Weekly Nikon news flash #348

Nikon-D5-camera-leaked-3
→ The latest Nikon D5 rumors: the camera will have two XQD cards (I guess the previously rumored CF models were only for testing). The D5 will also have less than 15 fps rate. Another possible announcement date is the second week of February (previous rumors were pointing to a January announcement).

Nikon-D4-DSLR-camera
→ First gen Nikon D4 cameras could have compatibility issue with the new Nikkor E lenses - see this Pixelists forum post (Google translation). It seems that Nikon confirmed the issue.

→ Venus Optics Laowa 15mm macro lens review (wide angle macro, available also for Nikon F mount).

Pinout project on Indiegogo: another Bluetooth device for remote control (remote shutter release, geotagging) of DSLR cameras.

→ New Really Right Stuff FG-02 fluid-gimbal head in action.

→ More Commlite Nikon F to Sony E electronic adaptor video tests.

Nikon patent describes a way to capture steam on pictures
→ A strange new Nikon patent describes a way to capture steam on pictures:

  1. Get the image temperature distribution by the infrared thermography
  2. Measuring the temperature of the subject and the outside air temperature
  3. If there is a temperature difference, it is determined that steam and cool air is generated and the flash is triggered (or not)
This entry was posted in Nikon D4, Nikon D5, Weekly Nikon News Flash. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

    Good move Nikon on the XQD Slots and hope this card slot flows to a D850/D900 and possible D400/D500 along with a SDXC card slot.

    • br0xibear

      “Good move” for Lexar and Sony since no one else makes XQD cards…not good for reasonable pricing.

      You never know, maybe Sandisk will announce XQD cards at CES ?

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        Good Points I’m ok with XQD slots on D80/D500 provided that it has a slot for SDXC slots – I’ve built up quite few sdxc cards on D5xxx – D8xx and mirrorless cameras.

        • RRRoger

          How about an adapter to use SDXC cards in a XQD slot?

          • n11

            I’m inclined to agree with you, for the benefit of the customer. But I will question the speed drop that will occur when doing so.

          • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

            Good call should in theory be possible and good compromise if Nikon can/will be bothered to do it.

      • I thought I read that Nikon only sells about 5,000 D4 and D4S bodies per year. That’s not a whole lot of volume to spread out the fixed costs of producing a XQD card.

        • Kyoshi Becker

          There are plenty of Video cameras that shoot the format. Also Sandisk was the one to initially develop xqd. They backed out last minute and Lexar took over. I am very happy to hear dual xqd. CF is a slower more volatile archaic format

          • I learn something new every day. I have a number of bodies and they all take SD cards so I’m really not looking for another format or card reader.

            • Kyoshi Becker

              Lol. You will find that XQD readers are quite elusive too.

          • RRRoger

            The only cards, I ever had, that failed were CF

            • Kyoshi Becker

              Same here

        • KnightPhoto

          The production figure was 5,000 per MONTH for the D4.

          • RRRoger

            And that number will go down unless the D5 is as revolutionary as the D3 was.

          • Thom Hogan

            It was the first month production run. The D800/D800E popularity and D4 unpopularity quickly changed that.

        • Thom Hogan

          5k units was the first month production run.

      • BillK

        Perhaps so since there will be more demand for them.

      • BPhoto

        Sandisk needs to do something to revitalize themselves.

        • AlphaTed

          Well, I read somewhere that Western Digital just bought Sandisk.
          So it’s up to WD where Sandisk is heading.
          They might concentrate on SSD development as that’s the trend right now.

          • br0xibear

            Yeah, Western Digital agreed to buy Sandisk for $19 Billion, the deal hasn’t gone through yet.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2016/01/04/sandisks-key-growth-areas-that-could-benefit-western-digital-in-the-long-run/

          • I’m surprised WD still has money to buy companies (first Hitachi HDD division, now SanDisk). I don’t know of any top-of-the-line product from them since the WD RE drives and the Raptors…

            • AlphaTed

              They have to invest while they still have value. Solid state is the future of storage, and they need to be in that business to keep the company afloat.

            • Oh, I totally agree with you. I’m just surprised that after a while of same old, same old, they seem to have decided to be more aggressive about moving to solid state.

      • neonspark

        if they use it to their max potential to smoke CF cards fine. or if it allows them to make the camera smaller, which doesn’t seem to be the case for such big camera anyway. So comes down to performance. I’m fine adopting XQD as long as it yields a concrete benefit to inferior CF.

        • br0xibear

          I’ve nothing against XQD cards as a card, I’m not convinced by the performance aspects. I’m sure it is faster than CF, but is that difference really going to matter or is it just another “better number” to market and sell the product ?
          Are all those Canon sports photographers using CF cards unable to do their job because CF cards are slightly slower than XQD, of course they’re not.
          It’s been said here and elsewhere many times, who do Nikon actually listen to when it comes to improving their equipment ?…They always seem to tinker with things that don’t matter and ignore the things that do.

        • Kyoshi Becker

          The concrete benefit of no pins, smaller size, & no corruption errors is enough for me.

    • Spy Black

      As long as you’re willing to foot the bill for all our XQD cards, I’m all for that too on all Nikon bodies…

      • jec6613

        I don’t know about you, but I’d foot the bill for all of my own new ones – CF and SD use old busses that are slower and approaching their limits, XQD can support newer flash on both the taking and ingest side.

        • Spy Black

          I won’t. When the entire camera industry embraces XQD I’ll consider it.

          • Ken Elliott

            If the choice Nikon had was XQD or CFast, then they were smart to stick with XQD. But they really need to add a XQD slot on the D820, D760, etc. More usage will help drive the price down. I’d expect Sony to go to XQD on their 4K camcorders across the board at some point.

            • Spy Black

              So what? It’s not as cheap as SD cards, and SD cards work just fine.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Buying a $6000 camera and you’re complaining about being forced to use high end cards. Priceless.

            • Spy Black

              I’m not referring to the D5. I’m referring to the notion of putting XQD cards in the likes of D7xx and D8xx cameras. It’s not going to do anything for their performance, because other factors will dictate that, not giving them XQDs. The only thing that XQDs will add to those cameras is increase in cost of use.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Gotcha, I love the dual cheap sd setup in my d750. Wish it were uhsii leveraged but can’t complain about the buffer. Definitely keep the non pro cameras more economical. Otherwise people can’t afford it and we lose out

            • Mark

              My old D80 works just fine and is cheaper than my D4S, so what’s your point? I’d still rather be using my D4S.

            • Spy Black

              Because my comment isn’t in reference to the D4/5.

            • They don’t work fine for the intended purpose of a D5 or D4.

            • Spy Black

              I’m not talking about the D4/5.

            • neonspark

              “works just fine” is not the person who buys a D5. A D3 also “works just fine”.

            • Spy Black

              I’m not talking about the D5. I’m talking about the idea of sticking the down the model lines, like it’s going to do anything for them, other than increase their cost of use.

            • It will do a lot for many of them as well. As others (and myself) pointed out XQD is far more durable than SD or CF. Its connector system is far more robust than CF and it is smaller. If it is applied to all “pro” cameras then users will only need one type of card. This will have an added benefit for increasing the volume and thereby reduce the price.

            • RRRoger

              SDXC cards work just fine for now, but
              they are going to need a much faster “minimum” sustained write speed than 30MBs to handle 4k 60P and higher Codec rates.

            • Thom Hogan

              Indeed.

            • Ken Elliott

              Not if we are talking about 4K video.

            • Spy Black

              What makes you think that the throuput rate of all storage media isn’t going to increase to meet demand?

            • CF and SD has limiting factors built into the standard. To go faster (a lot faster) it will need to break the standard and will no longer be compatible.

            • Ken Elliott

              Controller limitations. CF cards are based on PATA100, for example. No further development is occurring there. CFast is based on SATA, and XQD is based on PCIe. Work continues on those standards outside the card industry. SDXC on UHS-1 bus has a speed of up to 104MB/s. The UHS-II bus goes up to 312MB/s, but XQD v.2 can go up to 1000MB/s as of June 2012.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              …for most applications.

            • Thom Hogan

              SD cards work “fine” for situations where there is a constant stream that doesn’t exceed their bandwidth. SD cards have lower (guaranteed minimum) and upper (maximum stream) boundaries. They also put a demand on the camera to do the heavy lifting.

            • Spy Black

              I’m not referring to the D4/5 Thom. I was referring to the comment about using QXDs in cameras like the D8xx, D7xx and possibly even D6xx. Unless Nikon increases the overall performance of those cameras to justify the use of XQDs (highly unlikely) there’s no point in it. SD cards work just fine. The only thing it would do is increase the cost of ownership.

              It’s also a matter of time before the throughput rate of all storage media increases to meet the higher demands of 4k, so I doubt it will ever be a necessity, unless Nikon really plans to amp up capabilities of the entire line. Do you want to hold your breath on that? 🙂

            • Thom Hogan

              Ah, I missed that.

            • RRRoger

              4k may still be in it’s infantry, but by the 2020 Olympics 8k will be in the same place.
              It will need 4 times the bandwidth and storage space.
              We only need 200 megabits per second now to get a decent (not best) 4k recording.
              200/8 = 25MB/s sustained write speed.
              The best SDXC cards can do about twice that now.
              Even with better Codec we need to move to XQD soon.

        • I agree, give me XQD across the board. If XQD is coming to the successor to the D810, please make it two XQD, so I can maintain all the benefits when writing to both slots.

          • RRRoger

            And, make those slots capable of transferring data at the highest possible speed.

    • Wade Tregaskis

      But, why? XQD is crazy expensive compared to UHS-II cards, and from what I can tell, actually slower.

      e.g. on Amazon right now, the cheapest 64 GiB XQD card is $150 USD (Lexar 1400x, 210/185 MB/s read/write *theoretical*). The Lexar 64 GiB UHS-II SDXC card is $95 – and it’s not even the cheapest 64 GiB UHS-II card. Plus, in actual testing it achieves 290/265 MB/s read/writes.

      Granted the XQD spec allows for up to 500 MB/s I/O, and there appear to be some XQD cards actually on the market which claim theoretical speeds in that ballpark, but they’re insanely expensive – you’d end up easily spending more on the cards than the camera itself, if you’re actually a prolific photographer.

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        Agree with you on above – If I want to upgrade upwards from my D5300 and D800 + mirrorless accuring lots of SDXC then I would perfer one slot to be SDXC UHS-II 3 and the other as the XQD format for D4/s compatibility. However some D4/s homeboys and girls would like both formats of XQD cards which I understand but dont necessary support.

        • Wade Tregaskis

          Looks like you got your wish, perhaps – the D500 has one slot of each. Blessedly it does support UHS-II – it’d be stupid if Nikon had crippled it with their sluggish UHS-I implementation from prior cameras. Though we’ll see how performant it really is on that interface – I’m expecting to be disappointed. 🙁

          For me the XQD slot is likely a negative, because it means I can no longer do dual-card backups as I can in the D7xxx series (even if I splurge for one XQD card, on the assumption it’d be amazingly fast, I’m sure as heck not buying hundreds of GiB of XQD capacity, which is what I need *per slot* when travelling).

          I’m curious why you care about Dx compatibility, given you don’t own one currently?

      • Thom Hogan

        “Slower” and “faster” are quite different in SD and CF/XQD worlds. With SD you have a minimum guaranteed streaming rate (the Class) and a maximum short-term burst write (the MBs spec). Those are not the same things. You cannot write to a 95MBs SD card at 95MBs continuously.

  • vFunct

    Yah CF cards would have been terrible. They would be just too slow for a modern high FPS camera, especially one that supposedly records 4k video.

  • Yep, 2 XQD cards is good news. The “less than 15FPS” is a bit surprising – I wonder where the 15FPS rumours were coming from then—was it the original plan, but failed to actually make it to production?

    • hard to tell, it could be that they had different prototypes out of testing, some of the rumors were from few months ago

      • Hanudiyan

        They save 15 fps for D5s, I think.

      • Brian

        The one prototype you had images of showed 12fps

    • RRRoger

      Not good news to me.
      They either plan to use a Sensor larger than we need or a slow processor.

    • TinusVerdino

      Probably hard to do since you have to flap a mirror and shutter 15 times a second

      • I agree it’s hard—I’m just wondering why the original 15FPS rumors…

  • stormwatch

    XQD is a good news, but less than 15fps is not so good news.

    • HF

      Would 14fps be ok?

      • stormwatch

        14 is absolute minimum.

        • JJ168

          Will it be a deal breaker for you if it is “only” 12fps?

          • T.I.M

            What you guys need is a video camera, 60fps !

            • akkual

              Red EPIC and their other similar 4-6K videocameras produce frames that are easily comparable to any modern DSLR frame. That is, you shoot video and later stop it and select the best stills. With WEAPON 6K you can shoot 19mpix at 100fps.

            • KnightPhoto

              Yes but the optimal shutter speed in 60p video (1/125 second) is wrong to stop the action, so the individual frames are blurred. I guess the solution is shooting video at a non-optimal SS such as 1/1000, but then the video is choppy although the extracted stills might be better?

          • stormwatch

            12 Fps on 20mpix would be good in 2012. but in 2016 it’s very obsolete.

            • I’m not sure why you believe that. Nothing was available in 2012 that could approach 12 fps at 20 mpix, so how would it be obsolete?

            • manhattanboy

              Technically the 1Dx manages 18.1 MP at 14fps and more recent cameras like the NX1 shoot 28MP at 15fps. Both of those are higher throughput than 20MP at 12fps.

            • Technically, the 1dx only does 14 fps in jpg with the mirror locked up. This means no focus or exposure between shots. This means for most real applications for fast frame rates it is limited to 12 fps.

              The Samsung was reader in late November 2014, not 2012 it is a mirror less camera and has an AF system that makes it unusable for sports or action.

              Basically, in each case you are comparing apples to oranges.

            • Actually, the 1Dx only supports 14fps with the mirror locked and in jpg mode. This does not allow for focus between shots and is not well suited to shooting sports or moving subjects. In other modes it is limited to 12 fps.

              The Samsung is a mirrorless camera that does not have a focus system suited to action shots and to attain its high framerate even this system is turned off. Whats more, it was introduced in November 2014, not 2012.

            • stormwatch

              Ok. And please tell me in what year 12fps 1Dx was introduced?

            • stormwatch

              Check 1Dx. Thank you.

            • Indeed, the 1Dx was released in March 2012. However, we do not really know the maximum frame rate for the D5 yet. We also do not know the limiting factor. Many think it is the bandwidth of the processors. I really do not think this is the case. Having spent time in the hard drive industry and the laser printer industry, I know that many unexpected things come into play as you attempt to increase the speed of mechanical devices. Including aerodynamics, settling time and resonances. I believe these issues may be a bigger limiting factor of frame rates for a DSLR with 20 mpix than data rates. Add to those issues that for this class of device, the shutter is typically rated at or above 400k clicks.

            • stormwatch

              Then it’s about time for a big player like Canon or better Nikon to start serious work and research for a Pro MILC camera with AF better or same as with the DSLR.

            • I agree, if they solve the AF issue for mirrorless and maintain compatibility with the old lenses, they will have a good solution for their current paradigm. What they really need it to take that solution and apply it to something that solves the workflow/convenience issues.

            • stormwatch

              Yes, but I think that the complete lack of understanding that tech is advancing month by month has left Nikon and Canon in a pretty much desperate position now. They did not consider Pro MILC as an alternative to the old DSLR system, so they did not put too much effort into it…but years passed quickly and Sony showed in many instances in the last three years how it should (and could) be properly done.

              Now Nikon and Canon have a huge gap in the catching with the competition in that sector, but Canon is in a worser position because they practically did not make any advance since their original 5D sensor (anyone could see that on samples available on line, and especially when using their cameras first hand), all what they have is the army of dedicated followers who are switching with the speed of light to the Sony’s products. Nikon on the other side had shown a complete lack of serious approach to the business with all those QC problems in the past few years doing practically nothing to mend them….from SB900 overheating, D7100 horizontal banding issues, D800 focus point problem, complete D600 fiasco, number of glitches with D750… A decade it was a pleasure bying Nikon products on the preorder, now I wait more months to even consider thinking about bying a new Nikon Camera, and thats only after testing them up to the latest detail, because no matter how much do you pay, you really do not have a sense that it’s gonna work flawlessly for years. Of all those famous Japanese companies from 70’s and 80’s I can only bet on Roland’s high standards today, for example Jupiter 80 is the exact same thing (hardware synth monster) that was Jupiter 8 in back in days of the Analog synths, that is something Nikon and Canon were never able to reproduce in their domain, where is the F5 of Digital age?

      • Brian

        Gonna be 12

    • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

      True maybe down to 12fps and have a lesser AF & points being rumoured – we will find out soon and will also depend on Canon 1dX MK 2….

    • Kyoshi Becker

      How often do you need the 11 fps of the D4s?

      • stormwatch

        99.9% of the time I need not 11 but 24 or 25fps :-))), but Pro sports and wedding photographers know why they need it and how to use it.

        • JasonsArgonauts

          As a pro wedding photographer I can honestly say I’ve never needed anything approaching 11fps. 5 or 6 is more than adequate. The bride isn’t parachuting down the isle. And even at 5fps you can get a bouquet flying through the air. It’s more about having a buffer which is quick to empty.

          • stormwatch

            Really? Then weddings in your part of world do not have too much of tradition incorporated in it. Because where I used to live it’s a nightmare.

            • JasonsArgonauts

              What wedding tradition requires 11fps? I do a range of weddings from completely traditional to quirky and fun. I’m based in the UK by the way… I’m not being facetious, just genuinely wondering why I would ever need 11fps at a wedding? Even the most hectic of first dances only need 5/6fps at most! The bride and groom walking down the isle in the recessional-3fps, the car driving towards or away from me-4/5fps… I can’t see why you’d need or want 11fps! This is why some of the most successful wedding cameras ever produced have been the D700 and the 5D Classic/2/3. Yes, plenty of people shoot on a D4, but it’s more about the low light capability than the frame rate.
              EDIT: And I do get why the pro sports photographers need it-That’s a whole different game! 🙂

        • Ritvar Krum

          for weddings 11 fps is too slow for you? yea – you must be a “real pro” on your own level of pro-nes-nes then

          • stormwatch

            You did not understand what did I write.

        • Thom Hogan

          Technically, a pro sports photographer could not shoot at 24 fps and not be in violation of rights agreements. “Video rights” is something that virtually every organized sport now sells. The first time that a still photographer creates a GIF of his 24 fps output, he’ll be attacked by lawyers.

          We already have the video teams looking askance at us, because they know that we can shoot video with our DSLRs, too. It’s only going to take one bad apple for things to begin to snowball. My best guess is that we’ll all have to sign documents that say we won’t use any still camera faster than x fps and we won’t use video while on the sidelines. Given how many billions are tied up in video rights just in football alone, still photographers aren’t going to win this battle.

          • stormwatch

            Sir, I was trying to say that I’m a videographer who likes to use DSLR for filming :-), that is where 24 and 25fps came from.

            • Thom Hogan

              Right, and if you used that DSLR for video and published it for almost any collegiate or pro game in the major sports, you’d immediately get a cease and desist letter. Even true of some high schools, now.

            • stormwatch

              Well, I do not live in the USA so I really don’t know the laws there. But in many parts of Europe, classical videography is almost gone and switched with sh*tty iphones…

          • ZoetMB

            Frankly, I think that’s an overreaction. No one cares what you capture — they care what you use for commercial publication. Just because you capture 25fps doesn’t mean you’re outputting movies and considering 4K smartphones (and I suspect in a few more years, 8K smartphones), it’s a bit of a moot point anyway.

            Having said that, I think photographers use high frame rates as a crutch – they might not be outputting movies, but they are in essence capturing movies and then picking frames. Amazing that there were any great sports pictures at all in the 4×5 Graflex and Rollei eras. [/s]

      • T.I.M

        it’s usually people who don’t know how to uses autofocus correctly who need 11 fps.
        thinking that there have more chances to get a good shoot.

  • Mark

    Fantastic news, XQD is the way to go IMHO.

  • John Mackay

    If it has 14 fps that’s fine, but if its stuck at 12 and doesn’t have some other huge feature like a jump forward in low light performance or astonishing af compared to the d4s its going to be a real disappointment.

    • Wade Marks

      It’s an interesting point; the D4s and the Canon 1DX are both so good, what improvements can be made to really tempt users into upgrading?

      At what point do you hit more marginal returns on the newer technology. So sure Nikon can offer 173 pt AF, that will be better than the 51 pt AF…but for many users will it make any real difference?

      At what point do you hit what Ming Thein calls “sufficiency?” We see this in high performance sports cars…does it make any difference whether it hits 200 or 210 mph, esp. as here in the US the speed limit is usually 55 to 65 mph? As Thom Hogan has noted, in the old market for HiFi equipment, we hit a point where vendors were just differentiating on specs…for instance, quoting a frequency range that the equipment could reproduce, never mind that the frequencies exceeded the limits of human hearing.

      I guess we shall see with the D5…I know it will be a great camera, with some nice improvements, but again, can you really make these workhorse pro cameras that much better?

      • This is the problem with the whole industry, not only Nikon. Many companies will be at the same point if they are not already and the reason they are not is because they just started selling digital cameras (Sony, Fuji).

        • SteveHood

          I agree about Sony and Fuji, but that has more to do with the still maturing Mirrorless cameras. The mirrorless cameras are more dependant on CPU and sensor readout for AF. This along with the EVF are improving significantly with each generation of new bodies.

          • and this is probably what Nikon is waiting for

            • Thom Hogan

              There is no good time to wait for.

              Mirrorless has not proven that it will take over DSLR volume (currently at 2:1 DSLR:mirrorless, and Canon/Nikon own virtually all of that 2 while the seven dwarves own only three quarters of the 1).

              Nikon could have jumped early (and technically did with the Nikon 1), but the gamble there is that mirrorless would have to far surpass DSLR sales quickly for that to be the right move. It didn’t, so it wasn’t the right move.

              Nikon could jump late, but the gamble there is that the ILC market may have declined so far by then that this would be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

              As I’ve now been writing for eight years: the problem is that smartphones stole the “images.” Images now mostly live as bits only, and are moved to where you need them via the Internet. The very best the camera makers have achieved in that respect is to move those bits to a phone, and in a pretty kludge-heavy way.

              Until they throw away DCF and start over with the modern world as the center of their designs, all that will happen is slow attrition.

            • El Aura

              The seven dwarfs are Leica (T, SL), Pentax (Q), Samsung, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony? Does this mean that Nikon 1 is owning 25% of the mirrorless market (or is Nikon 1 part of the seven dwarfs and Sony is owning 25% of the mirrorless market)?

            • Thom Hogan

              Canon and Nikon have at times had as much as 25% of the mirrorless units in some markets. Sony is closer to 50% of the mirrorless market.

            • El Aura

              Forgot about Canon, so the real dwarfs are the six non-Canon, non-Nikon and non-Sony mirrorless camera makers (Leica, Pentax, Samsung, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji) that together account for only about a quarter of the mirrorless market or less than 15% of the total ILC market.

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes, that’s correct. We’re still over a month away from having final 2015 numbers, but I think it safe to predict that in ILCs (both DSLRs and mirrorless) Canon was around 40%, Nikon around 30%, and Sony around 15%. The last numbers we had were 43, 31, and 14, but that’s without the biggest quarter of the sales year involved.

            • Thom, I’ve seen you before arguing against DCF but I still don’t understand your argument. DCF is just a filesystem layout + file information (exif), nothing else. Even smartphones (at least Android) use DCF for organising the pictures and for file names, and this hasn’t prevented in any way their success.

              I think the problem is at a different layer, not at the filesystem layer, but up in the stack – or rather, the ecosystem.

            • Thom Hogan

              The whole idea behind DCF and the other follow-on standards was interchangeability. That you could take a card out of a camera and stick it in a printer and it would immediately understand what were files to be printed (especially if you had used the DPOF abilities).

              While the idea was right for the time, it’s no longer right.

              Look at Apple Photos (and the Google clone). The notion is that ALL your photos are in one place and shareable across all devices, and that events organize themselves properly without you having to interfere. Good luck doing that with DSC_####.JPG. That’s not a meaningful name, and it creates kludges to avoid deletion of images (e.g. DSC_#### (#).JPG ;~). Search orders don’t work on filenames any more when that happens, among other things. You are correct in one degree that this “is up the stack,” however the problem is that if we’re going to save all of our digital images we ever take over decades, “up the stack” has to work ;~).

              But the real problem here is that the Japanese don’t think there’s anything broken with DCF. Not a thing.

            • OK, so the main point is that people think DCF is enough, not that DCF itself is bad at what it does (filesystem layout). That I can agree with.

              Now, what can the new D500 SnapBridge thing do, and how well does it do it? 🙂

        • Wade Marks

          I totally agree with you, Peter. While some of the internet pundits and commenters criticize companies like Nikon for not putting out good enough cameras, the reality is that they have been putting out cameras so good that most people see no need to upgrade for a long time.

          Think of the D4s, D810, D750, D7200, D5500…these are all world class imaging machines that do what they are designed to do extraordinarily well.

          • Thom Hogan

            Agreed. Nikon has put out quite a few cameras that old-style photo enthusiasts appreciate: D7200, D750, D810, Df, even the D5500 and D4s would have to be considered here. That’s a lot of “good” product.

            But they’re all targeted to an aging market, and they’re all targeted at higher and higher prices compared to the DSC age runup (which just reinforces the declining market). Where is the product that appeals to the next generation of enthusiasts? Oh right, Nikon’s GoPro competitor, coming soon.

        • Thom Hogan

          Agreed. Moreover, my take on 2016 is that EVERYONE doubled down on their current tactics.

      • ShaoLynx

        Well, the DR can still be improved upon.
        (And they could integrate GPS and WiFi modules while they’re at it).
        Increasing the number of AF points (as predicted) and spreading them more over the VF. Make the LCD touch-sensitive for easy AF-point selection. Make true silent picture taking possible (like on the system cameras). etc.

      • Gary

        I think we’ve been at the point of “sufficiency” for some time (hence the annual decline in sales). As Thom’s noted elsewhere, a game changer could be when DSLR manufacturer starts to include the workflow features that really benefit users – not least of which would be efficient communications with a) software that pros need to do their job, and b) apps that

      • whisky

        sufficiency == good enough

        “good enough” is a moving target that has as much to do with the consumer as the manufacturer.

        • Wade Marks

          The issue of “sufficiency” can be a moving target determined by consumer expectations; but it also is determined by human limits, in this case what the eye can see and discern, along with limits of human reflexes, reaction times, etc.

          So let’s take these pro bodies: we have fantastic sensors, along with fantastic AF already. What would it take to make a difference that users will really notice?

          Can one tell that much difference between 12 and 11 fps? In most cases will 173 AF points do that much better than 51? It may…we will see.

          We see this same phenomenon in cars, where pretty much all cars are really good and will last for several years with proper care. Do I need to upgrade for a few more horsepower, maybe a few extra gadgets?

          We saw this in hifi stereo equipment where improvements allowed equipment to reproduce sounds beyond the limits of human hearing.

          There is no doubt that what constitutes sufficiency is a combination of consumer expectations coupled with limits of human perception. The first can change; the second does not, except over huge time frames of evolution.

          • whisky

            the limits of perception can also be extended by psychology. the marketing of instant coffee and the Walkman™ were just two such products which transcended the “good enough”.

            • Wade Marks

              Thanks for such an interesting discussion, Whisky. I would argue that the Walkman proved the concept of “sufficiency.” The device became wildly popular due to portability and ease of carry even though it certainly could not reproduce music at the level of a Nakamichi Dragon or other HiFi equipment.

              The Walkman itself became commoditized, as most users were happy with a basic model, and the higher end models with fancier gadgetry stopped selling well.

              The Walkman itself was replaced by the iPod, which again proved the concept of “sufficiency,” this time using digital files. Even the quality of these digital files proved the concept of good enough.

              So the entire world of intricate, expensive HiFi equipment was largely superseded by portable players with lesser sound quality, less esoteric features, but more portability and usability.

              In the camera world we see largely the same thing, where the ease of use and convenience of smartphone cameras has largely superseded stand alone image making devices.

            • whisky

              the psychology of convenience is a powerful motivator. so too the psychology of status. both of these pyschologies can override any physical limits to our perceptions when influencing purchase decisions.

              sometimes we’ve even been influenced to downgrade when a disruptive force alters our work or life flow so that we perceive it more convenient or significant.

              “good enough” is very much a phenomenon of gestalt, and if the limitations of science become a barrier, marketing departments typically shift to psychology for moving product.

          • Stormwatch can……

      • Dino Brusco

        Maybe killer AF might be spread everywhere and not only on the central cluster of focusing points.. Here I’m referring to the points near the rule of thirds intersection. Nikon with D3 decided that it was better using 9 weaker points rather than one good as it was for D2/F6 ( 11 points all working great ) I beg to differ and want Nikon to stick with the basics of photography once again

      • RRRoger

        If you have a 173 or 51 pt Camera, what difference does it make if you only use 11 or 1 of them?

        Unless you spread those 173 points all over the focus screen and can chose any cluster of them.

    • silmasan

      The spotlight will be on the new “キラーのオート フォーカス” (“Killer AF”).

    • Kyoshi Becker

      The simple function of allowing me to rate images in camera would get me to buy one. More DR is always welcome. Also a much smaller wireless unit (WT6?)

    • outkasted

      Thank you. I stated this with the D3s vs. D4. For someone that shoots low light pics this created doubts with those who wanted to upgrade. There has to be clear improvement.

  • T.I.M

    Will the D5 have a built in flash ?

    • Sawyerspadre

      I highly doubt it.

    • Aldo

      A built in flash will make it more vulnerable when an asteroid hits earth… and since users wan’t their pro DSLRs indestructible…it is likely it won’t have one.

      • BPhoto

        I sense some sarcasm 😉

  • Curtis

    Any information on the serial numbers of the D4’s that have the E lens issue? Someone should follow-up on this.

    • Nikon will probably issue an official statement soon.

      • Rafa R

        I hope they release a firmware update or something among those lines, instead of an ¨official statement¨

      • BPhoto

        Is this related to the 400 PF lens being camera specific?

      • KnightPhoto

        I have used a 600E on my somewhat early D4 (April 2012). Didn’t notice anything…

        • T.I.M

          The issue is that the lens will only operate at full aperture, and a 600mm is 90% time used full open.
          Setup 1/4s at f/8 and look from the front of the lens to see if the diaph is closing.

    • Rafa R

      agree, very disappointed on Nikon with this issue

      • T.I.M

        That’s why I bought my 400mm AF-I and not the E version, or else it would not work with my F6

        • Rafa R

          smart move

  • D700s

    The fact that Lexar and Sony keep developing the XQD card was an indicator the D5 would continue the trend toward them. Must be some talk with the manufacturers. Peter, that may be a back door to other rumors if you have any sources there (Lexar/Sony).

  • bgbs

    14.5fps will do fine for me I guess, though I needed at least 15fps to do stop motion for a school project. Oh well.

    • ZoetMB

      Why? You do know that most classic animation was actually only 12fps – each cell was shot 2x.

  • HKer

    The Pinout is an interesting device, similar in size to the RFN4s device by SMDV that I current use and also attaches to the camera release socket. Both are handy as you don’t need to take the device off each time after use. Pinout has of course more functionality, but if you don’t need the other functions than just remote shutter release, then it means you need to carry a phone. The RFN4 trigger is much smaller than a phone and I hang it around my neck during use. Maybe Pinout can develop a separate trigger just for shutter release that then would be in direct competition with the RFN4.

  • HKer

    Two XQD cards are great for the photographers in terms of getting the most out of the camera. My thoughts are that those photographers who don’t like the XQD is because the people they deal with (e.g. PR companies) don’t have the XQD card reader, as not common, and then you have to always carry the card reader and sort them out. Most clients would have a SD or CF card reader. Also a lot of established pros have a mixture of canon and Nikon gear, so means carrying 4 sets of cards (if you include both XQD N/H series / G series are different card readers). XQD is definitely more robust as I have in the past bent the CF card pins in the camera slot and SD wears out after heavy use. Also XQD are still relatively hard to get hold off in some countries. But I think Nikon is at least heading in the right direction. CF Fast (pinless) which isn’t the same reader as Cf card would complicate this even more.

  • Aldo

    Time to make/buy an XQD to SD adapter

    • RandomDesign

      That would be a huge waste of a XQD slot.

      • Aldo

        Well… there aren’t really many laptops and macbook pros with XQD slots… forget your XQD reader and it would be a huge inconvenience

        • Sure, but many (still) have Ethernet, and Dx have ethernet, so you could still in theory download the pictures…

  • HKer

    I shoot golf for work with a D4s (11fps), to get an idea of what 14 or 15fps would mean. From the time you press the shutter when the player makes contact with the ball, often the first photo is with the golf ball on the edge of the photo. With 3 to 4 extra frames this would move the golf ball closer to the player and achieve better framing. Whether 14 or 15 fps could also mean a cheetahs legs are in the good position for composition. People ask why you need such a fast frame rate, it’s because some sports and other fast action requires it to get the best composition.

    • Padaung

      Thank you for taking the time to explain why some photographers require such high capture frame rates. What you say makes sense to me.

    • Does the frame rate actually matter for the first frame? I thought that’s mostly a matter of shutter lag. For the second and third, yes, but not so much for the first frame.

      • HKer

        Sorry for the lapse in wording. You are right there is shutter lag so you just have to get familiar with the timing of the swing. Because of this shutter lag, I typically press the shutter release when the club is on the downswing at the 4 o’clock position. The shutter noise won’t impact the player as the golfer is already past midway through the swing. More frame rates help to catch the golf club in the right compositional position when the golfer has connected with the ball, and secondly to get both golfer with the ball mid-air in the shot.
        Having 3 or 4 extra frames would improve the chances of getting the club in the right final pose and also getting the ball in the frame.

        • HF

          I guess it helps a bit. You have a top speed of 100mph of the driver head. High speed cameras show that you have about 0.3 to 0.36 seconds during the drive from the 4o’clock position to the ball leaving the FOV. So you gain half an image with 14fps vs. 12fps. Could be decisive, but I think pressing the shutter at the right moment is more important. If the weather is nice to keep ISO low, a Nikon 1 with 70-300 could give you something more.

  • TheInfinityPoint

    That new steam flash trigger is going to be invaluable in the photographing of Japanese noodles. The possibilities are endless!

  • HKer

    looking at the above photo of D5, specifically the viewfinder area. On the D4s and D4 you have a lever which mechanically drops a shutter over the viewfinder to screen off light. In the photo above the lever has gone, but there appears to be a dial on the LHS and a catch, to allow the whole viewfinder unit to be taken off. NR showed photos of this previously. Still curious what is the purpose of allowing this unit to be taken off. The diopter adjustment is still in the same place. My two cents is an EVF unit? If they can make a detachable EVF for the Nikon 1, then all they need is to remould the shape for a D5. I would certainly like an EVF. I do have the Sony A7rii but I do find the minimum 2 sec display of an EVF image sometimes too long, hopefully the D5 has a 1 sec option. All exciting!!

    • Michiel953

      Interesting question. As far as I can see here, the viewfinder housing/shoulder area appears seamless, so no taking that off. The lhs and rhs levers would then function to take the eyepiece surround off?

    • EnPassant

      The leaked photos: http://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/17/more-nikon-d5-pictures-leaked-online.aspx/ show D5 now having a rectangular slide-in attachement for viewfinder accessories just like D750 and D5500. So from now the round screw-in finder used in D4s and D810 is history as the D820 should get the same change.

      An EVF would also need some kind of electronic connection to the camera and I see none. So the only difference from D4 is that now the DR-6 Right Angle magnifying Viewfinder should fit while the DR-5 for D4 need an adapter and Nikon for the future only need to support one type of viewfinder just like everybody else. (Leica being the exception for M-cameras still using screw-in finders.)

      It would be nice with an EVF option for DSLRs as well. But a better implementation would be a built-in hybrid finder with a transparent LCD built into the focus screen. But maybe the technology for that is not quite ready yet or too expensive. But we can at least dream about it coming inside the D6 and later in the D8X0, D7X0 and D7X00 series cameras.

    • Fifi

      In theory EVF sounds nice. But there’s no REAL TIME EVF, they all have delay. So this could be quite inconvenient for photographers who really need high frame rates.

      • Wade Marks

        Thank you for pointing out the reality of an EVF. Right now they all have a delay and that can be costly. No substitute yet for an OVF.

    • RRRoger

      If the ViewFinder is indeed removable,
      it could indicate that the D5 will have greatly enhanced Video.
      Live View requires an EVF or good monitor because the mirror is up.
      A fully articulating, high resolution OLED that is usable in daylight would be even better.

  • malchick743

    Personally I don’t like the idea of an XQD-only camera, these cards are still a big investment only real pros could afford…

    So while the resulting D5 might be a game changer, it could also drive away those who’ve been relying on CF card media over the years

    • Yasfaloth

      Ah ? And at probably around 6K$ the D5 is not “a big investment only real pros could afford” ?

      I think that if you can afford a D5 you can afford the high performances memory cards it needs for 4K video and high fps…

    • RandomDesign

      I consider myself a part time pro and I made the investment in XQD cards for my D4. If you’re going to spend that much on a camera why would you not invest an extra $100 or so for a better card?

  • MonkeySpanner

    Interesting steam patent. Someone must have approached nikon for a solution.

  • RRRoger

    It seems that the new Commlite adapter AutoFocus is even slower (3 seconds) than a native Sony FE lens (2 seconds), but at least it works.

  • Aaron Pepelis

    my D4 has had issues with almost all lenses and needing to be fine tuned per lens, per focal length. The only lens that has ever really focused well on it is the 105mm f/2.8 vr. My 85mm e lens never works right.

  • fanboy fagz

    whats the deal with ugly glitter finish in the D5 body?

    • AlphaTed

      Reflections.
      All recent bodies have that texture, AFAIC.

      • RandomDesign

        Yep, my D4 has exactly the same texture. I’m pretty sure the D700 I had before the D4 had it too.

      • fanboy fagz

        my D3 D3s D4 all have the same finish. crinkle style. looks like the shitty glitter finish the sigma ex lenses have

      • Thiom

        By the color cast I’d say these are reflections from a direct fill-in strobe. Pointed my LED flashlight at my D810, looks like that D5 photo, D800E ditto. Df however looks different, finer structure. More flat black without those funny specks.

        All three of them take great images, that’s what counts…

    • br0xibear

      Oh that’s just the spit that came out of the photographer’s mouth, as he convulsed when he was told how much more expensive the D5 was going to be compared to the D4s.

      • fanboy fagz

        more than the $6500 rape price of the D4s?

  • Michiel953

    Hmm. How do you get round the absence of visible seams?

  • Michiel953

    It’s called “splatter” finish. Been around for ages, Nikon bodies anyway.

  • Thom Hogan

    You seem to be quoting card reader speeds, not actual card speeds in existing cameras ;~). The SD card you quoted achieves maybe 38Mbps in cameras.

    In practice, I’ve not found a single CF or SD card perform close an XQD card in camera. A few SD and CF perform excellently when used in a good card reader, but not cameras. Of course, the D4/D4s have a very fast read/write implementation in the camera itself.

    One reason why Nikon got involved in XQD in the first place is the balancing act between costs and performance. The PCIe nature of XQD reduced in-camera costs to achieve high performance.

    • Wade Tregaskis

      I quoted read and write speeds. For bulk transfers, yes. It’s true that cameras seem to universally fail to achieve those sorts of speeds, by a mile (some especially so – the very new Sony a7R II especially sucks in this regard). That is an unfortunate implementation flaw of the cameras, one for which I see no reason why XQD would be comparatively different.

      Once the D500 is out we can benchmark it and see for that specific camera which is better. I expect it’ll be disappointing for both formats. Which only reinforces my point that they should just have put the effort in to making their UHS-II performance at least vaguely near the potential of the card, rather than wasting time & energy on an even more complicated and expensive format that they’ll also fail to utilise well.

      On XQD vs SDXC technically, I very much doubt that XQD makes the camera’s implementation cheaper. PCIe is a very complicated interconnect, at all layers. Whether XQD actually implements PCIe fully or is merely inspired by it, I don’t know – the CompactFlash Association that supposedly defines the standard don’t actually publish or even acknowledge the standard on their website. But if it comes remotely close to full PCIe, then it’s going to require a much more complicated, power-hungry, and expensive controller [in the camera body] than SDXC UHS-II.

      For reference, I have written an SD card driver from scratch, and have worked with PCIe in many forms over many years. I am neither guessing nor hypothesising when I say that PCIe is way more complicated than even the latest SDXC UHS-II standard.

      • Thom Hogan

        I can’t confirm this at the moment, but my understanding is that EXPEED directly supports PCIe and the connection to the XQD, whereas SD requires an external-to-EXPEED write controller. As with everything, it’s what you design to that ultimately determines cost/performance. Nikon appears to be choosing XQD because they’ve figured out how to make that optimization beneficial both to the user and to them.

        As for practical, I’ve not seen a single camera that supports UHS-II that comes close to the throughput of the existing D4 and XQD. Fujifilm is the only one I’ve seen that fully supports UHS-II with in-camera circuitry, and they can’t match what the D4 does.

        In terms of “complicated,” there’s R&D complications versus manufacturing complications. It seems clear to me that Nikon is picking the former over the latter with XQD. Fixed costs versus variable costs.

  • Back to top