Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2016 · Replace D800 with D500?
  
 
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Replace D800 with D500?


LeifG wrote:
You'd be very hard pressed to see one stop of DR unless you do some really extreme processing of the shadows, and I mean extreme. The D750 is the true comparison given the pixel count, and 24MP versus 21MP is neither here nor there especially since the D750 has a low pass filter. So the only real advantage is 1 stop less noise, but measurements show it to be less than that and in practice the D500 noise is better controlled. So a slight IQ advantage to the D750 at high ISO, worthwhile for those who pursue high ISO perhaps.
...Show more

Having shot both the 24MP sensor FX and higher DR 24MP DX, the DR difference can readily be seen in both highlight and shadows if you do any sort of recovery or moderate curves. My experience is while I don't necessarily need the extra DR, I certainly can see it.

Head over to the dpreview Sigma 24mm Art review, or the Photozone reviews of 24mm and 35mm F1.8 lenses and the equivalent Sigma Arts. The difference is minor and perhaps only noticeable in a test environment. The key differences are the wider aperture on the Art's, and the smaller size and weight of the Nikons. You takes your pick.


OP has the 50 and 35 Art's. The 50 Art utterly humbles the 50/1.8G at wide apertures (whose major weakness is CA) just like it embarrasses most 50's other than the Otus or the 50/2 APO-Summicron-M. The 35 Art is closer to the 35/1.8G, but still significantly outperforms it in pretty much all measures. The 24's are a different story, with the 24 Art lacking the 50 and 35 Art's superbly controlled CA and having some sharpness falloff at the corners, while the 24/1.8G does very similarly.

Photozone hasn't even tested the 24 1.8G's on FX (they've only tested the 20, 28, 35, 50 and 85 on FX, plus the 35/1.8G DX on DX which isn't as good as the FX 35/1.8G) (they also really need to update their indexes, one set shows the 35/1.8G and 50 Art reviews, the other set does not). DPReview's testing supports my conclusions for the 35's and 50's.

For the 35 ART vs 35/1.8G, PZ shows less barrel distortion for the Art (1.5% vs >1%), in resolution terms the G catches up in the centre at f2.8 and in the edges at f5.6 but at f1.8 it's not as good as the Art is at f1.4, CA is better controlled on the Art at most apertures and fringing (LoCA) isn't even close (the 35G does quite poorly there while the Art is near-APO performance). The only spot where the G matches the Art is in wide aperture regular CA, but only wide open, the Art beats it everywhere else for regular CA as well.



Oct 07, 2016 at 04:29 AM
LeifG
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Replace D800 with D500?


mawz: I own and regularly use a D600 and D500, and your comments simply do not bear any relation to my experiences. For example, I see no difference in highlights. What I do notice is better acuity in the D500 due to the lack of AA filter, meaning less sharpening is needed.

As for your comments on F1.8 primes, I own the 20mm and 28mm lenses, and your comments do not reflect my own experiences. Quoting from the dpreview 24mm F1.8 review which compares it to the Sigma 24mm F1.4 Art: "the Sigma and Nikkor 24mm lenses are fairly evenly matched" and "In our side-by-side real world tests both the Nikkor and the Sigma were neck and neck in terms of sharpness at the same F-number with the Nikkor performing slightly better in terms of coma."

You take small insignificant differences between studio tests and exaggerate them. Thus a tiny difference becomes "stomps on" or "a massive step down".



Oct 07, 2016 at 05:27 AM
BSPhotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Replace D800 with D500?


Bill Graham wrote:
Yeah they do, at least the the people who don't want to spend half a day retouching eyes on a few hundred pics. Light still travels in a straight line and retinas still reflect it back. It's called "redeye" and you can see a good example in the last photo Rico posted.



Ahh, people using direct flash. That could still make some sense.



Oct 07, 2016 at 02:52 PM
Mark_L
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Replace D800 with D500?


LeifG wrote:
As for your comments on F1.8 primes, I own the 20mm and 28mm lenses, and your comments do not reflect my own experiences. Quoting from the dpreview 24mm F1.8 review which compares it to the Sigma 24mm F1.4 Art: "the Sigma and Nikkor 24mm lenses are fairly evenly matched" and "In our side-by-side real world tests both the Nikkor and the Sigma were neck and neck in terms of sharpness at the same F-number with the Nikkor performing slightly better in terms of coma."


Lenses you need to take on a case-by-case basis, it isn't really a case of x lens line is better than y lens line. The 1.8G 50mm is a dog, the 35mm isn't great, the 85mm is excellent and so are some of the wider ones (not that familiar with them). The standout art lenses from sigma are the 35mm and 50mm.



Oct 07, 2016 at 03:06 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 

        


mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Replace D800 with D500?


LeifG wrote:
mawz: I own and regularly use a D600 and D500, and your comments simply do not bear any relation to my experiences. For example, I see no difference in highlights. What I do notice is better acuity in the D500 due to the lack of AA filter, meaning less sharpening is needed.

As for your comments on F1.8 primes, I own the 20mm and 28mm lenses, and your comments do not reflect my own experiences. Quoting from the dpreview 24mm F1.8 review which compares it to the Sigma 24mm F1.4 Art: "the Sigma and Nikkor 24mm lenses are fairly evenly
...Show more

I'm actually riffing on my own experiences (I also owned the D600, and several of the 24MP DX bodies including the AA-less D7100, I certainly saw the difference in post, and at both ends, of course I also tend to shoot a lot of high-DR landscape & cityscape scenes when I'm shooting digital, also subjects where resolution is more important than acuity, and yes, the 24MP FX bodies do deliver marginally more resolution than the DX bodies, mostly due to requiring lower spatial resolution from the lens for the same file resolution).

And you continue to try and expand the 24 vs 24 comparison to the other 1.8's, ignoring the fact I was specifically referring to the 35 and 50 (and have mentioned that multiple times and given specific comparisons). The 24/1.8G compares well to the 24 Art.The 28 and wider 1.8G's are the strongest in that line, while the 24 Art is the weakest of that line.

The 35 and 50's are another story (particularly the 50 which is the best of the Art line and arguably the best AF 50 ever done and the 50 is weakest of the 1.8G line)



Oct 07, 2016 at 04:03 PM
LeifG
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Replace D800 with D500?


mawz wrote:
I'm actually riffing on my own experiences (I also owned the D600, and several of the 24MP DX bodies including the AA-less D7100, I certainly saw the difference in post, and at both ends, of course I also tend to shoot a lot of high-DR landscape & cityscape scenes when I'm shooting digital, also subjects where resolution is more important than acuity, and yes, the 24MP FX bodies do deliver marginally more resolution than the DX bodies, mostly due to requiring lower spatial resolution from the lens for the same file resolution).

And you continue to try and expand the 24
...Show more

Quote: "Sure, for minimizing weight the 1.8G's are awesome, and they're solid performers. But they simply aren't in the same class as the Art's for optical performance."

Clearly you were referring to the 1.8G's.

I'm afraid we will have to disagree. In my view you are making rather exaggerated statements.



Oct 07, 2016 at 05:40 PM
LeifG
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Replace D800 with D500?


Mark_L wrote:
Lenses you need to take on a case-by-case basis, it isn't really a case of x lens line is better than y lens line. The 1.8G 50mm is a dog, the 35mm isn't great, the 85mm is excellent and so are some of the wider ones (not that familiar with them). The standout art lenses from sigma are the 35mm and 50mm.


I'd agree with the above regarding case by case. And of course there is sample variation. Interestingly these people think the Nikon 35mm F1.8 matches or exceeds the Sigma 35mm Art:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-35mm-f1-8g-ed/3

"At f/1.8, the two seem to be equivalent in sharpness, and stopped down, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art is a bit better in mid-frame, while being weaker in the corners."

Of course this is but one sample of each lens.



Oct 07, 2016 at 05:43 PM
rico
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Replace D800 with D500?


Bill Graham wrote:
It's called "redeye" and you can see a good example in the last photo Rico posted.

Red eye is really aggrevating when it strikes. Fortunately, I never suffer the problem when shooting with DSLRs, and the reason is interesting. P&S are notorious in this regard because the flash is very close to the lens axis and, combined with the dilated pupils of evening events, cause the light to reflect off the retina and back to the camera sensor. DSLRs with a big external flash are immune because the light source is farther off the lens axis. The red-eye reduction preflash feature aims to constrict the pupil just before exposure and, while it does work, is annoying for subjects. Even if they don't blink, grimace or turn aside, you lost the momentóbig event no-no. For those who like some experimental evidence:



To dilate pupils, I extinguished the ambient and waited 10sec in the dark. Even then, the flash had to be close to generate red eye. So close that half the lens was obscured! With 8cm of flash offset, red eye does not occur. Note that a big pro Speedlight in the hot shoe is further offset at 17.5cm. Subject was 2m away, which is event normal. I have a bracket which merely adds weight, reduces maneuverability, and addresses no red-eye problem.



Oct 08, 2016 at 06:47 AM
1      
2
       end






FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password