D500

[mikew]

I wonder if it will prove to be like my experience with 3D ... the AF being totally unaware of what it is I am trying to track?

Be fair it does a great job on the clouds

 

[rpsmith79]

why do you need all these extra more and more sophisticated multiple focus points?

for birds I tend to use just single most of the time, lock in with the BB and re-frame

BIF sometimes small group . say 5

general photography the same - focus on what I want press BB and reframe - shoot in manual mode and use fvalue to control DOF and shutter speed as required

Probably because not everyone shoots like you do Bill, should they just release the new camera with a single focus point then and tell everyone they should shoot using the focus recompose technique

It may well be aimed at the Wildlife/Sport market, (of which i am one of those), but i don't solely shoot wildlife, and i'm sure there are many other wildlife togs who shoot more than just BiF who will find good use of the extra focus points and new focusing wizardry

It's called progress (or in layman's terms, one-upmanship )

 

[Sootchucker]

Anyone noticed that like the D5, the D500 has 3 different sized raw files. Full size (either 14 or 12 bit), Medium Raw (@ 12 bit only) and Small Raw (@12 bit only). Previously in the D4 series and the D810, we only had a choice of full sized or sRaw - now there's a medium sized. Not sure at the moment what use it will be, but surely choice is good ?

 

[snerkler]

What camera do you use? 3D tracking works pretty well on my D750, although it's not perfect as when you track runners it tends to jump to their torso rather than tracking the face, which I initially select.

Just seen that the D5 has face detection with 3D tracking, maybe this would help with my issue of 3D tracking tracking the torso rather than the face. I guess it wold depend on how big the face is in the frame.

 

[BillN_33]

I'm guessing that you don't use very fast prime lenses wide open then, Bill. Try the focus and recompose technique with an 85 f/1.4 and see how it does. The ability to very accurately focus with fast primes is a godsend.

I have a 1.8 50mm and a couple of f2.8 ....... the 1.2 that I have is MF

Probably because not everyone shoots like you do Bill, should they just release the new camera with a single focus point then and tell everyone they should shoot using the focus recompose technique

It may well be aimed at the Wildlife/Sport market, (of which i am one of those), but i don't solely shoot wildlife, and i'm sure there are many other wildlife togs who shoot more than just BiF who will find good use of the extra focus points and new focusing wizardry

It's called progress (or in layman's terms, one-upmanship )

what I am really asking is why do you really need 153 focus points - how do you use them - I would love a camera where I could just aim it at a bird and the 153 focus points would focus on the bird and not other parts of the image - a body with 15 focus points that did that would be great - if I use say 5 focus points and aim them at a bird on a branch at say f4 I get a bird OOF and parts of the branch in focus as much as the bird in focus.......... the same goes for general photography, the focus points just usually bounce around ...... I am not just talking about bird/wildlife photography

Just explain to me how 151 focus points work in practice, what you would use them for and how many times you NEED that many ... maybe landscapes ...... but aren't they taken at high fvalues generally were the DOF is no problem.

I just don't see it

 

[twist]

Just seen that the D5 has face detection with 3D tracking, maybe this would help with my issue of 3D tracking tracking the torso rather than the face. I guess it wold depend on how big the face is in the frame.

It wont help. Because you arent buying it.

 

[StewartR]

The price. Whilst £1700 is what I expected, but the $2000 US conversion price is £1368.

Remember that US retailers quite prices exclusive of sales tax, but UK retailers quote prices inclusive of VAT. So the difference isn't really as big as it looks - £1729 is £1441 plus VAT.

 

[rpsmith79]

I have a 1.8 50mm and a couple of f2.8 ....... the 1.2 that I have is MF



what I am really asking is why do you really need 153 focus points - how do you use them - I would love a camera where I could just aim it at a bird and the 153 focus points would focus on the bird and not other parts of the image - a body with 15 focus points that did that would be great - if I use say 5 focus points and aim them at a bird on a branch at say f4 I get a bird OOF and parts of the branch in focus as much as the bird in focus.......... the same goes for general photography, the focus points just usually bounce around ...... I am not just talking about bird/wildlife photography

Just explain to me how 151 focus points work in practice, what you would use them for and how many times you NEED that many ... maybe landscapes ...... but aren't they taken at high fvalues generally were the DOF is no problem.

I just don't see it

Surely the more focus points you have, the more change your camera has of picking the correct focus point when in any of the tracking modes, if you only had say 5 points that covered the whole of the field of view, 90% of the time the subject would be between focus points, so therefore if you increase the density of focus points across the frame then the body has a better chance of tracking the subject when it strays from one focus point to another

I believe there are only actually 55 selectable points, the rest of the focus points are cross type focus points

 

[ukaskew]

^^ As above really, look at the demonstrations of the Sony a7RII with its 399 focus points right out into the corners. The more there are, the better tracking will be. Other than that, I often compose some fairly extreme motorsport shots with moving subjects relatively small in the corner/bottom of the frame, this will be great for this sort of thing...

Motors TV Raceday by Chris Harrison, on Flickr

Of course you don't have to use them, most (if not all) cameras with a huge number of focus points let you reduce the number that are actually selectable.

 

[gramps]

Surely the more focus points you have, the more change your camera has of picking the correct focus point when in any of the tracking modes, if you only had say 5 points that covered the whole of the field of view, 90% of the time the subject would be between focus points, so therefore if you increase the density of focus points across the frame then the body has a better chance of tracking the subject when it strays from one focus point to another

I believe there are only actually 55 selectable points, the rest of the focus points are cross type focus points

I would really like to think that was true.
What I would worry about is there being more points to confuse the issue, ending up with the software and not me deciding what's in focus ... just like 3D already does!

 

[rpsmith79]

I would really like to think that was true.
What I would worry about is there being more points to confuse the issue, ending up with the software and not me deciding what's in focus ... just like 3D already does!

Well i was only supposing, but i'd hope that Nikon with all their wisdom and knowledge knows what they are doing when it comes to designing a new AF system, especially as it is the same one used in the new flagship D5

 

[gramps]

Well i was only supposing, but i'd hope that Nikon with all their wisdom and knowledge knows what they are doing when it comes to designing a new AF system, especially as it is the same one used in the new flagship D5

Me too but then I still keep asking myself, 'what is the point of 3D?'.

 

[mikew]

I would really like to think that was true.
What I would worry about is there being more points to confuse the issue, ending up with the software and not me deciding what's in focus ... just like 3D already does!

Its just possible with the more sensitive focus points covering a larger area than they do on the D7200 things could change.i will wait though until you have bought one and tested it

 

[BillN_33]

Well i was only supposing, but i'd hope that Nikon with all their wisdom and knowledge knows what they are doing when it comes to designing a new AF system, especially as it is the same one used in the new flagship D5

I suppose I always use the single or maybe sometimes the 5 grouped in the centre ......... 95% the single focus point for birds as I'm aiming normally for the eye if possible or head if not

sometimes when I am taking a general facility shot and have no idea what to do I bang it into "Auto" and then I see these many flashing red focus points on the screen and I have really no idea what is happening

Even if I take a general bird shot like this I would use Manual and single point as that is how I set up U1

(not sure what happens on here - but the image is sharpe on my computer)

 

[rpsmith79]

It might go the way of the MP race, a few years ago it was all about the MP count, now we have come to realise that at the extremes all those MP don't make half as much difference as you'd hoped, and also end up slowing things down due to file size etc

But i don't think there have been many great leaps in AF technology over the past few new Nikon models, lets hope they have got this one right and it's the decent upgrade we are all hoping for

 

[gramps]

Its just possible with the more sensitive focus points covering a larger area than they do on the D7200 things could change.i will wait though until you have bought one and tested it

Long wait Mike ... as much as it appeals I really am in no rush to spend that sort of money without being pretty sure, i.e. get over the recalls and inflated price, let others to the QA testing and then see what the grey price drops to.

 

[gramps]

I suppose I always use the single or maybe sometimes the 5 grouped in the centre ......... 95% the single focus point for birds as I'm aiming normally for the eye if possible or head if not

sometimes when I am taking a general facility shot and have no idea what to do I bang it into "Auto" and then I see these many flashing red focus points on the screen and I have really no idea what is happening

Even if I take a general bird shot like this I would use Manual and single point as that is how I set up U1

(not sure what happens on here - but the image is sharpe on my computer)

No issue with single-point for a bird on a branch Bill ... what would be good is if the new AF would track a Kingfisher in flight without struggling and the jury, obviously, is out on that.

 

[BillN_33]

No issue with single-point for a bird on a branch Bill ... what would be good is if the new AF would track a Kingfisher in flight without struggling and the jury, obviously, is out on that.

not sure if it can if there is something else in the bg or shot

 

[rpsmith79]

No issue with single-point for a bird on a branch Bill ... what would be good is if the new AF would track a Kingfisher in flight without struggling and the jury, obviously, is out on that.

Indeed, we will have to wait with bated breath on this one, but there is no harm in hoping for the best

 

[gramps]

not sure if it can if there is something else in the bg or shot

Well if it can't it'll be no more use than 3D to me ... useless!

 

[ukaskew]

I think the auto AF-tune is possibly the most interesting thing to come out of all of this, particularly if you use fast primes. Certainly goes some way to cancelling out one of the inherent advantages of mirrorless.

 

[AdamSi]

I think the auto AF-tune is possibly the most interesting thing to come out of all of this, particularly if you use fast primes. Certainly goes some way to cancelling out one of the inherent advantages of mirrorless.

I know they would not do it as its a unique selling point of the new cameras but cannot see why it could not be added to old cameras via firmware, my guess its its only doing what some people do manually using DOT TUNE method.

 

[f/1.2]

I think the auto AF-tune is possibly the most interesting thing to come out of all of this, particularly if you use fast primes. Certainly goes some way to cancelling out one of the inherent advantages of mirrorless.

Lot of people saying it only works with Nikon glass which although expected is a little disappointing.

 

[rpsmith79]

not sure if it can if there is something else in the bg or shot

But i keep trying to point out, this is not just a wildlife camera, i'm sure the 3D tracking and other tracking modes work in different situations, sport, motorsport, aviation, to name but a few

Just because it doesn't work for one particular photographer for one specific application doesn't make the leap in technology a pointless one, which is what you seem to be hinting at

 

[Ed Sutton]

Just explain to me how 151 focus points work in practice, what you would use them for and how many times you NEED that many ... maybe landscapes ...... but aren't they taken at high fvalues generally were the DOF is no problem.

I just don't see it

You don't see it because you're not thinking outside your bird-box.

Let's imagine you have the camera set so it picks the focus point based on the nearest object in the frame, then the more of the frame covered with focus points the better.

I know letting a camera pick the thing to focus on is anathema to most hobbyists, but I do it quite a lot and love the way compacts and mirrorless will focus anywhere in the frame.

Sometimes focus-recompose is too slow, as is moving a focus point manually when in a fast moving situation. With a small enough aperture leaving it up to the camera to choose works a treat. So maybe.photojournalists, among the target market for a camera like the D5, will find it useful?

Just a thought.

 

[BillN_33]

But i keep trying to point out, this is not just a wildlife camera,

are there any others?

 

[BillN_33]

You don't see it because you're not thinking outside your bird-box.

Let's imagine you have the camera set so it picks the focus point based on the nearest object in the frame, then the more of the frame covered with focus points the better.

I know letting a camera pick the thing to focus on is anathema to most hobbyists, but I do it quite a lot and love the way compacts and mirrorless will focus anywhere in the frame.

Sometimes focus-recompose is too slow, as is moving a focus point manually when in a fast moving situation. With a small enough aperture leaving it up to the camera to choose works a treat. So maybe.photojournalists, among the target market for a camera like the D5, will find it useful?

Just a thought.

I just feel that the most effective and consistant way to get a good BIF is to use spot, single cell and move with the bird ............. only thing that works for me, but I also need luck

I am not sure that I would use a DSLR if I was not interested in birds/wildlife ........ plus I have lots invested in Nikon glass ......... but Sony would be interesting for general photography

I have a couple of Sigma DPM's, an M8 and I quite like the Canon S95 point and shoot for general, (non long lens stuff).......... so I am looking for the best Nikon DSLR for Birds ....... and I am bias in that direction .......... so far it's been the D750 and then the D700 .... but I have not tried the D4S or the D810 and to me a DX is just a crop of an FX sensor ....... I thought that was the direction Nikon were going ......... great FX bodies at reasonable prices and if you want FX just use the DX mode or crop

 

[rpsmith79]

I thought that was the direction Nikon were going ......... great FX bodies at reasonable prices and if you want FX just use the DX mode or crop

Why on earth would anyone want to shell out on an FX body to only shoot in DX mode, that's just ridiculous

I know i am not alone in the fact that i have been waiting a long time for Nikon to finally listen to it's loyal customers and finally release a decent Pro grade DX body since it killed off the D300/s

I have had FX, wasn't as impressed with it as much as everyone seemed to make out, but the added weight, size, expense of the body and massive jump in the price of the glass, i soon went back to DX, and i know i'm not alone in not wanting/needing an FX sensor

 

[htid]

Why on earth would anyone want to shell out on an FX body to only shoot in DX mode, that's just ridiculous

I know i am not alone in the fact that i have been waiting a long time for Nikon to finally listen to it's loyal customers and finally release a decent Pro grade DX body since it killed off the D300/s

I have had FX, wasn't as impressed with it as much as everyone seemed to make out, but the added weight, size, expense of the body and massive jump in the price of the glass, i soon went back to DX, and i know i'm not alone in not wanting/needing an FX sensor

Something like a d810 which has a high MP sensor, there's the 1.5x crop mode (which is obviously the same as cropping later in post) which gives a 15mp image. OK it's not quite the same as the 20mb of the D500 but it isn't bad and gives the same reach as the DX sensor, with much less noise. That's what I'm thinking of getting at the moment.

 

[Riz_Guru]

About time Nikon finally released a D300s replacement, a little too late for me but good to see it being released.
Love the spec's, it's a shame Nikon only make 3 pro level DX lenses though with the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 being the best.

 

[BillN_33]

Why on earth would anyone want to shell out on an FX body to only shoot in DX mode, that's just ridiculous

I know i am not alone in the fact that i have been waiting a long time for Nikon to finally listen to it's loyal customers and finally release a decent Pro grade DX body since it killed off the D300/s

your postings are starting to get a little contradictory - I never said you buy an FX to just shoot DX, I would never do that, I crop and am not too worried about the buffer size ............... Nikon have not listened to anyone ...... only a very very small minority speak to them in feedback ....... they have produced the D500 to make money

I have had FX, wasn't as impressed with it as much as everyone seemed to make out, but the added weight, size, expense of the body and massive jump in the price of the glass, i soon went back to DX, and i know i'm not alone in not wanting/needing an FX sensor

The D750 is smaller and lighter than the new D500 ... no!

glass is far more important than the body - I agree if you only ever use DX glass then buy a DX body - there are plenty around

your postings are starting to get a little contradictory - I never said you buy an FX to just shoot DX, I would never do that, I crop and am not too worried about the buffer size ............... Nikon have not listened to anyone ...... only a very very small minority speak to them in feedback ....... they have produced the D500 to make money

The FX D750 is smaller and lighter than the new DX D500 ... no! ........ my D750 is no bigger or heavier than my D7200

glass is far more important than the body - I agree if you only ever use DX glass then buy a DX body - there are plenty around ...... the usual maxim is that you spend far more on glass than the body ........... what lens would you propose to use with the D500

 

[rpsmith79]

Something like a d810 which has a high MP sensor, there's the 1.5x crop mode (which is obviously the same as cropping later in post) which gives a 15mp image. OK it's not quite the same as the 20mb of the D500 but it isn't bad and gives the same reach as the DX sensor, with much less noise. That's what I'm thinking of getting at the moment.

But a D810 is £1800, you get less resolution at DX mode than all the current DX cameras, even the entry level ones

Plus you then need all new lenses at the wide end (even more expense)

This may be a solution for some, but certainly not for the masses

For that sort of outlay i would certainly be looking at the D500 with its raft of improvements and D5 like features

 

[BillN_33]

But a D810 is £1800, you get less resolution at DX mode than all the current DX cameras, even the entry level ones

That can be said even more of the D4S .... so why are the D4S images "better" than any from a DX body ............. one reason is that the Nikon DX sensor trades noise for (noisy) detail

 

[rpsmith79]

your postings are starting to get a little contradictory - I never said you buy an FX to just shoot DX, I would never do that, I crop and am not too worried about the buffer size ............... Nikon have not listened to anyone ...... only a very very small minority speak to them in feedback ....... they have produced the D500 to make money

The FX D750 is smaller and lighter than the new DX D500 ... no! ........ my D750 is no bigger or heavier than my D7200

glass is far more important than the body - I agree if you only ever use DX glass then buy a DX body - there are plenty around ...... the usual maxim is that you spend far more on glass than the body ........... what lens would you propose to use with the D500

But as i have said, not everyone wants or needs FX, i know i don't, and i've been there, got the t-shirt

I'll concede that i didn't check every size/weight of all FX bodies, but in general FX bodies are bigger/heavier than most DX bodies, and in most cases (D500 excluding) much more expensive

I'd be using same lenses i use now, a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 and a Tokina 12-24mm, why would i need to change if i'm sticking with DX

 

[rpsmith79]

That can be said even more of the D4S .... so why are the D4S images "better" than any from a DX body ............. one reason is that the Nikon DX sensor trades noise for (noisy) detail

Who has said D4S images are better than any DX, and in what way are they better, surely it comes down to the glass and the photographer

Granted you probably wouldn't find cheap glass on the front of a D4S, but just because a shot was taken with top of the range gear, doesn't immediately make it better than any shot taken on DX

 

[BillN_33]

But as i have said, not everyone wants or needs FX, i know i don't, and i've been there, got the t-shirt

I'll concede that i didn't check every size/weight of all FX bodies, but in general FX bodies are bigger/heavier than most DX bodies, and in most cases (D500 excluding) much more expensive

Nikon FX Bodies WERE ....... the D610 and the D750 changed that ....... and the D500 is now even-ing things up ........ although I think that it is bigger and heavier than the D750/D610

 

[BillN_33]

Who has said D4S images are better than any DX, and in what way are they better, surely it comes down to the glass and the photographer

Granted you probably wouldn't find cheap glass on the front of a D4S, but just because a shot was taken with top of the range gear, doesn't immediately make it better than any shot taken on DX

Again, you mis-understand - I said the images were better not the shot ... but a monkey can take a good "shot"

I suppose the question is, what would you rather have for the same price, a D500 or D810 ... and do you think that developing an expensive DX DSLR is the way to go for Nikon

 

[rpsmith79]

Again, you mis-understand - I said the images were better not the shot ... but a monkey can take a good "shot"

I suppose the question is, what would you rather have for the same price, a D500 or D810

Surely it still depends on the glass and the tog (and subject matter), and again, how are you defining better, in what way is a D4S shot better than a D7200 shot for example?

 

[BillN_33]

Surely it still depends on the glass and the tog (and subject matter), and again, how are you defining better, in what way is a D4S shot better than a D7200 shot for example?

again I said image NOT shot

take it all the way back then ....... a shot from a Canon S95 can be better than that from a D4S ......... but the image will not be

not really worth the discussion anymore

 

[rpsmith79]

again I said image NOT shot

take it all the way back then ....... a shot from a Canon S95 can be better than that from a D4S ......... but the image will not be

not really worth the discussion anymore

Shot/image, same thing to me, but i'll rephrase question if you like

In what way is a D4S image better than a D7200 image for example?