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>

<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>

<p>Your're absolutely right that none of the bloggers knew that Nikon was coming out with the D500 but it's highly probable that some people on the production side in Japan, including Canon's strategic planning department, knew it was. If I were Canon, I would definitely want all my customers that were sitting "on the fence" about buying a cropped frame sports body to make a decision to buy my body before they even had a clue that something was up at Nikon. Every Canon body not-sold probably results in several Canon lenses not-sold. In the sports shooters case, that's probably several very expensive prime and zoom telephotos not-sold. Brilliant strategy but not new to other industries. January 5, 2016 was a great day to start off the new year for non-professional sports shooters like myself. It makes me feel that all the whining about a D400 may have had some affect. (humor) LOL</p>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>Kyle, you did exactly what Nikon wanted you to do, move to FX. There is no doubt that the D800 is the best option for landscape but there are a lot of sports shooters that need peak action and the reach of DX. Canon and Sony offer the only high FPS, cropped frame options at the present time. </p>

<p>One of the problems with searches is that you may come up with information that is old and a lot of comments aren't even dated (Photonet excepted). According to some ads and commentary that I've ignored lately, there seems to be a few new scanners introduced in the market recently. </p>

<p>I first start with date, year first, followed by month and date. The main directory, sub directories, image number, photo name, and size and file type. I never change RAW file.<br> 15-1220-socal-descanso-japanesegarden-0189-pond-1-35mb-tiff<br> 15-1220-socal-descanso-japanesegarden-0189-pond-1-450pxl-jpg</p>

<p>Just to speculate a little bit, perhaps there are a few technologies associated with the Foveon sensor that as Canon Nikon, and Sony advance their sensors in the future, they may run up against a few patents now owned by Sigma. Ka-ching. (or technology swap)</p>

<p>I try to go shooting early every Sunday morning. No traffic, no crowds. I'm privileged in that there are an abundance of opportunities in Southern California from arboretums to gardens to parks. Also pro surfing contests and college football. I also take trips to CA state parks and national parks plus a couple major trips per year to places that require an airline ticket. The rest of my free time is spent planning for a photography shoot, post processing images, or presenting them on my web site (and paying attention to the spouse). </p>

<p>For me, photography exercises a lot of skill sets. While most discussion centers on the actual act of taking photos, photography also includes planning (right place at right time), post selection (separating a few images from thousands), post processing (work flow), and presentation (web, prints, social media). This is a lot!</p>

<p>I have several lenses that are my favorite but the one lens I end up using the most and getting the most keepers (technical) is the Sigma 17-70 C macro.</p>

<p>If one uses the cropped frame D300 (with MB-D10 Multi-Power Battery Grip) specifically for 8 FPS sports or BIF shooting like I did, there is no Nikon replacement unless you move to FF. In sports shooting, capturing peak action is the main objective and the higher the FPS, the better your chances. If you don't need peak action, or are really good at capturing peak action with a single shot, then Nikon offers many excellent alternatives as mentioned above. </p>

<p>There is a Gitzo G 1228 MK2 Three Section Carbon Fiber Tripod on eBay right now for $249.<br> <br> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gitzo-G-1228-MK2-Three-Section-Carbon-Fiber-Tripod-Italy-/181957728086?hash=item2a5d869756:g:n6kAAOSw7FRWacKW<br> <br> It only holds 17.6 pounds but that pretty close to 20. It is used but you get a good tripod for price much less than buying new. </p>

<p>Shun, I like your idea of perhaps trying my other D7200 to see which one is better close up. As far as live view is concerned, does the LCD show exactly what the sensor sees? </p>

<p>Up until now, I have been straddling the Nikon system for general photography and the Sony system for sports. However, for extended trips, this requires carrying redundant bodies, batteries, and other stuff. I have decided to only carry one system on trips and have purchased another D7200 and use it exclusively on my new 80-400 AFS. However, I am finding that focusing really close at 400 mm is not as accurate as with my A77 II and 70-400 G. I have two questions. First, if I fine tune the D7200 body, do I do it for close, medium, and far distances as with Sigma Art and sports lenses with the dock or do I just do it at a close distance and hope that the correction properly affects the far distances. Is the correction linear? (e.g. It's perfect at far distances but needs a little correction at close distances.) Second, does it make sense to just use "live view" at close distances. My older A77 II has a digital optical view finder so you are always seeing what the sensor sees so no correction is needed. I can live with using live view for closeups at 400 mm on the 80-400 but wanted to get a few opinions. </p>

<p>For the fun of it, I just shot a photo of a memory stick with my last-generation iPhone. It's amazing how suited the images are for eBay and Amazon. My understanding is that the latest iPhone and best Samsung smart phones are even better. I know my comment is a little off-topic but I would still get a DSLR, I just wouldn't let shooting for eBay and Amazon be part of the decision making process. </p>

<p>Andrew, great article on Luminous Landscape, and confirms my reference to the word "subjective". I usually make a small print of an image, make the necessary brightness corrections in Photoshop, and then reprint to the desired size. </p>

<p>I currently have the brightness set at 15 (out of 100). The image looks great on my monitor but when I upload images to the internet and view them on different computers or print them on my Epson 3880, they look dark. I just do a quick adjustment of the histogram and/or just do a quick auto curves. Now my monitor looks slightly bright but my images on the internet or printed look properly exposed. </p>

<p>I also have a Dell Ultra Sharp U2412M and it works nicely. It is bright, even after dialing down the brightness. In order to solve the brightness problem, I make sure to watch the histogram in Photoshop. Also, at the end of post processing an image, I do a quick Photoshop "Auto Curves". If the image doesn't change...nailed it. I personally lose track of brightness when I'm intensely working on an image and I would probably make subjective brightness errors on a perfect monitor. </p>

<p>Shun, I was trying not to get too complicated but I agree that you would have to change out all the electric guts. I previously mentioned that my 24 MP, A77 II, shoots 52 jpeg images at 12 FPS wide open. I can't believe Nikon can't do better. BTW, shooting football at 12 FPS is magical. </p>

<p>Andrew, I woke my D2H up from its sleep a couple months ago and rattled off some shots and that thing is a real trooper. It sounds fantastic at 8 FPS. Nikon could just put a 24 MP sensor in it and I would be a happy camper. </p>