Nikon Announced D5, D500, and SB-5000

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>For me the presence of a pop up flash in a serious camera is like an insult. In my experience, it never works well as a trigger, and it almost always ruins the images when it is used. It makes the 24 PC-E difficult to use and imposes limits on the optical design of the viewfinder. The popup flash often pops up inadvertently in my camera bag and is a point of vulnerability to the camera. Of two otherwise similar cameras, the model without the popup flash (and appropriately improved viewfinder and relaxed movements of the lens) is worth at least 500 to 1000 EUR more to me. I don't mind the presence of popup flashes in some cameras, as long as suitable cameras without them are available. In the past only the D4s (and its predecessors) and Df were without pop-up flashes, and I'm happy to see an improvement in this respect, in the D500. I can only hope the successor to the D810 is free of it.</p>

<p>The component (WR-R10) which is used to trigger the SB-5000 remotely is the same component which is used as a receiver for radio based remote triggering of cameras, so the extra cost is mitigated by its multiple uses. It is also quite small.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Ilkka, I always found them really fiddly and seemed really flimsy and delicate, too. I was delighted when I switched to µ43 and my OM-D came with a separate little flash instead. Of course, I got a "real" flash too, but still...</p>

[Gup]

<blockquote>

<p> IMO, FX is clearly a better choice for that kind of work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with this statement and I think, if I'm not mistaken, when I read the review a few days ago Todd Owyoung stated he usually uses two D800s for that work. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, he was Nikon-sponsored, but I commend this review to anyone interested in the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know Shun has already mentioned the fact that this photographer was selected and likely compensated for this review and for that reason alone I would treat it as such. Mr. Owyoung does not mention one single aspect of this new D500 that he would change or isn't absolutely thrilled by. He raves about it at every turn. Youthful exuberance. I don't find this very helpful at all, really. It's just advertising. As such, I'm still excited to see new releases by Nikon, I'm just getting too old to be jumping up and down about them anymore.<br>

</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Agree with Ilkka, absolutely. I know there are people who prefer to have pop up flashes, I understand they like it. I have used it on my D700 in an end of year trip, just to have the pics. I rarely use it to add light. After this, I find myself missing a better high ISO camera instead.</p>

<p>If anytime (better sooner than later) Nikon release a FX version of the D500, maybe it could be named the "real" D700 sucessor. Yes, it`d be a D5 without grip, similar capabilities on a smaller bulk. I`d love it.</p>

<p>But I think there must be a D810 update, for sure it will enjoy the new features we are talking about... so I wonder if a FX version of the D500 will be feasible or practical. Who knows, after the Df, looks like everything is possible.</p>

<p>If so, we could have two cameras on the market, a high resolution/lower frame rate one (D810 type) and a low pixel count/higher frame rate one (D700 sucessor). So I wonder which one I`d buy... if I think it twice, maybe I`d prefer the higher resolution option. Not sure about it.<br /><br /></p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> I still find it strange that as a rock concert photographer who often shoots under low-light conditions, he chooses DX. IMO, FX is clearly a better choice for that kind of work. If the D5 is too heavy, there are many other FX options and it is merely a matter of time that new technologies on the D5 and D500 will migrate to other bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Todd clearly states his <em>assignment</em> was to use the D500 shooting music shows, i dont think he ever says that's his preferred rig. Clearly, Nikon wanted to emphasize the performance features. It remains to be seen how well the D500 will actually perform above ISO 3200, but i'd guess 3/4 stop to a stop better than a D7200. if it's clean up to 6400, it could work for concert photography. </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Yeah if I shoot professionally I see little reason to use the D500. Weight never bothers me.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Either I might have read Todd Owyound's blog wrong (more likely) or he may have updated the text since then. I seem to recall that he prefers DX for some reason. Now it looks like he said he prefers DSLRs that are smaller than the D2X and D3.</p>

<p>In any case, Owyoung is obviously paid by Nikon, and he makes it very clear that shooting the D500 was his assignment from Nikon; that is stated in the title. Therefore, I would treat this blog as an extension of Nikon's marketing campaign, definitely not an outside review. A review should use a production item, preferably off the shelf. And a review should point out both the pros and cons. The latter is conspicuously absent.</p>

<p>However, since the D500 is not yet available, at the present time this blog is one of very few from someone who has actually used a (pre-production) D500. Whether it is useful to you is up to each individual to decide, but we definitely should keep the author's financial ties to Nikon in mind.</p>

<p>Concerning high-ISO results, once again, you cannot overcome simple physics. FX will always beat DX easily as long as we compare digital technologies from the same era, i.e within a year or two. I have little doubt that after any initial glitches are ironed out, the D500 will be a fine DX DSLR. However, currently there is also a lot of marketing hype all over the web. (To that end I think Nikon is doing a pretty good job.) I have the feeling that a few people on this thread have already had their sight set on the D500, and they seems to be a bit defensive whenever there is any criticism on the D500. I wouldn't get too carried away by all the hype.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>Hmm, i did notice that the EXIF data was stripped from Todd's pics, would have liked to see his ISOs on those live shots. def. looking forward to more objective and in-depth reviews. as far as whether the D500 is professional-grade for music photography, well... i shot a lot of shows with the D300 before i got an FX body, and still use it for daylight or with flash. It's not like every single show takes place in a dank cavern. at shows, i still see shooters with APS-C bodies, with maybe 50% using full frame, depending on the show. IMO, the AF/metering upgrades alone make it compelling for this work, and should make a difference in challenging conditions. Offhand, i wouldnt expect to shoot APS-C to 12,800, but more accurate focus in lower light and the wider focus point array is nothing to sneeze at. if you want the 153 pt AF <em>and</em> the best high-ISO, your only choice is the D5. choosing between the D500 and say a D750 for low-light action is more difficult, especially since their price points are similar. i think the D500 will do well in the prosumer market and appeal to photojournalists in particular. But people with less frenetic styles of photography may not need all the action-centric bells and whistles. 10 fps is not needed for landscape, and at about half the D500's cost, the D7200 is still a capable all-rounder.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>The best thing about the D500 is that Nikon now has a complete family of cameras covering most photographer's needs. These are only tools and should be treated as such:<br>

D5 (D4S) - high ISO, FF, sports body.<br>

D810 - high quality, FF body.<br>

D750 - high quality, high ISO, relatively compact, FF body.<br>

D7200 - high quality, jack of all trades, DX body.<br>

D500 - high ISO, DX, sports body.<br>

P900 - Yes, I include it. It's not a DSLR and its sensor is tiny, but it is 16 MP and if you're out in the middle of nowhere and there are some animals in the distant hills, the P900 is the only camera in the group above that can shoot at 2,000 mm and get a decent shot in the middle of the day. </p>

<p> </p>

[RaymondC]

<p>@Michael - was the D610 intentionally left off the list? <br>

D3x00, D5x00. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah if I shoot professionally I see little reason to use the D500. Weight never bothers me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Depends on what you shoot, though... right?</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Ray, not intentional but I was thinking only about Nikon's class leading bodies and didn't mean to minimize the D610, D3xoo, or D5xoo, which are very capable bodies at lower price points. I do own 3 of the 6 mentioned so I am highly partial (humor) and have ordered the D500. I am just glad that Nikon now has a full range of bodies to meet most needs. I do own a couple of Sony 24 MP, 12 FPS cropped frame bodies because Nikon didn't make one. Now I can consolidate to just one brand, especially on photo trips. I can't wait to see how the D500 works on the AFS 80-400. </p>

 

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>For me the presence of a pop up flash in a serious camera is like an insult.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure what type of photography you do, but you really don't need to use it if you don't like it. Leave it for people who can use it occasionally. If it is an "insult" because its existence makes it look less "professional" for you, then it's a different story; and it's something I don't care about.</p>

<p>To me, the lack of a popup flash (having had it before, now it is taken away) will figure in as a "con" in the buying decision.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I'll say this again, we all use a subset of all the features on a camera. The problem is that each person uses a different subset. A pro for one maybe a con for someone else. The pop-up flash used to be useful occasionally as the iTTL master, but as Nikon moves away from iTTL, that usage is gradually going away. Meanwhile, I do find the pop-up flash a bit of a weakness on the top side.</p>

<p>While I don't have Canon's financial figures, giving its rapid decrease in value, I can't imagine that the 7D Mark II to be a financial success. Hopefully the D500 will not follow that path. Otherwise, it can be a burden on Nikon in a shrinking market for all digital cameras. Cameras have gotten so good that the need to upgrade every generation is long gone. For those who already have a D7200, I don't think the D500 will be that much better.</p>

<p>It'll be interesting to see what the "street price" for the D500 will be in December 2016.</p>

<p>P.S. Speaking of Canon, the current CES is mostly Nikon's show. I wonder when Canon will release the 1DX Mark II, etc. The Rio Olympics is rapidly approaching.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>Depends on what you shoot, though... right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Although I never photograph as a professional I never mind the weight of the camera. Yes at times I want smaller camera but not lighter. Besides to me the D500 or D5 are the same for me as far as carrying it. The lens (or lenses) would be more of a problem. The only reason I would use the D500 instead of the D5 is because if I don't make money I might not be able to afford the D5.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Putting a full frame sensor in the D500 would make a lot of sense from the consumer's point of view, and probably add less than $500 to the price. Among other things you could expect better noise performance. Mostly, though, you could take better advantage of Nikon's main stream lenses, particularly in the wide angle category. Making the D-500 full frame would violate one of Nikon's most sacred rules - do nothing which would erode the market share of the flagship camera (the D5).</p>

<p>The D800/810 was a safe choice for Nikon. The appeal of high resolution is offset by crippling other flagship features, like fps and focusing speed. The F100 burned the F5 market, and Nikon won't make that mistake again. That said, introducing the D-500 as a DX camera may prove to be a tactical mistake, at the D-500's expense.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>It's fascinating how opinions differ on what features a D500 should have offered. I've been waiting for this body for 4 years and, spec wise, it has beat my expectations, especially with the automatic micro focus adjust. I have several excellent lenses waiting to be mounted on a D500. OK flying birds, surfers, and football players, you have met your match. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Anybody out there still waiting for the D400?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

Mary, I can't saw the popup and its housing off. When shifting the 24 PC-E along the long axis of the frame, with cameras

such as the D3, D4, Df the lens can be turned so that the shift movement knob is in front of the viewfinder housing and

the shift lock on the opposite side where it can be operated freely and even with thin gloves on. With cameras like the

D810 that have a popup flash, the shift translator does not fit on the viewfinder side because the popup flash housing

occupies the space and thus the lens has to be rotated so that the small shift lock knob is under the popup housing. It is

hard to reach even with gloves off, and I've lost the skin of my fingers because of the difficult operation. With the popup

free cameras the operation is easier. It is insulting to me that Nikon would make an expensive specialist lens and make it

very unergonomic to use on the most relevant body for this type of work (landscape, archtecture). Also they would do this

in order to enable a very poorly functioning flash trigger and an even worse fill light which are fit mainly if one wants the

ugliest possible portraits. Finally a part of the space taken by the popup and its housing could be used to make a better

viewfinder and not just enable easier use of the 24 PC-E. (The other PC-E lenses operate freely with popup featuring

bodies). I don't usually get emotional about camera design but this really annoys me, along with Nikon's wobbly tripod

collars and a few other 'pearls' of Nikon engineering.

 

I've actually given the popup the benefit of doubt many times and have been sorely disappointed. Even if you turn it to

contriller only with M/-- it emits some light into the pictures because of the trigger flash. Its preflashes activate eye closure

or squint reflex in subjects. I was trying to show to a friend of mine how one remote flash on a stand and umbrella could

be used to light a family group shot and it was a disaster because the popup recycle time is very, very long and the

camera can't be fired while it's charging. The kids were very active and I lost the best moments. What's more, there was

no way I could find to avoid eye blinks. Normally I would use either a radio trigger or SU-800 both of which work perfectly,

no delays, no frequent eye blinks in pics, and no contamination of the image by the trigger light. But I was trying to help

my friend use minimalist gear to get good results. I couldn't care less about what my subjects think about my camera but

they can sense when things are not working out and usually have no patience for technical problems (which is usually an

indication of an ill prepared photographer. So I prefer to work with gear that just works.

[Greg Fight]

<p>Ilkka, I'm no fan of the popup flash on my D300, except for the controller mode. 1/64 M setting and IR panel to block the flash while still controlling off-camera strobes (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/410445-REG/Nikon_4905_SG_3IR_IR_Panel_for.html). A simple solution that works for me.</p>

[tombest]

<blockquote>

<p>@ Shun: For those who already have a D7200, I don't think the D500 will be that much better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm in that camp. I have a D7200 and the D500, while impressive, doesn't offer enough in areas that matter to me to justify the cost. I am <em>VERY</em> impressed with the focus specs and love the idea of fine tuning of lenses becoming automatic, but don't shoot sports or a lot of BIF where the new autofocus will really shine. I find the D7200 remarkably capable and certainly not the limiting factor in my photography. I am. That being said, I am thrilled that Nikon built this camera and hope it sells well.<br>

Tom<br>

</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>The D500 is a worthy camera. It's better looking than the D300 without the AF assist light. It's a much nicer camera than the D7200. The D7200 offers a lot for the money and the D500 is about the finest in DX format. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>Mary, I can't saw the popup and its housing off. When shifting the 24 PC-E along the long axis of the frame...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, now I do remember having to follow some written direction on how to [awkwardly] fit a PC-E lens on a Nikon camera with a popup flash in order for the shift movement to work properly, and my finger was pinched badly at one time. The popup flash is indeed a negative especially in this respect, and some others. Thanks for the lengthy explanation. I guess we can't have everthing in life. :-)</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Shun, my view on the 7D Mark II discounts is quite different. When Canon figured out that Nikon would introduce a high speed, cropped frame body, they discounted the 7D Mark II to prevent any leakage to Nikon. One of Canon's all time, top selling lenses is the 100-400. Canon shooters won't buy the 100-400 if they move over to Nikon. Hence, the large discounts. Once the Canon shooter owns a 100-400, they will most likely buy other expensive Canon L glass, especially if they're shooting sports. For example, the sports coordinator of the local college where I shoot football finally got a budget to upgrade their photo equipment for the sports department and since the 7D Mark II is close to $1,000 cheaper than the D500, guess which bodies they will be buying. Guess which brand of lenses they will be buying. Nikon, by introducing the D500, is trying to prevent leakage of its sports shooters to Canon. Nikon can't sell a lot of 80-400s, 200-500s, and tele primes if their sports users are leaking to Canon. Of course, this means the D500 will be going down in price after the serious users like myself pay full price in the initial production run. This strategy by camera companies appears to be prevalent these days. <br /></p>

[Gup]

<p>Ilkka, your explanation is excellent. I agree with all points regarding that pop-up flash. <br>

I recently shot a very lucrative family portrait session that went twice as long as anticipated. After checking my work I found that one of my subjects had squinted in every single shot (dozens) from the use of that pop-up as a master trigger. The man could not keep his eyes open even after 'coaching' him to look past the camera. It took me a bit to discover the reason, then to rearrange stands and umbrellas so as to be able to use one SB800 to trigger the others instead of the on-camera unit. Lucky I was still carrying an SC-28 for off-camera TTL and other lights for fill.<br>

The first time I used it a few years ago was shooting a family portrait in England. I used the self-timer as I had to run and get in the shot as well. The room was beautifully lit already so I used the little flash hoping for some additional catch lights. Many years ago I was taught and have read many times since, to always use a lens hood, so I always do. When I returned from England and perused those portraits I learned my first lesson of pop-up-flash - never use a lens hood. Every shot had an ugly half circle of shadow in the lower half where the flash couldn't reach. Obvious on reflection, not so much when 25 people are fidgeting and I know I only have a few minutes to get it done.<br>

I've never had the flash open unintentionally in my bag, though, so have never worried about it breaking off. It's not really possible due to the fit in my daily Lowepro, I guess.<br>

All in all, I don't hate it, but have very little use for it except as a trigger and only then if I'm not shooting people and it certainly wouldn't influence my decision either way. Much like video. I would not miss either. I would lean toward an improved viewfinder always if that were the trade-off.</p>