# Nikon D5 Specifications Surface



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 29, 2015)

```
We can expect to see a Nikon D5 announced some time in early 2016 and an updated specifications list has come about.</p>
<p>Rumored Nikon D5 Specifications:</p>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li>New 20MP FX sensor</li>
<li>New focusing module with larger coverage and 107 or 173 autofocus points (I am getting conflicting reports on that one)</li>
<li>Native high ISO of 102,400</li>
<li>15 fps</li>
<li>Body design similar to the D4s</li>
<li>4K video 60/30fps</li>
<li>Full HD slow motion</li>
<li>Announcement expected in early 2016</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
```


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 29, 2015)

[sarc mode]
Oh my gosh! 
No MP monster? 
What will the MP crowd say?
And what does this mean to the 1DXII? 
And how yould I ever make a good picture again with just 20 MP?
[/sarc mode]

Back to reality:
Quite reasonable specs. As expected for the folks using such high speed/performance tool. 
Hopefully this will push Canon further on.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 29, 2015)

*New 20MP FX sensor*
(33% increase over the D4s, but that's not going to matter since most of the time they'll be shooting in crop mode.)

*New focusing module with larger coverage and 107 or 173 autofocus points *
(Probably 107 points in high fps crop mode and 173 below 10fps. Chances are only the center points are cross type, ensuring maximum efficiency in marketing dollars.)

*15 fps*
(Knowing Nikon: 15fps in super extra crop mode, 12fps in DX crop mode with 12bit RAW, and 9fps at full resolution in 14bit RAW)


----------



## scyrene (Sep 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Looks like this will be the first Nikon DSLR that does 4K video.
> 
> Will the 1DXII be Canon's first?



Nope, the 1DC was ;P


----------



## fish_shooter (Sep 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I recall that the 1DC does 24P in 4K. It will be interesting to see the IQ of the F5 video at 60P if that is what it ends up doing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 30, 2015)

Its a incremental feature increase, as always. Cameras at this level are already so good that there will be no miracles popping up.


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 30, 2015)

Everything you would expect from their new flagship, especially for a rumour - higher fps, 4k video, more AF points covering more of the frame. Sounds good, no real surprises there though.

Only really interested in the 1D X II, but progress at this level is good regardless of the manufacturer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



That's the second time (that I know of) where you've made that same false statement. Should we consider it a sign of improvement that at least _this_ time when you were called on your error you didn't try claiming that the EOS 1D C isn't really a dSLR?? : : :


----------



## scyrene (Sep 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Maybe it's my natural charm... :-*


----------



## BobG (Sep 30, 2015)

possibly 107 points in cropped mode and 173 full frame ?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 30, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We can expect to see a Nikon D5 announced some time in early 2016 and an updated specifications list has come about.</p>
> <p>Rumored Nikon D5 Specifications:</p>
> <p> </p>
> <ul>
> ...



How about "really glitchy AF and new "prone to random camera lockups" feature....
After the D4 fiasco...I'd be surprised if a lot of pros will ever trust Nikon again.
Then there's the isolated wedding photographers...who jumped ship from Canon to Nikon in the D700 days...only to find that the D800 wasn't an upgrade and there was no upgrade path for them. The only upgrade was the D4...at nearly three times the price of a D700. Most wedding photographers need at least two bodies...

Canon's current 1DX will already go toe to toe for the D5 rumour because of it's well proven reliability. The D5 has a steep hill to climb and the 1DXII is more likely to be a bigger seller due to the ground work that the 1DX has already laid. 

Has Nikon produced any interesting new lenses in the last 3 years? Everything they seemed to have launched recently is a Canon portfolio clone (24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 ect...)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Has Nikon produced any interesting new lenses in the last 3 years? Everything they seemed to have launched recently is a Canon portfolio clone (24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 ect...)



Seriously, guy...they came out with new supertele lenses that have fluorite elements! How can you question Nikon's innovation?!?


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 30, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon's current 1DX will already go toe to toe for the D5 rumour because of it's well proven reliability. The D5 has a steep hill to climb and the 1DXII is more likely to be a bigger seller due to the ground work that the 1DX has already laid.



I don't agree with that, I think at this level most photographers aren't about to change ship unless there is some really massive, and I mean enormous, new tech introduced into one of the new cameras that they just cannot live without for a second longer. How likely is that to happen? Almost zero chance.

When I am shooting an event (sport), I often talk to some of the Nikon guys I know and see frequently and we may chat about cameras, but both of us know that he is going to stick with Nikon, and I am going to stick with Canon. Why? We are both heavily invested in glass, we get on well with our CPS (or NPS?) contacts that we use, we like the system and all the support that they give us.

If Nikon has 2 fps more, so be it. If it has a heated grip for those days it is cold, then .. well that could be a game changer! lol  

But seriously, the top of the range Nikon and the top of the range Canon are both excellent cameras, they make me look better than I probably am, and they get the job done.

Very few will be jumping ship.


----------



## IsaacImage (Sep 30, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's current 1DX will already go toe to toe for the D5 rumour because of it's well proven reliability. The D5 has a steep hill to climb and the 1DXII is more likely to be a bigger seller due to the ground work that the 1DX has already laid.
> ...


Very well said !
Absolutely agree !


----------



## NorbR (Sep 30, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Has Nikon produced any interesting new lenses in the last 3 years? Everything they seemed to have launched recently is a Canon portfolio clone (24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 ect...)



That seems harsh. Their last annoucement, not even 2 months ago, was for 3 lenses that don't even exist in Canon's portfolio.

Granted, the 24/1.8 is not that novel, but the other two (24-70/2.8 VR and 200-500/5.6 VR) are certainly interesting, I think there are quite a few Canon shooters (including me) who would like to see them offered by Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Indeed, Sony's mirrorless cameras are much more of a threat...



LOL. 

Yeah, the likelihood of sports shooters switching en masse to Sony is about triple the likelihood of users switching en masse from Nikon to Canon or the reverse. Of course, three times zero is still zero.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 30, 2015)

The D5 looks like a nice camera. I am sure that a lot of people will be happy with it.


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Indeed, Sony's mirrorless cameras are much more of a threat because if Sony can get its AF working well with adapters plus Canon/Nikon glass then buying same-brand bodies is no longer a requirement or expected outcome for those two companies.
> 
> If the D5 can do 60fps 4K video, then for sports, do you set your camera to shoot 4K video at 1/500 and get 60fps of 8MP stills whilst "shooting"? Or do you continue to do 15fps at 20MP? With those big lenses, you don't need to crop and what's your target media? Never bigger than an A4 print, so 8MP will be perfectly fine.



No, sorry. I am not sure you have any idea how much support CPS (or the Nikon equivalent) offers photographers, especially those doing sports. Sony only launched its pro support recently, but my CPS contact knows me for a long, long time and she has helped me a lot in the past. Then there are the other benefits, such as exclusive promotions etc.

Sony is a long, long, long way away from getting that part of my business. Frankly, I doubt it ever will, but who knows.

At a lot of events you have to sign contracts, and there is a lot of issues about shooting video. Even if you are going to use that video to take stills from you could be risking your accreditation and future. I would never shoot video to take stills from at a sporting event. I do not think that is the intended purpose ok Nikon shooting 4K video.

The 1D X battery lasts most of the day shooting stills at a sporting event, how many batteries would you need to shoot almost an entire day of 4K video so you can take stills from it, while breaking your accreditation agreement? No chance.

For me, Sony is doing some very interesting things with phones (Xperia Z5 Premium) and the RX100 line. The A7R II is also very interesting from a video perspective but not sport photography.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 30, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's current 1DX will already go toe to toe for the D5 rumour because of it's well proven reliability. The D5 has a steep hill to climb and the 1DXII is more likely to be a bigger seller due to the ground work that the 1DX has already laid.
> ...



You completely missed my point. I know of a large number of other pro's who have "had it" with Nikon. The D4 was their last straw. An alienated customer base and unreliable cameras with frequent lockups. A pro will suffer only so much. Two years ago, I was on a birds in flight workshop and there were a number of pro wild life photographers there filling up their boots with stock shots. Most of the Nikon D4's crapped out after an hour or so...then they went through tier backup cams...and their backup backups...the Canon shooters just kept on with their existing kit. This year, I was back on the same workshop and most of the same guys where there...nearly all of them were Canon 1DX shooters. Their favorite lenses were either the new 500IIL or 600IIL. End of story. 

Brand loyalty is something that Nikon have squandered


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 30, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's current 1DX will already go toe to toe for the D5 rumour because of it's well proven reliability. The D5 has a steep hill to climb and the 1DXII is more likely to be a bigger seller due to the ground work that the 1DX has already laid.
> ...



It seems to me, now we are in such a mature technology, it isn't 'new' features that push people to change brands, it is the cock ups the companies make in implementing the features we already have.

We all know that Canon are not immune, the 1D MkIII AF fiasco moved more people to Nikon from Canon than any 'new' feature has ever done. It seems the D4 has a very poor reliability record and there will be those users who have just 'had enough', they are not sold on any individual new feature a Canon product might have, they are just looking over the other side of the fence and see that lovely green grass.

I bore people here with my focus on lenses but looking at Canon's lens lineup, from the 11-24 to the 200-400 with TC, makes this side of the fence look very very green!


----------



## rs (Sep 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> If the D5 can do 60fps 4K video, then for sports, do you set your camera to shoot 4K video at 1/500 and get 60fps of 8MP stills whilst "shooting"? Or do you continue to do 15fps at 20MP? With those big lenses, you don't need to crop and what's your target media? Never bigger than an A4 print, so 8MP will be perfectly fine.



Good look with more severe compression than JPEG, metering optimised for the whole footage rather than per frame, manual focus, and tracking subjects with the combination of no mode 3 IS available on superteles and laggy live view only. And no doubt no viewfinder of any type during video too!


----------



## rs (Sep 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Has Nikon produced any interesting new lenses in the last 3 years? Everything they seemed to have launched recently is a Canon portfolio clone (24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 ect...)
> ...



Let's not forget that Nikon were early adopters of Phase Fresnel lenses, FF bodies and CMOS sensors :


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 30, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, Sony's mirrorless cameras are much more of a threat because if Sony can get its AF working well with adapters plus Canon/Nikon glass then buying same-brand bodies is no longer a requirement or expected outcome for those two companies.
> ...



I had forgot about the Nikon lockups, weren't they fixed 3-1/2 years ago? 

If you are a professional, the main reason for changing systems will be a payback for the money invested. If you are losing money due to a unresolved issue, that might happen quickly.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> At what point will Canon/Nikon stop pushing FPS higher to prevent the frame rate from stills cameras from being perceived as video?



Never. 

If having something built into a camera which can be perceived as video was something Canon/Nikon wanted to prevent, they wouldn't include video capability in their cameras.

Perhaps (I really doubt it) certain leagues will impose a maximum framerate on stills shooters, but just like not using video, it would be on the individual to abide by the contract.


----------



## CanoKnight (Sep 30, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Knowing Nikon: 15fps in super extra crop mode, ..


Make that hyper crop mode (aka iPhone mode)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Which is significantly different from not pursuing higher frame rates for stills capture due to the prohibition of video capture by some private organizations... while maintaining video capture functionality.

If a legal trade agreement applied a 5% tariff to cameras capable of say 24fps stills for 30minutes, then you'd likely see that functionality avoided.

But again: no, Canon and Nikon are not going to stop developing higher framerates because the NFL or the Olympics or whomever won't let photographers shoot video. The first thing they'd do, were they to do anything, is disable *video*. That they don't makes it clear that the arbitrary restrictions some of their customers will face at select events are not of concern.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



It's shooting stills. One could certainly turn it into a short video. Regardless, the point stands that turn key video functionality is built into canon and Nikon cameras, and it's silly to think either company would hamstring stills capabilities as a reaction to a video prohibition some fraction of their customers will face, while maintaining the video functionality.

"Some of you may be contractually prohibited from shooting video from time to time, so here is a camera with native video capabilities - use them at your own risk. Oh BTW, to protect you from yourself, we have limited the stills framerate such that you can not possibly construct a video from a series of still images. This is for your own safety since, while we believe you can avoid enabling video mode, we aren't sure you will be able to resist the temptation of shooting high framerate stills and sequencing them in Photoshop."

Silly.


----------



## expatinasia (Oct 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> If the 1DXMarkIV existed today and could shoot 24fps of 10MP images for as long as it took the card to fill, using DPAF to keep things in focus, how is that any different to using the 1DXmarkIV to shoot video? Sure, in name it is different but that's not a lot.
> 
> Will sports stadiums and their contracts need to go into details such as this because the line has been blurred about what it means to shoot stills?
> 
> Or will the FPS rate for stills photography (in normal cameras) hit a "glass ceiling" somewhere under 20fps?



It is very easy to see who is shooting video and who is shooting stills at an event, especially when you are on the ground close by. The whole movement and approach is different, so I doubt it will affect stadiums - or more precisely, the events - at all. Plus the bigger the events, the more difficult it is to get accreditation and it is not something that someone who earns a living from would risk.

If someone is stupid enough to upload video when he or she was contractually not allowed to do so, then it is not hard for organisers to track it back if they wanted to.

Who knows what the future holds, but I hope I do not have to shoot video (which I can't use) only to watch it all again and then cut it up into stills. What a nightmare. I would prefer to just take the stills.

And even if fps goes all the way up to 20 fps without locking the mirror up, most photographers aren't going to keep their finger down any longer than they do now, as they don't want to have to go through so many stills either. I try to get it right in as short as burst as possible.


----------



## rs (Oct 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> If the 1DXMarkIV existed today and could shoot 24fps of 10MP images for as long as it took the card to fill, using DPAF to keep things in focus, how is that any different to using the 1DXmarkIV to shoot video? Sure, in name it is different but that's not a lot.



If that hypothetical scenario existed, 24fps stills are very different from 24fps video. For a start off, one is thousands of individual files per minute, unsynced, without any audio, and the second is an all in one file which just works. And secondly, whoever heard of a stills camera which can shoot at 'up to' any particular frame rate shooting at that frame rate consistently come rain or shine? There are always mitigating factors which restrict this such as ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and of course focus acquisition and new tech such as anti-flicker. Video has to shoot at the stated FPS regardless.

And what stills photographer in their right mind would buy the largest, fastest card money could buy and want to shoot at max frame rate continuously until the card is full? Therefore I can't see stills camera manufacturers ever knobling the data rate required for FPS and file size of a top of the line stills camera to keep it _below_ the data rate of storage which is affordable to fit in there.

And then we get onto the points you previously ignored. Focusing. Metering. Tracking subjects. Optical viewfinder.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> What is the difference in shooting 24fps of photographs and 24fps of video if all you're after is THE one frame to get THE magic moment (sound be damned)?



No difference at all...in dilbertland. So you go right ahead and capture THOSE magic moments with video (motion blur be damned).


----------



## expatinasia (Oct 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> What is the difference in shooting 24fps of photographs and 24fps of video if all you're after is THE one frame to get THE magic moment (sound be damned)?



The answer in one word is "work".

What I mean by this is the amount of work that needs to be done post event.

Let's say for example, that you have a guy running towards you along the sideline of a pitch, and you know there is someone else coming in from your left to tackle that person. With stills you know exactly what it is you are looking for and should be experienced enough to track, and take a few stills. I will only take about 2 or 3 shots out of the potential 12 fps - I do not lock up the mirror and I do not keep my finger down because otherwise post event workflow takes too long.

I can do that with a monopod, and I can happily move my camera around as much as I like.

With video I would prefer a tripod for better stability, I would most likely press the shutter button earlier and release later resulting in more footage to go through to get that one shot I wanted and my actions would need to be purposefully smoother

Plus, forgive me if I am wrong, but video files are much larger in size than stills. I can shoot a whole day of action in stills with only one 64 GB 1066X CF card, though I am always happy to have the second there in the slot just in case.

The 1D X battery is also amazing for stills. It will last me a whole day of action, but not video. I have two batteries, when I shoot stills I rarely use the second but with video I have managed to finish both in a day and I only took 7 or 8 videos.

And, editing video is not fun. To get just that right moment when both players eyes are open, down to the millisecond is a headache. With stills you have either got it or not. Move on, next sequence, play.

So basically, the answer to the question is work. It is easier to take stills for stills work, as it is easier to take video when video is required.


----------



## rs (Oct 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> What is the difference in shooting 24fps of photographs and 24fps of video if all you're after is THE one frame to get THE magic moment (sound be damned)?



Am I on your ignore list? I'll say it again:

Focusing. Metering. Tracking subjects. Optical viewfinder. 

Do you want any more reasons?

Compression. Mode 3 IS. Shutter speed. Number of frames to filter out in post. Aspect ratio.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> If shooting video is effectively the same as shooting stills...



If a venue prohibits visitors from bringing ice cubes because they fear them being used as projectiles, but they allow drinking water, would you argue that ice should be allowed because it can be turned into drinking water? Or that drinking water shouldn't be allowed because it can be turned into ice? That ice and water are effectively the same thing?



dilbert said:


> ...*why shouldn't you be able to* shoot video and extract the moment in time from that you want as a still image?



Well that's an entirely different question. Organizations who prohibit video do so because they're made lucrative exclusivity agreements with broadcasters. I doubt they'd be very interested in paying their lawyers to engage in a philosophical debate about whether video should be allowed even though video isn't allowed because stills can be turned into video and video can be turned into stills. 



> > "Some of you may be contractually prohibited from shooting video from time to time, so here is a camera with native video capabilities - use them at your own risk. Oh BTW, to protect you from yourself, we have limited the stills framerate such that you can not possibly construct a video from a series of still images. This is for your own safety since, while we believe you can avoid enabling video mode, we aren't sure you will be able to resist the temptation of shooting high framerate stills and sequencing them in Photoshop."
> >
> > Silly.
> 
> ...



Very. It would be less so if the cameras in question lacked native video functionality due to the prohibition, but they don't, so it's a very silly line of thinking that they'll affect stills framerates due to the video prohibition.


----------



## George D. (Oct 1, 2015)

Nikon rumors site also uploaded a test report saying that the iPhone 6S shoots better 1080p video (downscaled 4K) than the Nikon D750 (full-frame 24Mp DSLR). Is this also true for the Canon equivalents, say 5D3 ? It's good to know where we stand. Maybe Apple is the direct competitor in some aspects not Nikon. Mind iPhone 6S shoots 12Mp stills. I wonder how the lower-level Powershot range compares.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 2, 2015)

I find a wry irony when photographers get their "knickers in a twist" (a UK phrase) over video capabilities in modern DSLR cameras. When Mr Lecia invented the 35mm stills format...he designed a camera around the copious amount of free (movie) film he could pinch from work. The irony here is that the 4:3 aspect 35mm format was a movie format first and grafted it into photography. So there's always been a link with film / movie work...albeit a tenuous link.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 2, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I find a wry irony when photographers get their "knickers in a twist" (a UK phrase) over video capabilities in modern DSLR cameras. When Mr Lecia invented the 35mm stills format...he designed a camera around the copious amount of free (movie) film he could pinch from work. The irony here is that the 4:3 aspect 35mm format was a movie format first and grafted it into photography. So there's always been a link with film / movie work...albeit a tenuous link.



Except that the 135 stills format is a 3:2 aspect ratio and uses the film 'sideways'. The various movie formats for 135 film never approached, and can't, the individual image area of stills 135 use. Movie formats have varied between 1.375:1 to 2.32:1 with the biggest area use being the anamorphic 2.39:1 CinemaScope at 408mm², compared to the stills 135 format 864mm².

As you say, a tenuous link at best


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I hate to break it to you but the D5, 1DXII, etc, are no longer 35mm film cameras.



Wow, you got a fact correct for once. Amazing! :

Then again, a stopped analog clock is right twice per day, but it's still fundamentally broken.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 3, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I find a wry irony when photographers get their "knickers in a twist" (a UK phrase) over video capabilities in modern DSLR cameras. When Mr Lecia invented the 35mm stills format...



P.S. _"Mr Leica"_ wasn't the first to use 35mm movie film in a stills camera either.


----------



## sanj (Oct 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > What is the difference in shooting 24fps of photographs and 24fps of video if all you're after is THE one frame to get THE magic moment (sound be damned)?
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 3, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Canon DSLRs will let you shoot 24fps 1080p at 1/500 - i.e. shoot video without motion blur. Now it won't look very good as video because that motion blur isn't there but just saying.



At 2 MP they won't look very good as stills, either. Did you have an actual point?


----------



## rs (Oct 3, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Canon DSLRs will let you shoot 24fps 1080p at 1/500 - i.e. shoot video without motion blur. Now it won't look very good as video because that motion blur isn't there but just saying.



Yes, well done, you can control motion blur in video, and you can swing the balance to favour individual frames at the expense of the footage. But for multiple reasons video is not suitable to replace stills photography. Do you need me to go over those reasons again?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 6, 2015)

dilbert said:


> On paper it may seem like video isn't good enough to replace video *[sic]* but when you can shoot 4k video, it may be worth revisiting it.



Only if resolution is the only reason video wasn't previously good enough to replace stills.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I find a wry irony when photographers get their "knickers in a twist" (a UK phrase) over video capabilities in modern DSLR cameras. When Mr Lecia invented the 35mm stills format...
> ...



True but the format...is still based on the frame size of 35mm film. The same format laid down by Mr Lecia.


----------



## rs (Oct 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



12 fps right now on the 1D X works perfectly in tune with the mirror, AF, aperture control and IS of all the latest and greatest lenses. When Canon introduce improvements to the spec of their products, they're not going to do a Sony - it will be conservative changes, but each and every one will work, and work reliably so pros can depend on the kit. 

Very few will require a big step change from 12 fps with full functionality to something like 30 or 60 fps. 

And to say quality doesn't matter for sports is a fallacy. Any form of fast action sequence where high fps is beneficial can see dramatic lighting changes in no time at all. Whether it's wildlife, sports or anything else, when things are changing fast and you've got unrepeatable situations rapidly unfolding in front of you, you need to rely on the camera to do the job rather than being yet another challenge to fight with. Think of a cycling road race or a bird in flight etc where you're tracking something going in and out of shadows rapidly. And once you've captured the moment, RAW can come in handy for some. 

If we do get to the point where you've got a camera which takes perfect high resolution full frame stills at 30+ fps which has fast tracking AF, metering per frame, a suitable stills aspect ratio and a non-laggy viewfinder, then that camera is still very definitely shooting stills, not video.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 7, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Brand loyalty is something that Nikon have squandered



A couple of posts this week by photographers who are primarily Nikon users (I'm sure there are plenty more elsewhere) reinforce this conclusion:

https://photographylife.com/dont-be-a-guinea-pig

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-does-actually-doesnt.html (in conjunction with http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/branding-and-nikons-shrinki.html)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 12, 2015)

Thanks sdsr, helps when looking at greener grass on the other side of the fence. 

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Oct 12, 2015)

It's sobering to read those problems with Nikon. But, no doubt, a small price to pay for the extra DR.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 13, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I hate to break it to you but the ...1DXII [is] are no longer 35mm film cameras.



... or is it?


----------

