I finally figured it out. It is all Canon fault. Nikon wanted to chase Canon to get close to 50mp and so far all I see D does very little over D It should have been called D We were expecting a lot more.
Nikon DE was is wow camera. Excellent image quality. Cheap alternative for hasselblad. Of course, we want the best quality even at a high ISO, but….. In my opinion Nikon D is not a successor to Nikon Maybi d We - I want a monster with a lot of pixels and excellent quality at ISO. I was expecting 36mp or lower but much better noise performance from Expeed 5. I never had a problem with AF in low light. After all photography is the art of light and not the darkness. I have d and D5. I only used tilting LCD once on D so it is not a selling point for me.
The detrimental point for me is higher resolution and dealing with it. It takes twixe as long to process 46mp file than 36mp. When I switched from 22mp camera to 36mp I had to upgrade my computer. Now I can't even do that because my computer is already the fastest one I can get. Sure, for those who shoot photos per week 46mp is OK but I might shoot several thousand per day sometimes. D5 is one stop better than D and D and it is noticeable. Just my opinion that D is only a minor upgrade, even less minor than going from D to D Nikon added features no one will actually use on a daily basis.
Anecdotal but fair enough, it depends on what kind of photography you do. The D appears a very versatile camera; suitable for many different tasks. When it comes to file size I somewhat agree with you having both the D and the D the filesize of the former can be cumbersome even with a pretty good computer setup , with that said computers evolve and there was a time back in the late 80's early 90's where my humble computer an Amiga struggled with small.
Nothing anecdotal about it. I downloaded D RAW images. It takes me 1. D took 3 seconds. If I use more noise removal it could take 2. Since I am running at 4. The improvements of the D over the D are monumental compared to the D vs D No, not at all monumental. And it is not just me who is saying it. Better focusing? Only in the dark. D can focus in the darkness too if there is some contrast. Still, focus point spread is very small.
Not so good. On the paper sounds very good but in real life not much of the difference. Focus stacking, can be done manually ob D or any other camera and not used for everyday photography anyway. I can use D flash in a pinch but not so with D Need fast computer so I don't fall asleep while processing a batch of photos. Need larger memory cards. D on the other hand brought focus point orientation feature just like Canon had for many years which is much more useful for me than any of the above.
Bigger viewfinder - best in class, slimmer, more comfortable grip, D5 autofocus. Nicer rear LCD, illuminated buttons, bigger buffer and higher fps. This griping over pixel count vs. That difference is not going to kill you. SushiEater: if you discount the difference between the focusing systems that easily you probably don't shoot anything that moves, or you haven't used the camera.
I have used them side by side and they are night and day difference. Also the ability to map different focusing modes to multiple buttons is a huge practical benefit.
ISO performance is about more than noise. High ISO files retain color and blacks far better on the D Did we forget the better viewfinder? Finally omission of the silly flash? Better build quality? Much faster XQD cards? Bigger buffer? Silent shooting? Focus peaking? No crop video? If all this is a "minor" upgrade in your book, then you will never be satisfied. It's always easy to pick a new feature and say it's something you won't use, but that doesn't mean nobody else will. Richard Murdey.
Half of it is not true. D does not have better DR or noise performance. Equal maybe but not better. I already tested myself but it takes 2x as long to process D files especially at higher ISO. Everything else is just up to individual taste. I just don't see it as OMG. I see it as different. The way I see it if the camera has more features but not a better IQ than the previous model this camera is not an upgrade camera. Take a look what other people think about D in multiple threads.
Most people bash it for not having better IQ. Why do I need to look at your gear? What does that tell me? You have an opinion, you are entitled to it. But as a "photographer for over 45 years" surely you know that there is so much more to photography than just IQ. Also I don't really care about what the arm chair photographers say in threads. They can shoot test charts and cats all day long; I've used the camera when working for a client already and found it to be a remarkable improvement, in features but also in IQ.
But that's probably just my opinion of course ;-. Cannot comment on the processing time, but if it is double then it seems there is a something in the raw converter that is not properly optimized yet. And you are entitled to it too. But I am not going by the test chart. I have seen so far more that RAW images of many different subjects and I can't find a single one that can't be done with D At this point D is my light camera.
That and mm and I can go anywhere. You would have to bring D and external flash plus batteries to go light. I also use D with Tamron mm on the red carpet events to shoot groups.
I just don't see how extra 10mp will make better IQ. In fact awhile ago there was a thread where people compared resolution output from D, Canon 5D mk4 and some other cameras. No one could actually tell the difference in normal shooting because once you have enough resolution and good enough IQ you are basically covering most of the situations. But my main two cameras are D5 and D And I actually reduce resolution while sending files because agencies only require 12mp max, about The chart show very insignificant increase certainly within margin of error and certainly not detectable in use.
As far as optimization of the converter try older cameras like Canon 5Dmk2 and D Same results. The former, I disagree with you. The latter, I agree. I think you are underselling the improved viewfinder and grip, AF and structural improvements too, but in terms of output given your volume and end use case no, the extra pixel count and small IQ tweaks isn't worth a 2 fold increase in processing time.
De was with me since it was announced. Then your clients expect certain production they don't ask what camera you use. The bottom line is delivered photos which are not much different from D compared to D So maybe D is not worst than D but it is certainly not better in IQ.
As far as any other improvement it is up to individual taste. But these improvements have no bearing on the IQ. If you take a D and add in a better finder, slim it down, make it faster, and give the D5 AF, it is a better camera.
Taste doesn't come into it. The whole point is that even without a difference in IQ, the improvements in handling and speed make it a significant upgrade. The improvements from the D to D were very incremental which is why I didn't bother replacing my D The D has pretty much all new guts everywhere, among which is the best PDAF system currently available.
That, with the significantly bumped up speed, means you can apply this "already good IQ" more frequently and more accurately.
And that is not an opinion, that is a fact. Most people are looking for the better IQ then they are upgrading not more features unless features are very useful. The new PDAF is not "much" better than the old one because you don't shoot in the dark all the time.
Besides only the center point is -4EV. D focusing is just fine in the dark too. That is why on the paper it sounds wonderful but in real life there is not much difference. And then the system is designed to only use Nikon F2.
If you use any other lens it will not work as good. Having all new guts means absolutely nothing. Bumped up speed only only good if you are shooting sports of some sort otherwise for landscapers it means nothing.
Originally D was designed for landscape photography. So basically all of these upgrades are very minor and less useful because D was already wonderful camera with everything anybody needs. Like I said for those who don't have the camera D is wonderful but for those who have D there is no reason to upgrade.
Just read several threads and you will find out if you don't believe me. And no matter how much you will try to convince me I am not the only one who thinks about it on the same rational level. Nobody is arguing that your precious D is not a good camera.
It's great. But that's not the point. Also, I am not comparing the AF system based on specs, but on actual use. If you cannot tell the difference between the AF in your D5 and D, then there really is no point in discussing this No, not just my point of view. Read the posts in the Nikon forum. I am comparing AF from the actual use too. Yes, there is a difference but only in extreme dark condition and only if you use center point and only with Nikon lenses with F2.
That is a lot of restrictions!!!!!! And how often do you shoot on the full moon focusing on the sand? Once a month? Do your nails turn in to claws at the same time? A great point. If it wasn't I'll be first in line to get D As far as RR the car is a luxury item and people who drive it are mostly chauffeurs. In my business I would rather have a small, maneuverable, reliable car.
I do drive SUV though. D or D are not luxury items for me but a tool. As a tool D does nothing for me D can't handle. D5 on the other hand is different. Just Ethernet alone makes a huge difference. Many times I can edit while I am shooting because photos directly transfer to my laptop wireless.
And if I can submit my photos faster than others I can make more money. Again you keep referring to YOUR needs. It's perfectly fine to determine what you need and base your buying decisions on that, but to generalise your personal point of view as fact is a fallacy you would want to avoid. To say that the D is merely a minor improvement because YOU don't see any benefit is simply incorrect, and used to rationalise your decision to not buy one for your own needs.
I was impressed with Nr 8. Very poor gallery. Meaningless pics, from the point of view of a review. My dear Watson, these pics in fact reveal a lot. Take a look at the sky, at about middle of the landscape vistas, and you will see birds in flight, few pixels across, which the D5, D, 5DMkIV etc.
You can even judge direction of flight. Where's the sharpness and detail? Hopefully, it is just the NR that's doing it, but these look very smeared. Just played around with the RAW, and my conclusion is, the jpegs suck. NR is too aggressive and is killing detail. Did Nikon do this to make it "look" like the D really has that 1-stop advantage over the D? All captured images show great potential, at the MF level.
Incredible job Nikon: D has even improved already incredible 3D tracking and AF acquisition from D and D5, improved body construction, enhanced grip, comes with bigger OVF, reinforced mount to reduce flex, improved sensor that delivers more realistic colours without colour bleeding and with better tonal gradation, better dynamic range and SNR, better shadow- and specular-clipping, and so much more. I know you are not a Nikon fanboy, and objective in your opinions usually.
I'm a Nikon user, but with no motivation to paint the D in a better light than it is. We both agree the results are excellent. So I'm wondering why this comment thread is getting hammered by anti-D sentiment. Sony troll factory, D users upset they got bounced, or just ignorance? D is hammered down because it is truly a great camera, and many are envious.
Excellent value for money, truly unbelievable, and in fact cheap for what they offer, and they offer the best of best. What is even more astonishing, if that D makes D redundant specs wise, because it equals its pixel pitch; the APS-C crop of the D is exactly D's image size. On the other hand, I appreciate samples above because I see that the author deliberately underexposed some images, and made 'unattractive' compositions, to see what could be pulled out from images taken in abysmal conditions.
Unlike those slow and too dedicated MFs, D never sets you back in anything. No other company could pull this out but Nikon. Excellent work and we have to pay dues where dues are. Random images.. I'd like to see sports images. Product images. Motorsport etc to see how good and how slow you can hand hold this thing.
Long exposure night shots and real life tests that can really show what the camera can do. In other words, I agree with you. We'll be expanding this gallery steadily as we work through the review.
Check out the gallery updated today - hope there are some images in there that will be more useful for you. The portraits have all missed focus on the eye,at least from what i can see on my 5k imac monitor..
I had too much expectation from Nikon. I guess I have to accept the fact that my expectation are not yet met in terms of IQ. Apart from the size of the files they look like pictures from every other modern camera except mine.
Could it be we've reached the point of peak IQ? And then you have millions of people crawling at comparing little dots and specks in order to find hope if one speck is better than other. Bambi your the best! We love your comments here on Dpr.
Such a huge talent and respected member. Images 18 and 21 show a lot of red dots in the recovered shadows. Is that the compression, dead pixels, problem with the camera?
Anulu 18 is taken at ISO and the hot pixels are visible in lifted areas which were deep black in the original exposure. Punishing condition to say the least. Reminder to everyone, dont judge resolution from these pictures. Some of them are taken from a moving vehicle. I kid you not. Indeed, I wanted to be sure to caption that one image as such. I still felt it was a decent demonstration of shadow lifting, so I left it in. The rest should be okay to judge from, although the Raw conversions have default sharpening and noise reduction, both of which are pretty minor compared to what I would do for personal work.
Signup Login. Inspirational Photo Nov Forum Home Recent Topics Search. Start Prev 1 2 Next End. I'm excited to share some of the D photos I've taken however can't open in Lightroom. I don't suppose anyone has some insight on how to download and edit D RAW files? Thank you for making PhotographyTalk. Photo Comments. Seems like I found my answer. Not what I was hoping either: blogs. Has LR ever supported a new camera body at announce time?
At least for Nikon? One can't help but wonder if part of the problem is that the manufacturers don't play well with them regarding early NDA info for their products. That said, Adobe seems to have a lot of issues. I'm not entirely sure their engineers know what they're doing. You can use a exif editor to change the camera type from D to D or something like that and you can then process the image in Lightroom or Photoshop.
I suspect there will be an update within a week or so for camera support. Just saw this Alex Scott Ditzel Photography www.
Didn't Sony have the same issue with the A7 series when it first launched too? It happens for all newly introduced cameras regardless of brand.
Well I guess I better cross my fingers tonight! Lightroom is due for a good update, hopefully the programmers at Adobe will address speed issues as well. Lightroom is so far behind, it would be nice that their update starts utilizing computers with more resources to speed it up! For this update, will this happen automatically or will you need to manually update? And they're apparently working on a new Lightroom CC service. If any provision of the Agreement shall be determined invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall not be invalidated and shall remain in full force and effect.
This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding between you and Nikon, and supersedes and replaces any other agreements relating to the subject matter of this Agreement.
The failure of any party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, or the exercise of any option, right or remedy contained herein, shall not be construed as a waiver of any future application of such term, provision, option, right or remedy, and such term, provision, option, right or remedy shall continue and remain in full force and effect.
The headings of the sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not constitute a part hereof or affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the provisions of section 3 and section 4 together with any provisions that by their express terms apply to periods after termination of this Agreement, shall survive termination of this Agreement for any reason.
Other products. Download Center D D Other products. Manuals Manuals Firmware Software. Title Language Size. User's Manual English for customers in the Americas User's Manual English for customers in Europe Menu Guide English 7. Online Manual English - View.
Setting Guide Movie Edition English 8. Technical Guide Useful Features English 5.
0コメント