Nikon Announced D5, D500, and SB-5000

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>It's a moot point now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed! Technically, he was right all along anyway - we never got a D400 (but we did get a new DX flagship!)<br>

I believe not many were expecting the Canon 7D MkII that arrived on the scene seven years after the release of the 7D. <br>

Equally - not too many likely were still expecting the mythical D400 seven years after the D300S release (and 9 years after the 300)? And with three "successors" released in between (D7x00).<br>

Despite Shun's very convincing arguments, I held out believing in the release of a true D300 even back in 2013 and held out "replacing" my D300 until late 2014 when I had abandoned all hope that a D400 would appear at all. All I wanted was the D7x00 innards in a D300-style body - with the D500 finally delivers that (and a whole LOT more!).</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>In my opinion there are good reasons for XQD. Nikon offered XQD/CF card slots (one each) in the D4 (and D4s) and this ticked some people off; they wanted the same card type for both slots. So now Nikon is offering both slots XQD as the default configuration of the D5, and if I understood it correctly, a dual CF card downgrade that can be implemented in service for those customers who insist on CF cards. I personally think that the card slots in each camera should be of the same type since otherwise I have to stock two different cards for the camera in equal sized pairs to take advantage of the backup option. This is logistically complicated. However, unfortunately only Nikon and Sony are using XQD for now (AFAIK), and in only a few camera models. The D500 should increase the XQD card format's popularity since it's likely to sell 5 or 10x as many copies as the D5 (mainly because of price and size; more expensive and bigger means the D5 will sell to a much smaller audience than D500 or D810). I see the CF downgrade option as simply providing a custom product for a customer with particular demands. I see this as a positive thing and more of this should be present in high end products. Modularity is another thing which I like; the camera can be augmented with GPS, Wifi, radio triggering of flashes, radio based synchronized triggering of multiple cameras etc. options which not everyone needs and they're provided as accessory modules. I would prefer the radio triggering of flashes to be built in but it is not; someone else would like wifi built in.</p>

<p>I've had two SD card failures in the past two months. Either of my SD capable cameras refuses to format or use those cards and cleaning the contacts didn't help. This is scary actually, and I'd rather not use SD cards if I can avoid it (which I unfortunately can't since they're used in so many models). I've never had a CF card failure nor broke any pins either. Hopefully XQD is better than either of the old card formats.</p>

<p><em>The D-500 is nothing more than a sidebar compared to FF cameras.</em></p>

<p>It may still outsell all the FX cameras combined. ;-)</p>

<p>With Nikon you sometimes have to wait for stuff. I've waited for a good 135mm prime with AF-S focusing for 20+ years (it doesn't exist but at least now there is a Nikon patent for two such lenses, one VR 135/1.8 and one 135/2 without VR). I waited several years for Nikon to provide a 35mm sized sensor in a DSLR (eventually they did, and in quite many models too). For a long time they didn't offer a fast wide angle (now they make a lot: 20/1.8, 24/1.4, 28/1.8, 35/1.4, etc.). These (temporary or not) omissions haven't pushed me to another brand simply because there is too much that I like about Nikon equipment. I don't see much difference in what happened with the D300s to D500 upgrade. Nikon made the camera when they felt it was good and ready to go. For some reason they didn't bring anything new to this market in a while. I don't think the D500 will be discounted quickly. It will likely have roughly similar image quality as the D7200 and that combined with the high fps rate and new AF will make it sell like hot cakes to a certain audience (wildlife photographers as well as those who want a high fps camera for less money than a D5 yet want the quintessential for action optical viewfinder).</p>

<p>For some reason Nikon doesn't update the whole product lineup in sync; they seem to update certain products regularly (the supertele primes and f/2.8 zooms as well as the sports flagship body are regulars) but others in the worst case only once in several decades. This is annoying but on the other hand Nikon has a huge product portfolio and updating it all would take too long; they make priorities. I don't know why updating the D300s was not a priority, or if they had technical problems making it work well enough to market. I suspect Nikon wanted to move as many people to FX as possible (and assumed that Canon wanted to do exactly the same) and the competitive landscape didn't force the camera out, until the 7D Mark II appeared.</p>

<p>Anyway I am happy to see the D500 appear, since I see a valid reason for this camera to exist and why it is the best choice for many people. I understand that those waiting for it were very upset as I was upset at the wide angle situation and lack of full frame cameras in the early part of the digital era. Sometimes you have to wait for the good stuff. In the meanwhile at the Natural History Museum (London)'s wildlife photographer of the year gallery a couple of months ago I saw the D7100 very well represented with excellent images. IMO the image quality was much better than what Canon users were getting from their 1.6x cameras (but then maybe as a Nikon user I have subjective bias), and the fps rate or buffer didn't seem to stop Nikon users from getting good results from that camera. The "fast" cameras (1DX, 7DII, etc.) didn't appear anything special image quality wise.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p> 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. <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I could say the same about your fanboy DSLR rants in the Mirrorless forum, which has caused several threads to be prematurely closed due to your personal attacks. While I don't intend to buy a D5, there is nothing wrong with it. Your reaction to a dying format, represented by the DX F-500 is a bit over the top, but mostly in the bounds of forum etiquette (crow, honestly!).<br>

<br>

How about an image or two to demonstrate your talent with Nikon in hand?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I mantain that the D700 only happened because a) Nikon panicked about the 5D2, ...</em></p>

<p>How do you make that out? The 5D Mark II appeared a couple of months <em>after</em> the D700. And it basically was a very different type of camera. A much more successful one, yes, which meant that there would be no direct successor to the D700.</p>

<p><em>whether Nikon should have made the memory card interface modular so it could be sold after-market.</em></p>

<p>It is modular and interchangeable in service, but as usual I don't think Nikon will sell the parts to individual customers. I suspect only a small quantity of CF modules will be made, but ultimately it is up to the users to decide. </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>Hard to call the Df a win under any circumstances. it was simply the wrong camera at the right time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whether a product is a "winner" or "loser" depends on the metric. However, I am curious why the DF should be considered a failure. There is a cult like following among a small group of users, which seems about right for a niche product. I don't remember what the DF intro price was, but it seems like the price is still high. Clearly though, the DF made a lot of people mad :)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I mantain that the D700 only happened because a) Nikon panicked about the 5D2, ...</em><br /> How do you make that out? The 5D Mark II appeared a couple of months <em>after</em> the D700. And it basically was a very different type of camera. A much more successful one, yes, which meant that there would be no direct successor to the D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Replace the 5D Mark II by the original 5D, which was introduced back in 2005. Nikon finally introduced the FX D3 in 2007 but still had no answer to any sub-$3000 FX-format DSLR. I think the D700 was essentially a stop-gap, probably because the D3's sensor was the only FX sensor available to Nikon at the time and all they needed to do was repackaging the D3 to D700, with the obvious down side that they competed against each other.</p>

<p>The 5D Mark II was indeed introduced a few months after the D700, but the 5D II brought the pixel count to 21MP over 12 for the D700 and Canon 5D, and that was another problem for Nikon at a time when the pixel count race was still in full swing.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Clearly though, the DF made a lot of people mad :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure about that. I own no Nikon stock shares such that whether Nikon makes or losses money on any particular product doesn't affect me directly, although I have no interest in the Df myself. However, after using Nikon for decades with lots of lenses, I sure hope that Nikon continues to make good decisions and good equipment so that I am not forced to change brands. Nikon getting into financial trouble does affect me to some degree.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It isn't a failure, there are many people who love and use the Df in their daily work. I would like one if they just put in a different AF module to it. It is so strange how much agony and hatred there are for products that are meant for a different user. Maybe call it the "not made for me" syndrome, akin to "not invented here" that plagues some companies.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Hard to call the Df a win under any circumstances.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon will call it a win if they made a profit off of it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With Nikon you sometimes have to wait for stuff. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ain't that the truth?! Often so long that once the coveted item finally appears, the desire or need for it has disappeared.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Shun: I just got an iPhone 6s and I'm really impressed.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>if I understood it correctly, a dual CF card downgrade that can be implemented in service for those customers who insist on CF cards.</blockquote>

 

<p>Ooh, is that confirmed? I've not been following much outside this thread (and actually doing work), but it's good news if it's not the case that the buyer has to choose a D5 variant and be stuck with it. Assuming it's reversible, of course.</p>

 

<blockquote><blockquote>I mantain that the D700 only happened because a) Nikon panicked about the 5D2, ...</blockquote>

 

How do you make that out? The 5D Mark II appeared a couple of months after the D700. And it basically was a very different type of camera. A much more successful one, yes, which meant that there would be no direct successor to the D700.</blockquote>

 

<p>Nikon have a history of looking like they know what Canon's going to do next, although they may not always have something ready to respond. I particularly see the D600 as being a spec-for-spec attempt to upstage the 6D (it was creepy how every area was slightly better, at least on a spec sheet). I'm not the originator of the idea that Nikon may have worked out that Canon were (finally) going to launch a 5D2, and decided to respond, with a mix of the D300 and D3. Indeed, one reason I was happy to buy the D700 at launch was that I figured Nikon would have shaken out most of the issues with the D300 and D3. Of course, Nikon may not have expected a 22MP 5D2 (I was expecting a 16MP one, for a start), but short of sticking the D3x sensor in it there wasn't much they could do about that - the D3 sensor is what they had. And the D3s was clearly waiting in the wings. Of course, I know nothing, but my speculation of what might have happened vaguely corresponds with that of others.<br />

<br />

I don't know that the D700 is what Nikon would have launched given the choice. A budget version of their flagship sports camera - especially that can hit 8fps with a grip - is a weird thing to put in that form factor. Effectively, it was the F6 to the D3's F5. Of course, it had to be quick, because the D300 was quick, and the D700 was a big D300 as much as it was a D3. The 5D2 proved that people really like having a high-res landscape/wedding camera that doesn't weigh a ton, and there are a lot more of them than there are fashion photographers who wanted a 1Ds or D3x (this really didn't surprise me, but I'm not going to start claiming that I always know better than the product placement teams of a multi-billion dollar company). The 5D2 killed the 1Ds line and the D3x, and left the D700 looking low-res - but it was a terrible sports camera (compared with the 1D4 or 7D), and the D700 showed it up. Canon fixed their weakness by making the 5D3 much better at action shooting, and only insignificantly better at landscapes and portraits. The D800 was a huge leap over the resolution disadvantage of the D700, at a moderate performance drop (depending how you compare), with the D810 remedying that. The D750 is aimed pretty directly at the 5D3's market position.<br />

<br />

Had Nikon not needed to respond to the 5D2, I don't think the D700 would have come so close to treading on the toes of the D3. There's a big gap between the 5D3's performance and that of a 1Dx (especially if you're in the 14fps mode) - more, at least on paper, than the gap between a D700+grip and a D3. I'd be surprised to see a high frame rate (9fps, say) FX consumer body with a D5 sensor (and even a D4s sensor would surprise me). I'd be less surprised to see the sensor turn up in something so crippled for sports shooting that it wouldn't cost any D5 sales, like the Df was.<br />

<br />

As for the Df... well, a lot of people asked for something a bit like it, although I maintain that some might now be careful what they wish for. Sometimes, giving people what they think they want isn't a bad thing. I do think there are other cameras that Nikon could have launched which might have made them more money and made more customers happy (like the D750, for example), but my suspicions aren't backed by market research figures and I've no way of knowing whether I'm right.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Andrew, check the D5 brochure: http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-YRYNeYvAi9beHK4x3L-8go_p7JUL6JpQMwSj_xzTyyQ==/PDF/D5_Brochure.pdf<br /> Check the section on the selectable XQD and CF options:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Double memory card slot unit can be exchanged after purchase at Nikon service facilities (a charge applies).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Expect to spend some dollars/Pounds/Euros if you would like a Nikon technician to change your D5 from XQD to CF or vice versa.</p>

<p>Wish it were a user changeable module, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With Nikon you sometimes have to wait for stuff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem is not waiting per se. The problem is waiting without a clear outcome. Canon, Nikon, etc. are businesses that need to make money. If, for example, the 7D Mark II is indeed not profitable for Canon, will there be a 7D Mark III? If there isn't one by 2017, 2018, would you continue to wait, for how much longer?</p>

<p>You can replace Canon's 7D Mark II with Nikon's D500 above. Life is short and photo opportunities are sometimes once in a lifetime. I sure am not interested in waiting indefinitely for something that might not happen at all.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I could say the same about your fanboy DSLR rants in the Mirrorless forum, which has caused several threads to be prematurely closed due to your personal attacks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is getting O/T, but your assertion here is 100% false and slanderous. in fact, there is only one thread which was closed, because of a Sony fanboy making unwarranted personal attacks against <em>me</em>. i know this because the mod personally emailed me to inform me he was closing the thread. also, for the record, pointing out that mirrorless cameras still have a ways to go isn't being a DSLR fanboy. But i have to wonder why you are even commenting here, as your main interest seems to be a Sony-biased camera Grinch, depriving the Nikon loyalists of some long-awaited joy. Dont you have some pixels to go peep?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am curious why the DF should be considered a failure. There is a cult like following among a small group of users, which seems about right for a niche product. I don't remember what the DF intro price was, but it seems like the price is still high. Clearly though, the DF made a lot of people mad :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO, the Df was a failure because it a) didnt completely deliver the retro experience due to clunky/redundant UI and b) cannibalized a high-performance sensor by loading up with consumer features from the d7000/d600 parts bin. So it underserved the needs of at least two distinct market segments. It may be a niche product, but few would call it a classic.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon will call it a win if they made a profit off of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i dont think they did, which is why we probably wont see a Df2 or Dfx anytime soon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the Df... well, a lot of people asked for something a bit like it, although I maintain that some might now be careful what they wish for. Sometimes, giving people what they think they want isn't a bad thing. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>What people wanted was a stripped down, no frills digital FM3A and/or a compact high-performance body with the D4 sensor. What they actually got was essentially neither, at an introductory price which may have been an overreach. But it sure looks purty! I would still consider buying a new one for like $1500 but at $2750 it's a no bueno. I never shot with a Df, but a friend of mine had one for a boat cruise shoot. He missed several shots because changing the settings was so non-intuitive. Seeing that really lessened my interest in one. </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Eric, it is just terrible luck that you keep having personality conflicts with other posters. By the way, it would be libel not slander.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Dieter, you have two excellent options. If anyone wants a svelt little DSLR that doesn't have video you can do one of two things. Buy a Df or ignore the video feature on the camera you buy. If Nikon had a D500 and a D500"video", both would cost more, perhaps, than if they only made just the one and you simply ignore the feature you don't need.<br /><br>

Honestly, does ANYONE think that a camera company has any vested interested in making a large-quantity medium-to-high-end digital camera without Video. Too many customers won't buy it, so get used to it, everybody...</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The Df had me frustrated, for three reasons.</p>

 

<ol>

<li>I believe there were issues with the interface (which are avoided in an F5-style camera like all other modern Nikon DSLRs) and that if people really wanted "fixed dials" in the style of an F4, there were ways to do it that were less compromised. To quote Sir Humphrey, "If you must do this damn silly thing, don't do it in this damn silly way." Reports suggested that Nikon had left the camera pretty much unchanged since the first sketch on a napkin, which implies that they'd not necessarily tried all that hard to fix things that seemed, to me, to be obvious design problems. I don't think the Df was the best Df it could be - it's not how I would have tried to fill that market segment.</li>

<li>I didn't really understand the circumstances under which the user interface could be better than that of a convertional DSLR, so I was confused. There were quite a lot of effusive responses from people who, in my opinion, just didn't "get" the conventional DSLR interface, and their arguments for the superiority of the Df were sometimes based on fallacies that appeared to apply to entry-level cameras (like how often you have to go into menus to change things - <i>more</i> often on a Df than on, say, a D800, but admittedly less than on a D3200). Still, I didn't believe that none of them knew what they were talking about. I've since more or less worked out when I (or at least, people) might find the interface better - for the "set up the camera away from the eyes and lift it up only for the shot" style of shooting, which is very much not what I tend to do. But I maintain that there are a lot more situations where the conventional interface is better. Don't get me wrong, I have and enjoy shooting with a Bessa R, which is extremely manual, but the Df's hybrid design gets in the way of that.</li>

<li>I think Nikon could have made a lot more people happy by launching a different camera instead - like the D750, or a more direct D700 successor using the D4/Df sensor. Especially given the launch pricing of the Df. I'd actually have been quite tempted by a D4 sensor in a budget body with D750-like (or, ideally, D800-like) handling. I wasn't really prepared to pay D800 money for, effectively, a D600 with knobs on (and a D4 sensor in it).</li>

</ol>

<p>Angry? Not really. Frustrated, absolutely. Thanks to everyone who helped me work through it. So far, I have less to complain about with the D5 and D500. :-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3670956">Eric Arnold</a> and <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=419409">Edward Ingold</a>, it is my intend to keep this as private as I can. Did you receive the e-mail I sent you guys about an hour and half ago?</p>

<p>Please give it a rest.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>I think even Andrew would agree the DF has been a wild success in terms of generating attention on camera forums. Here we are on the the D5/D500 intro thread, and the DF is somehow still getting attention - AMAZING :)</p>

<p>I wonder how many people are interested in the new wireless flash system? I think it looks really cool. I was interested to see comments from the link Shun posted earlier for the post by Todd Owyoung. He was very impressed by the camera-based remote interface. So clearly this new wireless flash functionality is built-in to the D5 and D500. My question is whether Nikon will come out with a hotshoe based wireless transmitter to use the radio wireless flash with an older model Nikon - anybody know?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Andrew, check the D5 brochure</blockquote>

 

<p>Oh yes. Thanks. And kudos for doing the sensible thing, Nikon (other than providing a user-swappable module).<br />

<br />

And Eric: Yes, the Df certainly fell between two stools. Perhaps it's because of the size of my bottom, but I believe they could have made a camera capable of occupying both.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Dieter, you have two excellent options</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter, you must have misunderstood what I wrote since I can't understand how your post is a reponse to mine. - I wasn't saying anything about DSLRs with or without video - I stated that I have no interest in video and if I did - then I would not be looking at a DSLR (but at a mirrorless or a dedicated video camera). <br>

For the record: I do ignore the video feature on my cameras - but wish that the assorted dedicated buttons could always be re-programmed (like on the D810) for something useful since they are using up prime real estate without giving me any value in return otherwise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Honestly, does ANYONE think that a camera company</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't - and don't see where you might have gotten the impression that I did...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Buy a Df</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Should be quite obvious that a Df is not anywhere on my list of photographic items to purchase.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Chip: Re. the Df, yes. Car crashes also get attention. :-) Let's talk about happier things, like how happy everyone who wanted a D300 successor will be as soon as Nikon invents a time machine and drops the D500 through it!<br />

<br />

I'm interested in the flash. I never got around to investing in a third-party radio solution (and now Nikon has joined Canon in having their own, this can't be good for the shares in a few of those companies). My concern with it at this stage is it's quite pricey. I'm hoping (I've not read up yet) that there's an affordable route to older flashes, since I have three SB-600s. I got the impression that I can use the SB-5000 to trigger the others optically, but I've not really looked in detail yet.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Dieter, I was using your comments as a springboard to reply to a lot of the comments here, not you specifically.</p>

<p>it's all good, and you're right. If I'm shooting video, give me a video camera any day.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Andrew, here is some more info on SB-5000: http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/speedlights/speedlight-sb-5000</p>

<p>From the page, it looks like it CLS remote so I would guess it can also be a CLS master:</p>

<p><em>"At the heart of the SB-5000 is Nikon’s i-TTL (intelligent Through-The-Lens) flash control, which enables Nikon Speedlights to share critical exposure information with CLS compatible D-SLRs. The SB-5000 can be radio controlled as part of an Advanced Wireless Lighting setup or controlled traditionally using line-of-sight optical control. Operational refinements include unified flash control, which adds an extra level of system control. Now you can operate the SB-5000 or change its settings from the camera menu, or a computer running Camera Control Pro 2, when the unit is attached to the camera body."</em></p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>If I'm shooting video, give me a video camera any day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However, I shoot both. Paying for an additional machine aside, I would much rather not carry a separate video camera with me and also a separate set of tripod. That is especially true when I am traveling, hiking, etc.</p>

<p>My D7000 and D7200 capture 1080 HD video just fine. I would imagine that the D5 and D500 are also just fine for regular HD. The problem is in 4K video.</p>

<p>Chip, during the interim, the SB-5000, D5, and D500 are dual iTTL and radio compatible, just as the SB-800, SB-600, and D2 were D-TTL and i-TTL compatible. Later on, the SB-900, 910 and 700, etc. were only i-TTL compatible. It is a matter of time that Nikon will drop i-TTL in their newer products, maybe 3 to 5 years from now. I think that is a reasonable approach.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I think Nikon have got their pricing all wrong. Rather than put a high introductory price on the D500, surely they should have an end-user Beta-tester discount price for, say, the fiirst 3 months. Then buyers won't feel quite so bad when the recall/essential firmware update/denied design fault or whatever shows itself.</p>

<p>And if ISO speeds get much higher, the shutter won't be able to stop the sensor from fogging!</p>

[Gup]

<blockquote>

<p>a high introductory price on the D500</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know things are all relative, but I remember the D200's introductory price here was $2400CDN and that was before these last 10 years of inflation. Maybe the price is right in line considering the state-of-the-artedness of it all.</p>