Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #81044 > unrolled thread

Nikon D5 specifications?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Nikon D5 specifications? android <here@there.was> - 2015-09-29 10:17 +0200
    Re: Nikon D5 specifications? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-09-29 09:33 -0400
      Re: Nikon D5 specifications? android <here@there.was> - 2015-09-29 16:45 +0200
    Re: Nikon D5 specifications? floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2015-09-29 08:46 -0800
      Re: Nikon D5 specifications? android <here@there.was> - 2015-09-29 20:27 +0200
        Re: Nikon D5 specifications? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-09-29 17:18 -0400
          Re: Nikon D5 specifications? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-09-29 14:31 -0700
            Re: Nikon D5 specifications? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-29 17:47 -0400
            Re: Nikon D5 specifications? android <here@there.was> - 2015-09-30 06:23 +0200
              Re: Nikon D5 specifications? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-09-29 22:02 -0700
                Re: Nikon D5 specifications? android <here@there.was> - 2015-09-30 07:05 +0200
                  Re: Nikon D5 specifications? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-09-29 22:17 -0700
                    Re: Nikon D5 specifications? android <here@there.was> - 2015-09-30 08:43 +0200
              Re: Nikon D5 specifications? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-09-30 11:04 -0400

#81044 — Nikon D5 specifications?

If true then Nikon has definately not got the memo... That 24 is
 the new 16!

Via Nikonrumors: http://tinyurl.com/nro5guc
-- 
Bats can't tell us apart!


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#81048

android:
> ...Nikon...

Yo, dodo! Wrong group! Put it in rec.photo.digital.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81056

In article <290920150933020083%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> android:
> > ...Nikon...
> 
> Yo, dodo! Wrong group! Put it in rec.photo.digital.

Err... Thanks! I'm not a Dodo though... ;-/
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81061

android <here@there.was> wrote:
>If true then Nikon has definately not got the memo... That 24 is
> the new 16!
>
>Via Nikonrumors: http://tinyurl.com/nro5guc

You missed the significant specification:  15 fps.

To a lesser degree the increased number of focus points
is also important, though I'd imagine the reals
significance is in how many (and which ones) are cross
points.

This is *not* a studio camera.  The ability to get the
shot needed in a highschool gymnasium is vastly more
important that the number of megapixels.

For everyone else, the big issue is not a D5, but rather
what will replace the D810...

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson                         http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                      floyd@apaflo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81067

In article <87vbatp409.fld@barrow.com>,
 floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> android <here@there.was> wrote:
> >If true then Nikon has definately not got the memo... That 24 is
> > the new 16!
> >
> >Via Nikonrumors: http://tinyurl.com/nro5guc
> 
> You missed the significant specification:  15 fps.

And I'm in the process to do some rouge digitalization of my fathers old 
dubbel eight home movies... 16fps! Nikons new baby might just be dead in 
the water!!! 
> 
> To a lesser degree the increased number of focus points
> is also important, though I'd imagine the reals
> significance is in how many (and which ones) are cross
> points.

Sure, an actioncam it's gonna bee...
> 
> This is *not* a studio camera.  The ability to get the
> shot needed in a highschool gymnasium is vastly more
> important that the number of megapixels.

The people that are working towards print might find them selves with an 
advantage against the competition with 24 rather than 16-20mpx, and 
remember that the higher screen resolution of today demands more and 
more from the files.
> 
> For everyone else, the big issue is not a D5, but rather
> what will replace the D810...

The D820? ;-)
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81078

android:
> The people that are working towards print might find them selves with an 
> advantage against the competition with 24 rather than 16-20mpx...

If you mean those working in print publications, I guarantee you that
photo editors do not ask what the resolution of the camera was. I know
this from recent sales of macrophotos from my 6MP D100.

> and 
> remember that the higher screen resolution of today demands more and 
> more from the files.

And I know from viewing photos on my 27" iMac 5K Retina display that a
6MP camera is up to the task of producing photos suitable for that
display.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81081

On 2015-09-29 21:18:37 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:

> android:
>> The people that are working towards print might find them selves with an
>> advantage against the competition with 24 rather than 16-20mpx...
> 
> If you mean those working in print publications, I guarantee you that
> photo editors do not ask what the resolution of the camera was. I know
> this from recent sales of macrophotos from my 6MP D100.
> 
>> and
>> remember that the higher screen resolution of today demands more and
>> more from the files.
> 
> And I know from viewing photos on my 27" iMac 5K Retina display that a
> 6MP camera is up to the task of producing photos suitable for that
> display.

I am still baffled that this thread continues in this NG when it is 
best suited for rec.photo.digital.

Hell! Somehow android managed to get Floyd Davidson in on the 
discussion, even though he disavows all that Apple, MS, and Adobe have 
to offer. How he even found c.s.m.s. is a mystery.

Unless he has become a closet OSX user. Hmm...

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81085

In article <2015092914312820703-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> The people that are working towards print might find them selves with an
> >> advantage against the competition with 24 rather than 16-20mpx...
> > 
> > If you mean those working in print publications, I guarantee you that
> > photo editors do not ask what the resolution of the camera was. I know
> > this from recent sales of macrophotos from my 6MP D100.
> > 
> >> and
> >> remember that the higher screen resolution of today demands more and
> >> more from the files.
> > 
> > And I know from viewing photos on my 27" iMac 5K Retina display that a
> > 6MP camera is up to the task of producing photos suitable for that
> > display.
> 
> I am still baffled that this thread continues in this NG when it is 
> best suited for rec.photo.digital.

indeed.

> Hell! Somehow android managed to get Floyd Davidson in on the 
> discussion, even though he disavows all that Apple, MS, and Adobe have 
> to offer. How he even found c.s.m.s. is a mystery.

i thought that was a bit odd too. maybe it's what he calls 'being
familiar with macs'.

> Unless he has become a closet OSX user. Hmm...

he won't ever admit it in public.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81151

In article <2015092914312820703-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-29 21:18:37 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:
> 
> > android:
> >> The people that are working towards print might find them selves with an
> >> advantage against the competition with 24 rather than 16-20mpx...
> > 
> > If you mean those working in print publications, I guarantee you that
> > photo editors do not ask what the resolution of the camera was. I know
> > this from recent sales of macrophotos from my 6MP D100.
> > 
> >> and
> >> remember that the higher screen resolution of today demands more and
> >> more from the files.
> > 
> > And I know from viewing photos on my 27" iMac 5K Retina display that a
> > 6MP camera is up to the task of producing photos suitable for that
> > display.
> 
> I am still baffled that this thread continues in this NG when it is 
> best suited for rec.photo.digital.

Davoud alerted me that I posted the article in the wrong group. I posted 
it on my iTab in haste... I did try to move the stuff over to RPD but, 
here we are! ;-)
> 
> Hell! Somehow android managed to get Floyd Davidson in on the 
> discussion, even though he disavows all that Apple, MS, and Adobe have 
> to offer. How he even found c.s.m.s. is a mystery.

I bet that he does various kinds of undercover stuff...
> 
> Unless he has become a closet OSX user. Hmm...

That's a theory!
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81154

On 2015-09-30 04:23:42 +0000, android <here@there.was> said:

> In article <2015092914312820703-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-29 21:18:37 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:
>> 
>>> android:
>>>> The people that are working towards print might find them selves with an
>>>> advantage against the competition with 24 rather than 16-20mpx...
>>> 
>>> If you mean those working in print publications, I guarantee you that
>>> photo editors do not ask what the resolution of the camera was. I know
>>> this from recent sales of macrophotos from my 6MP D100.
>>> 
>>>> and
>>>> remember that the higher screen resolution of today demands more and
>>>> more from the files.
>>> 
>>> And I know from viewing photos on my 27" iMac 5K Retina display that a
>>> 6MP camera is up to the task of producing photos suitable for that
>>> display.
>> 
>> I am still baffled that this thread continues in this NG when it is
>> best suited for rec.photo.digital.
> 
> Davoud alerted me that I posted the article in the wrong group. I posted
> it on my iTab in haste... I did try to move the stuff over to RPD but,
> here we are! ;-)

I am sure that the simple task of adding a little modification to the 
headers in MT-NW would have solved the issue once you were alerted to 
it. Something such as this:
"Followup-To:	rec.photo.digital"

Anyway, that is for you to decide, given that Floyd's feedback would 
have been better appreciated in RPD, and it never reached those folks.

>> Hell! Somehow android managed to get Floyd Davidson in on the
>> discussion, even though he disavows all that Apple, MS, and Adobe have
>> to offer. How he even found c.s.m.s. is a mystery.
> 
> I bet that he does various kinds of undercover stuff...
>> 
>> Unless he has become a closet OSX user. Hmm...
> 
> That's a theory!


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81155

In article <2015092922020024515-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-30 04:23:42 +0000, android <here@there.was> said:
> 
> > In article <2015092914312820703-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2015-09-29 21:18:37 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:
> >> 
> >>> android:
> >>>> The people that are working towards print might find them selves with an
> >>>> advantage against the competition with 24 rather than 16-20mpx...
> >>> 
> >>> If you mean those working in print publications, I guarantee you that
> >>> photo editors do not ask what the resolution of the camera was. I know
> >>> this from recent sales of macrophotos from my 6MP D100.
> >>> 
> >>>> and
> >>>> remember that the higher screen resolution of today demands more and
> >>>> more from the files.
> >>> 
> >>> And I know from viewing photos on my 27" iMac 5K Retina display that a
> >>> 6MP camera is up to the task of producing photos suitable for that
> >>> display.
> >> 
> >> I am still baffled that this thread continues in this NG when it is
> >> best suited for rec.photo.digital.
> > 
> > Davoud alerted me that I posted the article in the wrong group. I posted
> > it on my iTab in haste... I did try to move the stuff over to RPD but,
> > here we are! ;-)
> 
> I am sure that the simple task of adding a little modification to the 
> headers in MT-NW would have solved the issue once you were alerted to 
> it. Something such as this:
> "Followup-To:	rec.photo.digital"

That I did... ;-/ But we can talk here! :-))
> 
> Anyway, that is for you to decide, given that Floyd's feedback would 
> have been better appreciated in RPD, and it never reached those folks.
> 
> >> Hell! Somehow android managed to get Floyd Davidson in on the
> >> discussion, even though he disavows all that Apple, MS, and Adobe have
> >> to offer. How he even found c.s.m.s. is a mystery.
> > 
> > I bet that he does various kinds of undercover stuff...
> >> 
> >> Unless he has become a closet OSX user. Hmm...
> > 
> > That's a theory!
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81158

On 2015-09-30 05:05:44 +0000, android <here@there.was> said:

> In article <2015092922020024515-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-09-30 04:23:42 +0000, android <here@there.was> said:
>>> In article <2015092914312820703-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-29 21:18:37 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:
>>>> 
>>>>> android:
>>>>>> The people that are working towards print might find them selves with an
>>>>>> advantage against the competition with 24 rather than 16-20mpx...
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you mean those working in print publications, I guarantee you that
>>>>> photo editors do not ask what the resolution of the camera was. I know
>>>>> this from recent sales of macrophotos from my 6MP D100.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> remember that the higher screen resolution of today demands more and
>>>>>> more from the files.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And I know from viewing photos on my 27" iMac 5K Retina display that a
>>>>> 6MP camera is up to the task of producing photos suitable for that
>>>>> display.
>>>> 
>>>> I am still baffled that this thread continues in this NG when it is
>>>> best suited for rec.photo.digital.
>>> 
>>> Davoud alerted me that I posted the article in the wrong group. I posted
>>> it on my iTab in haste... I did try to move the stuff over to RPD but,
>>> here we are! ;-)
>> 
>> I am sure that the simple task of adding a little modification to the
>> headers in MT-NW would have solved the issue once you were alerted to
>> it. Something such as this:
>> "Followup-To:	rec.photo.digital"
> 
> That I did... ;-/

Not in this post you didn't. Let me help you, instead of the FollowUp 
just add an X-Post, or change the destination if you decide to reply.

> But we can talk here! :-))

Not on this subject, in this NG. Meet me over at RPD.

>> 
>> Anyway, that is for you to decide, given that Floyd's feedback would
>> have been better appreciated in RPD, and it never reached those folks.
>> 
>>>> Hell! Somehow android managed to get Floyd Davidson in on the
>>>> discussion, even though he disavows all that Apple, MS, and Adobe have
>>>> to offer. How he even found c.s.m.s. is a mystery.
>>> 
>>> I bet that he does various kinds of undercover stuff...
>>>> 
>>>> Unless he has become a closet OSX user. Hmm...
>>> 
>>> That's a theory!


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81165

In article <2015092922175329945-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-30 05:05:44 +0000, android <here@there.was> said:
> 
> > In article <2015092922020024515-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >> On 2015-09-30 04:23:42 +0000, android <here@there.was> said:
> >>> In article <2015092914312820703-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2015-09-29 21:18:37 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> android:
> >>>>>> The people that are working towards print might find them selves with 
> >>>>>> an
> >>>>>> advantage against the competition with 24 rather than 16-20mpx...
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> If you mean those working in print publications, I guarantee you that
> >>>>> photo editors do not ask what the resolution of the camera was. I know
> >>>>> this from recent sales of macrophotos from my 6MP D100.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> remember that the higher screen resolution of today demands more and
> >>>>>> more from the files.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> And I know from viewing photos on my 27" iMac 5K Retina display that a
> >>>>> 6MP camera is up to the task of producing photos suitable for that
> >>>>> display.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I am still baffled that this thread continues in this NG when it is
> >>>> best suited for rec.photo.digital.
> >>> 
> >>> Davoud alerted me that I posted the article in the wrong group. I posted
> >>> it on my iTab in haste... I did try to move the stuff over to RPD but,
> >>> here we are! ;-)
> >> 
> >> I am sure that the simple task of adding a little modification to the
> >> headers in MT-NW would have solved the issue once you were alerted to
> >> it. Something such as this:
> >> "Followup-To:	rec.photo.digital"
> > 
> > That I did... ;-/
> 
> Not in this post you didn't. Let me help you, instead of the FollowUp 
> just add an X-Post, or change the destination if you decide to reply.

Well, I did move the topic to RPD... Floyd just answered to my original 
post. With respect to he seniority I decided to comment on that one 
here, so that he would find it! ;-)
> 
> > But we can talk here! :-))
> 
> Not on this subject, in this NG. Meet me over at RPD.

Oki... One more try then.
> 
> >> 
> >> Anyway, that is for you to decide, given that Floyd's feedback would
> >> have been better appreciated in RPD, and it never reached those folks.
> >> 
> >>>> Hell! Somehow android managed to get Floyd Davidson in on the
> >>>> discussion, even though he disavows all that Apple, MS, and Adobe have
> >>>> to offer. How he even found c.s.m.s. is a mystery.
> >>> 
> >>> I bet that he does various kinds of undercover stuff...
> >>>> 
> >>>> Unless he has become a closet OSX user. Hmm...
> >>> 
> >>> That's a theory!
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81178

Savageduck:
> > I am still baffled that this thread continues in this NG when it is 
> > best suited for rec.photo.digital.

android:
> Davoud alerted me that I posted the article in the wrong group. I posted 
> it on my iTab in haste... I did try to move the stuff over to RPD but, 
> here we are! ;-)

Indeed we are. Off-topic wasn't my point. Life is off-topic. It would
be very dull otherwise. So suck it up, Savageduck, kill the subject,
and relax.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web