Looking at the images though, I think that there's more to it than just ISO noise performance. The D500 files seem like they retain more shadow detail to me and they look like they have better dynamic range.
That said, the camera should not be judged on ISO alone. The camera is so good that even if there were no difference in ISO - heck even if it were worse than the D7200 - I'd still use this camera. It just so much faster and so much better ergonomically. There's a lot to love beyond ISO.
Steve, did you focus tune both lenses? I swear the D7200 looks like it might be a tad better for focus tuning. Which would explain why people think the text looks better on the bottle behind the focus place... Titch of back focus perhaps?
mco_970 wrote:
Steve, did you focus tune both lenses? I swear the D7200 looks like it might be a tad better for focus tuning. Which would explain why people think the text looks better on the bottle behind the focus place... Titch of back focus perhaps?
Thanks for posting your comparisons, BTW.
You have convinced me to upgrade to a D7200.
Actually, both were focused with live view contrast detection, so AF tuning wouldn't matter. I focused both cameras on the front box.
I do see a clear difference with the D500 files. Not huge, but it's there. Especially note the raised lettering on the air can - by ISO 3200, it's basically obliterated on the D7200. Also, I think the D500's more fine-grained noise pattern lends itself to more detail resolution (e.g. reading the label on the baking soda box).
@GOVA I'm not sure what you're seeing there, they definitely don't look the same to me. Whether or not the differences are worth the upgrade is up to the individual user, of course, but the D7200's noise is definitely more blotchy and smears detail more significantly than the D500. Again, we're splitting hairs a little - but this is a side-by-side comparison, you're supposed to split hairs.
Thanks for the comparison, Steve. Of course, the D500 is - as you say - much more than just a new sensor, so this is but one aspect... and I'll just say it's a good thing (for my wallet) that I'm traveling and don't have a practical way to obtain one right now.
If you notice the D7200 images are much more saturated. A big part of this for the converted JPEGs that Steve posted are likely from the Adobe Standard profile differences between the cameras and to a lesser extent, small differences in the processed WB. If you set both raws to Camera Neutral in LR the saturation is much closer although the D7200 still appears more saturated. This might relate to CFA differences between the cameras, although Sony hasn't changed the CFA of the Exmors very much over the years.
Here's both at 8MP with Camera Neutral and with a slightly cooler WB:
I think the colors in the D7200 pics are more vibrant.
Could that be a result of differences in the way each cameras white balance works? Steve I'm assuming you used AWB on both cameras?
snapsy wrote:
If you notice the D7200 images are much more saturated. A big part of this for the converted JPEGs that Steve posted are likely from the Adobe Standard profile differences between the cameras and to a lesser extent, small differences in the processed WB. If you set both raws to Camera Neutral in LR the saturation is much closer although the D7200 still appears more saturated. This might relate to CFA differences between the cameras, although Sony hasn't changed the CFA of the Exmors very much over the years.
Here's both at 8MP with Camera Neutral and with a slightly cooler WB:
Also, you'll notice with the color profile normalized and cooler WB the D500's noise advantage over the D7200 is noticeably less - this is because the blue-channel boosting is now equalized, whereas previously the D7200 was boosted more to achieve the higher saturation vs the D500.
Ryukyu wrote:
I think the colors in the D7200 pics are more vibrant.
Could that be a result of differences in the way each cameras white balance works? Steve I'm assuming you used AWB on both cameras?
Could swear someone saying that Nikon made the white balance on the D500 a bit more neutral instead of being warm. Aside from that I am definitely looking into purchasing a D500 so I can have a second body instead of swapping lenses all the time.
Steve, I can't wait to hear back from you after your trip to Florida and see how well the D500 really does!
snapsy wrote:
Also, you'll notice with the color profile normalized and cooler WB the D500's noise advantage over the D7200 is noticeably less - this is because the blue-channel boosting is now equalized, whereas previously the D7200 was boosted more to achieve the higher saturation vs the D500.
Thanks for that.
I was most likely typing my post out when you published yours, so I didn't see it.
I can't see any drastic improvement vs the D7200. If anything the 7200 looks better with better color saturation.
What am I missing here?
It looks like D610 and D750 are still way ahead of the D500.. I was hoping this new wave of DX sensors would at least match the now several year old FX sensors (D610, D750 etc..).
But I STILL WANT THE D500!! For the entire frame AF coverage and the ability to use lighter DX lenses when I'm on travel.
VTXT wrote:
I can't see any drastic improvement vs the D7200. If anything the 7200 looks better with better color saturation.
What am I missing here?
It looks like D610 and D750 are still way ahead of the D500.. I was hoping this new wave of DX sensors would at least match the now several year old FX sensors (D610, D750 etc..).
But I STILL WANT THE D500!! For the entire frame AF coverage and the ability to use lighter DX lenses when I'm on travel.
I think we might be getting towards the edge of what can be done with current sensor technology. In order for a DX sensor to match an FX sensor of the same generation, it would have to be 1.5 stops lower in noise than it currently is - that's a pretty big leap. Even going back a generation (D750 / D610), it would still be tough to pull off.
Thanks - I am seeing a nice improvement in noise performance here. (pretty obvious one from my computer anyway) As I was expecting, it is about 1/3 - 1/2 a stop - probably a lot more at super high ISO. It not enough to justify dumping a D7200, but taken as a whole package I am really loving what I am seeing from the D500 so far...Just hope there no recalls!
VTXT wrote:
I can't see any drastic improvement vs the D7200. If anything the 7200 looks better with better color saturation.
What am I missing here?
It looks like D610 and D750 are still way ahead of the D500.. I was hoping this new wave of DX sensors would at least match the now several year old FX sensors (D610, D750 etc..).
But I STILL WANT THE D500!! For the entire frame AF coverage and the ability to use lighter DX lenses when I'm on travel.
Give those poor Nikon engineers a break Given that the D5 barely showed a 1 stop improvement in noise over the previous generation of FF sensors (and that was only done by killing the low ISO DR) I am not sure how they could have pulled a magic trick like matching the D750. What we have with the D500 is the best performing crop camera from all aspects: noise, AF, buffer, FPS. Not a bad achievement!
Color saturation looks higher in the 7200. Noise looks better on 500. But, the disappointing statement was that you'd limit ISO to 3200 in practice. I was expecting 12,800, or at least 6,400.
