[mst]

I find the combination CF/SD a bit odd, too, but at least there are some affordable CF cards on the market.


The same can't be said for XQD cards... and the D500 will most likely not change that.


-- Markus

[JJ_SO]

Affordable maybe, but SD cards usually are cheaper (in the same performance class), easier to transport and there are much more readers around for them. I don't see the advantage of using different type of cards. That goes as well for the XQD. If two, than two identical. 

[mst]

If two, than two identical.

Yep... that sums it up nicely.


-- Markus

[davidmanze]

D5 4k: 3 minutes recording time. Hmm. Heat issues much?

  This is indeed hopeless, imagine a pro interviewing a politician and you miss the end because it overran three minutes!

 

  I  still can't find a word on this LV PDAF calibration feature!

[Brightcolours]

  This is indeed hopeless, imagine a pro interviewing a politician and you miss the end because it overran three minutes!

 

  I  still can't find a word on this LV PDAF calibration feature!

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/microsit...digest.pdf

[Studor13]

If I were interviewing a politician the last thing I would care is that he/she looks great in 4K.


But seriously though, I dabbled a bit in shooting video a couple of years back and found that on average "a take" was no more than 5 or 6 seconds. I studied a lot films and found that 4 seconds seems to be the norm.


I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to use a DSLR to record an interview. You could probably get a 4k video recorder for 500€ that fits in your coat pocket.


As a side note, I have a 130cm TV and find that HD broadcast (1900-ish pixels) looks great already. Not only that, there is no 4K broadcast where I live, so I really think that 4K today is not a big deal.

[Brightcolours]

If I were interviewing a politician the last thing I would care is that he/she looks great in 4K.


But seriously though, I dabbled a bit in shooting video a couple of years back and found that on average "a take" was no more than 5 or 6 seconds. I studied a lot films and found that 4 seconds seems to be the norm.


I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to use a DSLR to record an interview. You could probably get a 4k video recorder for 500€ that fits in your coat pocket.


As a side note, I have a 130cm TV and find that HD broadcast (1900-ish pixels) looks great already. Not only that, there is no 4K broadcast where I live, so I really think that 4K today is not a big deal.

The norm after editing. Not during videoing/filming.

[JJ_SO]

If I were interviewing a politician the last thing I would care is that he/she looks great in 4K.

 

Or allow to talk for more than three minutes.  B)

[JJ_SO]

This is indeed hopeless, imagine a pro interviewing a politician and you miss the end because it overran three minutes!
 
  I  still can't find a word on this LV PDAF calibration feature!

her we go: http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/microsit...digest.pdf
 
Scroll down two pages, on third it's 1-5.:
 

AF fine-tuning process
Achieves focus in live view photography
Automatic setting of adjustment value with a few button operations

[Studor13]

The norm after editing. Not during videoing/filming.

 

Sure, but if you need to shoot longer than 180 seconds to get a 4 second scene then you need to hire a person who knows what he is doing.

 

We once had a real film crew in our village doing a 30 second commercial. They were here all day for just one scene but when they actually shot and re-shot the shooting was never more than 15-20 second on each take.

 

I also read a guy who complained that his DSLR couldn't record his squash matches which apparently ran longer than 30 minutes.

 

Imagine the demand for people who wanted to record squash matches on a DSLR that ran for several or hours? And then they had the time to watch it!

 

Yes, well I shouldn't be throwing stones as I have been known to watch an entire 5 day cricket match which has ended in a draw.