D500 General Discussion Thread

13468949

Comments

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,452Moderator
    Yep, I would opt for the 18-140 as a walkaround lens too.
    Always learning.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    edited January 2016
    Maybe Nikon will finally release some new dx glass worthy of the new dx sensors. *Cough* updated 17-55 with VR *cough*

    Or a DX equivalent 24-140 F4
    Post edited by tcole1983 on
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,452Moderator
    Like 16-85 VR you mean? B-)
    Always learning.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,638Member
    Maybe Nikon will finally release some new dx glass worthy of the new dx sensors. *Cough* updated 17-55 with VR *cough*

    Or a DX equivalent 24-140 F4
    They already have. Most have "FX" badges on them. The wide end is week, 14mm (21 in DX) being the widest prime.
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,003Member
    I do not understand the desire to have a DX wide or midrange. Most everything under 200mm is probably better shot on FX. Yes you could argue that DX lenses are smaller than FX ones, but we are talking about the D500, a camera that is bigger and heavier than several FX cameras. If Nikon really wanted to pair this camera with a DX lens, they would have made a PF version of the 200-500 with a DX image circle (e.g. make it super tiny and light weight). THAT would be an amazing lens and a dream come true, as the best benefit of the D500 is in allowing one to remain mobile while shooting telephoto action.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,403Member
    Good idea to shrink the Nikon 200-500 to DX size. Also, shrink the 70-200 f2.8, the 24-70 f2.8 and the 300mm f2.8 (or maybe just use the 300 f3 PF lens). It looks like the D500 would suit many people as a "mini-D5" if Nikon would also produce some "mini-holy-trinity" type lenses in DX size. Perhaps those lenses are coming now that we have a D500 for them.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,231Member
    Don't quote me on this, but with conventional optics (I'm not talking about the phase fresnel stuff), you can't make lenses smaller because physics and optics limit their size. So a 200mm lens is going to be a certain dimension just because you want a certain focal length- that's why the new 70-200mm has so many issues with focus breathing. There are engineering trade offs to be made.

    I'm not sure how much phase fresnel lenses can shrink lenses any further.

    That's why us DX users want small primes- they're smaller just because they're smaller focal lengths and you can optimize small focal lengths to relatively smaller sizes. The advantages are less with long focal length lenses.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • RmologicRmologic Posts: 77Member
    @ manhattanboy. I did listen to the QC mode and it is loud on the show floor so hard to say. That being said I tried the D810 and the D500 and the D810 is quieter in the same conditions. With the 200-500 if feels very nice. The focus is quick not blistering but consistent looking into the dark corners of the ceiling past bright light sources. The D500 was lighter than my D7100 with an RRS L bracket but not nearly as heavy as the D810. The focus point coverage is awesome. With VR on I could get the PF 300 and the 200-500 to get sharp at 100% with a 1/15 hh. very nice. They would not put the front shade on the lens' so I was not able to get a full feel of the balance. but it is a big lens but not ungainly. The 16-80 felt very light and nicely balanced on the D500. For me the next purchase will be the 200-500 then maybe the D500 next year. I am still ambivalent as to weather to go for a FF for my landscape and Pano work or just stay DX. I love UWA and have the 11-16 but have envied the 14-24. The D500 Grip feels very much like the D750 and 810. I do love the large viewfinder and the shutter on the eye piece. Let me know if you have any other questions I make a daily pilgrimage to the Nikon booth.
    D7100,D3200, Sony RX100mk3, Nikkor Primes: DX 35 1.8, 50 1.8D, 105 2.8 VR, Zooms: Tokina 11-16 DXII, Kit 18-55 and 55-200 VR, 18-70 VR, 70-300 VR. SB-800, Induro CT 214, RRS TA-2-LB, BH-30 Pro2, MC-L, BP-CS
  • AndrewzAndrewz Posts: 122Member
    I'm thinking the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 would be a great lens for this camera.
    D750, P7000, F100 80-200 f2.8 AF-S, 24-120 f4, 50 f1.8D, 85 f1.8G, 14-24 f2.8

    Old friends now gone -D200, D300, 80-200 f2.3/D, 18-200, 35 f1.8G, 180 f2.8D, F, FM2, MD-12, 50 f1.4 Ais, 50 f1.8 Ais, 105 f2.5 Ais, 24 f2.8 Ais, 180 f2.8 ED Ais
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 861Member
    In reference to the first recall, I've found nothing suggesting the number of shutter actuations before failure. Anyone seen anything anywhere on this? It is important for sports action.
    I saw 200,000 somewhere.

    Looked it up. On Adorama's page they have:
    http://www.adorama.com/INKD500.html?hotlink=t&svfor=5m&utm_source=rflaid63773
    "Controls and Rugged Construction Worthy of a Flagship
    The D500 features an enhanced level of robust build quality, offering the same amount of rugged weather sealing as the Nikon D810. The durable body is a monocoque structure composed of magnesium alloy for the top and rear, while the front is reinforced with lightweight carbon fiber. The shutter mechanism has been tested for 200K actuations, helping to ensure maximum endurance. For further durability, the D500 excludes a pop-up flash, yet is compatible with Nikon's newest radio frequency capable flash, the SB-5000 Speedlight (with optional WR-R10 & WR-A10)1. "
    Thanks, I looked most everywhere else and just didn't see it. Anyway, while I was out near my camera dealer today I just walked in and got my name first on the list. Maybe it's a gamble but maybe the dice will roll my way. 200,000 should last me two years making it a 1k a year investment. One thing I'm hoping for is that the 70-200 f4 Nikon lens will perform better in low light with the D500's focusing system.

  • starralaznstarralazn Posts: 201Member
    @rmologic, thanks for your observations
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,403Member
    Rmologic: Do you think the D500 eyepiece gives as nice, bright and big a view as an FX eyepiece such as on the D4 or D810? The photos seem to imply that they put a FX eyepiece on a DX body.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,454Member
    edited January 2016
    The DX viewfinder by vary nature will be smaller, the image circle is smaller. All I know is this, whenever I pickup a DX body I feel like I'm looking through a tiny peephole. :p In all seriousness though, don't expect magic, it should be very similar to the viewfinder experience of the, D2X, D2H (the last DX bodies with a round eyepiece). Might be a little brighter, since Nikon has improved the pentaprisms a little over the years.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    Like 16-85 VR you mean? B-)
    Egh...not really the same. I mean like real quality lenses like the 17-55. Not a variable lens.
    Maybe Nikon will finally release some new dx glass worthy of the new dx sensors. *Cough* updated 17-55 with VR *cough*

    Or a DX equivalent 24-140 F4
    They already have. Most have "FX" badges on them. The wide end is week, 14mm (21 in DX) being the widest prime.
    Not really...they don't have any FX zooms that are really proper coverage on DX. You could piece together the holy trinity and it would be pretty good, but it would require switching lenses to go from normal view to wide at 24 mm. I do have two FX primes, but for zooms it just isn't there. They could use one or two DX pro quality zooms with fixed apertures.
    I do not understand the desire to have a DX wide or midrange. Most everything under 200mm is probably better shot on FX. Yes you could argue that DX lenses are smaller than FX ones, but we are talking about the D500, a camera that is bigger and heavier than several FX cameras. If Nikon really wanted to pair this camera with a DX lens, they would have made a PF version of the 200-500 with a DX image circle (e.g. make it super tiny and light weight). THAT would be an amazing lens and a dream come true, as the best benefit of the D500 is in allowing one to remain mobile while shooting telephoto action.
    Not sure I agree. Why can't someone shooting DX have wide to normal focal lengths? Not everyone also has an FX body. The 17-55 is a great lens, but just like the 24-70 was, it is getting long in the tooth and needs updated. Nikon keeps releasing a plethora of kit lenses and super zooms with variable apertures, but the 17-55 is still the only fixed aperture DX zoom besides the 12-24 F4 which is just a mediocre lens. Why? Do we really need 14 versions of 18-XX or 55-XXX or 70-XXX lenses?
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,454Member
    edited January 2016
    Why? Because those mediocre "kit" lenses actually sell in the millions during their production cycles, and make Nikon big bucks. On the other hand, Nikon would be very unlikely to ship over 300,000 17-55mm F2.8E VR lenses in it's entire production cycle (10 years). From the numbers I'm seeing, Nikon made less than 250,000 17-55mm F2.8G lenses in 12 years!

    Making pro DX lenses just is not cost effective, otherwise they would be doing it!
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,003Member
    @rmologic, thanks for your observations
    Agreed. Thanks again @rmologic much appreciated. The other interesting feature I saw listed was the ability to assign a specific focus mode and setting to a button and then have the focus temporarily switch to that mode/setting only when the button is pressed. Not sure if they can demonstrate that but it would be an interesting set up allowing one to take advantage of Nikons improvements in the auto 3D tracking without losing the ability to have a quick fallback.
  • esquiloesquilo Posts: 71Member
    edited January 2016
    Good idea to shrink the Nikon 200-500 to DX size. Also, shrink the 70-200 f2.8, the 24-70 f2.8 and the 300mm f2.8 (or maybe just use the 300 f3 PF lens).
    No lens longer than 60-65 mm will have any benefit from being made for DX only. (That said, I wonder why the hell the 85 mm macro is not a FX lens)
    Rmologic: Do you think the D500 eyepiece gives as nice, bright and big a view as an FX eyepiece such as on the D4 or D810? The photos seem to imply that they put a FX eyepiece on a DX body.
    The size of the viewfinder is limited by the size of the mirror.
    Like 16-85 VR you mean? B-)
    Egh...not really the same. I mean like real quality lenses like the 17-55. Not a variable lens.
    The new 16-80 mm is more equivalent to the 24-120 mm when it comes to focal length and DoF. That the max aperture is variable does not bother me at all.
    Post edited by esquilo on
    Nikon D7100 with Sigma 10-20 mm, Nikon 16-85 mm, Nikon 70-300 mm, Sigma 150-500 mm, Nikon 28 mm f/1.8G and Nikon 50 mm f/1.8G.
    Nikon1 J3 with 10-30 mm and 10 mm f/2.8
  • BVSBVS Posts: 440Member
    edited January 2016
    Speaking of the 16-80, have you all been happy with its auto-focus performance? The review of it on LensTip was quite critical of its AF speed and accuracy, which if true makes it seem like an odd pairing with a sports camera that needs quick and accurate AF.

    http://www.lenstip.com/458.10-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_16-80_mm_f_2.8-4E_ED_VR_Autofocus.html
    Post edited by BVS on
    D7100, 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 35 1.8G DX, Tokina 12-28 F4, 18-140, 55-200 VR DX
  • CaMeRaQuEsTCaMeRaQuEsT Posts: 356Member
    Rmlogic, can you compare the D500's shutter actuation feel in single mode against both the D750 and the D7200, taking into account not only noise but also how much shock you can feel in your hands? I am a little worried about your comment of it being noisier than the D810, as the D500 is supposed to incorporate a mirror damper just like on the D810. Of course the noise might be from a faster quiet mode on the D500 compared to the D810's, thus the comparison should be done in single mode. Thanks!
  • RmologicRmologic Posts: 77Member
    Good morning all. I will take a peek and see if I can get your questions answered.
    Re the eye piece it looked and felt identical to the D810 in size and features. I listened to the shutter in single and quiet mode and in both it was louder. The Bulk of the 810 might dampen the sound more. Resonance and mass may be the reason that they are not the same perceived audibly outside the chassis. I too am curious about the button assignment and new skin tone color. Thanks for the questions. R
    D7100,D3200, Sony RX100mk3, Nikkor Primes: DX 35 1.8, 50 1.8D, 105 2.8 VR, Zooms: Tokina 11-16 DXII, Kit 18-55 and 55-200 VR, 18-70 VR, 70-300 VR. SB-800, Induro CT 214, RRS TA-2-LB, BH-30 Pro2, MC-L, BP-CS
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,003Member
    edited January 2016
    I am a little worried about your comment of it being noisier than the D810, as the D500 is supposed to incorporate a mirror damper just like on the D810. Of course the noise might be from a faster quiet mode on the D500 compared to the D810's, thus the comparison should be done in single mode. Thanks!
    The D500's quiet continuous mode speed is the same as the 810's at 3fps. It sucks that the D500's shutter is so loud after all the rave reviews folks made about the quietness of the 810's. The single click quiet mode ("Q" as opposed to "Qc") makes different types of noises than the Qc mode, so the two are not really comparable. Although I hate to bring KR's comments into any situation, he summed it up pretty well here:
    The D810 is very smooth and quiet. It is one of the few Nikons other than the amateur D3300 that is quiet enough to be used indoors during meetings. The D810 is quiet enough so that I can photograph my family continuously and they don't tell me to knock it off, as I do when shooting the other large DSLRs.

    The D810 is much quieter than the clattery old D800 and D800e from 2012 that it replaces. In fact, the D810 is much quieter than the noisy D4S, and quieter than the D600. The D810 in its regular mode is quieter than the old D800 in its Quiet mode, and the D810 gets even quieter in its own Quiet modes.

    Unlike all other Nikon DSLRs, the D810 is the only Nikon DSLR that runs quickly in its Quiet Continuous (QC) mode, about 3 continuous FPS. I always shoot in QC mode for everything other than sports; the QC mode is fast enough for almost anything and I prefer not to be noticed as I shoot.
    Post edited by manhattanboy on
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited January 2016
    Speaking of the 16-80, have you all been happy with its auto-focus performance? The review of it on LensTip was quite critical of its AF speed and accuracy, which if true makes it seem like an odd pairing with a sports camera that needs quick and accurate AF.

    http://www.lenstip.com/458.10-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_16-80_mm_f_2.8-4E_ED_VR_Autofocus.html
    I pretty much disagree with this part of the review. I use this lens on a D7200 and it focuses as fast as any other lens I have. This part of the review leads me to believe they have a bum copy, as mine is 0 across the board:

    "What’s more, the lens didn’t avoid back focus problems in their worst possible form so depending on the focal length value. The autofocus fared well only after applying 15-16 units of microcalibration at the shortest focal length, 6-7 units in the middle of the range and 3-4 units at the longer focal length.""

    This is probably contributing to the slowness and focus hunting. Their lens (and/or D7000) clearly needs to go into the shop.
    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • picturetedpictureted Posts: 153Member
    I was very happy with the 16-85VR with my DX bodies (up to D7100). It's weakest at the long end, but I usually carry a 70-200/4 and prefer it for anything over 70mm. I plan on using my D500 primarily with the 200-500 for birds.
    pictureted at flickr
  • nukuEX2nukuEX2 Posts: 178Member
    So who is getting one ? show of hands ... :-h
    If I didn't get D7200 in July I'd run to my local camera store and preorder it in a heartbeat. I'd get it in couple of years... By then the price should be coming down to the level of $1700 :))
    D7200, 40mm Micro Nikkor f2.8, Lowepro AW Hatchback 16,
  • RmologicRmologic Posts: 77Member
    Hi All so after another trip to the Booth here is what I learned. The counter ops have only had 2 days with the new cameras and these are all pre-production so caveats aside. D500 Re Shutter noise. in QC the shutter is louder from the front than the back and louder still from the bottom of the camera than from the front. in single it is still slightly louder on a noisy show floor IMO YMMV. D5 and D500 In WB mode there is a Kelvin menu and you can set a specific Kelvin. Also when adjusting the WB it is in steps of 0.5 not 1. So you can have Cloudy B1.5 or A2.5 etc.. D500 Electronic fist curtain. In Live view you can shutter demand and get still images with no mirror movement! Face tracking in LV seamed much better with the focus tracking than my D7100. The new color algorithm is in part due to the Expeed 5 ( New skin tone color?). The D500 view finder is indeed brighter than my D7100 but not as bright as the D5. Did I mention that the viewfinder shutter was cool and I now have a new appreciation for the round eye cup. Hope this helps. The auto fine tune is per lens. NO mention and no visible in menu banks or limits to how many lens my get a fine tune. The neat thing that I did not know was it has a slip ring for aperture on around the lens mount. It is black and almost invisible. I am not familiar with this feature.
    D7100,D3200, Sony RX100mk3, Nikkor Primes: DX 35 1.8, 50 1.8D, 105 2.8 VR, Zooms: Tokina 11-16 DXII, Kit 18-55 and 55-200 VR, 18-70 VR, 70-300 VR. SB-800, Induro CT 214, RRS TA-2-LB, BH-30 Pro2, MC-L, BP-CS
Sign In or Register to comment.