix meter has 180000 pixels.

ShunCheung · January 7, 2016

When I reviewed the D3 back in 2008, one clear drawback is the the Multi-CAM 3500 lacks cross type AF points away

from the center. I really wish that they would fix it in the D4 product cycle in 2012. When that didn't happen, I knew it

would be another 4 years. That is now finally addressed.

I have every reason to believe the new AF system is even better. Especially on DX, AF coverage is great.

Landrum Kelly · January 7, 2016

D5: Show me what happens to low-light, high ISO capabilities when the sensor gets more and more cluttered with megapixels.

D500: Show me the lenses.

Oh, and I really do want to see what a 1.5X crop sensor can do at such high ISOs. For that matter, show me what it can do at ISO 3200 and 6400 that I could possibly use.

Without new lenses and new sensor breakthroughs, I expect to be disappointed by the actual image quality for both of these new stars.

I realize that a lot of Nikon fans are excited by all the hoopla that will attend these new cameras. To that I can only say,

SHOW ME THE PICTURES.

--Lannie (Nikon shooter)

Andrew Garrard · January 7, 2016

Bebu: I didn't start it! But I've stopped.

Lannie: Well, the 6D does pretty well in low light with ~20MP, and the A7R-II keeps the D4s honest. I'm not panicking about the small resolution bump on the D5, other than the effect it has on the amount of the frame used for 4K video. I imagine Nikon felt the need to leapfrog at least the 1Dx in pixel count. And yes, lenses for the D500. Fortunately, Sigma. There are some nice-looking images in the brochures (not a given - I've seen a 1-series brochure that just looked awful), but I'll be interested to see what the sensor analysis sites have to say.

Shun: I too am pleased that there are more cross-type sensors. I'm also pleasantly astonished that the AF system self-tunes - I assumed the only reason we didn't have this a long time ago was that someone must have had a patent stopping Canikon from implementing it, because it was such an obvious thing to do. Maybe they did, and Nikon paid up, or maybe it just takes this long to get through their system. If the AF system is more accurate, that would definitely push me towards a D810 successor. I'm still a little disappointed at the amount of frame coverage from the new AF system on the D5, but I appreciate they'd need quite different optics to do better. I'm unsure how nervous to be about how many of the AF points are not selectable.

ShunCheung · January 7, 2016

If the AF system is more accurate, that would definitely push me towards a D810 successor.

</blockquote>

I would imagine that just the change of the flash system to radio trigger alone will push all of those who claimed that they would keep their D810 for years to come to its successor. There is absolutely no shortage of <strike>excuses</strike>, sorry, justifications to satisfy NAS. :-)

Of course those same people also said their would keep their D800 for years, and their D700 for years ....

And I fully admit that I upgrade my cameras a lot more often than I really need to.

bebu_lamar · January 7, 2016

And I thought Shun is the first to place an order on the D500 but he doesn't.

ilkka_nissila · January 7, 2016

A lot of people already use advanced radio triggers to work with their Nikon and third party flashes. Nikon is very late to the game, and some users will be reluctant to switch to a proprietary system which only supports one flash. For me I use speedlights only occasionally and most of the time use Elinchrom flashes which have their own triggers, so the new cameras have only a minor effect on my flash use. For outdoor use the SB-5000 is most of the time not powerful enough, quite simply. However, since I never bought TTL compatible third party radio triggers, there is some space in my system for the SB-5000. It in itself is not enough incentive to move to any new camera simply because in Nikon's absence, others provided the radio flash control that was needed. Nikon does not make studio flash equipment and likely third party flashes will not work with Nikon's radio control system, at least not for a few years.

However the AF system is sufficiently interesting to me to justify a purchase. While I like the D810, and prefer it for general photography, it has shown to be a poor performer in winter photography, with multiple Err messages on consequtive days (with -23 C to -19 C temperatures and arguably close to 100% relative humidity by the sea). After the Err appeared, only some of the images captured were stored on the card. M-UP did not work, and aperture was erratic (on an E lens no less) with rather large exposure errors. The D800 and D700 also locked up in similar conditions while the D3 and D3X performed without problems. Thus the D5 although it is a bit on the low res side is of some interest to me, making the assumption that its environmental resistance is comparable to that of the D3 family.

Ed_Ingold · January 7, 2016

The problem with multiple flash units is not necessarily the method of control, but the way light is distributed and measured. Optical control is never very good, so radio control is a definite improvement. However making that light useful depends a lot on modifiers, like soft boxes and umbrellas, or as simple as grids and barn doors. Shoe mount flashes do not lend themselves to modifiers, and even mounting them on stands is somewhat problematic.

If I need multiple light sources, I have a reasonably portable kit with three or four monolights, up to 1000 joules, and various modifiers. It takes a lot less time to adjust and measure the levels with a flash meter than fiddling with menus and buttons on shoe-poppers. A transmitter on the camera and at least one receiver on a flash unit takes care of the radio control. If necessary, I put a receiver on each flash so the P&S folks don't set them off.

Funny thing is, I've been using Sony A7's for a year, but completely without flash. With clean ISO at 25,600 and a 13 stop dynamic range doesn't seem to need help. I may get an LED panel for fill, just in case, which would work for video too, and thin enough to fit in the top flap of my backpack.

Andrew Garrard · January 7, 2016

<blockquote>I would imagine that just the change of the flash system to radio trigger alone will push all of those who claimed that they would keep their D810 for years to come to its successor.</blockquote>

Well, that too. What discourages me is that, if I'm reading the D5 brochure right, you need a WR-R10 on the camera to trigger the flash remotely. One thing I like about the D8x0 is that I can use the built-in flash to trigger my SB-600s (I've little interest in an SU-800). I'm also quite fond of it being available in emergencies for direct flash; I almost never use my SB600s on the camera, but I don't always carry them with me. A Nikon-blessed radio system is good, but I'd jump a lot faster at a D8x0 body with an integrated radio trigger and either (or both) the ability to trigger existing i-TTL flashes from the body in parallel, or the ability to trigger my existing CLS flashes from the SB-5000. Plus the SB-5000 costs as much as all three of my SB-600s together, not including any WR-R10. I'd probably feel differently if I'd managed to snap the integrated flash off any of my DSLRs, but astonishingly I haven't yet.

ShunCheung · January 7, 2016

And I thought Shun is the first to place an order on the D500 but he doesn't.

</blockquote>

There are way too many new components on the D5 and D500 such that I would rather wait a bit. Let those who must be the first kid on the block to have a new toy to pay the high price, both in terms of $ cost and the frustration in case of early glitches.

Back in 2007, I didn't pre-order the D300 either. After Nikon had started shipping it, I monitored various forums for a week. When I was convinced that there was no major issue, I simply walked into my local store and bought one off the shelf. They had received their second shipment by then and had a bunch in stock (like 40, 50). I don't expect any major shortage for the D500 either.

The only item I pre-ordered recently was the 200-500mm last year, as I had a trip to the Galapagos in late October, about a month after the shipment date. I wanted to have sufficient time to check a new product out before taking it on a trip.

Over on the Nature Forum, there is a recent thread about the Galapagos, and I posted my 2015 trip LightRoom statistics there: http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00dfPX You can see I used the D750 far more than the D7200. I also brought a D800E as another backup which I didn't use at all. You can also see in the discussion that a fellow traveler fell into the water briefly and sea water immediately damaged her Canon 5D Mark III and 16-35mm/f4 lens that were inside a camera bag.

My point is that the era has changed. Now FX bodies have a lot more pixels than back in 2007 so that we can crop more liberally. For any sports and wildlife action photography, I prefer to compose more loosely leaving more space around the subject. As the subjects move rapidly, often it is difficult to get the exact composition you want. Instead, I make the final crop in post processing.

Therefore, the whole notion that APS-C/DX is preferred for sports and wildlife is now a bit out of date; at least it is not as meaningful as it was 5, 10 years ago. Additionally, a really robust, true pro-grade DSLR that can take some beating is important to me on those trips. In other words, a single-digit body maybe more appropriate now. Obviously not everybody can afford a $6500 D5, but a lot of used D4 and D4S are now available. You just need to avoid those beaten up ones. Even the D750 is very good for sports and wildlife, but without the robustness.

chip_chipowski · January 7, 2016

Therefore, the whole notion that APS-C/DX is preferred for sports and wildlife is now a bit out of date; at least it is not as meaningful as it was 5, 10 years ago.

</blockquote>

Agreed. It is interesting to see the human tendency to categorize. Camera 1 is for groups x, y, and z. Camera 2 is for q, r, and s. Everything in its right place.

Andrew Garrard · January 7, 2016

<blockquote>the whole notion that APS-C/DX is preferred for sports and wildlife is now a bit out of date</blockquote>

I buy the "shoot a bit wider" argument (although you could also use a shorter lens on a DX body). I'd have thought the wider frame coverage of the AF units on a DX body might have some appeal, though. I worry slightly that a D500 has less leeway for cropping (because of the reduced pixel count) than the 24MP bodies - but only just. I note that Canon picked a resolution for the 5Ds that essentially removes the question of whether you need a crop body for reach (the pixel density is the same as most of their crop bodies).

Edward: I too tend to avoid flash where possible and rely on the dynamic range of the camera to allow me to fill shadows in post - so I don't use my flashes much. Unfortunately, you don't get 13 stops of dynamic range and ISO 25600 at the same time. I'm giving serious consideration to picking up a TN36UT next time I'm in the US (for some reason you can't get them in the UK now) to complement my MM15MB, so I have some very bright constant lights - but they'll be limited in location if I'm not going to have subjects squinting at me.

ShunCheung · January 7, 2016

Back in 2011, I also went to the Galapagos for essentially the same trip, and I posted my LightRoom statistics to a 2012 thread: http://www.photo.net/travel-photography-forum/00aGpD

In 2011, I bought the D7000, D300, and D700. Since the D700 is only 12MP, I used it sparingly for some landscape shots; otherwise I was mainly using DX. When affordable FX with 24MP and 36MP became available in 2012, the situation shifted. When Nikon introduced the D750 in 2014 with 24MP, 6.5 fps and at the time Nikon's best AF, it shifted some more.

However, that is merely my own experience and preference. It may or may not be representative.

Dieter Schaefer · January 7, 2016

I'd have thought the wider frame coverage of the AF units on a DX body might have some appeal

</blockquote>

Sure does for me. Just recently when testing the 200-500 I found myself in the - hereto quite unfamiliar - situation to not be able to put an AF point onto the subject using a D7100 - so the wider coverage of the D500 will be very welcome for situations like that.

although you could also use a shorter lens on a DX body

</blockquote>

which I did by zooming out with the 200-500 - which has the additional benefit that at shorter than maximum focal length, almost any Nikon zoom performs better optically.

I make the final crop in post processing

</blockquote>

As do I - it's just dandy to have more the higher DX-sensor pixel density - 20.9MP vs 24MP isn't going to make a big difference.

I had considered using the D810 in 1.3x crop mode for my bird photography and give up DX altogether. If the D500 are positive (as I expect them to be) - then the decision between D810/D500 will likely be in favor of the new DX flagship.

ShunCheung · January 7, 2016

Since Dieter mentioned the 200-500mm/f5.6, another advantage for FX is better high-ISO results. With those 80-400mm and 200-500mm @ f5.6, I depend much more on higher ISOs. Obviously I haven't used the D5 and D500 yet, but that is still an area the D750 easily trumps the D7200.

While the D7200 does have better high-ISO results than the D7100, Nikon's ISO 100-25600 range for the D7200 is way too optimistic. At least in my experience, in the past it used to be quite safe to use all the way up to one stop below Nikon's top ISO rating. On the D7200, I certainly don't like ISO 12800 or even 6400. And my standards have tightened after shooing FX for several years.

Therefore, I am kind of skeptical about the top ISO 51200 on the D500 and 102400 on the D5, but we'll find out soon enough from actual samples. The extended ISO range from Hi 1 and up is typically useless.

BTW, I agree that I wouldn't get too hung up on 20MP vs. 24MP. Between 12 and 16 it is somewhat significant, 16 vs. 20 is pretty small. Beyond 24, it is mostly marketing BS.

eric_arnold · January 7, 2016

DPR just <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/opinions/7352408758/nikon-s-new-d5-and-d500-push-the-boundaries-of-dslr?slide=2">published </a>some additional analysis of the new Nikon bodies. The improvements to the metering system and AF module in particular are of keen interest. The D500 also seems to have a bunch of things the D5 doesn't, such as direct-access AF point selection from the touchscreen, and edge-to-edge AF points. Regarding hi-ISO, i would expect the D500 to be better than the D7200, though by how much we can't say. In my experience, the theoretical bar for low-light shooting is ISO 6400. (I've shot at higher ISOs, but rarely need to do so.) If the D500 can do this cleanly, that will be a major win.

Sign In

Nikon Announced D5, D500, and SB-5000

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in