GAS talk

[Sad, little man]

Eventually you reach the limit of what you can accomplish, and improvement requires leaving older tech behind. Like you said, Canon made a big leap in the 80s, in this case Nikon isn't even making that huge of a change, there's a decent lineup of supported cameras, especially after firmware updates.

Well yeah, Canon had the wherewithal to make a complete jump in the 80s, recognizing that they needed to scrap the FD mount even if it pissed people off. Nikon couldn't bring themselves to do that, and they've been hamstrung ever since with narrow apertures, weird mechanical aperture linkages, and now this. For anyone that doesn't have lenses they still want to use older than 1987, Canon offers a fully modern, compatible mount.

[Jason]

And it's likely Canon will make a change to their mount that will cause compatibility issues within the next 30 years as well. My point is, it happens, not as often in the DSLR world as in other technological arenas, but it does happen. I don't see how it's "fucking their users".

[Sad, little man]

I never said they were. I'm just happy I don't have to dick around with these compatibility issues.

Canon changed their mount at a crucial moment in time, technologically. Nikon rode it out, and they're paying for it now.

[Freude am Fahren]

Well a couple things work in Nikon's favor. The DSLR market has expanded much further into the consumer market than the SLR's were back in the 80's I think. Certainly in the last 20 years. I'd say a higher percentage than ever of their sales are cameras with cheap kit lenses that will be thrown out or replaced in a record time. I could be completely wrong about this, but that's how it seems to me. Also, it seems that the AF-P lenses seem to be the low end ones anyway.

Another thing is that this upgrade doesn't make old lenses trash, it's old bodies with new lenses that are the problem. And in the time of digital, bodies get replaced very often. As far as I know, there's no reason to believe when the D7 comes out sometime next decade, that lenses from 1950 won't work. If/when the pro-level lenses switch to AF-P, most people in the market for those lenses will probably have a new enough body to work with them.

Take notice though. Once the pro-level AF-P lenses start to get announced, it'll be a great time to put your non-P versions up for sale

[Sad, little man]

I'm also curious to know how a stepper motor focus motor compares to an ultrasonic. Canon also uses stepper motors (designated by STM,) but their best lenses still seem to have ultrasonics.

[KillerB]

I guess I forgot how long I had my D7000 at this point - almost 7 years!

Interesting comparison right now - brand new D7500 for $1247, or refurbished D750 for $1399. Of course, moving to full-frame means buying more lenses, at which point, maybe it makes more sense to just go Canon. Also, there's so many differing opinions on whether the difference between DX and full-frame is really all that.

[Yw-slayer]

Honestly, at this stage, if you're going to switch systems, and don't need the full range of Canon/Nikon lenses for work, I'd go Sony. That new Alpha is insane.

[Sad, little man]

I think there's really only one condition where full frame has a clear advantage over crop sensors, and probably always will, and that's low light/high ISO performance. If all of the photos you take are in good lighting conditions, or you don't value taking low light photos much, I'm not sure that full frame has much to offer you.

But I don't think that crop sensors will ever quite catch up to full frame for low light photos. You can't cheat physics... Bigger sensors with bigger pixels will always manage to pull in more light than smaller sensors. So if you're in a situation where light is scarce, that begins to matter. People argue that technology keeps getting better and crop sensors are catching up in low light, and that might partially be true, but full frame sensors are getting better at the same time. People also don't realize that some of the noise in a low light photo comes not from the camera itself, but from the inherently random motion of photons. And having a bigger sensor to pull in more photons and get you a smoother, averaged recording of the light coming in will always give you a little cleaner photo.

[Kchrpm]

Speaking of expensive full frame Sony cameras that I definitely won't buy but think are mighty cool.

http://gizmodo.com/shooting-with-son...tin-1796131594

But let me try to explain what it’s like to shoot with this camera. Not to get hyperbolic here, but it almost feels like you can’t miss. An example: I was walking by a creek with the camera dangling off my neck, powered off. I saw a golden retriever emerge from the water and start to shake itself off. It has already started shaking before I’d hit the power button to turn the camera back on, and yet I was still able to fire off a burst of 14 shots, and in each one every hair on the dog’s nose (and every water droplet flying off of it) was crystal clear. My A7S (which is by no means slow) wouldn’t have even gotten a single shot off in that time. Using the A9 almost feels like cheating.

And the long exposure night shot (with only moonlight from the side and a truck's headlights in the distance) is ridiculous, even if it got helped in post processing.

[Sad, little man]

I'd be more impressed by the A9's dynamic range if the 5D's weren't better.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...IV___1162_1106

At the end of the day, I can't believe that that photo is not heavily photoshopped. I don't care what camera you're taking a photo with, the ground is not as bright/brighter than the sky at night. Maybe because of the headlights behind? Either way, it feels kind of cheesy to use a heavily photoshopped image to show what a camera itself is supposedly capable of in a "review" frame of reference.