D500 - 4K DX uncompressed out....

It is great to have a pro body and UHD. Will be interesting to see the video samples. I may bite.
 
Though, most likely it is 8bit and and jello infused. Sure it is good for a dslr, but we may have a couple more years before we get anything we wanted out of the "revolution" in 2008. We are close though. Very close, but still not there.
 
I think it's 8-bit 4:2:2. I either saw or read it somewhere ... too much info to absorb in one day.
 
It's going to be H.264 internal recording. I still don't see anything better than a hacked 5DM3. I'd rather have 1080P FF 14-bit RAW than UHD DX 8-bit 4:2:0.

And I don't want to dick around with an external recorder just to get to 4:2:2.
 
D500 seems like a nice all-around APS-C camera that does a lot of things well but none excellently. But it will have the convenience of Nikon lens compatibility and should force Canon to respond with its 7 and 1D lines. In terms of specs, everyone is spoiled by Sony but we'll see what CP+ brings in a month or so.
 
One thing sony doesn't have in the A-series, is the ergonomics. The aesthetics of they're inage could be debated to some extent, but they have definitely done a good job with making a pleasing image. But mirrorless tries to capitolize on being compact, and just isn't as nice for me to use. They are discrete. But size wise, the space savings are a bit of a placebo. I am not going to pocket an A7 and two primes. So, considering that i have to bring a little bag anyway, i would prefer a sculpted body. Thhere are virtues to mirrorless bodies, but some of them are more perceptual than real. I suppose if you wanted to be very low key or daily carry, a mirroless and pancake lens would be amazing. So, i totally support having the option of compact mirrorless bodies, i am just surprised there are no full size mirrorless bodies with good ergonomics.
 
My take is that "pro" DSLR's are 90% stills, 10% video. Nikon could have done a Leica SL type camera but chose not to. (Nikon also must have a non-compete with Sony through this time frame) And, had it been a Nikon higher-up, I would have also thought likewise - if someone is going to spend $6,500 on a video camera, they'll spend $8,000 and buy FS7 anyway.

And, by the way, this is mostly a moot point anyway. FS7 has been around for over a year now. By the NAB, which is four months away, there should be sub-$10,000 4K cameras galore. Red has already announced and others will follow suit.
 
I was thinking this may just be the m43 4k camera i have been waiting for!
 
Samuel H said:
But with Nikon F mount. Which can be a problem.
Click to expand...
Too late, i already have some Nikon mount glass. Also, i typically shoot between 35mm-70mm on s35, so finding focal lengths for the crop should be easy for me. Cheers!

The main reason i wouldn't get it is 8bit. Not sure that i ever need an 8bit camera ever again.
 
Of course it's not the only problem: it doesn't have the DR that I want (or so I think, no tests yet, but no talk about it either so I'd be surprised if it was much better than in the other Nikons).

It's a 2.2x crop. To match the FoV and DoF of a 35-70mm f/4 on FF you need a 16-32mm f/1.8, which means you want to get the Sigma 18-35. You're not getting much more than what I get with my RX100 IV, though. And mine fits in a pocket and shoots very good 1080p at 240 fps.

Just like the D5, I see it as a great camera for sports photographers, which now can also offer some great video. But if video is your maiin thing, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
 
Samuel H said:
Of course it's not the only problem: it doesn't have the DR that I want (or so I think, no tests yet, but no talk about it either so I'd be surprised if it was much better than in the other Nikons).

It's a 2.2x crop. To match the FoV and DoF of a 35-70mm f/4 on FF you need a 16-32mm f/1.8, which means you want to get the Sigma 18-35. You're not getting much more than what I get with my RX100 IV, though. And mine fits in a pocket and shoots very good 1080p at 240 fps.

Just like the D5, I see it as a great camera for sports photographers, which now can also offer some great video. But if video is your maiin thing, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
I was making fun of the D500.
 
I was intrigued by this camera at first. On the extreme wide end it kind of suffers since its much harder to get super wide Nikon lenses to deal with the crop factor for 4k shooting. m43 has a pretty solid advantage here since they have plenty of fast 12mm lenses and a few options even wider than 12mm.

Where I see the D500 having a good advantage over m43 is with zoom lenses. Take the kit lens option for the D500 which is a 16-80mm f2.8-f4.0 lens. Thats already a faster lens than many m43 zoom lenses plus the D500 should be about a stop more sensitive than m43. In essence using that kit lens would be like shooting with the GH4 with a 16-80mm f2.0-f2.8 lens. Thats a pretty solid advantage over the GH4 with its 12-35mm f2.8 lens options. Maybe not as wide at 16mm vs 12mm but it has a much longer reach at 80mm vs 35mm.

Where the Nikon D500 does fall flat however is when using the GH4 with the Speedbooster. The Speedbooster adds a stop of sensitivity so any APSC advantage of the D500 is negated. The Speedbooster also makes the lenses wider so the 16-80 f2.8-f4.0 becomes a 12-56mm f2.0-f2.8 on the GH4 which again matches the sensitivty of the D500 but makes shooting wider a reality.

That combined with the record time limit for UHD on the D500, the lack of true 4k (4096x2160), lack of 10bit 4k and UHD HDMI output and the GH4 is not looking all that bad. Add the Speedbooster to the Gh4 which is considerably cheaper than the D500 and you pretty much achieve any advantage the D500 had over the Gh4. Minus auto focus of course.

My last main issue I have with using Nikon for film making is the fact that almost every cinema camera out there that is considered a step above a DSLR makes use of Canon EF lenses and not Nikon lenses. I would be may more interested in investing in Canon glass if my aim is to eventually move into a more cinema type camera.
 
Please tell me the record time for UHD of 3 minutes is a typo on the B&H website for the D500. If that is in fact true that makes this camera virtually useless for any event type video, speeches, seminars, presentations and so forth.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Please tell me the record time for UHD of 3 minutes is a typo on the B&H website for the D500. If that is in fact true that makes this camera virtually useless for any event type video, speeches, seminars, presentations and so forth.
Click to expand...
It's 29:59 for D500, 3 min for D5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top