CES is just a few days away, what do you hope Nikon will announce for the d5 and d8xx/9xx
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 915 Image Height 818 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:15 12:02:07 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 610 Image Height 545
>>2735410
Nikon DF2 -> Two card slots, slimmer and smaller body, same vintage look. Some better way to focus on manual lens, could be focus peaking on live view.
Nikon D7300-> Phase Detection AF on live view, able to change apperture on live view, in body stabilization, silent body focus motor for filming. 4k filming.
Nikon D850-> 50 mp full frame sensor. 8k filming.
>>2735466
>8k filming
>>2735466
Why would you ever EVER build a DF2.
Talk about an unwanted sequel. That's like the "Lost World" of cameras. The Garfield: 2 of digital capture technology. The Ghostbusters 3 of optical rendering hardware.
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5.htm
This fucking guy.......
>>2735483
maybe it's because people kept bitching about the DF in the first place?
A DF 2 could possibly redeem the line, that's the whole point to making one.
Nikon never announces anything cool at CES. that said, there's a whole laundry list of things Nikon needs to do. the D5 probably wont have anything amazing we didn't already see from the leaked preview (slightly larger AF coverage). the only thing I can see happening is putting on sensor PDAF for live view, effectively turning the camera into a big 1V3.
what will nikon likely release? we know theres the SB5000, and a shitty wifi adapter. a new lineup of shitty coolpix cameras that still can't match the competition. another iteration of the 1 series that lacks the gumption to be a serious photographic tool. this is not the nikon of the 80s that we knew and loved. this is a nikon in its bureaucratic death throes.
what do we want (or atleast, thom hogan-esque enthusiasts)? D400, finally, power aperture across all cameras (do E diaphragm lenses automatically get aperture control in live view), the DX and CX lineups to be filled out, and just some love all around.
>>2735514
42mp @ 12fps
hmm
>>2735515
Df2 if there is one is fine having a crop sensor but with a smaller body the size of nikon fm or fe. Look at olympus om-d and fuji xt line up.
>>2735630
they manage those sizes because they subtract the mirror box, and the extra electronics makes it about equal to the thickness of an older film slr.
I wonder why they still didn't updated the Coolpix A, or even make a APS-C digital model of the 28ti and 35ti... The Sonys 24mp with PDAF would destroy the GR and X100 on the market.
>>2735645
Really it should be a easy task, how did Pentax failed that? The size is good, but everything else is a disaster.
hopefully a fucking 24mm 1.8f DX prime, the cunts
>>2735483
I may be considered to be missing the point here but reminder that JPIII was by far the worst of them all.
>>2735410
>d5
Some 7000 dollar sports camera which no consumer is interested in.
>d8xx/9xx
Will probably be the same 42MP BSI.
Sony already blew its load 6 months ago. I don't think they have an update ready this soon.
>>2735466
>able to change aperture in liveview
What
Is this a real thing? Is it not possible to change aperture on Nikons in live view? Entry level Pentax and Canon can do this shit, WTF?
It's a mundane thing not a super advanced feature!
>>2735658
Pentax didn't want to make a new lens system for their mirrorless so they left the flange distance of the DSLRs.
Also the K-01 would've been a better camera if it wasn't "designed" by a retarded fashion designer. Making it look like a damn camera without any banana jacket would've made it a winner.
>>2735645
Then if there is a df2 they should lessen the electronics of it and make it simpler. No built-in flash as well so that the viewfinder is as big as that of the OM-1.
>>2735704
A 24mm focal length is weird for a dx. That's roughly 36mm. An 18mm prime is better since it is wider and roughly a 28mm equivalent. It is more useful for street.
Nikon is already rekt by 5DS.
Based Canon marketing.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 700 Image Height 394 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:02:11 10:58:26 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 582 Image Height 394
>>2735817
Any non-Canon APS-C has less noise on base ISO than that piece of shit 5Ds. Rake the ISO higher and it gets absolutely buttblasted. While the APS-C is still usable at ISO 6400 the 5Ds is a noise vomit at ISO 1600.
I say Canon rekt themselves.
>>2735805
You can if you own the d750, d800,d810,d4. As it have a separated motor for aperture.
No dx camera can do it.
>>2735853
Wow.
I'll spend the rest of the day playing with my K-50 in liveview setting aperture back and forth.
>>2735410
nikon better get their shit together senpai. its been years.
>>2735410
Looks like a huge fat guy with a tiny little head.
Even Sony SLTs looked better. I'm glad Pentax went with the 67 look for their FF, looks awesome, would fondle all day.
For Canon, well, lets not talk about Canon.
>>2735466
>silent body focus motor for filming.
I saw that embarrassing AF head tracking video done by DPreview a few months ago.
Movie recording is definitely not a strong point of Nikon. that shit was just wow.
>>2735866
>relying on AF for video
wow. can you be more pleb?
>>2735868
>defending corporation retardation
wow right back at you.
>>2735870
There was no defending anything, just pointing out your foolishness.
If you go for quality video, you never AF. You have to follow focus by hand.
>>2735872
Or if you go for quality video, you go with a non-Nikon brand that does AF better for you.
>>2735873
Why are you still defending AF in video? Are you literally retarded?
>>2735876
It's a requested feature from many people.
Everybody is ahead of Nikon, he is the special kid in the class. And there is something to be said about you when you defend this inferiority.
>We suck so hopelessly we have to resort to manual focus argument
Defending the rights of that special kid to remain special instead of forcing him to become as good as the others.
>>2735483
I fucking love my DF.
>>2735877
>video AF
>good
Get a load of this guy
>>2735879
Do you even understand the error of your thinking?
Everybody else had great Video AF, but more importantly they keep improving. But you want Nikon to be the eternal caveman. What could possibly go wrong with this type of shortsight?
>>2735810
IIRC, Nikon already accounts for the "equivalent" when labeling their DX lenses. ie a DX labeled as 24mm will have the same FOV as an FX 24mm
>>2735895
that is incorrect.
>>2735895
So wrong. Mounting a *labeled* 24mm dx lens on a dx body will give the *fov* of a 36mm. It would be the same if you mounted a 24mm fx lens on a dx body. To get a 24mm fov on a dx body you would need a 16mm lens.
>>2735881
Not that anon but it does't matter if everyone has good AF. In a professional or advanced amateur setting, no one is going to be using AF. Follow focuses and focus pullers/1st ACs exist for a reason. In cinema, everything is manual, focus, zoom, and iris movement. Don't talk if you know nothing of the industry you're speaking about.
>>2735817
This photo just shows how eager Canon was to get back at Nikon for having an awesome high mp dslr for so long. And weren't Canon fanboys originally scoffing because "megapixels mean nothing, my 5D III has more than enough?"
>>2735930
>And weren't Canon fanboys originally scoffing because "megapixels mean nothing, my 5D III has more than enough?"
I shoot Canon and I still very much feel that way. I look at the 5Ds and think "...wtf? Why?"
>>2735808
I understand that they wanted to keep the flange, but come on, it should basically work like a Sony camera with the Contax G adapter, just a empty space with a screw driver motor.
I think Sony already had on sensor PDAF back then, and Nikon was doing that with their 1 series.
P30 or MZ-S design would kill.
>>2735938
The K-01 with the XS pancake lens is smaller than any other mirrorless with equivalent lens.
The design is putting me off though.
>>2735810
Are you saying that a roughly 35mm focal length is weird? Because that's probably either the first or second most popular prime focal length....
>>2735819
>I say Canon rekt themselves.
Well they are Canon, to be fair.
Also, to be fair, if you're the sort of person who can actually benefit from this camera, you're probably on a tripod in controlled lighting (Fashion, product, landscape)
but it's still pretty funny to see how badly Canon is struggling to stay current with their sensor tech.
>>2735877
>of Nikon, he is the special kid in the class. And there is something to be said abo
You will never see an actual video production (even low level local music videos) that are using autofocus on their videos. There's a reason you can't get cine glass with an AF system. The people asking for it are the people trying to take videos of ducks in the park. The issue is, no matter how good the system,you're going to get stepping and jerking, as the subject sits within, and then breaks the threshold for activating the AF system. It looks bad, it's jarring, and it's amateur. A follow focus system can be very inexpensive, very easy to operate, and perfectly smooth. Yes, it's a feature that Nikon lacks at this point, but it's not a feature that is important for even moderately serious shooters.
It's like complaining that your camera doesn't come with automatic tone mapping mode.
>>2735946
The main thing is it's not funny. There's some major leadership retardation going on here, think Hoya bloodsucking kind of retardation in R&D.
There will be big changes, either Canon comes out with current tech sensors after some corporate struggle or they go under in the professional sector. They walked the middle road long enough to stay there.
>>2735951
Well it's funny if you aren't emotionally invested in a multinational corporation... If you're a die-hard canon defender on the front lines of the internet fighting in forums, sure that your deity is about to give you some hot new artillery to use in the trenches, and they just ploop out the 5Ds, which is basically just a big pile of T1i sensors held together with scotch tape hoping the world won't notice, then yeah, I guess it's not funny.
>>2735856
or you could, y'know, take some pictures?
>>2735704
that would be fucking glorious, the 35 is too tight
>>2735955
>a big pile of T1i sensors held together with scotch tape
>>2735809
sorry mate, the electronics I'm taking about are necessary internal components. sensors are really thick when you add all the other parts needed to make them work.
>>2735876
It's one of the most praised feature on Canon's C100 and C300.
>>2735970
Since when was Canon relevant in... well, anything? 10 years ago maybe, but it's 2016 now.
>>2735466
Nikon D7300-> Phase Detection AF on live view, able to change apperture on live view, in body stabilization, silent body focus motor for filming. 4k filming.
But the 7200 already has in body stabilization dude
>>2735988
>D7200
>IBIS
It's not a Pentax, dude
>>2735988
http://cameradecision.com/faq/does-Nikon-D7200-have-Image-Stabilization
>>2735918
>Not that anon but it does't matter if everyone has good AF.
Yes i does, because everyone will just constantly improve their tech and the distance will be larger and larger. This means it will be harder and harder to catch up.
And ones there is a new market opening up for this feature it will be too late for you, since you've insisted on being the manual focus caveman. With this kind of thinking you will inevitably end up like Kodak and the dodos.
>>2736124
>And ones there is a new market opening up for this feature it will be too late for you, since you've insisted on being the manual focus caveman
This market has been trying to open up in cinema since the inception of autofocus, but no professional set will use it because it's always better to have a trained 1st AC pulling focus than trusting a computer to try and hit a mark multiple times during a scene, especially when it's one that has been highly choreographed and requires zero room for error. No AF system will ever replace a focus puller. Again, don't speak on something you're not qualified to yap about.
>>2736445
I'm not necessarily talking about cinema recording. No one knows what markets will open up in the future, but everybody with they had prepared themselves for it after the fact.
Look at how Canon is chasing the 360 degree movie gadgets. Chasing = bad, pioneer = good.
What do you think will happen to Nikon if Canon successfully implement their vision of future camera stills being extracted from movie streams? Nikon would be forever fucked because they listened to some retard from 4chan who insisted on staying with manual focus forever.
The kind of stubborn loser mentality you're displaying would end up killing Nikon if you were in charge.
>>2736457
What do you think will happen to Nikon if Canon successfully implement their vision of future camera stills being extracted from movie streams?
How is this pertinent to AF in video? If you think applying AF to video would help them with their stills from movies idea then you're wrong. You'd be almost guaranteed to get a more usable still from a movie stream using a manual follow focus than one with autofocus that hunts constantly. Not to mention stills from a movie stream will be stuck at 1/48th of a second exposure so unless the subject is somewhat motionless, you're going to get motion blur. Please though, do explain how Nikon will be fucked if Canon implements this technology, since it's much more limited by the camera's framerates and sensor resolving power than by use of AF or manual focus. As an addendum, tons of broadcast media uses manual focus with their cameras. Camera ops either directly change focus on the lens or if they're on sticks, use a knob focus control. You really don't know shit about what you're saying, it's like >>2735950 said, the people asking for the feature are almost completely hobbyists. The Canon C series has video AF, but having talked to the DoP who worked on the first short shot with the C300 mkII, he said himself that he would not trust the AF for anything but simple shots. Once you get into a complicated scene, you want to have control of the focus, it's speed, and where it's placed. Manual focus will continue to trump AF in creative video applications, and given that Nikon DSLRs are being used for that purpose, Nikon has no incentive to put AF in their DSLRs when it won't be used anyways.
>>2736568
Whether you like it or not, AF for Video will improve from here on out. You will be left behind, and that's a guarantee.
You are the caveman who thinks his caveman clubs is the best shit ever forever, and then you bet on the manual focus to persist against technological progress.
Heck I wouldn't be surprised if half your perception of video AF stems from how much Nikon sucks at it and judge from that.
It's completely utter loser mentality to give up because it's too hard to implement while the competition constantly gets better and better at it.
Nikon users on suicide watch. eg. me
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/01/04/nikon-annoucnes-two-new-af-p-dx-nikkor-18-55mm-f3-5-5-6g-lenses.aspx
>stepper motor lenses
>good for video AF, which means we're likely to see on sensor PDAF from the 1 series on D series bodies
But wait there's more!
>G lenses, no aperture control in live view without using one of the FF bodies with power aperture. I imagine the next D5000 series will have it though.
Genius Nikon, absolutely g-
>1 version with VR, 1 without
Nikon does it again! Total fucking disappointment.
>>2736781
it's fucking nothing!
How about they release a fucking wide prime for their DX users instead of this tedious shit
>>2736647
Time will tell.
>>2736781
Nikon is kill
>Two D5 body types: D5 XQD-type and D5 CF-type
Not that it matters to consumers, as only pros will care, but to think that Nikon would actually go through the trouble of doing this?
>New 20.82 MP CMOS sensor, EXPEED 5 ,4k video
All expected
>153 AF points, 99-point cross sensor, F8 corresponding 15 points
Interdasting. Can't wait for this to show up on a DX body; 99 cross type sensors covering pretty much the whole VF? Looks like F8 points are clustered in the center like CAM3500's center 15. Still, 15 F8 points. That means you could, if you wanted, use a 200-500/5.6 with a 1.4TC.
>Continuous shooting (continuous shooting up to 200 frames in 14bit lossless compression RAW): 12 fps in the AF / AE tracking, Continuous shooting speed at the time of the mirror up to 14 fps (AE / AF fixed)
About time we got a modern mirror mechanism.
>Highest ISO: 102,400, Extended sensitivity Hi5: ISO 3,280,000
Interdasting. We'll see who made the sensor soon, and how 102400 looks like. The option to use 3million might be fun for wildlifers.
>3.2-inch 2.36 million dots LCD touchscreen
Oh no.
>SuperSpeed USB (USB3.0 Micro-B terminal)
About time.
>Battery: EN-EL18a
Good.
>Weight (battery and media included) D5 (XQD-Type): 1405g. D5 (CF-Type): 1415g
>Shipping starts in March, 2016
moar like 2017 am i rite
No mention of the meter leads me to think 93k pix is all we're getting. RIP my megapixel metering sensor dreams.
>>2736781
so basically its just the canon 18-55 STM except better somehow
D500
5
0
0
http://www.dpreview.com/news/8529664044/here-at-last-nikon-announces-d500
>>2737173
M E H
E
H
Touch AF for D500, none for D5. Bluetooth low power to maintain connection to device, fuck wifi.
6 YEARS
Y
E
A
R
S
>>2737193
No other info, other than joystick.
>>2737204
Some people want better AF, not more pickles or FF pride.
>>2737204
I'm fine with 20MP. I can barely keep up with the storage andn processing speed requirements. If it means less noisy pictures, I'm all for it. 8 seconds of RAW buffer though. I'm not going to say I need 8 seconds, but it sure is nice.
>>2736647
Well it's a good thing I'm a 1st AC then, because AF will never replace me. Until AF can properly nail focus in a scene, account for the small differences in actor movement and mark hitting in every scene take, anticipate actor movements that call for focus to be racked before an actor is in the shot, and then properly rack between actors in a complicated scene in proper order and without hunting, then maybe it'll replace me. But I guarantee you that won't happen, because directors and DoPs trust the human element more than a computer and want the full control that manual everything gives them. Again, you know nothing about what you're speaking on, but I'm not surprised given how stuck up their ass many of the people on this site are.
>>2737204
>honestly at its price you can get a damn fine full frame so what the fuck
Can you get one with class leading AF, a 200 photo raw burst rate, and 4K video capabilities?
>D500
THEY ACTUALLY DID IT THE ABSOLUTE MADMEN
>>2737295
Canon is dead.
>>2737310
Canon realized long ago they fucked up, they will be cowering in a hole silently trying to salvage a modern sensor technology.
Bringing out the 5DS so soon with that shit sensor was a huge mistake. Even Pentax pulled back for half a year to perfect their FF camera. Now I know why.
>>2737332
The Pentax also looks like it will have tones more features, not sure why they are giving it a display that can rotate vertically. I'd much rather the design have more in common with the K-3 and be smaller and more compact than its competitors.
>yfw the only reason most prose today like big camera bodies is because they have never held an old film camera in their lifetime and the most retro they have used is a t90 or EOS 1N
DF2 with a real split-image focus screen.
If I can do it with a 10 year old Canon 5D and a Nikon FM2 screen, they can do it with the DF
>>2737369
>yfw the DF2's design is based off the F3 or the FA
at least this is preety cool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVXUho1LXNg
>>2737292
So you were arguing for the fear of your job. Well that explain why someone could be so anal pained at the prospect of improving AF for video. But I wasn't even talking about that particular field.
The technology will keep progressing, because nobody is stupid enough to risk ending up like Kodak.
>>2737407
kek
>>2737432
Again, you know nothing about what you are talking about. You really should list the fields that you are talking about though, I'd be more than happy to debunk your theories. Also, if you read what I posted and the points I made, which you did not address at all mind you, AF will not be taking my place for a very very long time, if ever. Kodak ended up like Kodak because it's main product virtually died, which is completely different from AF and video, because MF will always have a place in serious video application, regardless of what your ignorance tells you.
>>2737468
You're asking me to predict the future, which just means you're too stupid to even understand the point I've been repeating over and over>>2736457
It's not about any specific market, it's about the future, what are you going to do in the future when everybody else is ahead and other markets have shifted to where they have the technology and where you still have your caveman club.
Think for once in your life will you?
>MF will always have a place
This is a retarded fallacy, and you don't even realise it. MF will have a place in markets Canon, Sony, Zeiss and other dominate in, markets which Nikon is irrelevant in. It will never be a fallback option for Nikon.
I wonder why they can't put a megapixel sensor for RGB metering. I mean, phone cameras are tiny, I figure the sensor ought to fit in there somewhere.
>>2737735
It wouldn't be sensitive enough.
>>2737468
You don't know what you are talking about. Kodak made great digital cameras but their profit margin was low compared to Canon, Nikon etc. So even though their digital cameras were being bought by consumers, it didn't made enough profit.
>>2737646
So he's saying "People who are serious about recording video won't use AF because it can never do what manual focus does" and you're saying "Yeah well but, like, you don't know man"
You're just showing that you don't know HOW focus works for film. It's not just about keeping your subject in focus. There are so many shots where you need to gently pull focus from one object to another. From one person to another. There are times when no AF system in the world will ever know exactly what you want, and if it did, you'd have to spend 10 minutes programming the settings in to get it to do what you want, and when time is money, it's easier to just have a guy standing there doing it.
If you're talking about amateur filming, for skateboarders and home sex tapes, yeah, maybe people will want AF, but they'll learn that for every 9 shots that it gets right, there will always be a 10th where it messes up, and you have to re-shoot.
If you want him to actually address what you're saying, you have to actually say something. Implying that a camera company should dump millions in R&D resources into a feature because "Who knows about the future!!" is idiocy. They may as well also be developing a camera for people who evolve to not have hands, since, who knows! That might happen! What about underwater DSLRs for when Waterworld happens?
When there is a market for it, or even a whiff of a seed of a market for it, you bet your ass that they'll develop it. But as of right now, you can go to whatever small podunk rock show you can find in your city, and look at the 15 year old kid shooting it, and you'll even see him manually focusing for video, because that's just the best way to do it, no matter the capabilities of the AF system.
>>2737855
Even today we already progressed very far with just touchscreen assisted AF.
You're are talking against things in the future where AF will become even more easy to handle and robust. You can't see these things because of your shortsight, it's one of those things you can never comprehend in your mind because you're stuck in the backwards thinking that nothing can ever possibly surpass your caveman club.
>When there is a market for it, or even a whiff of a seed of a market for it, you bet your ass that they'll develop it
You mean catch up. They will try very desperately to catch up because they are hopelessly behind every other company.
It will depend, because currently Nikon is blind as fuck and have the thought power of a 4 year old, because they're oblivious to how every other camera company on the planet is improving their video capabilities and they still can not get a hint. You give them far too much credit.
>>2737879
I can already deduct from your blabbering nonsense that you have never ever made any videos in your life.
Your opinion is invalid.
>>2737879
>Even today we already progressed very far with just touchscreen assisted AF.
>You're are talking against things in the future where AF will become even more easy to handle and robust.
If you want a gentle rack from a subject in the foreground, to a focal point in the background, you can:
A) Spend minutes diving into menus adjusting AF speed, AF smoothness, start and end points, and how long you want the AF transition to take, Every single time, hoping that it doesn't screw up, or miss (as it often will, because AF is a dumb system that doesn't actually understand what you want)
or
B) Gary can just do it with his hand, perfectly, every time.
>>2735483
>Ghostbusters 3
>Unwanted sequel
People would have killed for Ghostbusters 3 before Harold Ramis died.
>>2735808
THe K-01 is beautiful though. It's a piece of art, and a camera, all in one.
>>2738028
Yes. An ugly piece of art. Going for something resembling a Spotmatic or K-1000 would've been golden.
>>2738025
Yes, but who has asked for one with the least funny comedians of our time, rather than with the most creative geniuses of the early 80s?
>>2735930
It's the circle of jerk.
Canon: Lol we don't need MP
>High MP canon comes out
Canon: SUCK IT! NIKON FAGS BTFO!!!!
Nikon:Lol we don't care we don't need that many MP
>High MP Nikon comes out
Nikon: EAT SHIT FAGGOTS! CANON USERS ON SUICIDE WATCH!!!
And repeat.
>>2738032
I'm not sure what you are getting at, we aren't getting a Ghostbusters 3 with unfunny comedians.
>>2738035
hehe
You are not funny.
>>2738036
I'm serious. There is not going to be a ghostbusters 3. They have made a reboot, but a reboot is not a sequel.
http://www.dpreview.com/opinions/4558122489/opinion-pour-one-out-for-samsung-cameras
Uhm... well... shit
>>2735895
Not true. Look at the product specification for the 18-55mm kit lens that goes with most DX cameras.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_dx_18-55mmf_35-56g_vr/
>3x zoom lens covering the most frequently used focal range of 18 to 55mm (picture angle is equivalent to focal length from 27 to 82.5mm in Nikon FX-format camera or 35mm-format camera)
>>2738013
AF will improve over time (On non-Nikon cameras). That's a certainty.
>>2738260
If it's capable of fine control like MF is, it will be necessarily complex and cumbersome to use. No improvement will change that fact.
>>2737879
You would almost think Nikon makes stills photography cameras, instead of camcorders.
>>2738282
Control interface will also improve over time. Touchscreen is just initial babysteps.
>>2738313
The technologies are converging, it's what makes the caveman in Nikon nervous.
They now give the 5D the 4K recording, begrudgingly so (it'slimited to a 3 minute recording).
Nikon will resist to the last drop of blood, but then try to implement some sort of gimped version to negatively impact their users' impression of the feature to make you agree with them, ie. "4K on my Nikon sucks, that means 4K sucks, I don't want it".
Or for example: "Video AF on my Nikon sucks, that means Video AF sucks, I don't want it", case in point, it's a very effective trick that works on imbecile userbase that will defend any inferiority and shortcomings on the company they bought into.
>>2738349
D500 has 30 mins of 4k recording.
This isn't some big conspiracy to make people not like video. 4K is not a feature you just bolt into a camera through a firmware update, there are physical limitations related to the sensor that have to be accounted for. That's probably why the new Nikons have 21 mp instead of 24 or whatever too.
>>2738526
And the D5 has 10 times less that amount.
4k is a MEME. Besides, if you shoot video, why use a DSLR?
>>2738648
Good corporate drone. Defend your master, deprive yourself from features that might have benefited you.
>>2738648
Because virtually zero movies are shot on small sensor camcorders of other cameras unless it's for a gimmick or a documentary because manual focus is hard and I have glass bones and paper skin.
There's a reason cameras like the GH4 and DSLRs are used as a cheaper alternative to those massive $30'00 bricks that you see used in big budget productions. It's called production value, you can make a film for cheap, but that doesn't mean it has to look cheap and amateurish
>>2738230
No shit, who's going to be putting a lens clearly designed to project an APS-C image circle on a 35mm sensor and expect the same focal length? The anon you replied to, and I'm sure many others more, would think that Nikon would "label" a lens the way it is because of the focal length that it will provide given that the lens is mounted on a sensor it's designed for, whether that be DX or FX. Nobody holds any illusions that a DX lens "sharing" the same focal length would project the same image circle as a FX lens, and thus could also be used on an FX sensor without any differences in what you'll see in the viewfinder. Christ.
>>2738681
>focal length that it will provide given that the lens is mounted on a sensor it's designed for
A lens doesn't "provide" a focal length when it gets mounted on a camera, focal length is an inherent property of a lens design. It measures the distance over which a lens converges light into a single point of focus, that's all. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens whether it's mounted on a crop camera or a full frame camera or a m43 camera or 4x5 film. Even if it's sitting on your desk not mounted on a camera at all its focal length is still 50mm.
The problem is that camera lenses have to be labeled somehow in a way that is not ambiguous. Using focal length is not ambiguous because like I said it is a property of the lens itself and has nothing to do with how you use it or what you mount it on. However focal length is a completely useless number for a photographer, what matters to a photographer is the field of view. Field of view can't be printed on a lens though because the field of view you get out of that lens changes based on what kind of camera you put it on. This has caused a whole lot of confusion because people get all hung up on talking about focal lengths when really the thing that they care about is the field of view that they get when they put some lens of whatever focal length onto their camera with whatever image size.
>>2738046
>After years of fumbling, make an extremely impressive sensor, camera and lens lineup
>Fold the camera division several months later
>>2737080
>>Two D5 body types: D5 XQD-type and D5 CF-type
>Not that it matters to consumers, as only pros will care, but to think that Nikon would actually go through the trouble of doing this?
You wouldn't believe the amount of whinging that went about for having a CF/XQD mix in the D4/D4s instead of having exactly what they did now. If they went full CF or full XQD half the userbase would commit sudoku, if they kept it CF+XQD there would be no end to griping for another 3 years at least.
It's actually the best solution to a relatively trivial bullshit that Nikon has made in a while.
>>153 AF points, 99-point cross sensor, F8 corresponding 15 points
>That means you could, if you wanted, use a 200-500/5.6 with a 1.4TC.
It already works like magic in the current incarnation, can't wait to give the new one a go.
>Interdasting. We'll see who made the sensor soon, and how 102400 looks like. The option to use 3million might be fun for wildlifers.
Meanwhile, I still have some rolls of HIGH SPEED 64 ASA film in the fridge...
>No mention of the meter leads me to think 93k pix is all we're getting. RIP my megapixel metering sensor dreams.
It's 180k. That's more than the first webcam I used when exposing myself to random females on the internets.
>>2738347
What better control interface could they make outside of the focus knob that follow focus systems use? Again, computers can only do so much on their own, they have to be told what to do by an operator if they want to come close to human levels of control and finesse. An interface like that will always be incredibly complex and not worth the time needed to use it. Better off simply placing a wireless follow focus on the camera rig and having an AC off camera monitoring focus. Also, this caveman club that you speak of has been a staple of the video industry since it's inception. It's a club full of well educated, highly experience, and well paid men and women. Do you think they wouldn't know about video AF? If it was a true threat to them then by now certainly there would have been some sort of action taken. But as I said, anyone with experience on a set will understand why it's always preferable for a 1st AC to pull focus instead of an AF system.
>>2738666
He has a point, if you're shooting video, you should not be looking at the d500 or d5, especially in those price ranges. The availability of cheap cinema style camera systems nowadays has killed the DSLR for all but the most amateur of video shooters. Unless you don't know any better and really haven't done your homework, there's no reason to buy a DSLR for video capture nowadays. You have much better options.
>>2738678
If you really know production value, you'll know that a DSLR should be your last choice when you have all the options in the current video market. Outside of "I had literally nothing else", there's no reason to buy and use a DSLR for video. Blackmagic has a very strong selection of cameras for budget video use, and the GH lineup is solid. Sony's mirrorless line is a valid option too, and if you really want to go past the 2k mark, the Sony FS line and Canon C line completely blow DSLRs out of the water for on set usage and workflow. DSLRs really no longer have a place in video production. They were fine to use when they first got their video function in 2009, as there were no other options on the market, but that same market has evolved so quickly as to make them obsolete now in 2016. There are much better tools for the job now, it's time we let the DSLR die. For video that is.
>>2738754
>there's no reason to buy a DSLR for video
You must have made an error when writing this. The real advice would be: "there's no reason to buy a Nikon for video".
>>2738783
Canon DSLRs aren't looking too impressive either as of late. Sure, Magic Lantern is great, but it's 2016 and you're still limited to mediocre 1080p as far as quality goes.
And overall, VDSLRs were a crutch to begin with, a way of getting video on a large sensor without building cameras from scratch. Now we have enough alternatives to stop carrying the useless mirror around.
>>2738737
>CF/XQD
Apparently the memory card module is swappable too.
The D500 has a native ISO range of 100 - 51200.
And expandable even to 1640000.
How is that even possible for an APS-C camera?
Did Nikon find some magic new sensor?
Or will it be totally shit?
Personally I can't imagine Nikon adding "HI 5" mode if the native 51200 is already garbage.
>>2738974
It's marketing.
>>2738974
this >>2739022
Current APS-C sensors are clean/usable to ISO 6400. At absolute best, we might see this jump up a stop to 12800. That's still two stops to 51200. And no doubt Hi1-5 are going to be monochrome only, but 7 stops above what most could consider a clean usable image? Yeah, it's going to be a complete mess. Even monochrome can't hide that.
But a noisy picture is better than no picture. Always remember that.
>>2739059
>But a noisy picture is better than no picture.
It would already be impressive to get any kind of recognizable image at 1640000.
The dynamic range at 51200 will have to be at least 5 stops, otherwise you would just get random noise.
The extended ISO of the A7s II "only" goes to 409600.
What does that look like, btw?
>>2738783
No, there really is no reason to buy a DSLR for video. Very few DSLRs have the necessary things for on set filming like zebras and histograms, and the ones that do are either old hacked cameras that output mediocre video or have hoops that you have to jump through to get them set up for effective video use. In fact that really applies to all DSLRs. They're clunky, have terrible form factor, overheat, have shit codecs, terrible bitrates, and have an unnecessary mirror adding bulk to the camera. If I had to go through the effort of setting up a DSLR for video, I might as well just use a BM, since they require the same amount of rigging but output a superior product.
>there's no reason to buy a Nikon for video
Funny considering the last half of Wilfred was shot on D800s, and many sets use D800s as crash cams alongside Canon 5Ds. With every post you continue to show just how little you actually know about the subject you're talking about.
>>2739159
>overheat
I've never heard of a DSLR overheating.
Fairly sure mirrorless has more overheating issues due to smaller size.
>>2738783
>there's no reason to buy a Nikon for video
There is one: clean HDMI out.
Many Nikons are perfect for use with an external recorder.
>>2739171
7D I use overheats when filming at middle or high ISO.
>>2739187
Smaller sensors tend to overheat. Use digital MF for videos, get a Pentax 645Z.
>>2738752
Think of holographic technology as a possible way for user interface to work in the future.
20 years ago you probably couldn't even imagine how a touchscreen on your smartphone could let you pan and zoom and rotate the picture with just a small gesture.
It's the same problem your brain is facing today.
You have no idea where technology will take us tomorrow, because you are one of the cavemen who lives in the past.
>>2739159
Let's flip the script here for a second.
What video cameras takes good still images? Would anyone buy a video camera to take still pictures?
At least with D-SLRs you get the option of taking super sharp, detailed and "pro" looking photographs. This basically isn't an option for consumer level video cameras of *any* kind. So even if there are some hoops to jump through and not all the features are there, having a camera that can take really great pictures and very good video, is a very attractive offer vs. having a camera that takes very good/great video but is useless for stills.
In other words, you don't buy a D-SLR to just do video, you buy it for pictures *and* video.
>but why not just buy separate video and still cameras?
Because not everyone really wants to invest in a camera body and system lenses for both separately, when they can just consolidate.
>>2739158
It's true.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-day-after-nikon-d5-d500.html
> Even if we assume state of the art electronics, I’ll bet that we have residual and read problems at about the 5-10 e- level. And, of course, photons are random, so we have quantum shot noise, too. If you’re having to shoot at 1m+ ISO, how many photons are we talking about potentially capturing in a short exposure? 10? We very well could be at a SN ratio of 1:1. We’re certainly going to be nowhere close to the SN ratio of 80:1+ I really want in my data.
409600 is already a bit of a mess, if atleast recognizable. 2 stops more boost, and I imagine you'll only get the most bare minimum of pictures. I think it'll be fun for shits and giggles. I just want to know if the D5s 3mil ISO quality is comparable to that new Canon 3mil ISO sensor in those wildlife surveillance cameras. if so, canon would truly be BTFO.
>>2738736
>Fold the camera division
That's not what that article says.
>>2739512
Those Samsung refrigerators though...
>>2739171
That's why the gh4 can record without time limit in 4k while DSLRs are limited to 30 minutes in 1080 right? Unless you maintain the ideal conditions for them, DSLRs will overheat, and as their sensor gets hotter, it will introduce heat noise into the image.
>>2739381
Again, you're basing your argument on ideas that aren't concrete and are years away, and every word you keep typing out shows you have no argument outside of "you're a caveman hurr". You're not even staying on topic. This debate was about video AF in DSLRs, and here you are going on about cropping, panning, and changing the video picture with a touchscreen, which has nothing to do with what was originally being argued. There's no way I would trust a touchscreen over my own hand to rack focus. I can already do it on my iphone and it's nowhere near as tactile, direct, and precise as a follow focus mounted on the camera rig. Not to mention it adds complicated and unnecessary technology to something that already has a simple and very effective solution. When you're on location, be it news, narrative, or documentary, you want to take away as many variables that could stop you from getting the shot you need. Having extra technology that can fail on you do a job that you yourself or an assistant could do with tools that have been proven to work with almost zero failure rate would be irrational and stupid. According to you I may have no idea where technology is taking us(and frankly you don't either), but it's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. Try walking onto a set one of these days and telling a focus puller he's a caveman and he should just let the camera focus for him.
>>2739424
The main point of the argument was that buying a DSLR, specifically Nikon, solely for video(no stills) was a stupid choice. I didn't take into account the stills ability because the scenario I'm arguing is that of a video shooter looking for a camera to shoot video with. People who shoot exclusively video don't care about stills, so there's no reason to consider DSLRs at that point when you look at the pros and cons. And if you really wanted to make the argument about buying lenses for each system, you could very easily buy a Canikon DSLR, it's lenses, and then grab an FS100 or C series camera with an adapter and then use your DSLRs lenses along with it. There you go, you have both a dedicated sills camera and dedicated video camera, and you only had to buy one set of lenses. Also
>What video cameras takes good still images?
Canon's C series cameras take solid stills if you need them. They aren't super high megapixel, but certainly much more usable compared to a 1080 video still.
>>2739566
The 30 min limit is for tax reasons only
>>2739569
The camera will overheat and shutdown before it hits it, even without the 30min limit. It's a known problem with DSLRs, and one of the reasons the GH4 is so popular with event and conference videographers. The smaller sensor and body help reduce heat production and dissipate the heat that is made. You can hit record once and leave the camera recording indefinitely or until the card fills up. With DSLRs, you have to constantly check on them to make sure they haven't cut off the recording either from exceeding the file size allowed or from shutting the sensor off to avoid heat damage. When you're doing an event or conference that's not always possible.
>>2739566
It was to demonstrate to you ways the userinterface had developed which your caveman brain could never fathom just 20 years ago. It was necessary.
In the same way you are also blind to how dangerous it is for Nikon to get behind in the field of AF.
>>2739568
>>2739570
I knew what your point was, I just countered it by saying that a camera that takes great stills and decent video is sometimes a better offer for some, when your budget and priorities are considered.
I didn't know the c cameras did stills too. The RED cameras are hardly affordable though.
>>2739381
Your entire point is "*shrug* I don't know!" and that's really funny to me.
What will holographic technology do to fix the issue?
>>2739381
If you're standing there manipulating a hologram, why wouldn't you just stand there and manipulate the focus ring? How is an added (expensive) step helping anything? You still need an extra guy to do the job, since you can't be aiming the camera, moving the perspective, AND manipulating a hologram (which you can't feel, and need to be staring at the entire time)
>>2739621
It's just an example of how you don't necessarily need all sorts of extra wheels and dials just to change the various focusing parameters. 20 years ago, you would probably be whining and crying out of your ass that touchsreens would be impossible to implement and too expensive, but here we are.
>>2739584
Your post is so nonsensical and grounded in fantasy that I don't even know how to reply to it. I've made my point though, if you seriously think AF should be Nikon's video priority and not other things like proper zebras, histograms, focus peaking, and 10bit hdmi out, then you're deluded beyond reason.
>>2739608
I suppose if you really need the stills capability then a DSLR is a valid option, but with the A7 series out, they've lost a lot of the attractiveness they used to have. Sure REDs are rather expensive, but a used Scarlet can be had for the price of a D5 if you look around hard enough.
>>2739662
>It's just an example of how you don't necessarily need all sorts of extra wheels and dials just to change the various focusing parameters
Again, you show just how little you know about how video works. You use ONE, read ONE, dial to change focus when using an on camera follow focus. It takes one hand to operate it and is completely fool and failure proof, and it's tactile and direct, allowing you to change all the "various focusing parameters" with the force of your wrist. If you really want to continue arguing the whole AF thing, consider a wireless follow focus, which essentially turns a manual cinema lens into an "autofocus" lens, with the 1st AC controlling the focus like normal, but off camera. It's the same thing as your touchscreen analogy except it already exists and uses the same technology that current follow focuses use except in electronic wireless form. Again, there's no reason to worry about AF when you can just rig up a wireless FF and have the exact same thing except better because it's still controlled by a human and not a computer.
>>2740047
Apparently you never saw that video were Nikon was so far behind in AF. When the picture is completely out of focus, it's immediately visible to even the average person. Compare that to a blind test between an 8 bit video vs 10 bit video which the average person would fail to make any distinction.
>>2740056
I think the most crucial difference is your method requires you to be at peak concentration at all times and you can make a mistake even then when a person steps backwards and you think he steps forward, whereas AF is just AF, once it reaches a certain advancement it will be incredibly robust.
You just press on the touch screen where you want the AF to track, then you can click on another person on the touch screen. This part of the technology is already here, now we just need somekind of UI that allows the user to quickly on the fly be able to adjust how fast or slow the focus breathing will be between the changes.
>>2740110
I have seen the video, and again, as many anons and myself have stated before, you.don't.AF.when.shooting.video. There are more important things for Nikon to fix when it comes to it's video. I'd rather get 10bit output than usable AF because I wouldn't use it anyways, and neither would any other serious shooter.
>>2740124
>I think the most crucial difference is your method
>your method
>your
Jesus Christ where do I begin with you you mongoloid. This is the method employed by all of Hollywood. It is not my method, it is not your method, it is HOLLYWOOD'S method, the largest video industry in the world. Do you honestly think you know better than Hollywood?
>requires you to be at peak concentration at all times
This is what a job is like you NEET, being on set is always like this. You never slack off, and for an experience AC, concentrating is not a problem whatsoever. The best ACs in the world would not be where they are if they hadn't mastered the art of concentrating and nailing focus. Again, you keep showing me just how little you know about this indstry.
>and you can make a mistake even then when a person steps backwards and you think he steps forward
This is why an AC gets marks, and why ACs practice pulling focus in their spare time. Never when I have pulled focus have I thought "which direction did they take their step in?", you'd have to be borderline retarded to have no depth perception nor idea of which direction an actor stepped. When you've been doing it for long enough, the direction in which you turn the knob to either pull or push focus away from you becomes second nature, and once you see the rehearsals, it's pretty easy to get an idea of how the actors will move to minimize the amount of time they are out of focus.
Pt 1 of 2 done
>>2740124
Pt 2 of 2
>now we just need somekind of UI that allows the user to quickly on the fly be able to adjust how fast or slow the focus breathing will be between the changes
>the focus breathing
>focus breathing
You just keep outing yourself as a total video noob, I don't even have to do it for you. Anyways, going back to this statement, you know what's great about manual focus? This whole part of your statement "somekind of UI that allows the user to quickly on the fly be able to adjust how fast or slow the focus [rack] will be" already exists. It's called my wrist, and there's no way there will ever be a touchscreen UI that will be as quick to adjust nor as precise to adjust as an AC with a well trained wrist. The problem with your scenario is that it introduces so many more variables for failure into an equation that does not allow failure in any way shape or form. Time is money on set, and when the crew has to keep retaking a shot over and over because you can't get the precise speed on that rack focus the director wants because your touchscreen UI is too cumbersome, you can be sure they won't be hiring you again. Or perhaps you can't get your touchscreen control to connect with the focus unit on the camera because it's out of range or there's some radio interference going on. Or even better, the batteries in your controller died and we have to wait for you to swap them out and reconnect because 12-14 hour days are brutal on gear and batteries. It happens. You see how many more scenarios for failure there are on top of the AF screwing up during the scene and forcing a retake? Time is money, and no one wants to waste time waiting for some fancy technology who's job is already being done, better I may add, by one person. It's like you said, AF is just AF, and AF just doesn't belong in this part of the video world. It might have it's use here and there but ultimately directors and DoPs trust humans because they listen in ways computers can't.
>>2741313
Hollywood's method is to ignore Nikon. So everything you've babbled about is irrelevant.
You've seen the video then you should know how far behind they are, and you know they will be a goner if the market shifts into something where Video AF becomes critical.
>it's pretty easy to get an idea of how the actors will move
Stop pretending you have any relevance in hollywood. When you do a movie you are the director, you direct which direction the move walks towards. When recording in nature, you have no control over people or the animals, or even the acceleration of the cars or bicycles. Even if you like to pretend you do.
>>2741317
>you know what's great about manual focus?
That you often make mistakes and screw up your recording. Meanwhile AF in the other camera makers are solid.
>>2741492
Holy shit this is the most uneducated and downright idiotic statement I've ever seen on this site. Never have I seen such stubborn idiocy run so rampant in one person. Honestly, as much as I want to reply to you, I'd be wasting my time because even my well written and thoroughly explained points seem to fly over your head. Go ahead, keep being a stubborn mule. Come on down to LA one day and see just how a set works. When you do, I implore you to tell the 1st AC that his job is obsolete and the production should be using autofocus because it's superior to his many years of experience. Please do it, record it, and then share it with us. Then you'll see just how wrong every single thing that has come out of your mouth in this thread is.
Why are video fags such spergers?
And why do they even post on /p/?
Go go /v/ for video or something.
>>2741695
I have a sinking feeling he is the E-M10 guy who was stubbornly defending m4/3 as being better than FF in every possible situation.
Just leave it, he is not even trolling. He doesn't worth your or anyone else's time.
>>2741695
What's truly idiotic is the let the company get further and further behind everybody else until they sink because they don't have the necessary features. That's on you.
>>2741698
I'm not the one being stubborn here, I'm open to the progression and development of these cameras. What's truly stubborn is this:
> if you seriously think AF should be Nikon's video priority and not other things like proper zebras, histograms, focus peaking, and 10bit hdmi out,
Do you actually for even 1 second believe he wants any of these features?
No, he's one of those morons who wants his gadget to "stay pure".
The only difference is Nikon is actually blown the the fuck off to the skies in terms of AF that he's gone into denial mode and "I didn't want that feature anyway" sour grapes mode.
Hiding and filtering posts is easy.
