Nikon Announced D5, D500, and SB-5000

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Okay, I am the 300th poster to this thread. What do I get?</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Barry, it is like a hole-in-one. Drinks are on you tonight!</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Okay, since all of you can't make it to my house tonight I will have a drink for each of you. A very small one for each of you.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Assuming I have a SD UHS II card and a XQD card (G series) in a D500, which card should I have the D500 write first in order to get 10 FPS for the longest period of time?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>right on barry! i knew we could do it!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Michael, first of all, please keep in mind that <strong>I have none of these cards</strong>. As prices will continue to fall, there is no point to buy anything until the last minute. Nikon and Sandisk have a close working relationship. The introduction of the D500 may finally convince Sandisk to get into the XQD market, and more competition will lead to lower prices.</p>

<P>Obviously it is best to wait a few weeks until people test the D500 with actual cards to get some experience, but if you are getting a D500 immediately, as a starting point, I would get:</p>

<ul>

<li>Sandisk Extreme Pro UHS-II 280MB/sec http://www.sandisk.com/home/memory-cards/sd-cards/extremepro-sd-uhs-ii currently about $74.95 for 32G</li>

<li>Lexar 2933x XQD: http://www.lexar.com/pro-2933x-xqd currently about $122.36 for 32G</li>

</ul>

<p>I would get both 32G, probably the smallest capacity for practical purposes so that I wouldn't over-invest, for a total of $197.31. That is not exactly cheap but still below $200 together. These high prices can easily be cut in half by the end of 2016. I always set them up in the backup mode so that I get two copies of each image. If you really shoot a lot before you can upload, you may need 64G cards.</p>

<p>If you set them in the tandem mode, that Lexar XQD is faster than the Sandisk UHS-II.</p>

<p>It looks like the real buffer size on the D500 is kind of small, with respect to 10 fps. (It looks like it is only 14 to 16 frames, depending on 12 or 14 bit and which compression mode you use. @ 10 fps, you can fill it in 1.5 seconds unless you can dump the images onto a really fast card.) If you use a slower card, as I calculated above, your can run out of buffer in 2, 3 seconds and then it'll be perhaps 4 fps.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>what would persuade anyone to purchase

a even more stripped down version?</blockquote>

 

<p>I was suggesting a MultiCAM 3500-II - I think there's

still enough differentiation from the D750, even before

the D5 AF trickles down to a replacement (speed, pentaprism, flip-out finder, lens compatibility, dual card slots...) Plus HypotheticalCam would be lighter, have a

warranty, etc. compared with a used D610 - why buy a 6D instead of a used 5D2? I'd

also think about taking the flash off for robustness (all

the cool kids are doing it, including Canon), but it might

be a harder sell to the budget upgraders, even with a

flash bundle.</p>

 

<blockquote>If you're gonna do all that [lose full

historical lens support], 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.</blockquote>

 

<p>If all Nikon have going for them compared with

mirrorless cameras is legacy compatibility, they have

bigger problems than I can discuss - and Canon should

give up too. True, an EVF is an alternative way to

implement a lightweight replacement for a pentaprism -

except the mount means there's space for the mirror,

and plenty still prefer an optical finder for response,

dynamic range and battery life. I wasn't talking about

removing the aperture lever, so anything AI-S or newer

should work better than your average adaptor mount. It

doesn't seem to me that Nikon's response to the A7

should be to give up and leave Sony to it. And of course, crop-sensor mirrorless cameras can use focal reducing converters to get FX effective apertures; DX DSLRs can't, so with only premium FX bodies, Nikon have a current disadvantage.<br />

<br />

Anyway, just a thought experiment, and not one if intended to let run, especially as a parasite on an interesting thread. I'm an engineer, not

a product manager, and I make no claims of being able

to run Nikon (I'd never have thought of the Df or V1). I'm

surprised at the universal lack of interest - even if we're

mostly not the D5x00 upgrader target market, I might

have expected a few others after a backup - but pleased

to have had the discussion.<br />

<br />

More on topic, I'm technically curious how much ram is

dedicated to the buffer, but for shooting I'd rather know

how many shots I could keep going for with a range of

typical cards, not just hypothetical infinitely slow ones -

even if my Eye-Fi came close!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Quick question, on topic for once. Thom Hogan wrote

about the wireless flash recently, and mentioned that the

WR-R10 connects via the 10-pin socket. I wasn't paying

attention, but does this mean that, short of putting an

SB5000 in commander mode in your hotshoe, you can't

use a wired remote trigger and wireless flash at the

same time? That would be a fail for me. Or is there a

pass-through?

[Mike D]

<p>Shun, I was considering buying the cheapest XQD card possible but using a Lexar 128 GB, 150 MB/sec SD UHS II card as the primary card ($74). I don't plan on using the XQD for awhile. As the XQD cards go down in price over the next year or so, I would then jump in and buy a high capacity XQD card and assign it as my primary card. Just a thought on strategy until XQD cards come down in price. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I almost always use dual cards in the backup mode (to minimize the likelihood of losing images due to corruption), where the slower card will dominate memory card write speed. In other words, in my case I cannot afford to have one slow card.</p>

<p>If you don't use dual cards for backup, you might as well leave the XQD slot open. Unless you start with a card that is almost full, there is almost no way for you to fill a 128G card in a day. Of course, you can keep an XQD card there as a spare.</p>

<p>Be careful with those Lexar SD cards. The speed they advertise is usually the read speed, but the actual write speed is slower than the read speed.</p>

<p>Please keep in mind that this is merely a rough, back-of-the-envelop type calculation. Let's assume the write speed is indeed 150 MB/sec. That means you can probably write 6 20MP RAW files per second. If you are shooting at 10 fps, that means the buffer will accumulate 4 frames/second. In about 3 to 4 seconds, the buffer will be full and your D500 will be down to 6 fps dictated by the card write speed. When you stop shooting, it'll take 2 to 3 seconds to empty out the buffer and you can start over.</p>

<p>Only you can decide that kind of scenario works for you or not. And please verify that 150MB/sec write speed. If that is off, this whole calculation falls apart. Personally, I think the 280 MB/Sec Sandisk UHS-II makes more sense. I would save money by getting a card with a smaller capacity (32G or 64G) but not sacrifice speed, assuming that speed is your reason to get a D500 (or D5) to begin with.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Lexar 128 GB, 150 MB/sec SD UHS II</p>

</blockquote>

<p>150MB/s read speed, claimed write speed: 75MB/s (in tesst using a UHS-II capable card reader actually a little faster at around 86MB/s): http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/sd-cards/lexar-professional-1000x-uhs-ii-128gb-sdxc-memory-card/</p>

<p>The smaller 32GB card wrote at about 72 MB/s in a UHS-II capable Olympus E-M5II: http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/sd-cards/lexar-professional-1000x-uhs-ii-32gb-sdhc-memory-card/</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>which card should I have the D500 write first in order to get 10 FPS for the longest period of time?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>only the XQD card, by itself, will give you maximum speed. if you put in a SD card in the 2nd slot and set it to auto-backup, it will affect the write speed of the faster card, slowing it down.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm surprised at the universal lack of interest</p>

</blockquote>

<p>either that or way too persistent in pushing a threadjack which was a non-starter from the jump. i dont mean to crush your dreams, but maybe you could say something nice about the D5 to compensate for the off-topic excursions.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If you put a WR-A10 and WR-R10 on the 10-pin connector to trigger SB-5000's, the flash shoe is still free and I would expect that you can put a third party radio trigger, a PC-to-hot-shoe adapter, or an optical CLS flash or CLS controller on it to trigger other flashes. But I don't know how well these all work together without trying, of course. I'm not sure if the PC connector above the 10-pin connector can still be attached to a cord; perhaps it can (by first taking out the WR setup), but most nowadays don't use that kind of triggering because of various reasons one being that the PC cord easily disengages. The radio triggers that I use don't need to use the PC connector, they pick the signal from the hot shoe (although they <em>can</em> be connected to the PC connector alternatively).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>150MB/s read speed, claimed write speed: 75MB/s (in tesst using a UHS-II capable card reader actually a little faster at around 86MB/s)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Avoid that card; that is even below maximum UHS-I (not UHS-II) write speed. Its precise write speed on the D500 will have to be tested, but it is not going to deviate a whole lot from 75MB/sec to 86MB/sec, which implies writing approximately 3 D500 RAW files per second. It will only take about 2 seconds to fill the buffer and your D500 will slow down to 3fps, limited by the card.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"which card should I have the D500 write first in order to get 10 FPS for the longest period of time?"<br>

only the XQD card, by itself, will give you maximum speed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not merely an XQD card, it must be a fast XQD card, in today's standards. I.e.:</p>

<ul>

<li>Lexar 2933x: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1186719-REG/lexar_lxqd32gcrbna2933_pro_2933x_xqd_memory.html or</li>

<li>Sony G series: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1086276-REG/sony_qd_g32a_32gb_g_series_xqd.html</li>

</ul>

<P>

In Nikon's D500 brochure, they use the Lexar 2933x XQD (64G) as an example. Therefore, that should be a very safe choice: http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/d500/common/pdf/technology-digest.pdf

<BR>

The Sony card should also be compatible, but I am not 100% sure that has been tested.

</P>

<p>Again, the D500's buffer seems to be quite shallow. It entirely depends on a very fast write speed onto the memory card to empty the buffer in order to keep 10 fps going beyond a couple of seconds. IMO that is a very reasonable design from Nikon's part, taking full advantage of the technology available today.</p>

<p>It is like getting a nice sports car. You need to have the right type of tires on it and use the right type fuel to keep the entire system going smoothly. I wouldn't skim on the accessories.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>either that or way too persistent in pushing a threadjack which was a non-starter from the jump.</blockquote>

 

<p>I promise, it was a monster that got away from me (and a few hundred posts into a thread about Nikon's most expensive bodies is probably not the place). It should really have been a part of the thread/poll I keep meaning to start on user interface design.<br />

<br />

On that note, to "say something nice about the D5", I'm very pleased that Nikon added the extra programmable buttons to the front of the D5 (even if I guess they're partly for portrait mode like the 1Dx's - I hope they're separately programmable). I approve of ISO being where I reach it, allthough given the programmability of the Rec button, it kind of already was; given that, I have mixed feelings about the mode button moving, because I do change mode occasionally (though not so often that I like dedicating an entire dial to it).<br />

<br />

It's been a while since I handled a D4. How have people been getting on with the AF joysticks? They struck me as a bit awkward and delicate, and potentially redundant given the existing multi-controller (like separate "i" and "Info" buttons); I half wonder if they were a "me too" after Canon added them - but they had to, because the spinny dial is a pain with large AF point counts. Putting them on the D500 as well as the D5 makes me think Nikon are committed, but I always wondered whether I was really missing out on anything with the multicontroller on the D8x0.<br />

<br />

Ilkka: You can get threaded PC-cord cables that don't fall out of the camera; I agree that the non-threaded ones do! I actually found it useful to have CLS sort itself out for default lighting, and then use manual flashes connected to the PC-cord (which doesn't pre-flash, at least last I tried it) for the background. But my concern was wanting to use an existing 10-pin wired trigger (intelligent or otherwise) and simultaneously use remote flash. I know I could remote trigger the camera with Nikon's wireless unit, but given how much they charged for the wired connector (or even the official banana plug cable) I was kind of hoping not to be committed. It's not uncommon for me to want to use a remote trigger if I'm using multiple flashes. I'd still have been far more sold on the wireless flash if Nikon had built the trigger into the new cameras (as well as making it work with the accessory on old models). Needing to attach an extra component, however small, to get wireless flash triggering functionality that I already had with the on-camera flash is annoying, and not just financially.<br />

<br />

Shun: I absolutely agree that getting high-end cards is a good idea for the D5/D500. Still, I value backward-compatibility for the minority of times when I need more capacity. I might still high octane fuel and track tyres in a sports car, but I'd want to be able to put something the garage has in stock on the wheels if I have a blow-out, and I want to be able to pull in to any petrol station if I'm running low.</p>

[ShunCheung]

If you want backward compatibility, buy a Df. Backward compatibility means working with and limited by the older, lower-quality standards. It could be good in some situations. However, for a state-of-the-art, performance product, backward

compatibility is a major negative. That is why I think the CF version of the D5 is a bad idea. Those who choose that

version will likely end up spending extra to get it converted to XQD in a year or two, after XQD gets cheaper.

 

Nikon has also pointed out to me that the 1959-style mechanical aperture control may have difficulty dealing with high fps, where you need to open and close the aperture rapidly and repeatedly. That is part of the motivation for E lenses.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Avoid that card; that is even below maximum UHS-I (not UHS-II) write speed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Judging by the results from this test: http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/olympus-e-m5-ii/sd-card-comparison/ Lexar's 2000x UHS-II card isn't much faster than the 1000x one - at least in the OM E-M5II (so it could be the card or the camera). <br /> Agree with Shun, get one that's recommended by Nikon for the camera you intend to use it in.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IMO that is a very reasonable design from Nikon's part, taking full advantage of the technology available today.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have mixed feelings about the mode button moving</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too - I wonder why Nikon insists on making what needed one hand to operate into a two-handed operation? I hope it can be re-mapped to something that is reachable with the right hand. It's a bad choice - that mode button now operates pretty much like the mode dial on the consumer-style D7x00/D6x0/D750 cameras (which might have been the reason for the move). One thing I absolutely hate on the D7100 I will have to cope with on the D500 as well - and I do change modes quite often. Now every time I do, I have to set the camera down, especially when working with longer lenses hand held. Bad move Nikon, bad move. There's certainly space enough on the top right for another button - just look at Canon who manages a few more in that location (not that I necessarily like the way they are grouping them).<br /> <br /><br /></p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Shun: On backwards compatibility, I actually don't hugely object to the D4 CF + XQD approach, despite having been put off hiring one by the inconvenience of backup mode. My objection was a) to the XQD committee making such a clean break without a transition path (in addition to splitting the market with CFast - but it's not the first time that corporate politics have outweighed consumer interests), and b) to any commitment to XQD at this point when it's unclear whether the format will actually take off. If it does, we're laughing, although the D500 remains a bit of a chimera. I do think Nikon did the right thing with the modular interface - which I'm sure also makes things cheaper if you bend a CF socket pin; shame it's not user-replacable, but you can't have everything. You seem to be very bullish about XQD succeeding; I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. Fortunately, not being in the market for a D5 or D500, it's not currently my problem, and the nearest I've had to a legacy failure is my inability to fit microdrives in a D700 (they're CF type 2).<br />

<br />

Dieter: Nikon might have been bitten by all the grumbling (partly from me) about the ISO button being unreachable. Yay, they fixed it - although arguably they'd already fixed it when they made the Rec button programmable. I'd actually have liked it as an option for one of the front programmble buttons, because then I could have kept my finger on the shutter while using both dials with ISO - maybe Nikon think people can't use the Fn buttons and the front dial simultaneously?. I use mode less than ISO (even though I'm usually in auto-ISO), but I still use it. Maybe it'll be an option for the Rec button? Or maybe the idea is to free up the Rec button so you can program it to be meter mode, which I'm actually annoyed about them moving to the top left in the D810 generation. (Yes, you can force a custom meter mode with the Fn buttons, but it's not quite the same thing.)<br />

<br />

With the UI survey I've been meaning to do for months, I was going to sound out who'd like Canon-like button chording to allow extra options from the Fn buttons. I'd have been on for it, myself, and it wouldn't require so many extra buttons on the dial. Of course, until the user manual comes out, we can't really tell what Nikon have done with these cameras - maybe they've actually allowed all the top left buttons to be remapped arbitrarily, in which case many of my complaints about that being a stupid place to put those controls would go away. (Likewise the AF control modes. Nikon, my left hand remains busy holding the expensive lens you sold me. I appreciate that you'd like me to drop it so I have to buy a new one, but...)<br />

<br />

Fun times. Fingers crossed. Literally, in the case of some of the controls.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Andrew, for me the "solution" Nikon should implement is easy: EVERY function that needs a button press and a change via command or sub-command dial NEEDS to be reachable with a finger from the right hand. That includes: AF-mode, ISO (and please give an option to change the minimum shutter speed without the need to dive into the menu - at least now on the D810 with "top item of MY MENU it opens the entire AutoISO menu, not just the on/off portion like on the D500)), BKT (why can't that be on the right side of the prism housing instead of the left), Exposure Compensation. QUAL and WB are not something I change often, so I don't mind having right-hand access to them. Ditto with the metering mode - even though I don't see a reason why it couldn't be somewhere on the right as it always has been (either on the prism, around the AEL/AFL button or as a separate one).<br>

Also, if a button can be reprogrammed it needs to have ALL the possible options made available, not just a more or less random subset.<br>

Video mode needs and extra release button - why? What's wrong with using the shutter release in conjunction with a fourth position of the surrounding switch that says "video"? Would also eliminate the need for the two-position switch surrounding LV. Boy, that switch could bring back AF-mode control like it was on the D300/D700. Maybe Nikon eventually gets there - to paraphrase Churchill "you can count on Nikon to eventually do the right thing, but only after all other options have been exhausted".<br>

I am not familiar with the intricacies of the Canon control layout (the mode button on the left stick immediately out as undesirable) and I am certainly not a friend of the top vertical command dial and the huge misplaced one on the back. Four buttons in a row on the top panel don't strike me as a very ergonomic solution either. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Dieter: Absolutely agreed about the right hand (have I ever mentioned it? :-) ). I'm happy for these to be programmable options, since I know there are those who find it all less objectionable than I do and who feel their right hand gets overloaded, but I do want them. I also use exposure compensation a lot (partly when I think the matrix meter is confused, partly when I'm trying to ETTR with the spot meter), just to prove I'm different. White balance I almost never change (probably less than I should, if only for metering), but certainly there are others who do more JPEG processing in-camera. I've no idea why the programmable options have to be subsets - it's not like it can be making things easier for technical support.<br />

<br />

As mentioned, I'd really like AF-S/AF-C to be selectable from the right too, although having finally transitioned to AF-On usage I need that less than I once did. Toggling AF area mode in a hurry is sometimes useful. I appreciate that decoupling the AF motor needs a dedicated control with mechanical linkage (not that I'd mind that being by my right pinkie) so manual focus might be harder. I'm not 100% sure about the ring about the shutter, though - I quite like that turning on the lights.<br />

<br />

I'm not going to say I like Canon's design decisions. For a while I was envious of their vertical control ring, although last time I used it I nearly dislocated my thumb, but I've always preferred Nikon's choice of leaving the index finger on the shutter while letting the front dial turn - unless you want EC or changing ISO, or... However, Canon have (at least historically) got some modes that are activated by holding down combinations of other buttons. As a programmable option, I'd like that, so I can get at more things quickly with the same number of fingers. I probably wouldn't put things there by default (as Canon does), because it tends to be a bit confusing. At least the D5 having extra front buttons should help a bit.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun: On backwards compatibility, I actually don't hugely object to the D4 CF + XQD approach, despite having been put off hiring one by the inconvenience of backup mode.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am afraid that it is not merely inconvenience. Remember that in the backup mode, the write speed is determined by the slower one between the two cards. With 12 fps at 20MP, up from 11 fps at 16MP on the D4/D4S, CF + XQD is a non starter. Doing so will make the backup mode for RAW capture essentially useless.</p>

<p>You are paying $6500 on a new camera. Nikon is not asking you to buy all new lenses. Spending a few hundred dollars on new cards to match the performance of the new camera is very reasonable.</p>

<p>I am curious to see what Canon is going to do with the successor to the 1DX, presumably a Mark II.</p>

<p>P.S. There is a new mirrorless camera with dual memory cards: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/retro-through-and-through-fujifilm-x-pro2-first-impressions-review<br>

However, while the Fuji X-Pro 2 has two SD slots, only one slot is UHS-II compatible.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>How have people been getting on with the AF joysticks? They struck me as a bit awkward and delicate, and potentially redundant given the existing multi-controller (like separate "i" and "Info" buttons);</p>

</blockquote>

<p>can't say personally, as i havent used one, but they offer faster focus point selection, theoretically. dont know i would consider that redundant as the multi-controller wasnt a perfect solution. incidentally, the new Fuji XPro2 also has this feature, so it appears this is the new professional standard. i will say that in the field this makes a huge difference, and is one of the disappointing things about the Sony A7 cameras. That extra button push or two just slows things down, causing decisive moments to be, er, less decisive.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Shun: Well, any XQD at all put me off <i>hiring</i> a D4! Not everyone buys, or needs the best possible performance from the camera. I do agree that a split is bad from a backup perspective - I like the flexibility for a RAW/JPEG separate mode in the D810, but that's a different problem, and I suspect less desirable to the D5/D500 than D8x0 shooters. I'd not be surprised if CF-based D5s do quite well with camera hire shops. One thing I'd quite like to see is a mode for alternating output between the slots - effectively, running two CF cards in RAID-0, which would get around at least some of the performance limit.<br />

<br />

Canon didn't respond to the D4s. I, too, am interested to see what they come up with, and why they let CES go past. Photokina is too late for an Olympics camera, although I'd not be surprised to see a 5D4 (and maybe a D820 and new D6x0 model) there. I imagine Canon's response will be one of: a) a 30-60Hz 8K video camera with the ability to record raw from a frame buffer burst; b) nothing, in the belief that sports shooters can capture stills from 4K video and photojournalists no longer have the budget to use more than their cell phones; or c) something in between.<br />

<br />

I'd spotted the X-Pro 2 (which is still huge, like the first one). Interesting, especially the AF system. As you say, the split slot compatibility is weird, possibly more so than the D500's.<br />

<br />

Eric: What confusees me is that I'm not quite sure what's wrong with the current multi-controller. Maybe the joysticks have some analogue speed control for getting across the AF grid? Canon never had a rear joystick (and the spinny dials on, say, the 1v look really inefficient for selecting AF points); Fuji have four separate buttons that aren't as directional as the Nikon multi-controller, so I can see both of them needing something. Not that this is new to the D5/D500, I'm just interested that they've stuck with it after the D4 generation. I've heard some comments of people having trouble with them. I guess, as ever, I should try to learn what I'm talking about (I appreciate this would be a change). Who'd like to give me a D4 for research? I'm happy to wait until your D5 turns up.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Since we've been talking about the Fn buttons, I've just got around to looking at dpreview's hands-on with the D5. I realised I had a few misconceptions. Firstly there's an Fn3 below the buttons to the left of the LCD, which I'd not noticed and where it's unlikely to be all that much use to me, should a camera I actually own follow suit. Maybe Nikon engineers have prehensile noses. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_shrew">Wuffle</a>. Actually, it appears to be a renamed "Info". Good - I was hoping Nikon would make the Info button programmable, it's the only thing I can think of to do with it. And it's actually reachable by thumb on a D810. One more for my BIOS update list. (Charge me a modicum to upgrade if you like, Nikon! I'd rather have a camera with new features than have to part-exchange the whole body for software niceties - I'm sure we would work out Nikon's profit margin and shoot for that much.)<br />

<br />

Secondly, I'd thought there was another (Fn3) button on the bottom of the lens mount, for the portrait grip (like Canon's arrangement on the 1Dx and where I might have reached it with my right pinky). No such luck - clearly I was looking at shots from the wrong angle, and it's just an indent that's presumably for grip. As DPReview mention, Fn2 is now reasonably easy to reach from a portrait grip position, but you're on your own for Pv and Fn1.<br />

<br />

Then there's the "medium" and "small" lossless raw files. Have Nikon done sRAW properly, or is this about cropping? I'm confused, or they are. A binning-based genuine raw capture that was smaller than just using lossy compression would be pretty welcome - although not as welcome as it would be on a D8x0. With the original small raw, I'm unclear whether Nikon were worried by the medium format guys who have binning patents, or whether they just went off on a tangent.<br />

<br />

I'd missed the "removable viewfinder" too. (It appears to be just the cover, not the whole finder like the F5.)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not quite sure what's wrong with the current multi-controller. Maybe the joysticks have some analogue speed control for getting across the AF grid? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, AFAIK, the difference is direct access control, i.e. a dedicated control just for AF point selection, as opposed to, well, a multi-controller which does other things as well. In practice, i didnt find the multi-controller to be too slow, but i welcome something faster, even incrementally. the other thing is the ergonomic placement of the controller which should theoretically aid in one-hand operation while using the OVF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji have four separate buttons that aren't as directional as the Nikon multi-controller</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's not necessarily the buttons so much with Fuji (though those can be bothersome) as the fact that you have to do do a button push before you can access this feature, which requires two-hand operation. this is addressed on the new Xpro2 btw.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not that this is new to the D5/D500, I'm just interested that they've stuck with it after the D4 generation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the reality is that these cameras are gaining more and more AF points. with the d500/d5, we're now up to 153 from 51, so there's more real estate to cover. i can't see this being a bad thing, or even a reason to stick with an older camera. but i think you can just use the multi-controller if you want.</p>