Nikon Announced D5, D500, and SB-5000

eric_arnold · January 12, 2016

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?

</blockquote>

possibly. we dont know yet how this translates in real life, but the d750 has 15 cross-sensors compared to 99 in the d500. that's a huge difference in clutch situations. theoretically, many would probably choose more accurate and speedier focus, with better tracking, over a little less noise. you also have to factor in build quality/weather-sealing, the 4k video, and all the other goodies. im not saying all potential d750 users are gonna jump on the d500 train, because that's still more of a general-use body, while the 500, when you think about it, is more specialized. but here we have a clear choice between high performance and overall versatility at around the same price point. i think people who need a 750 will get that and those who need a 500 will get that. you could also get both for less than the price of a D5. if im a d300/7000/7100/7200 owner, i'm looking hard at a 500 if i do any kind of action at all. (if not, the d5500 is kind of a steal at its current price and will be an even better deal when discounted.) and if im already invested in lenses, am i cashing them all out to get a 7dmkII and save a few hundred bucks? i do get the point that the d300 holdout crowd has dwindled considerably in the past few years, but maybe nikon already got you on the FX upgrade.

Peter_in_PA · January 12, 2016

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!

</blockquote>

Nikon would probably say you're thinking about it wrong. It's not that FX is potentially cheaper, it's more that super speed is more expensive.

reuven_k · January 12, 2016

Nikon would probably say you're thinking about it wrong. It's not that FX is potentially cheaper, it's more that super speed is more expensive.

</blockquote>

That's it in a nutshell. Ignoring the cost of changing from DX to FX lenses, if you DON'T require that super speed pro-quality camera, the D750 upgrade is the more appropriate choice. Alternatively, those of us with D7x00 cameras who don't want to ditch their DX lenses can wait and see which of the D500 capabilities appear in the D7300 and/or if the D500 price drops after those that MUST have it on day one have received their orders.

Peter_in_PA · January 12, 2016

Alternatively, those of us with D7x00 cameras who don't want to ditch their DX lenses can wait and see which of the D500 capabilities appear in the D7300 and/or if the D500 price drops after those that MUST have it on day one have received their orders.

</blockquote>

Not even sure this is Nikon's target customer for the D500, though, either.

ilkka_nissila · January 12, 2016

The 16-80/2.8 is something of an intermediate lens between the 17-55/2.8 and 16-85, offering intermediate aperture in a

more compact package than Nikon 17-55/2.8 and more in line with the current size and price of DX bodies. Even if you buy a D500

for telephoto action, which is its primary market, you still need to provide photographs of the environment be it landscape

or sports stadium. You can use the 16-80 for that. Also there is wide angle action too, e.g wedding bouquet toss, that can

benefit from high fps.

The D7200 is half of the D500's price so of course there is a market for it and it may well be several times the D500's

market.

For fast wide angle primes, the Nikon F mount makes them difficult to design due to the long flange distance. Thus you

can either pick a 20/1.8 Nikkor or get a Fuji system for small, fast wide angles, but you won't be using the Fuji for sports and

wildlife I suspect. Different tools are best for different tasks.

It sometimes seems to me that the people complaining just want to complain and a great product makes no difference to

that need.

ShunCheung · January 12, 2016

Dieter, you are comparing prices between products in very different stages of their product cycles:

<ol>

<li>The D750 was introduced in September 2014 @ $2300. The 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR was introduced back in 2010 @ $1300: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00X6PA

When you add the two up, it is $3600. That lens is still $1100 by itself today. When you buy the D750 + 24-120mm/f4 together as a kit, Nikon is giving you a deep package/kit discount. Essentially they are throwing in a $1100 lens @ $500. Nikon is providing a similar discount for the D810 + 24-120 kit.</li>

<li>Currently there is no discount at all for the D500 + 16-80mm/f2.8-4 DX kit since the body is brand new and the lens is also merely a year old. The kit price is the simple sum of $2000 for the D500 plus $1070 for the lens.</li>

</ol>

Of course, it makes little sense for the D500 kit to be so much more expensive than the D750 kit. That drives home my point that there is no way for the $2000 price for the D500 to hold for very long. When you get the 24-120 as part of a kit, they are now cutting its price by more than in half. I am not sure Nikon will do the same to the 16-80 DX any time soon, but let's revisit the cost for the D500 + 16-80 DX kit in December 2016.

However, Nikon's overall DSLR strategy is still emphasizing FX on the higher end to differentiate themselves from the many APS-C and Micro 4/3 options, both as DSRLs and mirrorless. The now (almost?) complete set of affordable, f1.8 AF-S fixed lenses is part of that strategy. Nikon DX DSLRs are still mostly for consumers as shown by the many kit boxes for the D3300, D5500, and D7200 we see in Costco in the US. Consumers would buy a Dxx00 with 18-55 and 55-200mm or 55-300mm as a kit with all the lenses they need so that they won't buy any more zooms from the likes of Sigma, Tamron, etc.

Otherwise, there is a lot of competition on the APS-C and mirrorless front. It has been speculated for quite a while that some players will be eliminated. For example, Olympus' camera division has been losing money for years and is barely breaking even in the last quarter. In the recently completed CES show in Las Vegas, while Samsung has a large presence, their cameras are conspicuously absent, following their withdrawal of the NX1 line from Europe late in 2015. It wouldn't be surprising that Samsung is the next casualty in digital camera competition/overall downturn (sorry <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4303235">Andrew Garrard</a>).

Dieter Schaefer · January 12, 2016

you are comparing prices between products in very different stages of their product cycles

</blockquote>

I am aware of that - but both are currently being offered and are thus directly competing with each other.

Consumers would buy a Dxx00 with 18-55 and 55-200mm or 55-300mm as a kit with all the lenses they need so that they won't buy any more

</blockquote>

In addition, from what I have seen numerous times now, many of these consumers have no brand loyalty at all. They may have started out with a Canon kit, then switched over to a newer Nikon, then back to Canon, and then over to Sony, and move on to Olympus, always buying the "kit" only. More and more it seems that any means to upload an image immediately to a social networking site is more important in a camera than anything else.

It sometimes seems to me that the people complaining just want to complain and a great product makes no difference to that need.

</blockquote>

I hope that wasn't directed at me! I was attempting to point out that it is still quite hard/impossible to put together a complete DX system for the photo enthusiast and that the D500 doesn't change that. Not even sure it shows a "return of DX". To me the D500 is a niche camera - and luckily for me, one that fits exactly my kind of niche and thus is my kind of camera. It's Nikon's own fault that I am not jumping on it immediately - I have no intention of being a beta tester for Nikon. In addition, I am with Shun that the price likely will come down before the year's out.

The 16-80/2.8 is something of an intermediate lens between the 17-55/2.8 and 16-85

</blockquote>

Exactly - I tried the lens in the store and like it a lot - but I am not willing to pay the hefty price for it. And from what I've heard, the lens isn't exactly flying off the shelves.

For fast wide angle primes, the Nikon F mount makes them difficult to design due to the long flange distance.

</blockquote>

Certainly true - but Sigma has shown with the 18-35/1.8 that they can even design and build a zoom that performs at prime-lens level despite the flange distance hurdle, so Nikon should be able to design a DX 16/1.8. Whether there is a market for one, is a different issue altogether. If I was still interested in using DX for my general photography, then the Sigma 18-35/1.8 would hold the most appeal as a fast "prime" lens. Despite it's size and weight, it beats carrying two separate lenses - not to mention being cheaper.

chip_chipowski · January 12, 2016

I think it is fine for the D500 combo to be pricier than the D750. Shun made a good point about different stages of product cycle, which probably is biggest factor. But I hope Nikon does not get too caught up in creating the perfect hierarchical product structure. In general, Nikon seems to focus on FX for top quality. But a great, pro-level DX body doesn't have to be contradictory. Some may shoot D500 exclusive and stay in DX format. But I would guess there are some pros that shoot mainly FX but who find uses for a pro DX body. It could be as mundane as being able to use the 35mm f/1.4 as a semi-wide on FX and normal on DX. Mostly there is probably demand to use D500 with telephoto. But my point is that it is just another choice and another tool, even if it doesn't make cosmic harmony :)

Barry Clemmons Photography · January 12, 2016

Let me try to stir the conversation back up a notch or two. Why are we all assuming that there will be a D7300? Perhaps Nikon will now try to steer those D7200 users over to the D500 line as the top of the line DX product. Nikon says that the tsunami and earthquake events had nothing to do with the delayed introduction of the D300S successor. If that is true then one could assume that the D7000 was introduced to hang onto the many Nikon high-end DX users until they could get them safely across the FX bridge. Nikon never expected the turmoil it created among those high-end DX users and the loss of customers it caused in that market. After "seeing the light" Nikon is now trying to re-establish that market. Will the few advanced features of the D500 be enough to get people to pay a 66% premium over the D7200, or will Nikon simply eliminate the D7xxx line and upgrade the D5xxx slightly to fill in? If Nikon keeps the D7xxx line, then in my opinion the D5xx line price point will need to be adjusted down to $1600-$1700 dollars to make sense. That may not leave enough margin for Nikon. Many people on this forum said in the past that continuing the D300 line wasn't necessary after the D7100 was upgraded to flagship status with new features. Of course this is just my opinion before my second cup of coffee. I will let you know after the D7300 introduction where to send the crow.

Peter_in_PA · January 12, 2016

Barry, I doubt it. There was room for a D90 AND D300, there was room for a D70 AND a D100 even when the D100 was worse than the D70 and people still bought the 100 because of the more rugged body and interface. I can't see D7x00 line stopping.

Barry Clemmons Photography · January 12, 2016

I also couldn't see the D300 line stopping in 2009, or rather taking seven years for the next model. Nikon has made some unusual moves in the last several years. I'm not saying it makes sense.

Dieter Schaefer · January 12, 2016

But I would guess there are some pros that shoot mainly FX but who find uses for a pro DX body.

</blockquote>

I do - and I am not a pro. I rather pay $2,000 for a body that suits me than $1,200 for one that doesn't. While 7/9 years is a bit too long a product cycle - given the latest "small step iterations" in Nikon's product cycle, I rather wait 4/5 years before upgrading. Compared to paying four times to go from a D300/D300S to a D7000, D7100, D7200, and finally D500 doing so once from the D300 to the D500 would actually have saved money. Unfortunately, I lost hope in 2014 for a "D400" to ever appear and purchased a D7100 - not optimum in terms of return of investment but not bad either.

Nikon never expected the turmoil it created among those high-end DX users and the loss of customers it caused in that market.

</blockquote>

Which is a bad thing in itself - demonstrating that they didn't do their market research properly. For me, the D7000 made sense to those upgrading from the D80/D90 line - it never did as a replacement for the D300/D300S - it was too much of a "downgrade" in handling (even though the innards were definitely an "upgrade").

Will the few advanced features of the D500 be enough to get people to pay a 66% premium over the D7200, or will Nikon simply eliminate the D7xxx line and upgrade the D5xxx slightly to fill in?

</blockquote>

Given how much I loathe the D7x00 body style and control layout, I am preparing myself to pay the premium to get a body that - hopefully - feels and handles better. I would not be surprised to see the demise of the D7x00 line (or its "merger" with the D5x00 - maybe they get it right this time and "upgrade" the D5x00 rather than "downgrade" the D7x00). The big open question is what Nikon intends to do about mirrorless.

ShunCheung · January 12, 2016

"you are comparing prices between products in very different stages of their product cycles"

I am aware of that - but both are currently being offered and are thus directly competing with each other.

</blockquote>

Not really. The D500 is the shiny brand new toy that some people are willing to pay extra for. Sometimes I fall in that category myself. If Nikon can make a few extra Euro/dollars/Pounds/yen, why not?

Additionally, you are adding a deeply discounted, older lens into the kit for comparison. If you compare body-only against body-only, it would be a fairer comparison.

The alternative is that, e.g., the D500 is priced @ $1500 to begin with, there would be a D500 shortage and scalpers will take advantage of the situation: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aC7r

I remember that 10 years ago, the 18-200mm DX super zoom was the hot product, and there was shortage for about a year. Some camera stores were charging close to $1000 for a lens with a MSRP around $680. I would rather let Nikon make that extra profit than some scalpers (including some stores).

Later on, the price will inevitably fall. By now, the 7D Mark II is selling @ 60% of its initial price merely 15 or so months ago. Most likely Canon isn't making money on it any more. If Canon and Nikon can make more money on the early units and then maybe actually lose a bit of money towards the tail end, to me it is fair game that helps Canon and Nikon to be financially healthy. If scalpers make the extra profit up front and Nikon loses money on the tail end, it is not good for Nikon and not good for us consumers.

eric_arnold · January 12, 2016

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...:)

</blockquote>

i was wondering who the potential SL market was ;) ... but if you were, like me, a d300 owner who was considering the XP2, now all of a sudden Nikon is looking good again.

It's not that FX is potentially cheaper, it's more that super speed is more expensive.

</blockquote>

bingo. you can already get an FX camera (d610) for well below the D500 price. one suspects part of the internal discussion at Nikon was around the perceived valuation of FX compared to DX. after all, they spent a lot of marketing dollars trying to convince us FX was a superior format. Turns out, there's more to a camera than a sensor.

Not even sure this is Nikon's target customer for the D500, though, either.

</blockquote>

i tend to agree. i'm sure there will be those who must have the d500 even though they dont shoot sports/wildlife/action, but the d7xxx series is already pretty good as it is.

you can either pick a 20/1.8 Nikkor or get a Fuji system for small, fast wide angles, but you won't be using the Fuji for sports and wildlife I suspect.

</blockquote>

good point, although we will see the XP2 and maybe XT2 later this year, which should be a little better in terms of AF. but somehow i doubt any Fuji AF system improvements will equal the D500's capabilities. The flip side of that, of course, is, if you pick the D500, you're stuck with Nikon lenses -- there's no F-mount equivalent to the 16/1.4 or the 14/2.8.

eric_arnold · January 12, 2016

Why are we all assuming that there will be a D7300? Perhaps Nikon will now try to steer those D7200 users over to the D500 line as the top of the line DX product.

</blockquote>

at this point the d7xxx line is in its third iteration. maybe it lost flagship designation, but that price point is a key one in the camera market, something nikon wants to hold on to. what i think nikon has done is clearly iterated high-end consumer from entry level consumer, i.e. d3300/ d5500/ d7300. They're also clearly saying, the d7200 buyer is not the d500 buyer. if there are switchers/upgraders, it will be because the d500's feature set is closer to their needs. otherwise, nikon is just as happy if a current d7xxx user switches to a d750.

Many people on this forum said in the past that continuing the D300 line wasn't necessary after the D7100 was upgraded to flagship status with new features.

</blockquote>

Yeah, but there was never a time when D300 owners didn't ask for a D400, while that was happening. And now it seems evident that a consumer body does not a flagship make.

there are some pros that shoot mainly FX but who find uses for a pro DX body.

</blockquote>

that's sort of the beauty of the D500 launch. if you are a d5 or d750 user, but you need reach, your choices are to spend a lot on long glass, or get a DX body. now Nikon gives you that body. another way to look at it is an iteration between a performance body and, say a landscape/portrait body. there are d810 users who maybe find 36mp overkill for some applications, or who also shoot wildlife who we can count among potential d500 users.

both are currently being offered and are thus directly competing with each other.

</blockquote>

the d500 and d750 only compete directly if their features/benefits overlap to some extent. i addressed this earlier, but IMO it comes down to the d500's hi-ISO performance. if you need fps, there is no comparison. if you need fps and hi-ISO, you really want a d5 but you may settle for a d500 if it's "good enough" at some arbitrary threshold -- in my case, ISO 6400. i could actually see a lot of people getting both a d500 and a d750, or FX users adding a d500 to their camera lineup just for performance features and/or reach.

ShunCheung · January 12, 2016

Concerning Nikon's DX bodies, the D3000 and D5000 series are on going. Back in 2010, at least my conclusion was that Nikon was merging the D90 and D300/D300S into the D7000, which has an AF system that is between the two, but the D7000 can meter with AI/AI-S lenses, a feature that previously was only available on the D200 and D300. However, D7000's overall controls are more like the D70, D80, and D90.

In 2013, Nikon updated the D7000 to D7100, still @ $1200, put their top-of-the-line AF module at the time on it and called it the "flagship" DX camera. The follow up problem was that now the best AF system is already on the $1200 D7100, how could Nikon top that. It turned out that Nikon couldn't with the D7200, which is mostly the same with a deeper buffer and better high-ISO results.

Now Nikon reverses courses with a D500. Naturally the issue is that the D7200 much closer to the D500 compared to the D90/D300 pair back in 2008. I wonder there is still a big enough DX market to support four product lines. If Nikon introduces a D7300, they'll have to dumb it down a bit. E.g. remove the AI/AI-S coupling, but that also make it quite close to the D5000 series:

<ol>

</ol>

Meanwhile, there are now also four product lines in FX (compared to only three back in 2008/2009: D3X, D3/D3S and D700):

<ol>

</ol>

And of course there is the special Df. That is a lot of different current models in a shrinking market where the explosion of digital from 2004 to 2012/2013 or so is mostly in the rear-view mirror now.

Speaking of mirror, I also wonder whether Nikon will get into the market of DX and/or FX mirrorless cameras. I don't have the impression that Nikon 1 is all that successful.

Javier Gutierre · January 12, 2016

I just find these pictures on DPREVIEW comical.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9189851572/hands-on-with-nikon-d5

You would think they would use a lens that is not full of dust or what ever it is.

ShunCheung · January 12, 2016

Javier, at least to me, those look more like reflections from the lights inside the exhibition hall.

And since the CES is a trade show, a lot of visitors would come by the booth and play around with the demo samples. Expect them to get dirty and scratched. Those samples will likely become refurbished cameras or old demos in the used market.

eric_arnold · January 13, 2016

i think the nikon product line iterations are beginning to make more sense after a few years of incoherence. hopefully they will at least maintain this cohesion for a few years. one long term question is whither FX? do you keep an entry level camera and a midranger in the lineup? obviously you need a high-end flagship or two, and nikon seems to have dovetailed into performance and resolution nicely. if so, at what price point? if the midranger's price edges down, how does that impact your high-end DX situation? hopefully we're headed toward a clearer view of the features/price point dichotomy. its a bit incongruous when a $2000 or even $2800 FX body doesnt have features a $1200 DX body does.

Dieter Schaefer · January 13, 2016

Naturally the issue is that the D7200 much closer to the D500 compared to the D90/D300 pair back in 2008

</blockquote>

How do you figure that? The D90 used the D300 sensor and added video. It had a simpler AF module than the D300 and the same control layout distinction that now exists between the D7200 and the D500.

its a bit incongruous when a $2000 or even $2800 FX body doesnt have features a $1200 DX body does.

</blockquote>

That what happens if one decides to move more people into FX by offering lower-priced bodies - something has to give: the D600 was the FX-equivalent of the D7000 (lacking the 1/8000s shutter speed); the D610 didn't add anything new. The D750 is the FX equivalent to the D7100/D7200 - again lacking 1/8000s but adding a tilt-screen. In both cases, the flash sync speed is also lower for the FX bodies. While Nikon made the AF upgrades within the same DX Series (D7x00), they choose to create another FX Series (D750 instead of calling it a D650). I rather wish Nikon had used the D810-style body for the D750 - a 24MP camera that doesn't have a consumer-style control layout would be very welcome.

ilkka_nissila · January 13, 2016

I don't think the D500 will cause Nikon to remove any other models from the lineup or "cripple" them. It is an additional model that is offered to suit a certain group of photographers. I think Nikon's current policy is to make DSLR look as good as it can for as broad range of customers as possible, and that's why they're adding specialist models to fill niches. Crippling would only cause competitors to look stronger; internal competition between different models is not what Nikon should worry about but other camera manufacturers as well as cell phone manufacturers. That's why I think due to the hectic competitive environment, there will be hardly any crippling.

The D7200 is about one half of the price of the D500 so they're very distinct markets, even though in the absence of the D500, many potential buyers used the D7200. The D7200 however due to its lower price point is purchased by much broader group of customers who just want a good camera for general use and can't spend any more money on it (nor would need the features of the D500). AFAIK the D7200 and the D810 (and their predecessors) have been the pearls of the Nikon line in terms of commercial success so they will certainly be continued. That's where the money is coming from.

ShunCheung · January 13, 2016

Dieter, the D90 and D300/D300S indeed use essentially the same sensor, although the version on the D300 can go up to 8 fps. However, the D90 has a much weaker AF module (Multi-CAM 1000, same as what is on the D3300 today), cannot meter with AI/AI-S lenses, and has no dual memory cards. Its flash sync is 1/200 sec and top shutter speed is 1/4000 sec, not top drawer.

In comparison, the D7100/D7200:

<ul>

<li>have the same AF module as the top-of-the-line D4/D4S, which is only finally surpassed by the Multi-CAM 20000 on the D5/D500 introduced a few days ago.</li>

<li>While more pixels is not necessarily "better," the D7100/D7200 (24MP) have more pixels than the D500 (20MP). More pixels has appeal to some.</li>

<li>The D7100/D7200 can meter with AI/AI-S lenses</li>

<li>The entire D7000 series have dual memory cards. Dual cards is a high-end feature. You can check Canon's entire APS-C line up; only the 7D Mark II has dual cards, not the original 7D nor the current 70D. There are plenty of mirrorless cameras from Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus in the same $1200 price range as the D7200 or even a lot more expensive. Exactly which mirrorless camera has dual memory card slots?</li>

<li>The D7100/D7200 can shoot 6 fps native, same as the D300 without grip. They can do 7 fps in the crop mode. That frame rate is not exactly slow.</li>

<li>The D7100/D7200 have 1/250 flash sync and top 1/8000 shutter speeds, same as all top-of-the-line Nikon DSLRs, including the D5 and D500.</li>

</ul>

Therefore, while the D7100/D7200 is not exactly pro grade, they do have plenty of high-end features and there is obvious competition between the D500 and D7200 within Nikon. Competition from the Canon 7D Mark II and from within Nikon, both at much lower prices, is the primary reason I think the D500 cannot hold the $2000 price point for very long.

However, I do agree that Eric's argument that every single feature on a $2000 (D610) to $2850 (Df) FX body must surpass its counterpart on a $1200 DX body is a false one. Sensor cost is very sensitive to size (sensor area). An FX sensor still costs a lot more than a DX one. In order to keep the price of an FX body consumer affordable, some compromises are necessary.

Nikon's Df is a very special case. It is a niche product mainly for old timers and collectors. The old-fashioned knobs are labor-intensive to make, and the Df is manufactured in Japan in order to appeal to Japanese (and other) collectors. You can even flip the aperture follower tab on the Df up to mount pre-AI lenses. What is the point to put your best AF module on the Df while a lot of people will use manual-focus lenses on it?

The Df also cannot capture video and has only one (SD) memory card slot. Its entire "back to the past" design philosophy is unconventional and unique.

ShunCheung · January 13, 2016

The D7200 is about one half of the price of the D500 so they're very distinct markets

</blockquote>

Ilkka, that is only true at the D500's introduction price.

Not to make too find a point about it, but currently B&H is selling the Canon 7D Mark II, after rebates, at about the same $1100 price as the Nikon D7200 (The 7D Mark II was actually $100 cheaper a couple of weeks ago, but interestingly it has gone back up a bit after the D500 announcement.):

<ul>

<li>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1176700-REG/canon_eos_7d_mark_ii.html</li>

<li>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1127271-REG/nikon_1554_d7200_dslr_camera_body.html</li>

</ul>

The drastic price drop for the 7D Mark II also puts downward pressure on the 70D's price.

Inevitably, something similar to the 70D/7D II dual's price drop will happen to the D500/D7200 dual, perhaps not as drastic. We'll see how far its goes.

Andrew Garrard · January 13, 2016

There seem to be people here complaining that each camera can't do everything that the cheaper ones in the range can do. With the exception of the D3x00 and D5x00 series, that's never been the case for Nikon. If you want a landscape and portrait camera, the D5 is not your friend. I'm not bothered that a D500 might be better at sports than my (more expensive) D810. There has never been a perfect camera, at any price, from any manufacturer.

I don't think the D500 is a replacement for the D7200. Yes, there's plenty it can do that the D7200 can't. But it doesn't quite have the reach of the D7200 (I can't see Nikon backing down from 24MP throughout the range), and I don't especially mind if it's worse at minimum ISO in return for being better at high ISO - as is true of the D4s and the D8x0. If anything, I'd expect a D7200 successor to be to the D500 what the D8x0 are to the D4/D5: better landscape camera (resolution, dynamic range, easy to carry), worse sports camera (slower, less robust). I'd not be surprised to see a small pixel count bump (Samsung had 28MP, after all, and Canon have better pixel density now).

I would like Nikon to find a way to stop the DX crop of the FX cameras being substantially behind the DX cameras in resolution. Remember a D810 with a grip in DX mode is already a 16MP 7fps DX camera with a big buffer, which kind of makes the D810 a prosumer sports camera (D7000 resolution, D7100 AF, D7200 buffer), but if you're after a D8x0, I'd argue you might have preferred reach to sportingness. I'd suggested a higher pixel density central section, at the cost of complicating raw converters; Canon just matched the pixel density of their (pre-24MP) APS-C cameras with the 5Ds. I'm not beyond using the DX crop of a D8x0 series when I want frame rate and smaller files or am limited on the size of telephoto I can bring with me, and the AF point coverage is arguably more useful. But I stand by my request for a 7680x5120 (39MP) or 8192x5462 (45MP) sensor, possibly with a little leeway around it, for 8K (UHD and full) shooting and 4K oversampling, so 9000x6000 (54MP) from matching the pixel density of DX might have a negative knock-on effect unless Nikon start doing sensor-based video anti-shake.

Anyway. Horses for courses. My objection to the Df (brief mention, I promise) was partly that I didn't think most shooters of a body in the style of a Df would be the ones who wanted the abilities of the D4 sensor - wrong horse, wrong course. While the D750 is a very good generalist, I see no reason for it to out-do the D500 at the areas where the D500 is strongest, nor for the D500 to have to beat the D7200 (let alone "D7300") in every area. I'd rather it was the best camera it can be for the D500 target audience; likewise the D5. It made perfect sense to me that the 7D was a better camera for a reasonable set of shooters than the 5D2, by the same measure. My concern for the D5 is that a 30fps 8K camera might "be a better D5" than the D5 is, but clearly we're not there yet (unless Canon are ahead of the curve and that's what they replace the 1Dx with).

Incidentally, I'm surprised Nikon managed to steal the trick about light flickering from the 7D2. I like that one, but I vaguely would have thought Canon would have patented it. Maybe it's an older idea than I expected.

As for Samsung cameras, I can't comment (obviously), and not my division. Shame the NX-1 sensor isn't in a position to show more of what it can do, but the "not taking M-mount lenses" decision lost my personal interest when NX was first launched. Of course, given so many photos are taken with smartphone cameras, I'm not feeling all that distanced from photography. Like Shun, I believe Nikon have tried to distance themselves from compacts and mobiles by pushing for FX rather than DX sensors. On that note, I'm interested that Canon's swathe of compact launches at CES seems to have caused almost no comment at all in the Canon forum. I know photo.net is full of relatively high-end shooters, but I'd have expected at least some discussion. I guess everyone's waiting for the 1Dxi and the 5Div, or whatever they're called.

Andrew Garrard · January 13, 2016

<blockquote>What is the point to put your best AF module on the Df while a lot of people will use manual-focus lenses on it?</blockquote>

Because it would give you more digital rangefinder points to use with manual focus lenses? The budget AF module is something that actively put me off considering the Df, irrespective of my opinions of the interface.

<blockquote>The drastic price drop for the 7D Mark II also puts downward pressure on the 70D's price.</blockquote>

I do think Canon have a bit more of a continuum in their devices than Nikon do - other than with the sensor format cross-over (I think most would argue that the 7D2 can do a lot that the 6D can't). The 5D3 was clearly better than the 5D2 at everything; Canon's crop range have a pretty continuous improvement, without such specialisation. With Nikon, I feel more inclined to ask "what will you do with it?" when someone asks for the "best camera"; with Canon, usually it's the most expensive you can afford. This philosophy is almost in line with the lens compatibility question - with Nikon, you need to read the small print.

Partly, I don't want people to be in the mindset that the D500 has to cost less than a D610 (although the observation about the lens kits and D750 is interesting; I'm still waiting to find an affordable 24-120 f/4 - though I remember many of us thought it was over-priced on its own, given the cost of the variable aperture version). The sensor isn't the only part of the lens equation, and I'm still hopeful that Nikon might make an FX camera with no AF motor and a pentamirror (and maybe lower-end AF), priced somewhere in the D7x00 range and positioned under the D610.

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