NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on May 05, 2017, 10:22:45
-
This latest rumor of the replacement for the Nikon D810 looks pretty reasonable to me.
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/05/04/new-set-of-rumored-nikon-d820-camera-specifications.aspx/
Not all of what I want, but probably at least a baby-step forward.
-
2-3 only Canon lenses were up to Canon's 50MP sensor. So where is that Canon with all of its bells and whistles? How many Nikkors are up to the new task? Or this one will be great for Arts only? Let us wait and see, because most of today's Nikkors are on the border line of D800-810 cameras. BTW, it will be very convenient to have option to close aperture down when the camera is off, to safe the spring. Not for E lenses, of course. And what about IBIS? My opinion only! LZ
-
I hear the Canon 5DMK4 is quite good, esp. concerning AF
-
I hear the Canon 5DMK4 is quite good, esp. concerning AF
But that one has "only" a little over 30Mpx.
The 5DR(s) have 50Mpx.
-
All lenses resolve more detail using a higher pixel count sensor than a lower pixel count sensor of the same area. E.g. dxomark note 45 effective MP on 300/2.8 using 5Ds R and 22 effective MP on 5D III. Their 135/2 resolves 30MP on 5Ds R and 20MP on 5D III. 35/1.4 II 37MP on 5Ds R and 18MP on 5D III. 11-24/4 26 MP on 5Ds R and 15MP on 5D III. I've already listed four examples of lenses which significantly improve the outcome by choosing the higher resolution sensor, out of four lenses selected.
The same is basically true of any lens. Both camera and lens MTF affect the total system MTF and this happens over a wide range of spatial frequencies.
My observation has been that even TC rigs improve a lot by using a higher resolution cameras, the overall image quality rising from poor with a 12MP camera to quite good with 24MP or 36MP. Of course, I look at the image quality in the final print, not at 100% zoomed in view on a screen.
-
I hear the Canon 5DMK4 is quite good, esp. concerning AF
Highlights are clipping, with its very narrow DR. IF it is exposed to highlights, shadows are noise. That's why Canon returns to 30 MP very fast. Hope Nikon learned. LZ
-
All lenses resolve more detail using a higher pixel count sensor than a lower pixel count sensor of the same area. E.g. dxomark note 45 effective MP on 300/2.8 using 5Ds R and 22 effective MP on 5D III. Their 135/2 resolves 30MP on 5Ds R and 20MP on 5D III. 35/1.4 II 37MP on 5Ds R and 18MP on 5D III. 11-24/4 26 MP on 5Ds R and 15MP on 5D III. I've already listed four examples of lenses which significantly improve the outcome by choosing the higher resolution sensor, out of four lenses selected.
The same is basically true of any lens. Both camera and lens MTF affect the total system MTF and this happens over a wide range of spatial frequencies.
My observation has been that even TC rigs improve a lot by using a higher resolution cameras, the overall image quality rising from poor with a 12MP camera to quite good with 24MP or 36MP. Of course, I look at the image quality in the final print, not at 100% zoomed in view on a screen.
In my observation, it is true to some degree. My 28-300 is OK on 24MP, very good on 36 MP, but on critical border on D810 sensor. No way my copy will be better on 45-50 MP sensor. My copy of 80-400G will outresolve 50MP, cose I tried it on the Canon, even wide open. My copy of 24-70VR will not, out of questions. So on and on. Different situation for every lens/body combo. Let us wait, so far, and see. THX! LZ
-
Sony's 42MP sensor in A7RII is of BSI type, and is superior to the curreent 24MP one in A7II, D610, D750 even in terms of low light noise. The dynamic range of A7RII is a bit narrower than D610/750 at lower ISO, but wider in high ISO, according to DXOmarks.
The new 46MP sensor for the rumored D820 should be of BSI type, and, considering that Nikon designs the camera more for stills than movies, there is hope that D820 performs better than D750.
-
I very much hope there is more to the D820 than these rumors suggest. Nikon needs more than baby steps right now.
-
The primary limiting factors for many lenses is nailing critical focus and choosing the right aperture. A week or so ago I shot four tests with a humble AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D Nikkor. The exposures were 1/250th~1/320th at f/6.3 and ISO 100. I was pleasantly surprised with the 28mm, 52mm and 70mm but I missed the 35mm focus. It might have been the camera or my AF technique or I may have moved a few centimeters after focusing, probably the latter. The focus is behind the intended focus point. I have two of these lenses. I paid $84.00 and $109.00 for them. They are plenty sharp enough for a D800.
While looking at a computer display at 60cm one needs to realize that at 100% pixels one is looking at a section of what would be 2.3 meter wide print. At this viewing distance DoF is almost nonexistent.
A step up from 36MP to 45~46MP is not going to make or break most lenses we own. If a lens is not sharp enough for 45MP but was for 36MP then down sample the image to 36MP and "Don't worry, be happy." :)
Dave Hartman
-
As for me, this way is not ease nor practical, without significant, for me, loss of quality of the file. Everyone for its own. I'll wait for real camera, then test. It is very possible Nikon, in couple months, will show something close to A99II. Will see. LZ
-
In my observation, it is true to some degree. My 28-300 is OK on 24MP, very good on 36 MP, but on critical border on D810 sensor. No way my copy will be better on 45-50 MP sensor. My copy of 80-400G will outresolve 50MP, cose I tried it on the Canon, even wide open. My copy of 24-70VR will not, out of questions. So on and on. Different situation for every lens/body combo. Let us wait, so far, and see. THX! LZ
If anyone gets worse results on a standardized output size when you start from a higher-resolution RAW file, they should look at their post-processing pipeline. I don't understand why you should get a worse output with more input data, provided you know how to work this data. Even if the lens is already severely constraining image quality at 36MP, if you go to 50MP you should have a little more details, not less, on a standardized output scale, but maybe the change will not easily detectable.
I'm just clarifying this, but I assume you know this already.
I guess the disappointment comes from zooming in to 100%, and I presume that the next generation (or maybe the one after that) of sensors will drive the demand for even higher-resolution lenses. I hope that there will be moderately fast high-resolving lenses, something like the Otus line but at f/2 would be nice and more reasonably sized. Or maybe there is a new breakthrough, like Fresnel technology was for the 300PF, that will make the lenses more compact without sacrificing maximum aperture.
-
Multi-CAM 20k and the radio AWL are not baby steps and both are likely included.
Multi-CAM 20k is the first AF module Nikon have used in an FX camera which has widespread cross-type focus points and this makes a huge difference in the rate of in-focus rates e.g. when photographing portrait orientation shots of approaching people (with shallow depth of field so the focus point must be on the face). In the past linear points had to be used for this situation which really are quite erratic. I would call it a giant leap rather than a baby step. But I guess we have different expectations. I remember very well when it was a good idea to stop a fast prime down to f/4 to get the shots in focus, to me this was limiting and annoying especially during winter. Today I can shoot at f/1.4 using the D5 without penalty. If the D820 can do the same with 46MP, that's quite an achievement. I don't quite believe they can do it especially in dim light but one step at a time it gets better and better.
Nikon's radio AWL implementation is the most reliable radio flash control system I've used and well designed so you can mix old and new tech fluidly. While third party solutions that work more or less sometimes have been available for years, with some of those products it's a game of installing the latest firmware upgrade and hoping that this time the body doesn't hang when the controller is turned on, etc. some features being supported and others not, it may or may not work on a given body / flash combination etc. I want none of that: I want just the system to work and that's what radio AWL with SB-5000 does on the D5. Since fewer batteries and bits and pieces are needed (than with many third party solutions), it is much easier to work with. I would expect there not to be any incompatibility issues with Nikon bodies and flashes supporting radio AWL in at least a decade or two. The SB-5000 also keeps itself cool via active cooling and is more compact than SB-900/910.
-
Multi-CAM 20k and the radio AWL are not baby steps and both are likely included.
I'm sold! Where can I buy a Nikon D820? :)
Dave
---
Ilkka,
I do pretty well with AF on the D800 but it could be improved. I'd like the feeling that 95~99% of my shots will be in focus. I think perhaps my D800 needs to be re-calibrated but maybe it's doing the best it can.
Another factor is high ISO mush. I really wanted a D700 replacement that never came. A D5 would make me happy I'm sure. I was hoping for the D4s image sensor and electronics in a D800 size body.
Is the D5 finder better suited to focusing manual focus lenses on the matte screen surface? I found the D2H easier to focus with than either the D800 and the D300s before it. I bought a AF-S 20/1.8G ED, AF-S 50/1.8G and AF-S 105/2.8G ED-IF VR as I found focusing my 20/2.8 AIS and 105/2.8 AIS/105/2.5 AIS difficult to focus.
Dave
-
I very much hope there is more to the D820 than these rumors suggest. Nikon needs more than baby steps right now.
I don't think we will see dramatic improvements in sensor performance over the D810, since sensors are already approaching the theoretical limits. BSI, copper wiring etc will squeeze better performance than before, but unless there is a breakthrough using new technology we won't see the improvements like we saw with the D3 generation. Of course a camera is more than just the sensor so we will continue to see improvements in other areas.
-
Something I would like to see is the red/green/red LED focus confirmation lights used in the F5. I could use those with peripheral vision. I don't think those will ever come back. They were much easier to use than the current green/green/green LCD indicators.
Dave
-
I somehow think that Nikon might split the D8xx line into H and X versions, with the H version being the "true successor" to D700. This is purely a guess on my part, but it seems like Nikon is trying to repeat the formula they had with D3/D300, which was followed by D700/D3x except that a D5x probably doesn't make sense (in that a high resolution camera doesn't need to be as hardy as a D5). So I think we could see a baby D5 in D8xxH and a high resolution successor in D8xxX.
Regards
-
I somehow think that Nikon might split the D8xx line into H and X versions, with the H version being the "true successor" to D700.
Yes! Please! I would like one of each.
Dave
-
Yes! Please! I would like one of each.
I understand that but what would you then tell to the current D750 user who is offered a "D760" with no Ai metering, possibly no in-body AF motor, no vertical grip option, a single card slot, maybe a fuzzy pentamirror viewfinder in order to differentiate this camera from the "D820H"? We have to be careful what we ask Nikon to do. The D500 is a great product but its presence in the lineup lead to Nikon introduding a slightly crippled D7500 (with no Ai metering, no second card slot, and no vertical grip option). A D820H in the lineup would no doubt cause repercussions into the D750's successor's feature set. Similarly if Nikon would make a D5X, the D810's successor would probably be stripped of some high end features that the current D810 includes. I think this would be really bad both for users and the company.
I think it would be nice if Nikon got rid of this kind of product design philosophy where features are omitted from lower end models not because they could not be there or because they're expensive to make but because they want to promote sales of the higher end products. I don't think it's going down well in the current marketplace that they remove important features from a product line's successors. But I fear that this is the way things are going to continue for now. Canon also gets a lot of bad PR from not offering all-out video features in their DSLR and mirrorless products, as they want to differentiate these products from their dedicated cinema line products. For some reason though, Canon products seem to sell really well despite of this ... so maybe the way online discussions represent people's feelings about products and what goes on in the actual purchase decisions are different.
-
Ilkka, I totally agree with you.
-
If the D750 and D800 had the same image sensors the control set differentiates them. The D750 doesn't have enough (for me) controls for fast paced event photography, JP, stepchild PR and any event where FV and AF-ON is needed. The "D620" is the obvious camera to strip of AI metering support. I'd look for that. Nikon needs to be profitable. To do they they need products that support the features most target customers want and those they don't want need to be pared away.
Another thing to consider in the future of Nikon is the Sony A9. Like it or not I think the 35mm format mirrorless (SLM if you will) is now established. Nikon and Canon will have to release 36x24mm mirrorless professional cameras. I'm sure these cameras are in the works at both companies.
Anyway a company has to please the majority of the target customers. If most customers of the D7500 don't use manual focus lenses then those who want to will have to ante up to a D500. It's the work of a benevolent dictator to guess how the "voters" will vote with their money.
Dave Hartman
-
I can't really agree with that. The D610 is an affordable, excellent body for slow photography (landscape, etc.) and manual focus lenses are a reasonable match to it (big viewfinder, uses the whole image circle). One of the important reasons people are using manual focus lenses is because it allows photographers to experiment with exotics at a reduced cost. The D610 allows photographers to record the full image of 35mm format lenses on a smaller budget so it is only natural that the D610 and manual focus lenses should find each other.
Nikon do not need to strip bodies of features. What they need to do is make better products that people will want to buy. If they need to ask more money, increase the prices of the products as required. With most higher end lenses they've certainly done that already (just look at the prices of the 105/1.4, 70-200/2.8E, and 19 PC from 2016).
Nikon decided to sacrifice some D7500 sales to benefit the D500 and make a clearer distinction between the two cameras. If I think about my use of a DX body, it involves telephoto for sure, and I always use a vertical grip for shooting with medium long to long lenses so that I can properly support both my elbows on my chest. So the price of entry for this type of camera then moved to from 1169€ (current price of D7200 + MB-D15) to 2564€ (D500 + MB-D17). Suddenly it starts to feel like 2004 again.
If you need an action FX body with a full set of controls, there is always the D5 (or one of its predecessors, the D4s etc. on the used market).
Obviously Nikon and Canon will make mirrorless systems but I believe they will be different systems from the current F and EF mounts and require new lenses to make the mirrorless AF perform acceptably or well. I don't think they can make the AF work well with DSLR lenses which is why there is such delay and hesitation from both Canon and Nikon. I just spoke to a friend who was testing the latest dual pixel AF from Canon and comparing it with entry level DSLR AF. The dual pixel AF apparently couldn't focus on low contrast detail in dim light whereas the dedicated AF module could. Mirrorless have some benefits obviously and I'm sure the systems will coexist for the foreseeable future.
-
If you need an action FX body with a full set of controls, there is always the D5 (or one of its predecessors, the D4s etc. on the used market).
The D5 at around $6,500.00 (USD) is priced well beyond the means of many photographers. It's also somewhat heavy to hand hold for many hours. It's not a viable option for many. The D4s is still quite expensive with older AF higher high ISO noise. For most of my use I'd speed up the CL advance to 5 or 6 fps and squeeze off single frames. I don't need 10 to 12 fps.
Dave
-
Another issue I have is no replacement for the 105/2.5 AI/AIS. You've probably held an AF-S 105/2.8G ED-IF VR. It's a Honker! It's as fat as 180/2.8 ED AIS and with its matched hood it's not small and discreet. It dwarfs even the 105/2.8 AIS Micro. I gave up and bought the 105/2.8G ED VR. I needed fast AF and found VR useful where I can't set down a tripod.
Would I like a D5 and a AF-S 105/1.4E ED? Yes! Would I have to workout to make full use of them? Yes.
Dave
-
The D500 is a great product but its presence in the lineup lead to Nikon introduding a slightly crippled D7500 (with no Ai metering, no second card slot, and no vertical grip option).
For some reason though, Canon products seem to sell really well despite of this ... so maybe the way online discussions represent people's feelings about products and what goes on in the actual purchase decisions are different.
There are two reasons online discussions do not represent purchasing decisions. One is that camera companies manipulate internet discussions in their own interest - some ineptly (Nikon), some very cleverly (Sony). The other is that people involved in internet discussions are atypical. People on this forum, eg, like manual focus lenses, and value metering with Ai lenses, but we are a very small minority - that is why MF lenses are cheap.
You cannot say that Nikon has a strategy of crippling consumer cameras based on things they either have not done (the D7500 does not have "no Ai metering", with Ai lenses it meters centre-weighted or spot only and only in M mode) or that are perfectly reasonable, like removing the second card slot, let alone things you imagine them doing, like putting a penta-mirror in the D760.
The modal number of lenses bought by dSLR owners is 1, and the mean is 1.5, including the kit lens: most people who buy a DX Nikon camera will never buy a lens other than the kit lens. For those who do, it is overwhelmingly likely that it will be AF-S. Here is a graph of interchangeable lens sales since 1965 (all brands). Sales were steady at about 5 million units a year from 1980 until 2003, then they took off (https://photographylife.com/a-few-thoughts-about-the-camera-market/). As many lenses were sold in 2012 as in all the years between the introduction of AF-D lenses and the introduction of AF-S. Removing the ability to AF with AF and AF-D lenses just does not affect a lot of people. Sure, Nikon has always valued backwards compatibility - and they evidently still do, because the D7500 is compatible with AF-D lenses, and there is no reason to suppose the D760 will not be.
Why, exactly, do you need two card slots? Card capacity has gone up much faster than file size: when SD cards were introduced in 2000 the maximum capacity was 2GB, and a D70 produced files about 5MB (= 400 shots per card), so there was a reason for two slots. By 2006, when SDHC cards were introduced, maximum capacity was 32GB and the D80 gave you file sizes up to 10MB (=3200 shots per card); when SDXC was introduced in 2009 maximum capacity was 2TB, and the D7500 will probably give you file sizes up to 40MB (=5000 shots per card). Sure, you can put RAW files on one card and JPEGs on the other, if you shoot RAW + JPEG, and if you don't upload all your files onto the same computer having them on separate cards is handy, but why would you do that? The same is true of the vertical grip: a D70 gave you 250-400 shots per charge, but a D7500 will give you 1200, so many fewer users need to carry extra batteries (it's different for a mirrorless camera, of course).
-
The D5 at around $6,500.00 (USD) is priced well beyond the means of many photographers. It's also somewhat heavy to hand hold for many hours. It's not a viable option for many. The D4s is still quite expensive with older AF higher high ISO noise. For most of my use I'd speed up the CL advance to 5 or 6 fps and squeeze off single frames.
The D810 can do 5 fps in FX (6 fps in 1.2x crop) and it is smaller and quieter than the D5 (though if the vertical grip is mounted it is similar). If you don't need more than 5-6 fps then is there really a need for a separate D820H, or would the (rumored) high resolution D820 do?
I find the large bodies more comfortable as vertical grip doesn't have to be tightened, there is no wiggle in the joint, and the controls don't have to be fit on either the main body or the vertical grip, in the integrated solution they can be also in the "in-between" area since there is no gap. For some reason I find the older D3X just to fall in hand more than the D5, maybe it is because the older model doesn't have so many controls. On the other hand, the joysticks are an improvement for jiggling the focus point around.
Some practice makes the camera weight not so noticeable any more when in use, and I like the weight to be concentrated near my chest instead of far away (as when hand holding a long lens). If carrying two bodies, then having all of them with vertical grips gets heavy quickly and I get that the smaller bodies have their place.
I've been wondering why Nikon have not made compact intermediate aperture medium tele primes apart from the 85/1.8 in AF-S. Maybe they regard the 70-200/4 sufficient to fill the needs of a compact medium tele and for a longer tele, there is the 300/4 PF. These two can reduce bag weight a lot. I realize the 70-200/4 is not f/2.8 or f/2.5, but it does render beautiful images and the zooming offers additional value. I no longer have that zoom (I needed to consolidate gear) but selling it was probably one of the dumbest moves I've made.
Yes, the 105/1.4 is large and heavy, but it is so sharp and at least on the D5 the autofocus is so precise that one can just crop by 2x even in very low light and the cropped image still looks good (I've done this in a dimly lit church and it looked very nice, beyond my expectations), so one could think of it as a 105-200/1.4-2.8 equivalent in practical low light event photography applications and when thinking of it like that, its weight does not feel so bad any more. I think it is better not to think about what Nikon have not made (i.e. AF-S 105/2.5, AF-S 135/2.8, or AF-S 180/2.8 ) but what they have made and how it can be used differently because of the specifications change, rather than regret what used to be. I am not criticising the 105/2.5, or 135/2.8, or 180/2.8; I would love to have some compact tele primes with AF-S myself, but if I think about the practical applications, the current lenses do a good job.
Zeiss now makes a 135/2.8 for Sony E mount and obviously it is smaller and lighter than the 105/1.4 even if the two lenses cost the same (!). Perhaps Nikon will make compact tele primes for a mirrorless system once the time comes. However, I've adjusted expectations and will work with what is available for Nikon. For example the f/1.8 primes from 20mm to 50mm are light weight and produce good image quality (the 85/1.8 could be included as well but I left it out to avoid overlap). The 70-200/4 picks up from there and we finish our light weight Nikon DSLR system with the 300/4 PF. It's not so bad! But, as always there are complaints that "the fire was put out in the wrong way." A perfect fit for everyone can not be realistically achieved.
-
The D810 can do 5 fps in FX (6 fps in 1.2x crop) and it is smaller and quieter than the D5 (though if the vertical grip is mounted it is similar). If you don't need more than 5-6 fps then is there really a need for a separate D820H, or would the (rumored) high resolution D820 do?
The rumored D820 won't have the high ISO performance of a D5. My biggest problem with the D800 is its high ISO performance. I didn't even want the 36MP NEF(s) though I soon grew to like them but only to about 1000 ISO. What I really wanted when I bought the D800 was a camera with its control set with the D4s' 16MP image sensor.
Dave
What I should have bought when I bought the D300s was a D700. Even there it was primarily price that held me back.
-
People on this forum, eg, like manual focus lenses, and value metering with Ai lenses, but we are a very small minority - that is why MF lenses are cheap.
I used to have the 135/2.8 Ai and loved it for its compactness and sold it for very little money when I got the D70 as I felt Nikon would not support non-CPU lenses in my price class of camera body. However, they added non-CPU support in the D200 so then I've reacquired some manual focus lenses. I feel the D7500's removal of this feature sends just a confusing message - Nikon used to be proud about their lens compatibility now they've made a confusing mess of it. They've introduced AF-P lenses that seem to autofocus superbly in live view on compatible cameras but few cameras support them. I think my issue with this is that we cannot trust Nikon to hold compatibility or be consistent about it. And with lack of trust it becomes difficult to make an investment in the gear. I do not think manual focus lens use is that uncommon - there are no records of who owns and uses second hand gear and on which camera bodies. I know quite a few people who like to fish bargains online and manual focus metering support matters to them. In my opinion Nikon should provide stopped down metering support on the D7500 in a firmware upgrade. There is no disadvantage to providing it and it can help people, e.g., when using a macro bellows setup (a perfectly legitimate application for a DX camera that supports electronic first curtain shutter).
You cannot say that Nikon has a strategy of crippling consumer cameras based on things they either have not done (the D7500 does not have "no Ai metering", with Ai lenses it meters centre-weighted or spot only and only in M mode) or that are perfectly reasonable, like removing the second card slot, let alone things you imagine them doing, like putting a penta-mirror in the D760.
The D7500 does not meter with manual focus lenses that do not have a CPU. There was a specifications error originally on Nikon's pages that suggested there would be metering but they fixed the error. Akira reports having confirmed that no metering is available here:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5739.120.html
With the imagined loss of features on a future "D760", I was trying to describe the worst-case scenario to illustrate that the addition of a new model in a lineup can mean bad things for a product that is immediately below it. Nikon removed the sensor dust removal feature from the D3400. It is really a profoundly dumb move in my opinion. I still have one camera body that doesn't have this feature and it picks up and shows dust more often than my other cameras. That Nikon could do such a thing is disrespectful to the consumer. It is not so easy for a regular consumer to clean the sensor and I know people are afraid of doing this. Nikon used to have wifi that works on the D7200 (still is on the D750) and now the wave of a replacement technology which doesn't work (I've tried several times to get my iPhone to connect to any Snapbridge enabled camera with no success) is sweeping the lineup. People are reporting Nikon software doesn't work to Nikon all over the place (I've sent several reports of problems and they thank me for reporting them and say that they pass them ahead but many of those software problems have not been fixed several years after my reports) and Nikon Japan are oblivious and refuse to do anything about it. It is hardly surprising if Nikon cameras and lenses no longer sell. Nikon think it is the market but it is really their own doing.
I keep buying new Nikon equipment because I love their optics and viewfinders but I'm really upset about the poor quality of software that they provide nowadays.
The modal number of lenses bought by dSLR owners is 1, and the mean is 1.5, including the kit lens: most people who buy a DX Nikon camera will never buy a lens other than the kit lens. For those who do, it is overwhelmingly likely that it will be AF-S.
Yes, but there is no record of second hand lens sales and usage. I know that people use both manual focus and AF(D) lenses, especially younger people on a budget. The compatibility has a far more significant role than the purchase of new lenses would suggest.
Why, exactly, do you need two card slots?
SD card failure is in my experience a relatively common occurrence, and I'd be uncomfortable relying on a single SD card for anything that cannot be reshot easily. I've had several relatively high end SD cards (Sandisk extreme pro) simply stopped working with no apparent abuse. I've not had any failures of CF or XQD cards though.
-
I somehow think that Nikon might split the D8xx line into H and X versions, with the H version being the "true successor" to D700.
I used to be an advocate for the same approach but there's no need for me anymore as the high MP sensors now also offer high enough ISO performance and run circles around the high ISO cameras in the DR department.
The extreme high ISO sensors lack in DR compared to their high MP counterparts, as a general use camera the high MP cameras are now the better choice were in the past this used to be a low MP and high ISO camera because the high MP cameras didn't deliver the needed usable ISO range for my kind of use.
A camera with a good AF, 40ish MP sensor, huge DR range and 8fps would be my perfect camera.
-
Well, at base ISO the D810 dynamic range is excellent but at high ISO it falls quite a bit behind the DR of the D5. In my opinion the DR is more critical at high ISO as the light is often contrasty and requires white balance adjustment and the extra DR of the D5 gives more freedom for handling the lighting contrast and correcting the color. It is more critical because it is a question of whether a usable image can be achieved whereas for low ISO any old camera provides a usable image, and the differences are really subtle. It is really quite a specific situation where the lighting contrast exceeds that which can be represented on paper without local tone mapping but is not so great as not to benefit from exposure blending from multiple exposures. I think base ISO DR is useful but it's more about finesse compared to high ISO where it is often a situation where extra DR can make or break an image.
I too shoot my D810 at up to ISO 1000 happily after which some discomfort with the results starts to mount, though still usable up to ISO 6400. The D5 really is very nice from about 2000 to around 8000 and then I've gotten usable results even at ISO 104200. While I agree the D810's extra dynamic range is invaluable I can still get the shot at ISO 100 with the D5 if that's what is in my hand when the situation calls for it. I couldn't say the same about the D810 at 12800 or 25600.
-
Image noise replaces resolution and dynamic range so the high megapixel camera is consumed with recording non-image data at high ISO.
-
... I feel the D7500's removal of this feature sends just a confusing message - Nikon used to be proud about their lens compatibility now they've made a confusing mess of it. They've introduced AF-P lenses that seem to autofocus superbly in live view on compatible cameras but few cameras support them. I think my issue with this is that we cannot trust Nikon to hold compatibility or be consistent about it. ...
... People are reporting Nikon software doesn't work to Nikon all over the place (I've sent several reports of problems and they thank me for reporting them and say that they pass them ahead but many of those software problems have not been fixed several years after my reports) and Nikon Japan are oblivious and refuse to do anything about it. ...
... SD card failure is in my experience a relatively common occurrence, and I'd be uncomfortable relying on a single SD card for anything that cannot be reshot easily. I've had several relatively high end SD cards (Sandisk extreme pro) simply stopped working with no apparent abuse. I've not had any failures of CF or XQD cards though.
The uncertainty regarding future compatibility of Nikkor lenses is at best unpleasant. In the case of very expensive lenses one wonders if they should wait and see or maybe just not buy at all.
The Nikon software situation is a best shameful. Nikon needs to release firmware and software updates where needed.
I've never liked SD cards. I wish Nikon would stop using them.
Dave Hartman
-
I used to have the 135/2.8 Ai and loved it for its compactness and sold it for very little money when I got the D70 as I felt Nikon would not support non-CPU lenses in my price class of camera body. However, they added non-CPU support in the D200 so then I've reacquired some manual focus lenses. I feel the D7500's removal of this feature sends just a confusing message - Nikon used to be proud about their lens compatibility now they've made a confusing mess of it. They've introduced AF-P lenses that seem to autofocus superbly in live view on compatible cameras but few cameras support them. I think my issue with this is that we cannot trust Nikon to hold compatibility or be consistent about it. And with lack of trust it becomes difficult to make an investment in the gear. I do not think manual focus lens use is that uncommon - there are no records of who owns and uses second hand gear and on which camera bodies. I know quite a few people who like to fish bargains online and manual focus metering support matters to them. In my opinion Nikon should provide stopped down metering support on the D7500 in a firmware upgrade. There is no disadvantage to providing it and it can help people, e.g., when using a macro bellows setup (a perfectly legitimate application for a DX camera that supports electronic first curtain shutter). The D7500 does not meter with manual focus lenses that do not have a CPU. There was a specifications error originally on Nikon's pages that suggested there would be metering but they fixed the error.
There are records of how many people are using Ai and Ai-S lenses: market price. If the lenses are bargains that means demand is low relative to supply.
As of right now Nikon say the D7500 is "Compatible with AF NIKKOR lenses, including type G, E and D lenses (some restrictions apply to PC lenses) and AI-P NIKKOR lenses and non-CPU AI lenses (M mode only); IX-NIKKOR lenses, lenses for the F3AF, and non-AI lenses can not be used". What they say for the D7200 is "Compatible with AF NIKKOR lenses, including type G, E and D lenses (some restrictions apply to PC lenses) and DX lenses, AI-P NIKKOR lenses, and non-CPU AI lenses (A and M modes only)". So the D7500 has lost aperture priority with non-CPU lenses; it has not lost metering. You just have to use manual mode. And worst case all you have to do is use a light meter.
It is inevitable that there will be some limit to backward compatibility, and there always has been. Pre-Ai lenses cannot be used on digital, and G lenses cannot be used on the FM3: how come those things never made you doubt the wisdom of committing to Nikon but limited automation with Ai-S lenses on the D7500 does? The level of backward compatibility Nikon is providing with the D7500 is high, by camera industry standards - let alone any other technology-based industry. Can you mount any pre-1987 Canon lens on any Canon digital camera? No. (And that was the 3rd time Canon abandoned a mount, because the EF replaced the FD, which had replaced the FL, which had replaced the R). Can you mount any Olympus OM manual focus lens on any Olympus digital camera? No - unless you buy the adapter, and you have to stop-down meter, and as of today the adapter is out of stock at Olympus (https://getolympus.com/mf-2-om-adapter-om-to-micro-four-thirds-lens-adapter.html). And then there is Sony.
There are lots of things that are presently found only in higher-level cameras that you or I might like in lower-level cameras - a dedicated AF-On button, in my case, eg. There are also lots of things that you or I might feel would be no loss if they were only found in higher-level cameras - a tilting LCD, in my case, eg. The fact that they might be easily or cheaply included is really beside the point, because for every person who would value a dedicated AF-On button or a tilting LCD or aperture priority with Ai-S lenses there will be someone who would regard that feature as futile expense.
-
So the D7500 has lost aperture priority with non-CPU lenses; it has not lost metering. You just have to use manual mode. And worst case all you have to do is use a light meter.
I think Akira tried the D7500 with manual lenses: no metering was possible, same as D5xxx and D3xxx models, so the statement from Nikon seems to be misleading.
Pre-Ai lenses cannot be used on digital
Actually, many pre-AI lenses will fit low-end DSLRs such as the D3xxx and D5xxx series, without modification. No metering though. And they will fit the Df of course.
Can you mount any pre-1987 Canon lens on any Canon digital camera?
Canon's lens compatibility since changing to the EOS mount is far superior than Nikon...
-
Something I've noticed over the decades is Nikon badly needs qualified proofreaders.
Dave
-
So the D7500 has lost aperture priority with non-CPU lenses; it has not lost metering.
We have a first hand report from a person who tested this using an actual D7500 and says that no metering is provided with non-CPU lenses mounted on the D7500. M mode is possible you can set the aperture and shutter speed but there is no metering. Nikon's site is probably in error if they claim otherwise.
It is inevitable that there will be some limit to backward compatibility, and there always has been. Pre-Ai lenses cannot be used on digital, and G lenses cannot be used on the FM3: how come those things never made you doubt the wisdom of committing to Nikon but limited automation with Ai-S lenses on the D7500 does?
During the film era it was valuable to have old cameras use new lenses since the image quality was not affected by the camera choice, but since digital surpassed the image quality of 35mm film, and keeps improving, most people no longer use old cameras to solve their practical photographic puzzles. Many older lenses still have value though and they give their best quality images on modern digital sensors. Some lenses are completely modern but have no CPU functionality. These lenses have characteristics which are interesting and still relevant. I don't need to go back so far as to require pre-Ai lenses to be compatible with modern digital cameras because those lenses are so old it would be difficult to find one in good shape today. I am not saying such copies do not exist but I don't need to go that far back in time to find the lenses that I need. As far as I know, the Df can be used with pre-Ai lenses if this is something that one wants to do. But the majority of F mount manual focus lenses that are still relevant today are at least Ai or Ai-S. In fact some Ai-S Nikkors are still current lenses sold by Nikon. There is no CPU-equipped bellows available for Nikon, and Nikon extension tubes are Ai not G or P or E or D, and certainly not AF. If you mount a camera on a microscope you may want metering. The PC Nikkor 35mm doesn't have metering coupling but it would still be nice to have metering with it.
The market price of manual focus lenses was reduced by Nikon reducing compatibility and viewfinder quality. Some manual focus lenses have still held their value well; I recall buying a 28/2 Ai-S for about 800 pounds ten years ago. A marvellous lens that yielded some fabulous images. I know there are many others of similar value. If Nikon was straightforward about the compatibility and provided excellent viewfinders in every camera, the manual focus lenses would be more highly valued today on the used market. I believe some of them have unique character and can yield very beautiful images. That certainly was true of the Ai-S 28/2 (another prized lens is the 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor). Today there is a 28/1.8 AF-S but the colour character is different and the manual focus ring is poorly made. Manual focus is valuable because one may be photographing a group of people approaching and one may want to place the focus between two persons, for example, to optimize the use of depth of field. This is something that is not possible with autofocus. With the 35/1.4G the manual focus ring is good enough to do this task though, but not on the 28/1.8, 24/1.4 or 20/1.8 AF-S. This is really annoying in my opinion that Nikon neglects manual focus on many of their wide angle primes. Thankfully there is at least the 35/1.4G where this is not an issue.
Anyway Nikon have shown some good faith and support to manual focus users in the form of the Df. Interchangeable focusing screens optimized for fast lenses and precisely calibrated viewfinders across the lineup would be a nice addition. Perhaps Nikon could add interchangeable focusing screens in the next version of the Df. I think that would go down very well with the people who want to use this type of a camera.
-
I must agree that slop in the focus ring of many recent AF Nikkors is very annoying.
The lack of a precise red/green/red manual focus indicator limits the usefulness of the feature. The R/G/R indicator found in the F5 was fairly easy to use with peripheral vision.
The D800 and D300s have focus screens that are far from ideal for focusing on the matte surface of the focus screen.
The D70's penta mirror viewfinder may well be the "abomination of desolation" spoken of by an Iron Age prophet in captivity.
Oh one more time: why doesn't Nikon offer stop down metering with Auto Aperture?
Dave the Disenfranchised
-
I must agree that slop in the focus ring of many recent AF Nikkors is very annoying.
Yes. By contrast Sony seems to do manual focus on autofocus lenses quite well. Maybe Nikon could open up some of their lenses and see inside.
The D800 and D300s have focus screens that are far from ideal for focusing on the matte surface of the focus screen.
The D810 viewfinder is slightly better though, it has a slightly crispier image. I think the D5 VF has a crispy image and it feels like the illumination is more even. The Df is another camera where the viewfinder is very good. There is some hope after desolation of viewfinders in the early years of digital.
The D70's penta mirror viewfinder may well be the "abomination of desolation" spoken of by an Iron Age prophet in captivity.
Yes, it was terrible.
-
---
Oh one more time: why doesn't Nikon offer stop down metering with Auto Aperture?
---
They will not do that as long as there is an aperture linkage present (and the lens is not E, for which this 'feature' would be easy to implement). The reasons are complex yet quite understandable if you are familiar with the Nikon way of thinking.
-
I used to be an advocate for the same approach but there's no need for me anymore as the high MP sensors now also offer high enough ISO performance and run circles around the high ISO cameras in the DR department.
The extreme high ISO sensors lack in DR compared to their high MP counterparts, as a general use camera the high MP cameras are now the better choice were in the past this used to be a low MP and high ISO camera because the high MP cameras didn't deliver the needed usable ISO range for my kind of use.
A camera with a good AF, 40ish MP sensor, huge DR range and 8fps would be my perfect camera.
Not everyone needs high resolution though.
The reason I think a D8xxH makes sense is that Nikon would then have a camera that counters 5D Mark IV. The D750 is in a different price bracket - it makes sense for Nikon to create D8xxH simply because they can make bigger profits from it. As we see from the D500 attempt - there is a perception that cameras like D7200 or D750 are not in the same category as a D300 or D700 - whether that perception is justified is not the issue.
Making a D8xxH will also allow Nikon to go much higher resolution with D8xxX.
It is great to design Nikon cameras in this forum! I bet Nikon is already manufacturing the next series so whatever we discuss here has no effect on what will be released!
Regards
Dibyendu
-
The last statement is true with probability 1.
However, don't underestimate the final polish on any model [lens, camera] being field tested as a result of the testers' feedback. I know this happens from personal experience.
-
I think Akira tried the D7500 with manual lenses: no metering was possible, same as D5xxx and D3xxx models, so the statement from Nikon seems to be misleading.
Of course it is possible Nikon is wrong. However, there are other cases where the camera has no idea what the lens aperture is and the camera still meters: when you use the BR-2A reversing ring, eg, which is just a lump of metal. On my D7000, with a BR-2A and reversed lens attached the aperture is shown in the viewfinder as 1.4 and twiddling the aperture control wheel has no effect; you can change the shutter speed normally. Despite the aperture showing as 1.4 all the time, the camera meters perfectly normally in M mode. That is, you can find a shutter speed / aperture-set-on-the-lens combination that indicates correct exposure, and when you look at the photograph the exposure is correct. It is the same on my V1 with the FT1 and BR-2A and reversed lens. You don't even have to have anything attached to the camera: it still meters and still indicates the change of exposure when you change the ISO or the shutter speed.
You would only lose this functionality if (1) the camera preserves the automatic aperture and does not have a DoF preview button or has one that locks the exposure (like the D7000), or (2) attaching a non-CPU lens gave you an error message that locks the camera, like the fEE when you attach a D lens with the aperture not set to minimum. The second would make it impossible to use those lenses, but I have not heard that anywhere and I did not think that was what Akira reported.
Not being able to stop down is not a big deal. You can still use non-CPU lenses: all you have to do is use a light meter. Sure, that is a bit more work, but does it really justify rending of garments?
-
In the situations you describe as providing metering, there is NO aperture linkage. Herein lies the clue.
-
In the situations you describe as providing metering, there is NO aperture linkage. Herein lies the clue.
Yes, but the point is to avoid conflating the question of whether the camera can meter, with the question of whether the camera can use the meter reading for automated control of lens/camera function. The distinction is important, so to speak, because if the meter is active and the camera does not lock exposure when you activate DoF preview you can use the internal meter to determine if you have the correct shutter speed for the taking aperture even if the camera has no idea what that aperture is, just as you can with the BR-2A. The FM3, for one, does not lock exposure when you activate DoF preview. I have no idea about the D7500, but that is the question people who want to use Ai-S lenses with it need to ask. Plus, there are Ai-S lenses, such as the 28/3.5 PC, which have the ability to move the diaphragm to its taking aperture without consulting the camera, and if the D7500 meter is working it should be possible to set correct exposures for them also.
Or people who want to use the D7500 with Ai-S lenses could just use a light meter. Even if they have to buy one, that is still cheaper than a D500 - and people should be using incident light metering far more often than they do, so it is a win-win.
People who wish to use obsolescent technology need to come to terms with the possibility that it will transition from obsolescent to obsolete. That applies just as much to Ai lenses as to film, vinyl records, and un-pasteurised milk cheese, and it is - sadly - irrelevant whether the obsolescence is due to any genuine technical superiority of the new equivalents - as, IMO, it is not in any of these cases. Wanting to use obsolescent technologies because you, but not most people, think they are of higher quality is always associated with a need to move up-market, and if those who wish to use Ai lenses experience nothing worse they should light a candle.
-
Les, it is not for you to decide when a particular item becomes obsolete. It is decided by the users on a case by case basis for each application. Nikon's fate is also decided by the users. Disrespect towards users does no one any good.
-
I used my Df with the 25 cm f/4 Nikkor-Q from early '50s today and got better results than expected. 'Obsolete' does not entail 'useless'. Worth keeping in mind.
-
un-pasteurised milk cheese,
Just a small parentheses. You should travel more namely to the South of France around and between Bordeaux and Gaillac where you can enjoy the best unpasteurized cheese ever.
The creamiest of the cream and taste of heaven.
I like this tyoe of obsolete.
P.S. Such is sold in village markets and never in commercial outlets as it is unpasteurized and obsolete.
-
...but unless there is a breakthrough using new technology we won't see the improvements like we saw with the D3 generation.
The breakthrough we need is a larger sensor (more square centimeters) to collect more light while the camera size and weight must remain constant and all the lenses we now use must light the new larger image sensor to the deep corners. Is this possible? :)
What about getting more light into each sensor well? I read about a stop is lost for a color Bayer sensor compared to a monochrome sensor.
Can we have Jumbo NEF files so when we amplify the living (stuff) out of an image to increase ISO we don't throw away so much highlight data and clip the DR? I there a possibility here?
Dave Hartman who want to break the speed limit set by physics.
Noise is inherent in light. I never thought of this when shooting film.
-
Les, it is not for you to decide when a particular item becomes obsolete. It is decided by the users on a case by case basis for each application.
It certainly isn't me and I didn't say it was, but it is equally certainly not, in any straightforward way, the users: the transition from obsolescent to obsolete is determined by the people who make the product and the people who provide the infrastructure support where that is relevant. If you could not buy film at all, film cameras would be obsolete. Wouldn't they?
Of course, demand and willingness to produce interact: Kodachrome, eg, had declining sales over many years because consumers - wrongly, IMO - preferred the saturated colours of Velvia, but the decision that demand was too low to justify continuing production was made by Kodak. There were always people who wanted Kodachrome, and there still are, just not enough to satisfy Kodak. And if Kodachrome is not obsolete, what is?
To process Kodachrome you needed very expensive, proprietary equipment and specially trained staff, so it was only commercially viable to process it at all if volume was high. (You can process it as B&W, which is what most people buying it now do, and I have done it, but it is a PITA and after all the trouble it is a not very good B&W film). So it could not transition to a stable future as a niche product, as other things have - vinyl records, eg, or B&W film - although that always results in higher prices. I don't know of any example of transition to a stable future as a niche product except on the basis of an open source platform, because otherwise the small producers who are willing to service niche markets cannot. The thing Nikon could do that would really help Ai and Ai-S users would be to make the F mount open source.
-
Just a small parentheses. You should travel more namely to the South of France around and between Bordeaux and Gaillac where you can enjoy the best unpasteurized cheese ever.
As it happens I live in the east of France, and the village has a maitre fromageur (AFAIK they don't do an emoji for a mixture of ecstasy and fear of a coronary artery occlusion, but if they did, it would go here).
One of the less well-known aspects of EU agricultural policy is that every cow is subsidised 2 euros per day (more money than 1 billion people in the world have to live on), and the subsidy kicks in if you have four cows. So it is economically viable to have very small herds, whose produce it is not economically viable for big firms to collect but which is perfect for a village cheese-maker :). Of course, dairy farmers in Kenya can't make a living because of EU subsidies, but that is because there is no cut-off at the top end, not because of the bottom end.
-
I used my Df with the 25 cm f/4 Nikkor-Q from early '50s today and got better results than expected. 'Obsolete' does not entail 'useless'.
Lots of things from the early '50s give results unsurpassed by anything of later date. ;)
Sooner or later, however, there will be none of those lenses left. One by one they will fall out of bags or get fungus or be thrown in the trash with the rest of Grandpa's stuff when he dies. You can't expect support for that declining population to continue indefinitely. There has to be a case made for new production, and ongoing support, based not on nostalgia, but on the photographic value of lenses with fewer elements.
-
The more reason to take good care of whatever gems of the past that surfaces.
-
But Nikon is still making AIS Nikkors though for some perverse reason they aren't making the 105/2.5 and 28/2.0.:
Dave Hartman
-
But Nikon is still making AIS Nikkors though for some perverse reason they aren't making the 105/2.5 and 28/2.0.:
I think they still make some Ais Nikkors for industrial and professional purposes. For example, NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) uses 50/1.2 for their own high-speed video cameras as well as 55/2.8 and 105/2.8 Micros for their own hi-res cameras.
Even if the remaining Ais lineups would be discontinued, they may continue to make some on special orders at Tochigi Nikon, like UV 105 and EL-Nikkors.
Incidentally, at Nikon House in Ginza, I heard that the guys from Zeiss bought ten Ais Micro 105/2.8's for their own FA machines, saying that it is sharper than their own Makro Planar 100/2.0. ;D
-
But Nikon is still making AIS Nikkors though for some perverse reason they aren't making the 105/2.5 and 28/2.0.:
I can only guess that Nikon thought the 105/2.5 could be covered by the AIS 105/2.8 micro. In my experience it has pleasant background rendition so can be used for portraiture (although I have not compared it directly to the 105/2.5). It is also relatively compact compared to AF macro lenses with similar focal length so the size/weight penalty is not too great, and the close focusing ability is useful.
Nikon must have decided the AIS 28/2.8 would be more popular than the 28/2, assuming that most would prefer its close focus ability over the greater speed of the 28/2.
On the other hand they decided to keep producing the 55/2.8 micro, 50/1.4 and 50/1.2, so why keep three lenses with 50-55mm focal length, but not others?
The lack of compact telephotos in the current lineup is disappointing. The AIS 105/2.8 micro is the most compact telephoto in the current price-list, if you need AF the AFS 85/1.8 and AFS 105/2.8 micro are the best options, and they are very bulky compared to the AIS 85/2, 105/2.5 or 135/2.8.
-
Seems they double the D500 sensor and leave the rest as is. Good concept. The D500 is a darn good camera. Yet I still hope they will put BSI into the package to combine high ISO capabilities with high Res.
-
In the situations you describe as providing metering, there is NO aperture linkage. Herein lies the clue.
I'm not so sure. I think that Les' D7000 can do it because it has an aperture follower and the camera thinks that there is a non-CPU lens on its max aperture that is set in the menu as f/1.4.
The preceding D90 could not do it and it is unlikely that the D7500 will if it does not have the tab.
-
My "problem" is that virtually all my manual lenses for F-mount have been CPU-modified :D Thus difficult for me to evaluate the behaviour on other systems.
Nikon silently wish for the aperture follower to disappear. The 'G' lenses were a first move in that direction and the introduction of 'E' technology takes this change a big leap further. I think we end up with the acclaimed backwards compatibility only being fully supported by the 'pro' calibre camera models. Their marketing department, however, can safely advertise 'compatibility' as long as one can attach virtually all F-mount lenses to any Nikon DSLR.
-
I wonder if this sort of behaviour could ever lead to a class action in the future?
...............................................
Their marketing department, however, can safely advertise 'compatibility' as long as one can attach virtually all F-mount lenses to any Nikon DSLR.
-
Well, so far all Nikon FX DSLRs support metering with Ai lenses. I don't think there will be all that many that would feel cheated by Nikon's marketing/specifications regarding this.
-
The next "improvement" likely is removal of the aperture follower even on FX models. It is an inevitable step in future development of Nikon DSLRs. Sorry but true. Only upcoming pro-calibre models can hope for continuing backwards compatibility.
-
The next "improvement" likely is removal of the aperture follower even on FX models. It is an inevitable step in future development of Nikon DSLRs. Sorry but true. Only upcoming pro-calibre models can hope for continuing backwards compatibility.
If they do that then there is no sense in using F mount products when the AF era compatibility contains dozens of footnotes of incompatibilities. There is a system by another manufacturer with basically a spotless compatibility record since the beginning of AF era. To me it is important that body choice and lens choice are independent and intechangeable. I don't mind one switch in a lifetime if necessary. For pre-Ai to Ai Nikon provided a conversion service. They have not provided a CPU modification service. No, a dremel hack job is not what I am looking for but something that Nikon guarantees to work and be supported for the foreseeable future.
The purchase of expensive photography equipment makes only sense if the company supports it properly after purchase instead of making a mess of it.
-
Nikon follow their own logic. For better or worse.
-
For pre-Ai to Ai Nikon provided a conversion service. They have not provided a CPU modification service. No, a dremel hack job is not what I am looking for but something that Nikon guarantees to work and be supported for the foreseeable future.
I would like this but how do you lock the aperture for AF/AF-D type compatibility? This alone probably stopped Nikon.
Using the aperture control ring would fix the above problem. It's a simple custom setting way.
I wonder if a contact block could hold the CPU. I'd think they could be made small enough now, maybe not. Probably will never happen due to small demand for CPU modified AI/AIS lenses.
The purchase of expensive photography equipment makes only sense if the company supports it properly after purchase instead of making a mess of it.
I think Nikon has done pretty well to this point but I have a bad feeling about today and for the future. The lack of a switch to detect an AF/AF-D type lens set to minimum aperture bothers me where the lack of a meter coupling lever on the camera body I accept as I agree few who buy this camera will want it. Were I to buy a D7500 as a camera to carry always I'd want to use my small AF-D lenses like the AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D or AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D. Lack of small AF/AF-D support and or small, discrete AF-S, G lenses is a deal breaker for me.
For those who want to use AI and AIS lenses on the D7500 there is manual exposure and a hand held light meter. My first camera was a Nikkormat FTn but I had an opportunity to get a used Nikon FT and convert it to a Nikon F meterless with a standard prism. I got a 105/2.5 Nikkor-P in the deal and I liked the Nikon F better than the Nikkormat FTn.
If new users are going to rough it and go without AF then they should be up to roughing it and using a hand held meter.
Dave Hartman
-
For long blocks, I use a tiny CPU print that sits entirely inside the block. However, that approach won't work for most wide-angle lenses unless one is prepared to to a massive surgery on the bayonet and pins inside.
Probably won't be too difficult to manufacture an equivalent small CPU assembly for the short blocks mandatory for the wide lenses. However, I stopped any further development as demand for CPUs has fallen over the last years and it is no longer economically feasible to set wheels in motion again. I'm just selling off my inventory.
-
They will not do that [stop down metering] as long as there is an aperture linkage present (and the lens is not E, for which this 'feature' would be easy to implement). The reasons are complex yet quite understandable if you are familiar with the Nikon way of thinking.
The Nikon FA implemented a type of stop-down metering. This was the first Nikon camera to offer Program and Shutter Priority modes, in which the camera needs to set the aperture automatically (rather than the photographer setting the aperture manually). It does this by pressing the aperture stop-down lever a precise amount. This works with AI-S lenses because they have linear stop-down action - pressing the stop-down lever a given amount closes the aperture to a predictable setting.
AI lenses don't have the linear stop down action so pressing the lever results in an unpredictable aperture, which may cause over or under exposure. The FA gets around this by taking a second meter reading after the lens is stopped down, and adjusting the shutter speed to compensate if the aperture has not stopped down as expected.
So my point is, Nikon could implement stop-down metering with modern cameras if they wanted, it would be technically possible one way or another if they put their mind to it.
-
I would like this but how do you lock the aperture for AF/AF-D type compatibility? This alone probably stopped Nikon.
There is no need to lock the aperture ring. Setting it to the smallest aperture is all the camera needs, and all it know about. It worked that way with AI/AIS-lenses on FA in P and S, and still works this way with current DSLRs with cpu-lenses with aperture ring.
-
Roland: of course Nikon is in a position to permit stop-down metering on their cameras. That has been the case for a long time, but it is not relevant. Nikon explicitly wants to prevent the users from conducting this kind of metering by a logic I have elaborated before and won't repeat. A twisted logic, true, yet it from their perspective has sufficient merits to overcome the potential drawbacks.
This kind of metering will probably be a breeze on an all-E camera with matching E lenses. However, not convinced it will be offered even then as it is a technologically inferior method of metering (seem from their perspective, again).
No need to flog the poor dead metering horse any longer. It is literally dead as far as Nikon is concerned.
-
My "problem" is that virtually all my manual lenses for F-mount have been CPU-modified :D Thus difficult for me to evaluate the behaviour on other systems.
Nikon silently wish for the aperture follower to disappear. The 'G' lenses were a first move in that direction and the introduction of 'E' technology takes this change a big leap further. I think we end up with the acclaimed backwards compatibility only being fully supported by the 'pro' calibre camera models. Their marketing department, however, can safely advertise 'compatibility' as long as one can attach virtually all F-mount lenses to any Nikon DSLR.
I have no problem with that, as long as Nikon keeps developing and marketing new "PRO" grade cameras.
The D500 is graded pro, although she is quite affordable
-
If new users are going to rough it and go without AF then they should be up to roughing it and using a hand held meter.
Dave Hartman
Ha Ha...and if the sun is out you can guess the exposure to well within the latitude of raw capture. I used to do it with Kodachrome 25!
-
Ha Ha...and if the sun is out you can guess the exposure to well within the latitude of raw capture. I used to do it with Kodachrome 25!
I remember on a backpacking trip using a humble Gossen Pilot light meter and the Sunny f/16 rules on Kodachrome II or 25 and getting identical exposure due to clear skys and sunny midday conditions. I replaced the Gossen Pilot with a LunaPro when I was able. I had just bought and traded to get a Nikon F with standard no meter prism and 105/2.5 Nikkor-P and the budget only allowed the simple Gossen Pilot.
Dave
Where I live if the sun is out midday the sunny f/16 rules work quite well. The further north one lives the more problems the seasons will toss at you. I've done almost all of my photography over the years at the latitudes of southern to northern California. I've strayed no further north a than Maine and south about 200 miles (320 Kilometers) into Baja California.
-
Latest rumour that meets hopes of many Nikonians
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/05/16/rumors-update-the-nikon-d820-will-have-the-same-af-system-as-the-d5.aspx/#more-112231
-
I remember on a backpacking trip using a humble Gossen Pilot light meter and the Sunny f/16 rules on Kodachrome II or 25 and getting identical exposure due to clear skys and sunny midday conditions.
I would argue that midday sun at a high angle with open sky is far from ideal lighting for photography and one would be best to avoid such conditions (especially when photographing people). People are squinting, sweating, and the hard point light source kind of light makes one's skin look gritty. Shooting against the light is better but even then I would argue that some cloud coverage improves the photographs immensely. Thankfully contrasty sunlight without any diffusive cloud coverage is quite unusual where I live. ;)
Nowadays one can easily make photographs in beautiful, even if it is dim, light.
-
I would argue that midday sun at a high angle with open sky is far from ideal lighting for photography and one would be best to avoid such conditions (especially when photographing people). People are squinting, sweating, and the hard point light source kind of light makes one's skin look gritty.
Whenever taking pictures of people' I always heed the advise given in Noel Coward's "Mad dogs and Englishman' ::)