Danner wrote:
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.
It's just me. I don't shoot my D4 over 6400 and the D810 never goes beyond 3200. I'm just picky about noise, probably too picky in fact.
Timothy OConn wrote:
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!
no, there are different sensors in D5 and D500, D5 sensor behaves very much like the D3, D3S sensor and that was a collaboration between Nikon and Renesas. D500 has a Sony sensor.
Pretty sure he's just cross comparing current gen FX to current gen DX and not claiming that the D5 is DX.
macrobild wrote:
no, there are different sensors in D5 and D500, D5 sensor behaves very much like the D3, D3S sensor and that was a collaboration between Nikon and Renesas. D500 has a Sony sensor.
They both look terrible to me.
If the D500 does not do better than the D750, it will be returned too.
With all the hype, I was expecting much cleaner pictures.
FYI, there are some comments on NR about the D500 image being sharper, such as the text on the canister. I attribute that to the D500's slightly better High ISO DR, which translates to cleaner deep shadows and since the text is black that means it'll be easier to read due to lower noise.
It would be quite a feat if it could be the same or beat the D750!
Is it close to the D810 at least?
RRRoger wrote:
They both look terrible to me.
If the D500 does not do better than the D750, it will be returned too.
With all the hype, I was expecting much cleaner pictures.
RRRoger wrote:
They both look terrible to me.
If the D500 does not do better than the D750, it will be returned too.
With all the hype, I was expecting much cleaner pictures.
There were no equivalent focal length shutter speed shots with a D750 for comparison so you don't know it is any better. In time these comparisons will be done in a subjective manner.
RRRoger wrote:
They both look terrible to me.
If the D500 does not do better than the D750, it will be returned too.
With all the hype, I was expecting much cleaner pictures.
I don't think it's realistic to think a DX sensor would be as good as a FX sensor that's about the same resolution, even if it is a next generation camera. I don't think we've really ever seen that happen, where a new DX sensor beats out the previous generation FX sensor.
morrismike wrote:
There were no equivalent focal length shutter speed shots with a D750 for comparison so you don't know it is any better. In time these comparisons will be done in a subjective manner.
Here's the D7200 compared to the D750 @ ISO 12,800, using dpreview's studio comparison. You can triangulate the differences between the D7200 and D500 from Steve's test and then compare how the D7200 does against the D750.
Steve, thanks a ton for doing all this work! Much appreciated!
My d500 won't be here until Monday evening, so I can't play around with it. So, I'm wondering if you might be interested in putting these NEF files through the new Capture NX-D? Same old prejudice, in that, I wonder if NX-D would produce better files than Adobe ACR. No biggie if you don't want to mess with it. I'll do the tests next week and post the results if you'd like.
snapsy wrote:
Here's the D7200 compared to the D750 @ ISO 12,800, using dpreview's studio comparison. You can triangulate the differences between the D7200 and D500 from Steve's test and then compare how the D7200 does against the D750.
Let's see them against each other in real world situation. Let's see which does best in the woods shooting Warblers in the canopy, shooting owls, shooting other things at extremely long distances. Let's see some pictures of party in a dimly lit bar.
snapsy wrote:
Here's the D7200 compared to the D750 @ ISO 12,800, using dpreview's studio comparison. You can triangulate the differences between the D7200 and D500 from Steve's test and then compare how the D7200 does against the D750.
Let's see them against each other in real world situation. Let's see which does best in the woods shooting Warblers in the canopy, shooting owls, shooting other things at extremely long distances. Let's see some pictures of party in a dimly lit bar.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Steve, thanks a ton for doing all this work! Much appreciated!
My d500 won't be here until Monday evening, so I can't play around with it. So, I'm wondering if you might be interested in putting these NEF files through the new Capture NX-D? Same old prejudice, in that, I wonder if NX-D would produce better files than Adobe ACR. No biggie if you don't want to mess with it. I'll do the tests next week and post the results if you'd like.
thanks
Kerry
I'd love to, but I really am heading out first light tomorrow morning for a long drive to FL, so packing takes precedent right now
However, I did upload the RAW files if you'd like to play with them:
Thanks so much for doing this. It appears the D500 should be a great performer, a great action camera, but it's also pretty clear DX is not going to get within a stop of FX with high iso performance. I know some had very high hopes, still the D500 is a most welcome addition to the DX line.
Steve Perry wrote:
I don't think it's realistic to think a DX sensor would be as good as a FX sensor that's about the same resolution, even if it is a next generation camera. I don't think we've really ever seen that happen, where a new DX sensor beats out the previous generation FX sensor.
Then why did Nikon spec the D500 at twice the native High ISO as the D750?
And, yes the D5 at same MP is twice again that (as expected).
The D750 Video could not give me usable quality above ISO 6400 in the poor/low light I shoot in.
Perhaps I should just refuse delivery and save myself some grief?
The problem with that is I will still be charged delivery cost.
So, I might as well find out for myself if the D500 can deliver a clean Video at ISO 8,000+ before sending it back.
morrismike wrote:
Let's see them against each other in real world situation. Let's see which does best in the woods shooting Warblers in the canopy, shooting owls, shooting other things at extremely long distances. Let's see some pictures of party in a dimly lit bar.
Probably not the case, but you seem very angry here.
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!
