eric_arnold Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 <p>tell him to come over here, mary. we're trying to get this thread to 300 comments.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 <p>Mary, I moved that thread to Casual Photo Conversations. Photographing pets and sanctuary animals is not quite nature photography. Hopefully it gets more answers on the new forum.</p> <p>The more I read about it, it looks like the D5 and D500's performance are highly tied to the type of memory cards used. They appear to be able to capture a lot of frames before running out of buffer not because their buffer is particularly deep. Rather, the fastest XQD card lets you write as fast as you capture. I think "which card(s) should I use" type question will be common as new memory cards are introduced.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Dieter: not that moot. Yes, if I were buying new for a D500, I'd buy UHS-II - but that doesn't stop me having several SD cards already, or wanting to use a slow Eye-Fi (I really wish they were faster). The only time I've hit the buffer limit on my D810 was using an Eye-Fi (just for storage, not transmitting) - in 1.2x crop for speed, shooting dancers. The buffer took a minute to empty. I still like having that card, but not every shoot will use the best I've got. (I have some slow CF cards too.) It's not "in a sequence" if the buffer hasn't cleared from last time. Ah, I remember my 300D's 4-shot buffer! Eric: I'm confused - are you being facetious about the Df? Appreciating that I'm off topic, I was talking about the cheapest/lightest feasible camera (presumably with video) that ONLY accepts NEW lenses. And FX ones at that. I'm not particularly suggesting the interface be any more "point and shoot" than the D6x0, unless a dial is lost for cost. People upgrading from a D5x00 would then have two routes: D7200 or successor to keep the same DX lenses, get a better finder, faster camera, more compatibility, better handling. Or go to a cut-down FX body and switch to FX lenses. Yes, there's a D610, but it's bigger, heavier and more expensive than it needs to be because it has a pentaprism and legacy lens support, neither of which are likely the priority of D5x00 upgraders or those wanting a lightweight FX backup. Assuming it's cheaper for Nikon to make than the D610 (fewer parts) and they could differentiate from used D610s with, say, a MultiCAM-3500II, the only thing I see this cannibalizing is the D610 - which is old and due for replacement anyway. I'd see it as an A7 competitor (for the Nikon equivalent of Canon owners using adapted lenses). If the D750 is the FX equivalent of a D7200, I'd think of this as the FX version of a D5500 - and of the D610 as a D90. Anyway, massive side-track and Nikon rarely do what I'd do if I were them, but I don't see it hurting Nikon, it'd be a response to Sony, it'd push people to FX, and I Nikon need to get used to selling the customers SOMETHING (instead of letting Sony pick off market share) rather than worrying about competing with themselves. And it certainly wouldn't take sales from the D500, which is where I think this diversion started... Mary - isn't Shawn using specifically Canon gear on a mirrorless Sony? Relevant to what I've just said, but I'm not sure why Nikon people should specifically be able to help. Not to put anyone off giving him pet photography suggestions. My qualifications only go as far as my cat stomping on me while I write this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 <blockquote> <p>Rather, the fastest XQD card lets you write as fast as you capture</p> </blockquote> <p>If I remember correctly, then the CF-equipped D5 has a 65 image buffer (uncompressed 14-bit RAW) - which goes to 102 on the faster XQD version (which has a limit of 200 for any other RAW option). And apparently, the D500 has a limit of 71 images when shooting uncompressed 14-bit RAW (on a XQD card)</p> <blockquote> <p>Dieter: not that moot. Yes, if I were buying new for a D500, I'd buy UHS-II - but that doesn't stop me having several SD cards already, or wanting to use a slow Eye-Fi (I really wish they were faster).</p> </blockquote> <p>Andrew, I had to purchase the fastest SD cards to overcome at least partially the buffer limitations of the D7100. When I get the D500 and in order to use it to its full capabilities, I will have to fork over the money for XQD and/or UHS-II. Not buts, ifs, or whatnot! When I got my D300 way back then, I purchased three SanDisk Extreme IV cards - to utilize the higher write speed of the D300 (as compared to the sluggish D200 where I ran against the buffer limit on more than one occasion); I never filled the buffer on the D300. </p> <p>I have a stack of 4GB CF cards that my wife is now using in her D300 (aside from quite a few that I "sold" with my D200 bodies) - 4GB doesn't cut it in a D810. I have slower SD cards that are useless in the D7100 - but they are doing just fine in the Sony A7.</p> <p> Doesn't the D500 come with built in "Snapbridge" - so what do you need the Eye-fi card for?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 <blockquote> <p>are you being facetious about the Df?</p> </blockquote> <p>not purposely. the Df isn't really a stripped-down body, other than it doesnt have video. and its price point is way above the $1000 FX body envisioned. i'll try not to go too far off topic here, but i think the Df would have worked better as a compact high-performance FX body, not a niche/retro nostalgia product, at that same price point.</p> <blockquote> <p>I was talking about the cheapest/lightest feasible camera (presumably with video) that ONLY accepts NEW lenses. </p> </blockquote> <p>That would be a fairly radical implementation, as F-mount compatibility is a big Nikon marketing point. Not sure how that would play out, were it feasible (which it isn't). i think the insistence on new FX lenses only would be a big sticking point, and a fairly unnecessary one at that.</p> <blockquote> <p>My qualifications only go as far as my cat stomping on me while I write this.</p> </blockquote> <p>Fine qualifications indeed. i looked at Shawn's post. He wants a camera no one makes. i told him to get a crop sensor Canon instead since he has Canon glass already.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 <blockquote> <p>If I remember correctly, then the CF-equipped D5 has a 65 image buffer (uncompressed 14-bit RAW) - which goes to 102 on the faster XQD version (which has a limit of 200 for any other RAW option). And apparently, the D500 has a limit of 71 images when shooting uncompressed 14-bit RAW (on a XQD card)</p> </blockquote> <p>The image buffer size inside a camera should be the amount of RAM memory. It has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of the memory card use.</p> <p>I am afraid that Nikon is providing misleading information to leave the impression that the buffer is larger than what it really is. Nikon's data is showing how many RAW image the cameras can capture before it starts slowing down. If you use the fastest XQD cards, the D5/D500 can dump files into the card as fast as they come in; hence the buffer is never full. The slower the cards you use, the sooner the buffer will fill.</p> <p>Check my reference to the DPReview thread above. When we get our hands on actual production D5 and D500, we'll find out for sure.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Dieter: I have a few fast cards which are usually all I need - but on occasion I need all I can get, and that includes some slow 32GB cards. YMMV! I've never tried Snapbridge; it initially looks to me as though it use proprietary Nikon software (that's ALWAYS a good sign) that only talks to tablets and smartphones. I'm guessing jpeg only? A bit like an Eye-Fi Mobi, in other words. Not so useful if you want raw backups - there's a reason I have a pro Eye-Fi card. I may misunderstand. Eric: Sorry, I genuinely wondered if we had crossed wires about the "only new" vs "only old" lens thing. I agree about the Df (without further diversion). As for insisting on new lenses, there are few current Nikkors that are not AF-S (the MF and DC lenses and 200 f/4 micro spring to mind; do the 180mm prime and 80-200 count as current?) Not big sellers, now. Lack of support hasn't hurt the D5x00 or D3x00 much - surely plenty of FX lenses get used on them. I'm not talking about less support. Yes, historical compatibility matters for high-end enthusiasts (I like it in my D810 and have AF and AI lenses), but it's on the list of things that could be compromised to save money and weight. Don't forget not having an aperture ring helps robustness and waterproofing. I don't think it's radical that the budget FX model could make the same compromise choice as the budget DX models. Given their use and requirements for reliability, I might even have accepted the D500 or D5 making the same choice, so long as other cameras offer it. (Sorry, I'm really not trying to divert the thread.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 <blockquote> <p>Yes, historical compatibility matters for high-end enthusiasts (I like it in my D810 and have AF and AI lenses), but it's on the list of things that could be compromised to save money and weight. </p> </blockquote> <p>a lot of those lenses are really compact. and from a practicality scale, the camera you're describing would work best with compact lenses. </p> <blockquote> <p> I might even have accepted the D500 or D5 making the same choice, so long as other cameras offer it.</p> </blockquote> <p>what??? now you're just rambling. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <blockquote>a lot of those lenses are really compact. and from a practicality scale, the camera you're describing would work best with compact lenses.</blockquote> <p>Well yes, I have a 50mm E-series because it's small. But a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S isn't exactly huge, and could have been a lot smaller if Nikon didn't have the weird policy of indenting the front element on those lenses. I don't own the 35mm f/1.8, but I can't assume it's huge. Even the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S isn't exactly big. I don't see a problem. (I'll admit that my 28-80 is a screwdriver lens, but I don't think most people own those.)</p> <blockquote>what??? now you're just rambling.</blockquote> <p>I don't think so. Support for elderly lenses is of considerable interest to hobbyists who have a lot of them. I'm not so sold that a lot of sports journalists will be using pre-AF-S lenses, given that the AF-S ones tend to be those which focus faster. I'm not saying Nikon are wrong in the current generation, but they might think about losing this in the future. Remember that the F5 and F6 didn't have default support for pre-AI lenses (you need the ring fixed), and 1-series Nikon DSLRs haven't supported them at all. The robustness and, particularly, waterproofing of the AI follower ring has been raised in the past as a disadvantage of the F mount. If the priority of the D500 and D5 is to keep going under all conditions, would it have been terrible to lose the aperture tab? I don't think they should get rid of the AF motor on those bodies (there are probably enough AF-D lenses around still in use), but I could believe the choice to do so in the future - although I see that as more a weight and cost measure for a cut-down body.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <p>It is commonly accepted terminology (even if technically incorrect) that the buffer size specification is the number of shots you can do in a burst at maximum fps before the camera slows down. It is not the physical buffer memory size, which is not given anywhere in the technical specifications and I can't remember any digital camera where it had been declared. It's not all that misleading since pretty much in every test or specification, it is stated, how the figure is arrived ie which memory card type, fps rate, file format etc. so the reader knows how the terminology is used. As far as I know, all the reviews use the terminology in the same way as well. I don't think trying to establish technically correct memory sizes is that easy, but I suppose it could be estimated by firing a number of sequences at different fps rates, and trying to determine what the write speed is and what the real buffer memory size is. No one seems to be doing this and Nikon isn't giving the data so we might as well use terminology which corresponds to real world application needs that are easy to verify. I know that by establishing the buffer memory size and write speed, we could estimate the effect of the increasing card speeds, but in the end the camera's ability to match nominal card speeds isn't always the same for every card type so it's a complicated topic whichever way we approach it.</p> <p><em>I was talking about the cheapest/lightest feasible camera (presumably with video) that ONLY accepts NEW lenses.</em></p> <p>Nikon's business model (and the general expectation among users) is that you spend your life collecting Nikon lenses and use them on new cameras as you upgrade the camera, and occasionally get a new lens. Nikon doesn't make new lines of lenses, they make individual new lenses and the expectation is that the old lenses are used for a long time and are part of the lineup. Yes, the DC Nikkors and the 180/2.8 are current and many people like and use the 180 since it's the only compact f/2.8 medium tele Nikon makes (while some like the DC and some do not, depending on how you try to use it and what kind of aesthetics you like; I personally love the 105 DC). These lenses haven't yet been updated to AF-S and they're being used. D3x00 and D5x00 body owners are typically not using a lot of lenses simply because these cameras support only some lenses, thus they are selected by people who don't need more comprehensive lens support. But many people who choose FX do so because they want old lenses to work as they were designed to be used, and they're also very interested in saving money by not having to upgrade to expensive new lenses. So an FX camera without full F monut lens support would be a non starter, a total failure. FX users typically save money by using manual focus lenses and old AF Nikkors and many are enthusiastic about their old lenses' imaging characteristics. No user of new FX lenses would want a cheap body, they spent a ton of money on lenses and they want the best features - since the body costs a fraction of what a set of good new lenses costs, it's pointless to save pennies on the body. It is typical that the less featured FX bodies are purchased by users who want FX quality but use manual focus and older AF lenses so the last feature that can be stripped away is the high quality viewfinder and the support for older lenses IMO. And since Nikon doesn't update the lens lineup as a whole (only pieces of it) there are areas (such as medium tele primes with practical maximum apertures) which are still only covered by late 1980s or early 1990s optics. The newest 135/2.8 is Ai-S, for example.</p> <p>My experience so far with the newest "E" type lenses is that in some cases they are <em>less </em>reliable and less reproducible than the mechanical control system. Extreme humidity and cold seems to cause some problems with the electrical contacts and lead to very large aperture errors. I am not 100% sure of the cause but I suspect the electromagnetic aperture relying on perfect connections on the electrical pins between camera body and lens. I could actually verify this the next time I encounter it, by switching to the aperture ring control on the E lens being used (PC-E). I don't think new is always better and think that "wait and see" rather than "abandon everything old in favour of the newest thing" may be the course of action.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <p>Nikon cameras, at least my D3, have the admirable trait of shooting at a reduced rate once the buffer is filled. That rate depends on the transfer speed of the card and the processing speed of the camera. In my D3, there doesn't seem to be any advantage using 90 MB/s v 60 MB/s cards. I see no way to predict the results in a D-500 (or D5) without having the camera in hand.</p> <p>Resistance in metals decreases as temperature decreases. Contacts either work or not. They don't "slow down" the signal transfer. If the new E diaphragms are sluggish in the cold, it is a mechanical and/or a battery issue.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <p>Ilkka: Let's agree to differ. I absolutely don't think that Nikon should remove backwards compatibility from their enthusiast FX cameras - I've claimed before that I'd like <i>better</i> compatibility in fact. I just believe that for a high-end sports camera market - the people like Dieter who will splash out on the fastest new cards to use with the camera - most will use recent lenses - at least AF, if not AF-S. (Yes, I know there are enthusiasts using these cameras with old glass, but I didn't expect them to be the target market.) The newest 135 f/2.8 is the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S; it's not clear to me that the smallish 135 f/2.8 (of which I have one) is such a priority when you're already carrying a D5.<br /> <br /> It's too early to get rid of the aperture lever, but losing the aperture following tab is something that seemed reasonable in a lot of budget film Nikons. This won't stop the DC lenses working on high end sports cameras - you just couldn't use the aperture ring. There's no reason AI-S lenses couldn't continue to work, especially chipped/AI-P ones like most Zeiss, Samyang, etc. lenses. If it makes the camera more robust, I think that's a higher priority for the D5 and D500 than ultimate compatibility. Nikon could always make stop-down metering work again. So I'd not be surprised if the D6 went this way.<br /> <br /> I don't think the high-end, heavy cameras are going to lose an AF motor any time soon. With my mythical idea of a D7x00-priced FX camera, that's different. There are a number of DX shooters who prioritise FX glass with an eventual plan to upgrade (I know some; I was the Canon equivalent once) and if they're from the D3x00 or D5x00 then those lenses will be AF-S. If you want the privilege of using manual-focus glass, much of which is soft at wider apertures because of older designs (sorry, but...), you'll spend a premium on a D750 or its successor, which is a better camera - just as in DX you'd get a D7200. I'm absolutely not suggesting getting rid of that, but I think there's a fair share of the market who aren't going to care about old FX glass and who will be happy to stick to AF-S - especially if they're not (yet) buying <i>many</i> FX lenses - and who would like their FX body to be as cheap as possible. There are those like me who would be interested in an FX second body being as cheap <i>and light</i> as possible. I may be in a market of 1, but I doubt it.<br /> <br /> I don't think we can generalise that everyone wanting a D7x00-priced FX body is going to go there with a collection of ancient glass or want to build a huge shelf of Nikkors. The FT-1 can't do AF-D (IIRC), nor can the budget DX bodies; I expect Nikon to replace the 135 f/2 (with one that works, as opposed to my strategy of dumping it as useless) and 105 at some point - presumably they're not high sellers, or they would have done so. Nothing I'm suggesting stops manual focus working even so, especially with stop-down metering or default AI-S support. I'm not all that convinced that Nikon want everyone to buy historical Nikkors; sell someone an FX body with a 24-120 f/4 for $1800 or a 24-85 for $1500 (guessing prices) and I'm sure Nikon could milk the sales of some AF-S primes. I certainly wouldn't care whether my back-up body could handle every lens in my collection. It's not like the A7R would interact any better with the lenses - although it would stop-down meter!<br /> <br /> Anyway, so much for my huge diversion that I'm trying not to have. (Did Godwin have a Df?) I do think the D610 is due an replacement, maybe alongside the D810, but we'll see. I'm way more interested in actual reviews of the D5 and D500 once they're shipping.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <blockquote> <p>It is commonly accepted terminology (even if technically incorrect) that the buffer size specification is the number of shots you can do in a burst at maximum fps before the camera slows down.</p> </blockquote> <p>That is not the case at all.</p> <p>Take a look at DPReview's comparison between the D7100 and D7200:<br> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7200<br> It states that the D7100's RAW buffer is 6 frames and the D7200 18 frames, for 14-bit lossless compressed RAW. The type of fast/slow memory card used is not mentioned, appropriately, since that is an unrelated factor.</p> <p>I own both cameras. The D7100's RAW buffer is 6 frames, and it can write about 3 frames a second into Sandisk 95 MB/sec SD cards. At 6 fps, typically the D7100 can write about 9 to 10 frames before it starts slowing down. In other words, in about a second and half.</p> <p>Nikon's statement about the D500's "buffer" is misleading. Even XQD cards have different speed ratings. Some of the slowest Sony XQD cards have a 80 MB/sec write speed, slower than even the 95MB Sandisk UHS-1.</p> <p>For those who are buying the D500 to shoot @ 10 fps, I would pay close attention to the type of memory cards you use. Both XQD and SD UHS-II have various speed ratings. Needless to day, the fast ones will cost more. Additionally, memory cards are a worse "investment" than even DSLRs. They lose the value rapidly. The good news is that XQD may seem super expensive, it might not be the case any more in a few months.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <blockquote> <p>It is commonly accepted terminology (even if technically incorrect) that the buffer size specification is the number of shots you can do in a burst at maximum fps before the camera slows down.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's been my understanding too; at the point where the camera slows down, the memory is full. Yes, the buffer of the D7100 is given as 6 fps - but the camera keeps shooting at a lower rate virtually forever (given a reasonably fast SD card). If card write speeds are no longer the limiting factor, maybe it makes sense to specify how long a burst can last (and maybe have an artificial limit).</p> <blockquote> <p>Nikon cameras, at least my D3, have the admirable trait of shooting at a reduced rate once the buffer is filled.</p> </blockquote> <p>Last one I remember where it was possible to fill the buffer and having to wait forever (order of a minute or so) for it it to clear was the D200 - which had a maximum write speed somewhere around 10MB/s if I remember correctly (faster cards didn't make a difference). The D300 was limited at somewhere around 30MB/s - I never managed to "fill" the buffer on that one. IIRC, then the D3/D3S maxed out somewhere below 45MB/s.</p> <p>Backward compatibility: while it is true for me that I no longer care if a new camera would allow metering with Ai/Ai-S lenses or even be able to drive AF lenses (since all I have now is AF-S and I would rather stick my 105/2.5 on the A7 than any Nikon camera) - that is most likely not true for the majority of Nikon users. <br /> Andrew's envisioned low-end FX camera would compete with used D610 bodies in terms of price - what would persuade anyone to purchase a even more stripped down version?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <p>D5 "buffer capacity" given here: http://digitalphotographylive.com/nikon-d5-buffer-capacity/<br> Even Nikon specifies a card when stating 12fps, up to 200 14-bit lossless compressed RAW: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d5/index.htm (using Lexar 2933x XQD 2.0 card).</p> <p>To me, the number of shots that I can take in a burst before the camera slows down is more meaningful than the information when the buffer is "full". Apparently, the numbers are related anyway - the buffer is full when the camera slows down - which, of course, depends on how fast the card is the camera is writing to.</p> <p>A hypothetical D7100 with UHS-II or XQD card reader would no longer slow down after 6 frames but maybe after 20, 30 or even more (though it is doubtful that the Expeed 3 processor is capable enough to make that work).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip_chipowski Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <p>I want to help nudge this thread towards 300, in honor of the D300 successor. </p> <p>So Dieter, tell me more about why you like the 105mm on Sony? I understand you lose the wide-open metering ability. Maybe not a problem if you are mostly using the lens at wide apertures. Do you find it easier to use manual focus with EVF tools?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <blockquote> <p>A hypothetical D7100 with UHS-II or XQD card reader would no longer slow down after 6 frames but maybe after 20, 30 or even more (though it is doubtful that the Expeed 3 processor is capable enough to make that work).</p> </blockquote> <p>And the D7100 is only SD UHS-I compatible (since UHS-II SD cards have a second row of electronic contacts). You can insert a UHS-II SD card inside the D7100, but it will still transfer at UHS-I speed.</p> <p>Have fun forcing an XQD card into the D7100. :-)</p> <p>The problem is that if you shoot 14-bit RAW @ 10 fps, the D500's buffer seems to be only 14 frames. If you use the fastest 95MF/sec UHS-1 card such as the SanDisk Extreme Pro I use on the D7100 and D7200, the D500 can probably dump 4 files onto that card per second. (The D7100/D7200 can dump 3 files per second, but the D500 files should be smaller at 20MP.) In other words, the D500's buffer will fill up in approximately 2 seconds (20 frames @ 10 fps), and then it'll slow down to about 4 fps limited by the card.</p> <p>That is why you probably want to get some fast XQD and/or fast UHS-II cards along with the D500. Those slow 80MB/sec XQD card will actually be worst than the UHS-I card I mentioned above.</p> <p>Again, we'll test all of these when the actual camera is available.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <blockquote> <p>Do you find it easier to use manual focus with EVF tools?</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly the reason - it is so much easier to manual focus with the magnifier. Obviously, there are issues when trying this on anything that moves. Focus peaking can be helpful but is not good enough to pinpoint focus. Metering is at whatever aperture the lens is set at (a feature that Nikon has crippled on all (most of?) their DSLRs for ages; I tend to focus wide open and then stop down to the working aperture and let the camera pick the shutter speed.</p> <p>Using lenses that are known no focus-shift when stopped down can also be dealt with easily on the A7 - just focus at the working aperture. The EVF will be brighter than the optical finder of a DSLR under most conditions.</p> <blockquote> <p>And the D7100 is only SD UHS-I compatible (since UHS-II SD cards have a second row of electronic contacts). You can insert a UHS-II SD card inside the D7100, but it will still transfer at UHS-I speed.</p> </blockquote> <p>Which is why I wrote "hypothetical D7100" - i.e. one that was UHS-II or XQD capable.</p> <blockquote> <p>Those slow 80MB/sec XQD card will actually be worst than the UHS-I card I mentioned above.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not necessarily since the stated write speed is not what they usually can achieve. Entirely possible that a 80MB/s XQD card can beat a 95MB/s UHS-I SD card; only actual tests can tell.</p> <blockquote> <p>Again, we'll test all of these when the actual camera is available.</p> </blockquote> <p>Did you already request a test sample from Nikon?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 14, 2016 Author Share Posted January 14, 2016 <blockquote> <p>an FX camera without full F monut lens support would be a non starter, a <strong>total failure</strong>. FX users typically save money by using manual focus lenses and old AF Nikkors and many are enthusiastic about their old lenses' imaging characteristics. No user of new FX lenses would want a cheap body, they spent a ton of money on lenses and they want the best features - since the body costs a fraction of what a set of good new lenses costs, it's pointless to save pennies on the body. </p> </blockquote> <p>That's pretty much the point i was trying to make. What Andrew is suggesting here is completely counter-intuitive to Nikon's ethos. Another point, too, is that being restricted to new lenses would mean not using most of the more compact ones, which would be counter-intuitive to the ethos of the camera Andrew is trying to convince us is viable. If you're gonna do all that, you might as well be Fuji or Sony, companies which arent heavily identified with legacy lenses. Andrew, it's a good thing you work for Samsung and not Nikon. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 14, 2016 Author Share Posted January 14, 2016 <blockquote> <p>I want to help nudge this thread towards 300, in honor of the D300 successor.</p> </blockquote> <p>almost there, Chip.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Doo Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <p>Looks like it's reaching the 300 goal soon. Did Shun announce a prize?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Clemmons Photography Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <p>Does anyone know if the D500 will be the first Nikon body compatible with the SDXC II card?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <blockquote> <p>Does anyone know if the D500 will be the first Nikon body compatible with the SDXC II card?</p> </blockquote> <p>The D500 is the first Nikon DSLR body that is fully compatible with SD UHS-II cards, i.e. taking advantage of the higher transfer speed. UHS stands for Ultra High Speed. As I mentioned above, UHS-II cards have a second row of electronic contacts for a higher transfer rate, but its physical size is the same as older SD cards so that you can insert them into older devices. They are "compatible" but you won't get UHS-II speed.</p> <ul> <li>The theoretical limit for UHS-I is 104 MB/sec. Therefore those SanDisk 95 MB/sec cards are pretty close to the limit.</li> <li>UHS-II is up to 312 MB/sec. It is roughly 3 times as fast. Since the D7100/D7200 can write about three 24MP RAW files onto those 95 MB/sec, theoretically, you can probably write close to 10 20MP RAW files per second onto the fastest UHS-II cards.</li> </ul> <p>SDXC implies 64G or higher capacity. You can have UHS-II with 16G and 32G, which are SDHC.</p> <blockquote> <p>Looks like it's reaching the 300 goal soon. Did Shun announce a prize?</p> </blockquote> <p>I was going to buy everybody posted to this thread a D5 with a couple of XQD cards if I hit the $1.5 billion PowerBall lotto jackpot, but unfortunately I wasn't one of the three winners yesterday. :-(</p> <p>I recall that the thread about the Df announcement hit some 850 posts.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Doo Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <blockquote> <p>I was going to buy everybody posted to this thread a D5 with a couple of XQD cards if I hit the $1.5 billion PowerBall lotto jackpot, but unfortunately I wasn't one of the three winners yesterday. :-(</p> </blockquote> <p>Heard a guy in CA won and I thought that was you. ;-) Bummer!</p> <blockquote> <p>I recall that the thread about the Df announcement hit some 850 posts.</p> </blockquote> <p>No kidding!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <p>I think this was the thread: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00c829">Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR</a><br> We have a long way to go to match it. :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now