12.04.2017/XNUMX/XNUMX Nikon camera was announced D7500.
Nikon D7500
Official announcement hereprices here и here.
I was asked to add this post here in order to wash the bones of Elder Nikon.
|
|||||
Nikon D7500 AnnouncementComments: 188, on the topic: Announcement of Nikon D7500Add a comment |
|||||
|
|
|||||
Announcement, does not work ...
The first link is incorrect.
A noticeable technical step forward, but it is still an uncomfortable grip for the average hand = (And somehow I did not quite understand the belt loops in the style of D3 *** or Canon.
Well, nobody strongly promised to reduce the 7xxx series much, I personally have a comfortable grip. But yes, yes, there is no screen service, screwdriver, etc. in the smaller series.
But this is a turning point! This is the first time we have seen a decrease in the resolution of the matrix with the release of a more recent model! Has common sense triumphed?
not the size of the matrix, but megapixels
Che?
The matrix is the same in area. There are fewer megapixels.
Mowgli wrote about this. Varezhkin saw what he wanted.
sorry, if you made a mistake.
The second time)) On the D3300 there was a slight decrease.
So yes, you're right)
When has Nikon rolled to the electronic shutter ?! Is it really that hard? And then if timelapses to actively remove the shutters do not save enough.
The second slot was cut out, in vain. Judging by the photo, the aperture reader of the Ai-S manual lenses was reduced - also sadness. Thank you for leaving the infrared for the remote trigger!
And so it is quite a worthy unit! They brought a lot of good things, a reasonable amount of megapixels, nothing really superfluous! :]
The D7000 really liked the device, maybe the D7500 is the next in balance after it.
But it’s already almost parallel to me, I crawled into the enemy camp of Olympus and Nikon? I’m probably not coming back soon, at least to the crop.
in fact, they have long since sunk (the video is filmed with an electronic shutter), they just stubbornly do not want to "allow" it for a photo
Well, I meant for the photo, everything is clear with the video.
I like taking pictures with a mechanical shutter, even now on the BZK. But I don’t really want to remove time-laps on the mechanics somehow. If we assume that the shutter resource is 100 operations, this is roughly 000 shooting time-laps and that’s all, financial injections are required and not all services can replace the shutter qualitatively and without consequences.
I now thought that, probably, cocking and triggering a mechanical shutter is associated with a mechanism for raising / lowering the mirror and the separation of these processes when using the JVI does not make much sense. But in live view, in theory, nothing prevents it from being arranged in the state of a raised mirror.
Well, when there is no mirror, an electronic shutter will appear….
in terms of meaning, a translucent mirror would fit the electronic shutter, if necessary, so that it was
The presence of a mirror does not affect the possibility of implementing an electronic shutter. Pentax could.
It would also be nice to see this device in a set with 16-85, but alas. And then 18-105 is somehow frivolous, and the rest is somehow superfluous ... It looks like this lens interferes with the popularization of the fresh 16-80.
Unfortunately, the link to the official announcement does not work.
finally, the video can be saved in MP4, not in MOV.
And one card and baht. the block is not provided, and you won’t attach the lens to horror Ai, and it is made of plastic, and the battery is dead and the lip is in noodles and the nose is in borsch and finally.
Nikon realized that the evonous D7xxx series, as well as the D610 and D750, are shamelessly bought by professionals. And D5 and D500 from the shelves are not swept away. Outrage.
And I immediately did not notice the lack of a baht connector. block. Together with one card, this, of course, is a serious castration for the pros.
Holy martyrs! They removed the diaphragm rheostat!
Nikon is burning! They are proud that their mount has not changed for so many years, but the number of artificial restrictions and compatibility problems can shake the faith of even the most devoted fans of the brand.
So they believe that the quality of the images will block everything. At least I would like to believe in it.
And what is the problem with the bayonet mount?
It does not change and is good. What are your terrible limitations? What can not be put without an adapter lens from the boot? Then yes of course. Vobschem I want everything at once and for free.
One thing pleases - maybe the price for 7100-7200 will now be lower.))) Although it may be vice versa - their owners will not want to update it.
Correctly said, I have a d7100 and I will replace it only with d750. I see no reason to change the crop to crop!
To change corps to corp is time to lose :)
7100 - very good in terms of - almost everything is there and nothing more. And I'm not going to change it until the resource runs out ...
The transition from 7100 (I shot this for 2 years) to the Federal Fund is really justified only if there are not enough workers and iso.
YES??! I myself spent 7100 years on the D3. After I switched to the D800, I was simply sick of the difference in quality. I also thought, nafeeeg me a full frame. The 7100 has a very noisy matrix with a small dirty pixel grain, even for min ISO. FF has the cleanest picture. Above the diffraction threshold. Micro-detail is much higher. Operating ISO up to 3200-6400. And at 7100 even on ISO 800 the picture just falls apart from dirty noise
I will say for myself, when choosing a poor little ff or a good crop, the choice is clearly in favor of the first.
Do not do this .. The advantages are minimal, at an impressive cost
It will probably be more profitable to take the d600 / d610 in good condition from the secondary market.
+1
The number of removed buns (in comparison with their predecessors) covers all innovations ...
Do I understand correctly that metering with optics without a chip will not be performed on this camera?
That's right, it won’t.
why not?
Because there is no diaphragm rheostat.
If you put a Ju-37A on a carcass with a rheostat, for example, the exposure metering will work, but the rheostat will not be used. Judging from the description of the D7500, with lenses without a processor, center-weighted (lenses without a microprocessor use a circle with a diameter of 8 mm) and spot metering (at the center focus point if a lens without a microprocessor is used). Perhaps, in addition to the rheostat, the setting of parameters for lenses without chips was removed, so matrix metering will not work.
the camera will be great !!!! I guarantee, as Nikon d7000 was in due time, by the way it’s time to sell the old d7000 already, finally an excellent replacement for the old and powerful competitor to the full frame
He will never become a competitor to the full frame.
Just because the crop gets half as much light as the FF.
So yes, crop will never overtake FF.
But the crop and the matrix are two (2,25) times smaller in area, so the specific amount of light is the same. It's like looking through a small hole or through a larger one - the brightness of the scene will be the same.
For the same frame, the light on the FF will get twice as much.
In absolute terms? And in relative, say per square mm, the same?
Per sq. mm as much. But on the FF of these square. mm 2.25 times larger.
Therefore, to create the same frame of light, the FF will have more.
This fact is relevant in poor lighting conditions and / or with fast shutter speeds, i.e. in extremely difficult conditions.
With a good enough light, there will be no difference in the picture.
It seems to me that you have a mess in your head ...
“This fact is relevant in low light and / or with fast exposures, ie. in extremely difficult conditions. " - this is definitely nonsense ... It does not affect it in any way!
With the same exposure pair, the pictures on the crop and on the FF in terms of illumination will be exactly the same, regardless of the illumination! Another point is that in FF, as a rule, the working ISO is much higher and due to this, the quality of the image with high ISO in the FF will be better, but the matrix size itself does not exactly affect it!
Dear Cyril, I dare to assure you that I have no mess in this head about this issue.
I base my statements on practical experience, and I can prove them with illustrative examples.
Because I’m shooting a sports report; I have repeatedly had the opportunity to verify my correctness.
Take the trouble to explain why, and based on what experience, do you call my words delirium?
From my own experience, I know that if you attach a 50mm f / 1.8D to a crop, take a picture, then attach a 35mm f / 1.8G, come closer and take a picture with exactly the same composition and light, then in both cases all exposure settings will be identical .
At least in this case it does not matter for what size of the matrix the lens is made.
So, on the FF, with exactly the same composition of the frame, with exactly the same light, the exposure settings will be twice as dark. Those. ISO, for example, will be half as much.
This one stop plays a huge role in shooting with poor light.
The exposure of the matrix depends on the amount of light hitting the matrix, per unit area. If we abstract from the focal length and leave only the aperture parameter from the lens, shoot the same scene with crop and FF at the same viewing angle (adjusting the EGF accordingly), then the exposure parameter will be the same. Naturally, when using the same standardized ISO sensitivity for both abstract cameras. The only difference will be the depth of field, which is smaller for the FF and larger for the crop. This is sometimes a plus, sometimes a minus. For example, if you need to sharpen more details in the same lighting conditions (for example, not only the eyes, but the entire face of the model), it will be easier to do this on the crop, because the FF will have to cover the diaphragm to achieve a greater depth of field. In this case, with the same depth of field per unit area of the ff matrix, less light will fall and you will have to increase the shutter speed / sensitivity. But there is also a downside - if you need to get a smaller depth of field for the crop, you will have to raise the lens aperture, which is expensive.
On the practical side, this is true with equal pixel densities of FFs and crop matrices (in this case, the crop resolution will be lower), if it’s rude then it’s like the D7000 and D800. But, if the matrices are with an equal number of pixels, the FF latches will be larger in area and each of them will catch more photons of light. Exposure parameters will be the same, but the picture will contain more useful information than in the case of the crop camera. This is also if you do not take into account the depth of field, exposing at the same aperture value.
Technological features are still important, it is easier to make a large pixel more sensitive, read a signal from it with less noise, etc.
This is partially offset by the difference in the depth of field, with the same depth of field on crop you can shoot with a shorter shutter speed. This is complicated by the fact that non-top FF lenses are often not too sharp on an open aperture, and many crop lenses are quite working with an open aperture.
In general, everything is complicated and simple and not too clear. : D
Soryan for many letters ...
Sergey, then how to explain the fact that when I shoot on the D7200, then the ISO lifts up 2-3 times compared to the D610, under the same conditions? Smaller photodiodes?
I'm not arguing now, but really trying to understand. I need a second camera for the D610. I would like a crop, but the fact of loss of quality is annoying. The new D7500 would be just right.
Exposure parameters are independent of matrix size. I don’t know how you get ISO twice as high on the crop under the same shooting conditions. Here is the D750
Here is the D300. And where is the difference in stop?
Peter, but the shutter speed is the same? The camera is different and on crop it can take a slower shutter speed, compensating for it by scoring ISO.
Michael, yes, there’s no difference. I myself checked the same thing yesterday at home with the D610. The exposition is the same.
And in auto-competitions, the D7200 flies to the maximum instantly. It turns out one garbage with wild noises.
The same 80-200 2.8 lens at open aperture, the same shutter speeds 1/320 - 1/500.
Then I took the D7200 to shoot a night city with 50mm 1.4G, I know very well which ISO in this case sets the D610 with the same lens. Again the same thing. Immediately 1-2 feet higher ISO lifted up.
Vitaly, yes, the lens, shutter speed aperture are still the same.
No one thought that the quality of photography, when shooting on new DSLRs, is no different from the old people d40, d80, d3000, released in 2000?
I would not be so categorical. There are a number of situations when there is little light or a short shutter speed is needed and you have to increase ISO, then the difference will be noticeable. Under ideal shooting conditions, I agree with you, the pictures will be very similar.
+
Yes, nobody canceled the post processing. At 35photo, you can not distinguish between frames with d90 and d800.
Nikon is burning. It is wiser to purchase Pentax kp.
In terms of sensitivity, speed and buffer size on paper, this is a step forward. In all other respects - a step back towards the 5xxx series. I don't understand why a movable display should be made on a DSLR. This unnecessary element of unreliability as a viewfinder is used only in LiveView mode, but who needs these mirrored coffins for this mode, I don't quite understand. There are good, convenient and lightweight cameras without a mirror for this purpose, which, in terms of the quality of work in this, the main and only mode for them, will give 100 points ahead of any SLR in LiveView. For me, on the contrary, it is necessary to cut out everything related to LiveView and video filming, and the camera will be easier, you can focus on reliability and prices, you can so not bully motivate them with any unnecessary nonsense .. And then they stuffed the same subject, the price tag was lifted, what's the point? In terms of basic properties, the disadvantages rather outweigh the advantages in relation to 7200
I was thinking of changing my D90 to something new. It looks like it will be a D7200 and not this castrate of fucking marketers. This camera is just a spit towards photographers.
Well done in Nikon. Probably in warehouses, younger and outdated carcasses should be sold :)
Fellow citizens, let's get more positive. As soon as a new camera comes out, a scream rises to scream that all the plaster is gone, the client leaves. Yes, a normal camera, but there is 1/8000 :)))) All successful shots and good!
You will see, 7600 will also be 20,9 megapixels.
Nice SLR camera. No measurement with manual non-chip optics? And ... er with him. A person who buys a new 7500 will not roam around with Soviet bottle glasses.
There is no way to dim the batlock and one card? So it's not a professional camera.
If the camera, in your opinion, is expensive, then this thing is not for you yet. And maybe it’s in your hands when you release the D7900 :) And then, who knows how you will praise her :)))
Everything is correctly noticed.
There is some truth here. Nikon changed the positioning of the D7xxx line from this model (after the release of the D500). The promo video focuses on a modern camera for every day, incl. for video shooting. I suppose that is where some of the changes in weight and size come from. Everything is imprisoned for Nikon modern lenses without regard to half a century of development. Maybe it’s right.
Nevertheless, there are worthy old people: planar 50mm from the box and the Zeiss, helios 40-2, Nikkor 50-55-58 / 1,2, etc. Some people love them for their corporate identity, it’s a shame that when switching to d7500 you will have to collective farm, glue the chip. Not deadly, but unpleasant. Although, of course, lovers of such optics would rather prefer the old but ff for that money.
Yes, all the same FF in this case is clearly preferable.
“To roam around with Soviet bottle glasses.” But what about foreign non-bottle glasses?
There is such a manufacturer Sony (Sony), which makes mirrorless glasses that digest all glasses, including rangefinder ones. And all kinds of focus picks and an electric viewfinder.
And on this carcass you can shoot with manual lenses, only a little more “creative approach” will have to be applied to reveal the warm lamp / film color :)
That's right, the camera is clearly amateurish, but why then is the price tag higher than that of the 7200? It would cost 40 rubles per carcass, then all the changes could be accepted calmly, and since it is a dead product
Bottle glass is used for artistic shots. And 7500 for those who lack the imagination to shoot on d40 or just show-offs.
take you so far. Those who shoot at d40 are too lazy to pick up a film camera (or just show-off). Like, laziness fiddles with the film. And it is a bummer for the filmmakers to get involved with the plates.
How many photographers are there per 1000 “photographers”?
Well, why exactly roam? Maybe just wondering. Not everyone likes to march between the ropes with flags, someone wants to wander along the path.
Stillborn. And the price ... for this money and f.f. you can take.
I was waiting for the rotary screen to appear for convenience. And here on you, they cut everything, how the resource on my D7000 will be exhausted (and this will not happen soon) I will definitely not take new items, but 7200 - this is on condition that I stay on this system.
Dear Master! Forgive me for the off-topic question. Where can I get instructions for the niron14-24mm f2,8 G ED FS Nikkor lens. Thanks for the advice. Igor