Nikon D500--no D400 coming

Nikon has just announced the successor to the D300s--the D500.

It has 3 times the auto focus points--153 and uses an Expeed 5-class processor to speed up things, up to ISO 51,200 sensitivity in the normal range, with a Hi5 setting equivalent to 1,640,000.

"Approx. 10 fps continuous shooting (up to 200 shots in 14-bit lossless compress RAW)" using XQD cards.

It has a sliding, touch-enabled rear display of 3.2 inches.

While it does Super35-compatible 4K video at 30p, it doesn't seem better than the Panasonic GH4 at this point, for video.  (Apparently, the D5 does fewer than 4 minutes of 4K video?)

It seems like a great stills camera body, though.  I wish they'd announced this in 2015, instead of the D7200.  At US$1999.95, it's $300 more than I would have expected but the new AF module and better processor are likely worth it.

As I have the D7200, I would like to think that my choice would have been more difficult between the D500 and D7200, especially if the D500 would have been available in April 2015, and at US$1699.95.

I have not found the D7200 enough of a breakthrough model for me, nor the move (for me) to APS-C to be more than marginally better than micro Four-Thirds, unfortunately.  I am pleased with the D7200 for wide work, but it is sufficient, not exceptional.  Perhaps, hopefully, the D500 is exceptional.

Oh, and if you're wondering why there is no D400, it would have arrived at the same time as the D4, but they supposedly couldn't give it enough of a difference to create such a flagship DX model.

Update 2016.06.27: You've probably seen plenty about the D500 by now.  It's quite tempting.  It should be since it securely replaces a model from 2007.  Although opinions differ, for me, it is the pinnacle of APS-C equipment, not the FujiFilm X-Pro 2.

I was quite amused that DxOMark used the Olympus E-30 as a model for comparison.  Was there someone at the company who held tight to the E-30?  Seeing the E-30 at 55 and the Panasonic GH4 at 74 shows how far micro Four-Thirds has come.  I'm not sure I believe a score of 83 for the D500 and 87 for the D7200 because the D7200 doesn't seem quite so wonderful and the newer Expeed 5 class processor along with a slightly lower resolution should give better, not worse results.  Then again, I don't really believe DxOMark numbers, except as a very general guide.

Update 2016.10.05: The more I think about the D500, I appreciate what it does, but wouldn't the Pentax K-1 do a better job, except for the speed?

Nikon, I'm confused about your direction

Recently, we've seen the D3300 and the D5300 consumer dSLRs.  The D600 was revised and it became the D610.  The D4 has become the D4s with useful enhancements, also.

I'm just not sure why the D300s was not replaced or why the D7100 comes up short.  Truth be told, the Canon 7D is still hanging in there, and the 70D, while revised, isn't much of a divergence from the 60D.

Without the D400 to replace the D300s, there seems to be a hole in the line that isn't filled by the D610.  A few people might have gone up to the D800 or to the older D700, regardless of resolution.  I've looked at the D700 and D300s several times but don't see a solution.  The Ricoh/Pentax K-3 seems the true successor to the D300/D300s, slight weirdness and all.

I really don't understand where Nikon is going between US$1000 and $2000, or if they're not interested at all.  It almost seems as though we should be seeing the D7100 replaced, along with the D800/D800E pair but it doesn't seem that the company is in any hurry.

Is anyone excited about the D4s?

That huge, top ISO sensitivity number from the D4 has been doubled.  The new Expeed 4 processor is much faster and you can shoot 11 frames per second vs. 10, without being locked into auto focus or auto exposure settings.  After seeing 12 frames per second in burst mode from the Panasonic GH4, it doesn't seem a huge deal, but I'm certain everything is locked down to get 12, versus the 7.2 fps from tracking mode on the GH4.

So, will the D4s be so much better at getting night time football game photos?  I won't know because I don't watch NFL or the other pro ball games, and I won't be buying a D4s, but the possibilities certainly get my imagination started.

Is Live View a waste on a dSLR?

Ever since the Olympus E-330, Panasonic DMC-L1, and Leica Digilux 3 introduced Live View to the world of photography, I've wondered about using it.

In November 2011, I got an Olympus E-5, which has Live View and video recording.  I played with each, but never did much with them.  In February 2013 when I got a Panasonic DMC-GH3, I had a camera body similarly equipped with Live View and (much enhanced) video recording.  Still, I'd yet to do more than test Live View.

In some cases, like the Nikon D7100, D300s, and Canon 70D, the rear display is rather firmly attached, so you can't slide, tilt, or turn it away from the body.  In cases like this, I've heard Live View called "Tripod Mode".  To me, the words "live" and "tripod" don't really seem to work with each other in photography.  Those still life portraits are so...still.

It was only when I was at an Olympus photo walk event with the E-M1 that I really considered Live View valuable.

At one intersection in downtown Indianapolis, there is a flying saucer-like underside covering the intersection, making it a bit claustrophobic.  I could just take a snapshot, but it made more sense to me to get closer to the ground.  I released the rear display and folded it down until it was facing upward.  As I held the camera a few inches from the pavement/sidewalk, between the obstacles, I was able to get a clear shot of the whatever-it-is.  It enabled me to do things I could not normally do.

E-M1 Live View Straight from the Camera JPEG

E-5 through the optical viewfinder, converted from raw file

Since mirror-less system cameras all use Live View and nothing else, the technology has become much better.  Lenses are designed for it, and speeding up the interaction between the image sensor helps to speed auto focus.  As the sensor is always going, the various companies are learning about heat dissipation to reduce the effects of photographic noise.

When I was at a Panasonic-sponsored event recently, an older gentleman showed me his Panasonic DMC-L1 and it was interesting but part of a different time.  Those ideas certainly changed everything, and we wouldn't likely have mirror-less system cameras today without them.

I still haven't a great use for Live View on the Olympus E-5, but now, that I've actually used Live View, I certainly have an appreciation for it, and will realize that I don't have to walk away from certain photos to get them comfortably.

Panasonic GH3, Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8

Here is another, more recent photo using Live View and the articulated rear display of my Panasonic GH3 this time.  I switched from the EVF to the rear display, held the camera body at a rather extreme angle, twisted the rear display angle for easy viewing, while kneeling comfortably, rather than lying on the ground, photographing it upside down.

I really could have used that Nikon D400

More and more, I keep thinking that the D400 would have solved my problems.

While the D300 was amazing for 2007 and the D300s was a good successor, I find myself wanting a bit more.  I considered buying a D7100 for more than a few moments, but the lack of a generous frame buffer stopped me.  I really don't want the whole operation to stop while I wait for the photos to be written to cards.

The D600 is also not a good substitute, as it's more of a D7000 than the D7100 is, what with the older auto focus module, etc.

That D400 with the guts of the D300s and a slightly enhanced image sensor would have been great.  12 (clean) MP aren't bad at all, but 16 or 18 MP would have put its sensor more eye-to-eye with the Canon 7D.

Why am I thinking about all of this now, again?  The rumored Olympus E-M1, a Four-Thirds substitute body.  If it's real, as they've shown it, it's not good.  It's undersized, a cobbled-together assemblage of good intentions that will work for those Four-Thirds users who have already jumped ship to micro Four-Thirds.  There may be other, casual Four-Thirds users, but I doubt it.  It's very much an all-or-nothing type of system.  (Hmm...new hint "E- series" on a teaser for the announcement coming soon.  It could be a fake, but it would make more sense just to put everything into an already available body and make the combination up to date.

I photograph sports--cross country, track, basketball, wrestling, swimming, lacrosse, and more.  I've been using the Panasonic GH3 to handle some of those, and it sort of works but there are multiple problems.  Even the most expensive micro Four-Thirds zoom lenses aren't good--they're certainly not excellent, which is something the Olympus ZD lenses are.  Switching dSLR brands will cause me to pay 1.5 to 2.0 times the cost to find almost equivalent lenses, and I'll have to buy more to cover my current range.  The electronic viewfinder of today isn't very good.  Panasonic's may not be great, but I don't see any of them with 16 times the resolution, so it looks like real life through an optical viewfinder.  Guessing at focus, and manual focus of fast sports is often necessary, is not likely to be acceptable.  Don't get that?  Try capturing Usain Bolt (not even on one of his good days) with a mirror-less camera.  You may get 1 or 2 decent photos.

When Olympus' E-P2 was arriving, I quipped that the E-P14 would be the first complete mirror-less camera from Olympus.  The E-P5 has come a long way toward shutting my mouth but the viewfinder and continuous focus are less than ideal for a dSLR user.

So, that D400 may never arrive, but I might have to jump ship--back to the future?  The Nikon D300 is still a good camera body and the price is extremely reasonable.  The D300s provides video and some other minor enhancements which I have handled elsewhere, so spending extra money doesn't seem reasonable.

Of course, the D300 has 12.3 MP output.  It's not greater than my Olympus E-5, except that the photos may be a bit cleaner in low light because of the lower density of pixels on the sensor.

Jumping ship, of course, is a bigger deal in the lenses than the camera bodies, unless you're still only working with that kit zoom.  I find that buying a 70-200mm f/2.8 and adding lenses around it is cost-prohibitive.  Certainly the new 24-85mm f/3.5-5.6 135 format normal zoom is reasonable at US$599 (I believe!) for good, but slow glass with an image stabilizer.  Right now, I have two normal zooms that run (equivalent of 135 format) 28-70mm f/2.0 and 28-108mm f/2.8-3.5, both image stabilized because of the image stabilization built into the body.

Would I spend more to take a big leap in image quality, even at the expense of the future?  I'm not sure.  That D300 still looks good and if not that, then the D700 can probably be had still.  Bigger isn't always better but giving peace of mind a chance might be.

I've been attempting sports with the Panasonic GH3.  It isn't bad and sometime, it's even good.  The electronic viewfinder gets in my way and for manual focus, the resolution just isn't there.  I tried it at last Saturday's cross country meet and I was fine with my older Olympus E-5.  Even if the sensor isn't so good in low light situations, that's rarely a problem for cross country running in the sunshine, or even in the rain.  However, a D400 might have taken away any doubts about shooting sports because it would be better in low light than the E-5 and with contrast detection auto focus, could have followed the runners more easily.  Of course, switching to the latest Olympus ZD 50-200mm with the SWD (Supersonic Wave Drive--like any other ultrasonic focusing motor), might have allowed the auto focus to work quite well.

However, going the Nikon route might be desirable, since Olympus seem to be packing up their last Four-Thirds camera body.  We'll see what happens next Monday/Tuesday after the announcements.

Update 2013.10.08: Olympus' E-M1 isn't a dSLR but it focuses the dSLR lenses that the company makes.  Pentax/Ricoh introduced their new APS-C sized flagship, the K-3, and it looks everything that the D400 should have been, had it been made at all.

Update 2013.11.24: Could a D7200 fix the buffer issue and solve the problem?  Surely, they'll find flash memory inexpensive enough to increase the buffer without changing anything else.  Certainly going from D600 to D610 they didn't change much and improved the camera quite a lot.

Update 2015.04.14: The D7200 is finally available in stores, and it fixes a lot about the D7100.  It's still not the D400 but it should impress a lot of people.  They should have introduced it halfway through 2014, but they didn't.  Oh, well.  Given that Canon revised the 7D, at least, there are two refreshed dSLR camera bodies in the category.  Now, if Ricoh Pentax could fix their firmware weirdness, there would be three good APS-C sized sensors in dSLRs bodies.

Update 2015.08.15: The D7200 is available in my bag now, for about one month.  The buffer fix is good, especially using 12-bit raw files.  The Expeed 4-class processor and the updated sensor seem to have given it great power.  I'm still working to learn it but I've only got a few good photos with it.  I'm waiting for firmware updates to fix a lot of ridiculous little problems, such as its choosing ISO 25,600 even in good light.

It will be a good replacement for the D300, finally, even if the build isn't quite as amazing.  I can still take out my Olympus E-5 (or E-1), if I want something that will work in the worst situations.

Update 2015.12.13: The D7200 sits a lot.You'd think that the body and the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 would be great companions, but they're too slow and not good enough in lower light conditions.  How good is the image quality of a photo the camera refuses to take?

 I like it, but it seems to work against me rather than working for me.

Update 2016.01.06: The D500 has been announced and while it looks good, it's not looking great for video, even though it can handle 4K video at some level.  The Panasonic GH4 is better for video overall.  For stills, of course, the D500 image quality is much better than the GH4 or any other micro Four-Thirds body, but is it enough?

Nikon D7000/D300s replacement(s)?

So, I've been asking this question for a rather long time.  It was of real concern to me when I was considering a new Olympus body because I thought that I might jump ship.  At the time, the D300/D300s was a good performer but a bit old in image quality and there wasn't enough difference between it and the E-5 to jump ship.  The D7000 was good but it didn't seem enough in many ways (although it's a great budget body), especially over a used D300.

Now, it's 2013 and the D700 has been replaced and has a cheaper relative in the D600.  The D5100 has been surpassed, as well.  The D7000 has dropped in price to the point where it's a very good choice...for last year.

I've been expecting a switch and I mentioned in the past with the D600 having been on the way that Nikon might just combine the D7000 and D300s replacements into one body, at a very desirable price point.  I'm sure a lot of things delayed the company's progress--a huge earthquake and tidal wave, flooding, and the mirror-less revolution in Japan.

I would hope to see such a camera body soon, given the pricing.  Can they combine a better low light experience with a higher image quality for a great price?  I believe so.  Could the sensors be a problem or are they re-engineering the body to avoid dust and oil contamination, as with the D600 problem?

I'm still unwilling to put US5000 or more into jumping ship, so I'm thinking about it all very carefully.  I'm also waiting to see what solution comes from Olympus this year to replace the E-5.  Even if it's merely the E-M5 sensor in the E-5 body (coordinated, of course), that would be fine with me.  Working at double the ISO image quality would be quite a boost.  When Nikon is only stating an upper limit to their working range as ISO 6400 that sounds good, but do I want to use those images?

Any time now...

Update: Well, that was almost one week until the D7100 to be announced.  It combines the best parts of the D300 into the D7000 body, and even has an extra crop mode to give Four-Thirds users like me, an easy way to jump ship and get the same 2x multiplication of focal length with a bit of a boost in burst shooting speed.  Well done!

Nikon is on a roll, like butter and jelly

I'm glad to see Nikon clawing their way back from the depths of despair.

The company seemed forever doomed to produce adequate digital SLRs, until the D300 arrived.

While I was not surprised by the D4 or the D800, the D3200 was a surprise.  The D5200 had to arrive just to hold off Canon's latest consumer entry.  I don't see it as good or bad but with the D7000's metering and auto focus, it should grab mind share and hopefully, market share.

I was really hoping to see the replacements for the D300s and the D7000.  As far as I'm concerned, the D7000 is the entry level, as I won't work without dust and splash protection.  Apparently, a lot of people can't wrap their minds around what seems to be a fact--that the D600 is the entry level (feature-wise) FX/135 format frame model.  It's priced above the D300s for a reason, the sensor is more expensive.  They can't put everything in there and charge a cheaper price.

Does this mean that the D300s won't be replaced?  I believe a replacement is still on the way but it all seems a bit crowded now.  Hopefully, they'll bring a sensor with superior image quality and an extended ISO sensitivity range, rather than push a huge number of pixel sites.  I would expect that the D7000 replacement would share the sensor, but there will be improvements similar to what the D800 got for the D300s replacement and nothing so grand for the D7000 replacement.

I'm still confused about what Nikon are doing with their lenses.  I was reading a few reviews on the 70-200mm Mk II and I wasn't impressed.  For that much money (and weight), I think it should wash the dishes, in addition to cooking a meal.  It's not a bad lens, but I would expect wide open goodness, the kind you couldn't find on another platform.  I'm reading similar reviews for other lenses.  Canon would like you to believe that their lenses are superior, but of course, they're not.  They're just a different exterior colour.  Since Sony are trying something similar with the exterior of their lenses, they should all do it.  I'm sure Pentax with have some Lego-like coloured lens bodies to brighten the day.  I saw the Olympus micro Four-Thirds 12mm f/2.0 has a special edition black body for an extra US$300.  That's serious money, just to match the lens to your camera body.  I'd rather buy some lens from Schneider-Kreuznach for that kind of pricing.

In any case, kudos to Nikon for presenting some fine equipment.  I hope that 2013 finishes their expanded lineup although 2012 would be ideal.

Digital 135 format photography in compact sizes this week

Remember when we could go out and buy a 135 format compact camera from US$50 to US$150?  The 1980s and 1990s were full of them and, for the most part, they delivered impressive images for not much money.

When digital technology arrived for consumers in the second half of the 1990s, it was expensive, low resolution, and generally too slow to be completely useful.  I bought an Olympus D300L for around US$999, which had a resolution of 1024x768.  That was decent resolution as a lot of computer monitors were still 800x600 at that time.

A lot has changed and you can actually get decent photos out of the latest compact cameras but they're still not very good.

Sigma tried to change that with their DP1 and DP2 fixed lens compact cameras.  Giving them larger sensors helped but their operational idiosyncrasies make them a pain to use.  They really could use a makeover and any of the camera makers, no matter how bad could make them better.

Sony introduced the RX1 this week.  It uses a 135 format-sized (35mm to consumers, but 135 format was 24x36mm) sensor in a compact body.  At US$2800, it's hardly for everyone and a far stretch from those US50 compacts.  That's about the same price as a Nikon D800, but it is compact.  It should prove interesting in changing thinking about what size body goes with what size sensor.

More affordable and soon to be available, the Nikon D600 has been announced.  It's a 135 format-sized sensor in what is essentially a D7000 body at about US$2100.  The D7000 is a good, smaller body camera that goes up against the Canon 60D, and readily takes sales away from the aging D300s.

The D7000 is weather-sealed and the D600 apparently increases that to a level consistent with the D800.  You won't need one of those cutesy clip-on umbrellas to keep your equipment dry.  Just remember that your lenses have to be weather-sealed as well or you'll be spending double your money on that lens that caught your eye when you're out shooting in the rain.

I'm particularly interested in the D600 for wide angle work.  I still like my Olympus E-1 and E-5 for telephoto work but the widest option is a 7-14mm f/4.0.  It's an impressive lens but at a multiplication factor of 2.0, that's not all that close.  The maximum aperture also precludes it from a lot of indoor work.  If I can get a D600 with a wider angle (weather-proofed) zoom, I'd be pleased.  I suspect the combination wouldn't be any heavier than what the E-5 and the 7-14mm would be.  It's only in the telephoto area where Olympus and the E-system really shine.

I'm interested to see more and more compact bodies containing bigger sensors, but mostly we need to get back to reason.  We no longer need huge digital bodies to create great images.  Those pseudo-professional fanatics whose Canikon camera bodies have the kit lens and are set to Auto mode with auto focus are crying about the changes, but they'll find that they'll be in the minority, as professionals seem to be picking up mirror-less system cameras for holiday.

Surprised by the Olympus E-M5

I'm jaded and cynical and anything else that would lead you to believe that I don't believe much anymore.

So, Olympus brings out a new series of camera bodies to supplement the PEN series: OM-D.  Yes, sure, the OM-system was amazing.  Olympus shocked Nikon into making smaller camera bodies.  You only need compare the Nikon F2 with the Olympus OM-1 to see why.

I used an OM-1N for years and it was quite good and the results were amazing.  I was more than pleased with lens quality, even though I didn't have the best of the best.  When the OM-1N failed and couldn't be repaired, I settled on an IS-series camera and it was adequate, but as a Zoom Lens Reflex (ZLR), it had to be everything to everyone and it wasn't.  Now, we have those SLR-like superzoom cameras that follow Olympus' lead.  The IS-20DLX that I had took photos that were good as snapshots.  It had scene modes and it was pleasant to use but it was a snapshot camera.  Ugggh.

Olympus even transitioned those into the digital world with the D-500/D-600, C-2500L (the first with TruePIC), and the E-10/E-20 pair.  The add-on lens was an interesting way to add capabilities, as long as you followed the rules.  Otherwise, you ruined film or had a digital shot to delete but you might have gotten a bit closer, hand you done things correctly.

When Olympus introduced the E-1, they said goodbye to the ZLR, and exclaimed that they had entered the world of the SLR again, after a long hiatus from the OM-4Ti.  I was so enthusiastic that I bought an E-1, the 50-200mm and 14-54mm lenses a few months after release.  (Version 1.0 isn't for me, generally.)

I was surprised that it worked so well.  I had tried various dSLRs and they were sluggish and gave poor photos and didn't seem worth the trouble.  In 2004, there just wasn't the software for processing raw files and Olympus' JPEG files were the envy of every camera maker.

Today, we have the E-M5.  It's about as close to the OM-4Ti as could be possible.  Unfortunately, they couldn't stuff a 24x36mm sensor in there.  Fortunately, they didn't have to do that.  Reading review after review, it seems that it works quite well.  In fact, for a lot of shots, it works better than the E-5 "professional" camera body.  This bothers me to no end because I bought an E-5 in November of 2011.  (Yes, yes, get over it.  I know.)  Of course, I just have to shoot sports and I realize that I'm not having a bit of trouble with the E-5.

I have a few reservations about the E-M5 for sports photography:

• it's slippery like the OM-series
• the lens quality is lower than what I have
• the ISO sensitivity values are apparently not close to accurate

There is an add-on hand/battery grip, just like the OM-4Ti had, so even if it's slippery or unbalanced, that hand grip will help.

The lens quality issue isn't going away any time soon.  Olympus was (and is still) knocked for the size and weight of the High Grade and Super High Grade lenses.  They've gone small with the micro Four-Thirds lenses and that means lower quality and smaller maximum apertures.  That doesn't work for me.

The ISO sensitivity values are apparently far from what they should be.  I've forgotten how far, but 6400 may only be 4000, as a non-factual example.  What I recall was much further off.  I've been complaining about ISO 1600 with the E-5 and if its calibration was off like the E-M5's is and I was seeing ISO 1000-quality shots for ISO 1600, I'd probably be thrilled, until I learnt the truth.  (I'm still not happy with ISO 800 on the E-5.)

Few people seem to have reservations and a lot of people have ordered.  Apparently, so many that Olympus are struggling to make and ship enough, for the first in a very long time.  Congratulations to them!  I'm glad for their success.

They've been talking about a professional micro Four-Thirds camera body for a while.  I'm listening for any news about it, but they have to provide lenses and somehow keep the detractors from saying "huge", "heavy", and "pricey" while providing the amazing quality that we've come to know from the HG and SHG lines.  I'm looking at Nikon every day and wondering if I'll take the plunge and switch.  Nikon hasn't proven anything much to me, though.  The D300S doesn't look much better than the E-5, especially considering the lens choices.

Maybe, the E-M6 will arrive quickly, or maybe, it'll be an E-7 since the bit about some quick changes to the E-5 in 2011 still haven't happened.  Maybe, Nikon will get with it, ditch the 1 system, and provide a blow out mirror-less system camera but that's not their way because it's not safe.

Update 2014.01.10: The time has come for the E-M5 to be replaced.  Supposedly, the replacement will be the E-M10.  As the name implies (think OM-1, OM-10), it will be slotted under the E-M1.  The E-M5 got some awards, including Camera of the Year from the most unlikely source--DPReview.  Hopefully, they'll fix the mushy buttons and replace the viewfinder with something similar to the excellent unit used in the E-M1.