Nikon Announced D5, D500, and SB-5000

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D3 and D300 were announced together on August 23, 2007: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00MKgI">Tokyo report: D3 and D300</a><br>

There was plenty of fanfare as Nikon invited a lot of press from around the world to Tokyo for the product introduction, about a year before the 2008 global economic downturn. I talked to Ellis Vener back then. Nikon flew him on business class from the US to Tokyo, which is expensive to visit. Multiply that by over 100 people from around the world and more from inside Japan. I am sure Nikon spent multiple million dollars on that event.</p>

<p>Nikon announced the D700 about 10 months later on July 1, 2008: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6257284390/nikond700previewed</p>

<p>The D3 and D700 have essentially the same electronics, but the D700 has no built-in vertical grip and no dual memory cards. I was on the verge of getting a D3 but eventually decided on the cheaper D700. There is little doubt that the D700 took a lot of sales from the D3. I have been wrong before, of course :-), but I really doubt that Nikon will ever do something similar again; i.e. a cheaper version of the flagship camera at ~60% of the price.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Yes. Starting with the D4/D8x0, Nikon CLEARLY decided that the big pro camera that can double as a hammer was going to be built for speed, and the studio/landscape/portait/wedding etc. group needed something very different.</p>

<p>They made the right call, and if you look at Canon's history in this regard, they did the same thing.</p>

<p>But THIS time, they have made the D500 JUST as appealing to quick-action photogs as the D5, more in many ways. I mean, if you are going to be shooting those long lenses, you want a D500 BAD, because you can do things you never could before. If you are shooting a wedding with a D5 or D500 you read the wrong photography magazines or web sites.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>looking at the link shun provided to the music photographer's review, it appears there are a lot of subtle tweaks which could enhance UI and haptics, such as: the tiltable screen is also a touchscreen, there's a joystick thingy for AF point selection, flicker reduction for florescent lighting, no optical low-pass filter for sharper detail, and 15 AF points which work down to -4 EV, in addition to the 153 AF points, 99 cross-type sensors and 55 user-selectable AF points. those are all performance-oriented features, while the 4k video is de rigeur for videographers (FWIW, RJ, you can buy a 4k television right now). For D300 users, photojournalists, action shooters and video shooters, this is exactly what we wanted. if the high-ISO performance claimed is to be believed, there's no need to shoot with an FX camera just for that. Of course, if none of those things make a difference in your shooting, the D500 may not be for you.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>The more I read about the D500, the more I like it. Looks like it can do just about anything I would want from a camera. The only problem is I suspect it will take a long time before the camera comes down to my price range, but I am happy to wait :)</p>

<p>I always appreciate the impact of a new Nikon on the used market for older models. The D300 already sells in my area for around $300 so I cannot imagine it goes much lower than that. Maybe this camera somehow will force more D700 models onto the used market - I can hope ;)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>However, the big difference back in 2012 was that there was no accompanying D400 to go along with the D4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is still my belief that a simultaneous D4/D400 was planned - but earthquake/tsunami interfered. A 2011/2012 D400 would have been a different beast than the 2016 D500 altogether - most likely D7000 technology in a D800-style body and a fps-boost from using the accessory grip.. Even a 2013/2014 D400 would have been a lot different - D7100/D7200 technology in a D800-style body. In both cases, it would have been quite hard to justify a $400-$500 price increase over the D7000/D7100/D7200. The $2000 price-tag of the D500 appears high (though a D300 was $1800 at introduction) but at least to me is justified given what is being offered. IMHO, the D500 doesn't compete with the equally priced D750 at all - entirely different beasts.<br /> There've been some voices that the D400 should have come with a D3-style body - at a $2400-$2500 price point - IMHO fairly unrealistic. Though as it now turns out, the D500/MB-D17 is priced in exactly that range.</p>

<p>Now we have pretty much a repeat of the 2007 D3/D300 scenario - Nikon sticks the FX-flagship technology into a high-end DX camera. The main difference to me is that the D300 was fairly "universal" whereas the D500 is clearly geared towards a niche (in what it offers beyond a D7200). The D300 had to compete with the much more expensive D2X - and proved to be the better choice for many. As Shun pointed out above, the D500 competes with a used D3/D4 bodies - that don't offer the telephoto-reach advantage of the DX sensor.</p>

<p>I am now glad I didn't jump on the opportunity of getting a discounted refurbished D7200 body to "upgrade" to from my current D7100 a couple of weeks back. I held out long for the D400 until even I was convinced that it wouldn't materialize. I will very strongly consider the purchase of the D500 - until fall for sure. I certainly don't like the way the D7100/D7200 feels and handles - and hope that the D500 feels and handles very much like the D800 (even though Nikon had to move some cheese again). Prime reason for wanting the D500 though is the new AF system - my hope is that it will indeed improve significantly on what's currently available.</p>

<p>Just like Nikon wanted me to - I have moved to FX for most everything I shoot (to a large extent because a D400 didn't make an appearance); he D500 will likely almost exclusively see use with the 80-400 and 200-500. I only purchase the D7100 to overcome some issues the D300 displayed when used with the AF-S 80-400; ultimately it proved not to be the solution though.</p>

<p>Will there be a D700-type FX version of the D500 - I strongly doubt that. Though I never understood why Nikon didn't go for a D800H/D800X approach. </p>

<p>I am surprised that Nikon released the D500 at this time - certainly a very very late D300/D300S "replacement". But better late than never.</p>

<p>Re: Df sales. Naturally, I don't have numbers - but I've been told that not a single person walked into the local camera store and out with a Df that hadn't come in specifically asking for one; not one "undecided" found enough appeal in a Df to choose it over another body.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Shun, I did notice in some of your posts that your attitude about a high speed, cropped frame body from Nikon had changed in the past week. I didn't realize that you had some additional knowledge. One feature I didn't expect was the automatic micro focus adjust feature. Along with my Nikon D810 and D7200, I also shoot with a couple of A77 IIs and one of the advantages of the DSLT is that you get what you see in the electronic viewfinder so focus adjustment is non-existent. </p>

<p> </p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>The D3 and D300 were announced together on August 23, 2007 ... Nikon announced the D700 about 10 months later on July 1, 2008</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How about a 'D900', D5 sensor, 8fps, by the end of the year..? But I suspect we'll get another slow FX body with some ridiculous pixel count instead, a successor to the D810 rather than the D700.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>One feature I didn't expect was the automatic micro focus adjust feature.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've always wondered why something like it had not been introduced a lot earlier - in fact, as soon as live view became available.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>The $2,000 price tag is a bit high, especially considering the current Yen/Dollar valuation. Nikon's bottom line (like all camera companies at present) is hurting, so I'm sure it is a way to make up for lagging sales. By the end of the year I would imagine it will be discounted, maybe even before then if sales aren't what they expect. Or maybe the high price is to make up for pricing the 200-500mm lens too low. :) Speaking of the 200-500mm, for nature photographers this lens on the D500 should be a wicked combination with an investment of just $3,500. That's still not pocket change, but thousands less than what was possible image-wise just a couple of years ago.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The D5 and D500 have "auto fine tune" feature for AF, i.e. utilizing the live view image the lens and camera are calibrated for PDAF optimization with a few button presses. Very good.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I did notice in some of your posts that your attitude about a high speed, cropped frame body from Nikon had changed in the past week. I didn't realize that you had some additional knowledge.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? I didn't notice that myself.</p>

<p>For this introduction, I was not under any NDA with Nikon and had absolutely no advanced knowledge that was not already in the public domain. That is why Eric started this thread instead of me. I was communicating with someone who is usually also under NDA with Nikon before noon on Tuesday, and he informed me that the D5 announcement was already in progress via Twitter. I decided to wait for the full announcement and went over to get lunch. By the time I got back 20 minutes later, I found out, along with everybody else, that Nikon also announced a D500. That other person was also under no NDA this around.</p>

<p>My opinion hasn't changed. Nikon should have introduced a successor to the D300/D300S in 2011-2012. Once they provided no successor, called the D7100 the "flagship" DX model in 2013 and pushed a lot of people either to FX or other brands, now coming back and introduce a D500 is kind of silly. Witnessing how quickly the value for the 7D Mark II essentially crashed in a year, I think the D500 will likely have the same fate.</p>

<p>BTW, concerning 4K video, both the D5 and D500 can capture 4K video in their respective 3840s2160 crop modes. On the D5, that is roughly the same as the DX crop, which is 3:2. That is kind of disappointing. Worse yet, the D5 maxes out at 3 minutes for 4K video. The D500 is 29 minutes and 59 seconds. I don't think that 3 minute is a typo.</p>

[jeff_martindale1]

<p>Shun,<br>

How is that crow tasting right now? (Re: D500)<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cLa4?start=10 (see page 2)</p>

<p>Oh, I guess technically you were correct, the D400 never materialized. <br>

I've seen nothing but jubilation about the D500 announcement on most all of the other forums I've visited in the last two days, but here nothing but pooh-poohing and derision from Shun. </p>

<p>Put me down as a buyer. </p>

<div></div>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>I think Shun is being a pretty good sport about this D500, and I would point out he already acknowledged he was wrong, way up on this thread. It is fun to speculate as to why Nikon played it the way they did, but mostly I am just impressed how well they kept this secret.</p>

<p>Also, Jeff - no kidding! There are a lot of Eeyores on this forum ;)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>except that the 5fps of the Sony model is not a threat to the d500's 10fps for sports/action. and it's a false equivalency to compare a $3000 full frame body to a $2000 APS-C body. a more apt comparison is the A60o0, which has some performance limitations in its UI and also lacks a complete lens set. I dont think the D500 touches the A7RII shooter at all, different market altogether. But i'm sure Nikon appreciates the faint praise and backhanded compliments.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was actually referring the the D5. The D-500 is nothing more than a sidebar compared to FF cameras. 12 fps is nothing compared to 12 MP at 60 fps for the A7Rii, with 10-bit color (4,2,2), not the watered down version of Nikon's 4K video. The Sony shoots 4K at either full-frame or "super-35," which is essentially APS-C with a 100 MHz bandwidth. If I were interested in shooting pro football (probably subsequent to brain trauma), the D5 would be at the top of my list. For now, low noise, high resolution and incredible dynamic range will have to do.</p>

<p>Sony definitely has a lens deficiency, unless you count the 13 world-class lenses introduced in 2015 and at least 8 more promised for the upcoming year.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun,<br /> How is that crow tasting right now? (Re: D500)<br /> <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cLa4?start=10" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cLa4?start=10</a> (see page 2)</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=600865">Jeff Martindale</a>, that is a very cheap shot on your part.</p>

<p>I too am happy with the specs for the D500 (and D5), probably other than the 4K video part. Most likely I'll buy one as well. What I don't like is the indecision from Nikon from D300/D300S and then no D400 with the D7100 being "flag ship" and suddenly the D500 again after 8 years. I also don't like the indecision between XQD and CF on the D5. Having the wrong memory card type is not the end of the world, but that'll likely cost people a few hundred dollars to repurchase a bunch of cards down the road.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>technology will continue to evolve such that the D6 or D7 might not even be a DSLR any more</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even in their latest incarnation in form of the Leica SL, there's still quite a gap to close between mirrorless and DSLR when it comes to high frame-rate still photography and AF tracking performance.<br>

Note: I am not commenting on video performance - of which I understand virtually nothing and which does not interest me in the least. If I was interested, then a DSLR would not be high on my list of cameras to look at for that purpose.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I wish someone would make a camera like the 500, but leave the video out. Is there anyone who uses the video on their camera? The quality of the video on my iPhone is fine for me. I have no idea how much video adds to the cost or price, or if it just comes with the frame rate capability at little or no incremental cost.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>D7100 being "flag ship"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon never called the D7200 "flagship" - but certainly does for the new D500!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am just impressed how well they kept this secret.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So am I - a well-known rumor site posted on 12/27/15 that they had no reliable information since they hinted at a D5/D500 dual launch back in September (and plenty of D400/D500/D9000 rumors over the years).</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> As Shun pointed out above, the D500 competes with a used D3/D4 bodies - that don't offer the telephoto-reach advantage of the DX sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the D500 really only competes with those bodies on price, and frame rate. if you dont have a specific reason for wanting a full frame sensor (i.e. specific lenses, print sizes), the newer tech has many more goodies. if it can shoot clean at ISO 6400 as claimed, there's not much reason to choose the older bodies (especially if you need reach). for video shooters in particular, the tiltable touchscreen and 4k options make the D500 a no-brainer over the D4; it's even plausible that the tilt-screen would be a reason to choose the D500 over the D5.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Will there be a D700-type FX version of the D500 - I strongly doubt that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i doubt that too, because in retrospect the D700 pretty much killed D3 sales. but this is kind of a backwards question, it should be, will there be a D700-type smaller version of the D5? The answer is probably no, as that body would have to slot in above the D750 at about $3k at launch. Nikon would probably prefer not to cannibalize their sales of the FX sports flagship this time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>not one "undecided" found enough appeal in a Df to choose it over another body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is either a win in targeted marketing, or an indication that Nikon had no clue what it was doing with the Df launch. i lean toward the latter. </p>

[jeff_martindale1]

<p><strong>Shun Cheung wrote:</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=600865" rel="nofollow">Jeff Martindale</a>, that is a very cheap shot on your part.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aww C'mon Shun. I'm just messin' with you. We all value your posts to this forum, and your extensive knowledge of the entire Nikon product line. We also value all the work you do on the forum. <br /> Sorry if my post was in poor taste.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>the D500 really only competes with those bodies on price, and frame rate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed - quite sure that's what Shun had in mind (I know that I did).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but this is kind of a backwards question, it should be, will there be a D700-type smaller version of the D5?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't see the difference - a FX D500 version would be a D700-style version of the D5 in the same way one can call the D700 a FX D300 or a smaller version of the D3; one arrives at the same camera in either case.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>this is either a win in targeted marketing, or an indication that Nikon had no clue what it was doing with the Df launch. i lean toward the latter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I call it a win in targeted marketing - the result is still the same: the Df appeals to some but holds little appeal to many (which is not surprising given it's poor value/cost proposition and rather questionable design choices). It sure demonstrates how far Nikon was willing to go to protect D4/D4S sales.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>because in retrospect the D700 pretty much killed D3 sales</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"unintended" consequences of having to come up with a competitor to the 5D MkII after leaving that market to Canon for 3 years!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I was actually referring the the D5. The D-500 is nothing more than a sidebar compared to FF cameras. 12 fps is nothing compared to 12 MP at 60 fps for the A7Rii, with 10-bit color (4,2,2), not the watered down version of Nikon's 4K video. The Sony shoots 4K at either full-frame or "super-35," which is essentially APS-C with a 100 MHz bandwidth. If I were interested in shooting pro football (probably subsequent to brain trauma), the D5 would be at the top of my list. For now, low noise, high resolution and incredible dynamic range will have to do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>still trying to get your Sony fanboy rants on, even in the Nikon forum, huh, Edward? Even if you were referring to the D5, your earlier post still makes no sense. a $6500 pro sports camera doesnt compete in the same market as a $3000 consumer camera which doesnt have any of the high-performance features needed to shoot action. That point was effectively made by DPReview already, so no need to rehash it here. I also dont see a need to defend Sony's virtues here in a thread about Nikon cameras which are targeting different user bases - it's completely irrelevant. If you are happy with your Sony, great! But this announcement, though overdue, is certainly generating buzz around the Nikon camp.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've seen nothing but jubilation about the D500 announcement on most all of the other forums I've visited in the last two days, but here nothing but pooh-poohing and derision from Shun.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>really? i didnt notice any pooh-poohing. i agree the crow photo is a cheap shot, and an un-needed one at that. Shun personally held himself accountable for his earlier position on the D400 way earlier in the thread, before anyone else even mentioned it. And he has disclosed, in great detail, his rationale for that. It's a moot point now.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Is there anyone who uses the video on their camera? The quality of the video on my iPhone is fine for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use the video feature on my DSLRs occasionally. I had captured video with the D300S as early as 2009 as part of my review: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D300s/review/</p>

<p>I am also getting an iPhone 6S. I would imagine the 4K video on it is pretty good, definitely better than what was on the D300S. However, I can't mount a 70-200mm or 200-400mm equivalent zoom on the iPhone and mount the whole thing on a tripod for stability. My wife is a pretty serious videographer, and we don't like hand held video (without steadycam) with lots of vibration on them.</p>

<p>That is why I pay attention to the video feature on the D5 and D500. The specs are a bit disappointing, especially the 3-minute limitation for 4K on the D5.</p>

<p>Don't take the percentage too literally, but as people say, we all use maybe 10% of the features on a DSLR. However, every person is using a different 10%. A feature that is critical to me maybe totally useless for someone else and vice versa.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the newer tech has many more goodies. if it can shoot clean at ISO 6400 as claimed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, I doubt that the D500 has cleaner high-ISO than the D3S and almost certainly not the D4S. In a way it is hard to beat physics: more sensor real estate will capture more light. I have a D7200. Its high-ISO results are better than older DX cameras, including the D7100, but it is still no match against FX.<br>

<br />However, the D500 does have a newer AF module and perhaps more importantly, has newer flash technology. It may not be obvious now, but in another couple of years when more SB-nnnn flashes are available, iTTL will look old.</p>

<p>And <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=600865">Jeff Martindale</a>, while I didn't at all appreciate your post and the attached image, I am mature enough to take a hit every now and then. I make so many comments in public such that I have made myself an obvious target. It comes with the territory.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I wish someone would make a camera like the 500, but leave the video out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if you are Nikon, why would you do this? For the market this camera is intended for, video is a must. it would have been a total fail to omit video in 2016 from a pro body. And, there's always the Df if you want a video-free body ;)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I call it a win in targeted marketing - the result is still the same: the Df appeals to some but holds little appeal to many </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hard to call the Df a win under any circumstances. it was simply the wrong camera at the right time. Its appeal seems mainly aesthetic/nostalgic, and seemed like a missed opportunity for its curious/redundant design choices and poorly-implemented UI. Maybe Nikon was trying to protect the D4, but there was still a big gap at the time of release between D4 and D600/D610 which the Df didnt fill. It might have sold more if it had a better AF system.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I also wonder about upgrading the memory slots on the D5 - the right decision for which model to go with now may not be the right decision in a year's time, depending on whether XQD becomes affordable or sinks without trace. It almost makes me wonderd whether Nikon should have made the memory card interface modular so it could be sold after-market. I imagine they probably did do this to the design, unless the case is physically around the slots.<br />

<br />

My biggest concern about the D500 is that it doesn't (quite) have the reach of a D7200 - and for me, the benefit of Nikon's current DX cameras for pro shooting is in pixel density, not sensor size. The reason you <i>would</i> buy it, unless it has a spectacular high ISO leap (which it might), is for the new AF system, which is presumably going to cover more of the frame than an FX camera would. Actually, I've not looked at the new module - with the MultiCAM 3500 derivatives, they pretty much sit inside the DX crop, and the same module covers most of the DX frame; I don't know whether the new module covers more than the DX area on the D5.<br />

<br />

Moderate resolutions bother me. The 36MP sensor in the D810 is slightly too low for 8K video, or downsampled 4K video; I'm going with the principle that integer downscaling is fairly harmless but scaling by arbitrary factors (at least below a multiple of two) tends to throw away information. Shun points out that a 20MP sensor producing an 8MP 4K image is not using very much of the sensor (unless it scales a lot, in which case it's introducing aliasing). I'd rather see a sensor around the resolution of the A7R-II's than that of a 5Ds. What's interesting to me is how well the D7200 holds up at base ISO to the D810 - that suggests there's a bit more sensor leeway to go in the later generations (in addition to BSI and the like). The recent announcement of a sensor that wraps on overflow is interesting to me, too, from a dynamic range perspective. I maintain that if you can shoot 8K video at a decent (30-60fps) rate, stuffing in some (4GB/s) RAM gives you a heck of a thing for picking shots. The sensors can't be that far from being able to do it. Whether Nikon want to produce a "D850" that has the potential to show up a D5 - depending on autofocus and low light management - is another matter.<br />

<br />

I mantain that the D700 only happened because a) Nikon panicked about the 5D2, and b) Nikon had the D3s in the wings and wanted to use up their D3 sensor stocks - while having an alternative for the pros that was actually differentiated. There are still a couple of advantages to the D3 over a D700, but I very much went in the D700 camp. (Incidentally, no takers so far for that EN-EL3e. Poke me or it gets recycled. I think I have a spare polaroid battery grip, too...) The Df is another matter - given the apparent small difference between the D4 and D4s sensor, I'm not sure that "using up" the D4 sensors explains everything that happened, but I do think that if Nikon had made a "D710" with a D800-type body and the D4 sensor, they might have lost a few more D4s sales than happened because of the Df. But that's wild speculation - and it's possible that the halo cameras sell in such low quantities that cannibalising them is irrelevant to Nikon's bottom line. Of course, the D4s sensor stocks may be about to become available, so Nikon may well surprise me with a Df2. Or, having said that, an F7. (Although given what Kodak just announced...)<br />

<br />

For the record, I don't mind the SD card on the D8x0 so much, because I tend to shoot in "JPEG to one card, raw to another" mode. SD is convenient for getting at in a hurry (either because I can stick it straight in a laptop or because I can use an Eye-Fi card); CF is faster, at least the ones I use. It's pretty painful in backup mode, though, which I guess is not likely to be so rare for the targets of these cameras. Interesting that the D500 has UHS-II.<br />

<br />

Jeff: I can't imagine the crow tasted very nice, no. :-)</p>