Author Topic: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)  (Read 2369 times)

JKoerner007

  • Guest
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2018, 17:53:01 »
Discussion on FM.  Steve Perry prefers the D5 in Costa Rica.  He owns all 3 D5, D850 and D500 I think.   (Unfortunately, the D500 is not part of this discussion thread)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1530297

Thank you.

Steve Perry actually says he "almost always recommend(s) the D850 for general wildlife over the D5 (especially if you grip the D850)."

I understand why he says this, though, the supposedly-superior image quality + the newness of the D850.
(In some ways I think he's just trying to sell videos/get clicks on everyone's excitement over the D850.)

What I actually noticed, however, is that everyone who's shooting D850 wildlife shots isn't really producing anything that can't be had by the D5/D500 ... and the images actually look a little soft to me.

I don't think the D850 is nailing shots like the D5/D500 nail shots.
(Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what my eyes tell me.)

I keep seeing these thick, almost viscous-looking wildlife images come from the D850, with the subject's eyes (and other critical-focus details) being slightly soft.

I don't see the same phenomenon with the D5/D500.

Ilkka Nissilš

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1021
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2018, 18:48:21 »
I havenít noticed softness in my D850 images; on the contrary the output is extremely sharp. My issues with the D850 are timing and workload related as well as high ISO due to low light in much of my wintertime photography.

I think perhaps the high marketing visibility and specifications of the D850 have lead some less skilled photographers also to buy it and you may be seeing the result of their early efforts. Given time I would expect to see more outstanding work from the camera.

Once the spring comes with more light I hope to grow happier with the D850. In the summer I get to see much more situations where there is potential to use the camera in lighting conditions which are brighter and contrastier, permitting the dynamic range and resolution to be taken advantage of. Currently I can only do that for landscapes on tripod.

I have noticed that in Qc drive mode with EFCS, there is a significant improvement in sharpness of hand held 300 PF shots at slowish speeds. In such scenarios the D850 seems to have a significant advantage.

JKoerner007

  • Guest
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2018, 19:02:06 »
I havenít noticed softness in my D850 images; on the contrary the output is extremely sharp. My issues with the D850 are timing and workload related as well as high ISO due to low light in much of my wintertime photography.

I think perhaps the high marketing visibility and specifications of the D850 have lead some less skilled photographers also to buy it and you may be seeing the result of their early efforts. Given time I would expect to see more outstanding work from the camera.

Once the spring comes with more light I hope to grow happier with the D850. In the summer I get to see much more situations where there is potential to use the camera in lighting conditions which are brighter and contrastier, permitting the dynamic range and resolution to be taken advantage of. Currently I can only do that for landscapes on tripod.

I have noticed that in Qc drive mode with EFCS, there is a significant improvement in sharpness of hand held 300 PF shots at slowish speeds. In such scenarios the D850 seems to have a significant advantage.


Understood.

I don't believe the softness is coming from the camera itself, but rather from the effort to use an extremely high-res camera during fast-action.

The higher the resolution, the more augmented flaws in technique and/or motion become. (Which is pretty much what you said.)

My assumption was that the softness was coming from the lack of absolute stillness, combined with the high-res of the camera.
I just don't consider the D850 an athlete, like a the D5 or D500. (Maybe I am wrong, though.)

With perfect stillness, of course, and high-quality glass, I would expect the sharpness of the D850 to be astounding compared to the other two.

MFloyd

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 1102
  • My quest for the "perfect" speed blur
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2018, 19:21:09 »
I hesitated to answer the question, as I'm not qualifying, being a "no D500 owner". Instead, I bought a second D5 mid last year, having considered first the D500.  First D5 was acquired late March 2016, in replacement of a D4s. It took me some time to get accustomed - even coming from a D4s -, but It is the best camera I ever owned.

As mainly an action/sport photographer, I can fully rely on the D5's high ISO capabilities; in other words, I never really bother at what ISO I'm shooting.  Looking at some of my statistics, I noticed that, nevertheless, close to 40% of my retained shots are at base 100 ISO; 7% at ISO 6'400 and higher (up to 102k); and 16% in the traditional 800-<12'800 ISO bracket.

Why a D5 and not a D500 ? (1) For consistency in manipulation / processing; and (2) don't change a winning team 😊
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν

JKoerner007

  • Guest
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2018, 21:04:47 »
Thanks for adding your experience.

Very surprised to hear that 40% of your retained shots are at base 100 ISO  :o

Frank Fremerey

  • engineering art
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 8828
  • Bonn, Germany
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2018, 00:06:22 »
I have used all three bodies and kept the D500/D850 for the following reasons:

1) the high ISO performance of the D5 is second to none, 12 fps are better than 10 or 9. But both cases are so rare in my professional work, the D5 simply does not justify its price. But: I would buy the D5 recording chip in a lesser body for these rare cases.

9) My work does not involve high fps. It does involve High iso frequently. I can use the D500 at 20.00 ISO, D850 at 25.600 which is good for well over 90% of jobs. For the other jobs I can still rent a D5.

3) D5 noise is unsatisfactory. Very much so. D500 is silent by nature, D850 can be totally silent if a. no pulsating light source is involved, because there will be a jalousie effect if and b. AF can be LV slow or c. Manual focus is an option.

So noise, fps, SuperHighISO, AF in silent environment are to be factored into your decision.

Last point. At same duration events I shoot half the amount of frames because D500/D850 are such reliable performers. I never use the display. I know what will be in the box. I cull without mercy. That saves disk space but not working hours. After 1 Million frames I have some HDs in my cupboard and extenal storage

My machine is 16 core, 32 threads, 64 Gig RAM, SSD
You are out there. You and your camera. You can shoot or not shoot as you please. Discover the world, Your world. Show it to us. Or we might never see it.

MFloyd

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 1102
  • My quest for the "perfect" speed blur
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2018, 00:12:53 »
Thanks for adding your experience.

Very surprised to hear that 40% of your retained shots are at base 100 ISO  :o
  I was surprised as well. But then I realised that most of the racing pictures are taken at very low speed (1/80s - 1/160s) and, therefore, low ISO, to generate the so called "speed blur".
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν

RoyC

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2018, 00:48:40 »
Thank you. Nice lens set :)

Which body did you use during the day?

Can you describe why the D5 was your preference? Is it handling ... or file quality?

Steve Perry said the D5 cropped-in cannot match the D500. At the same relative framing, the D5 is clearly better ... but if you have to crop the D5 to get the D500 framing, it is not.

Do you disagree with this? Thanks again.

During the day I let the subject drive the decision for the most part. Active subjects generally get the D5 and static/slow moving subjects the D850. If I am using the D850, I am wanting to keep the ISO at 400 or lower.
As to my preference for the D5, handling is a great factor. The fit of the grip, control layout and overall size as it relates to managing large lenses drives my preference. And the file quality is also quite nice especially in the ISO 1600 - 6400 range where a f5.6 prime and a 1.25TC tend to be.
I agree with Steve's assessment you refer to above. As a result, I am finding myself waiting until my subject is nearer before shooting. With wildlife/birds I have found that patience is a necessary virture. :)


JKoerner007

  • Guest
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2018, 01:04:31 »
3) D5 noise is unsatisfactory. Very much so. D500 is silent by nature, D850 can be totally silent if a. no pulsating light source is involved, because there will be a jalousie effect if and b. AF can be LV slow or c. Manual focus is an option.

Surprised to hear this view, but thanks for providing it.

I thought the D5 had the most exemplary noise reduction in high ISO of any of them ...

JKoerner007

  • Guest
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #24 on: February 13, 2018, 01:05:19 »
During the day I let the subject drive the decision for the most part. Active subjects generally get the D5 and static/slow moving subjects the D850. If I am using the D850, I am wanting to keep the ISO at 400 or lower.
As to my preference for the D5, handling is a great factor. The fit of the grip, control layout and overall size as it relates to managing large lenses drives my preference. And the file quality is also quite nice especially in the ISO 1600 - 6400 range where a f5.6 prime and a 1.25TC tend to be.
I agree with Steve's assessment you refer to above. As a result, I am finding myself waiting until my subject is nearer before shooting. With wildlife/birds I have found that patience is a necessary virture. :)

Thanks for the insight ... and tip

MFloyd

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 1102
  • My quest for the "perfect" speed blur
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2018, 01:28:34 »
Surprised to hear this view, but thanks for providing it.

I thought the D5 had the most exemplary noise reduction in high ISO of any of them ...

I think Frank is referring to mechanical / shutter & mirror noise ...
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Ilkka Nissilš

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1021
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2018, 14:28:01 »
3) D5 noise is unsatisfactory. Very much so. D500 is silent by nature, D850 can be totally silent if a. no pulsating light source is involved, because there will be a jalousie effect if and b. AF can be LV slow or c. Manual focus is an option.

If the environment is such that the sound of the camera is an issue, the quiet continuous (Qc) mode takes the sound of the D5 to a level which is perceived as soft and not distracting, in my experience, and I've been very happy with that for such circumstances. Of course then it is limited to 3fps. If one needs quieter high fps then a Sony A9 may be the solution, or one of the DX Nikons such as the D500 or D7500. I also use Qc with the D850 in similar circumstances when sound is to be minimized. I had a few situations where the D700's loudness was a problem (a choir concert); at the time there was no quiet option and similar high ISO capability was not available in a quiet camera so if I had been doing that more regularly a blimp would have been something to consider.

I do not like the Quiet (non-continuous) mode as it gives a second sound for the return of the mirror as the finger is lifted and this I find to be more distracting than the automatically returning mirror in Qc (quiet continuous) mode. For me high fps is an option not a necessity, and I am happy with the Qc solution for quiet moments and it has been satisfactory for both sides. 

But I agree that for wildlife photography such as the OP's, it may be that the D500's relative quietness (along with the pixels per subject aspect) is an asset.

Frank Fremerey

  • engineering art
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 8828
  • Bonn, Germany
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2018, 00:38:04 »
Surprised to hear this view, but thanks for providing it.

I thought the D5 had the most exemplary noise reduction in high ISO of any of them ...

I talked about sound, not grain
You are out there. You and your camera. You can shoot or not shoot as you please. Discover the world, Your world. Show it to us. Or we might never see it.

Frank Fremerey

  • engineering art
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 8828
  • Bonn, Germany
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2018, 00:43:18 »
Mastering the LV AF slowness of the D850 or using manual focus, can avoid to use a blimp and you get insane fps (up to 30 JPEG per second for three seconds) in continuous light. More here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4199429

And in the manual

Question: is it possible to focus trap with silent LV operation???
You are out there. You and your camera. You can shoot or not shoot as you please. Discover the world, Your world. Show it to us. Or we might never see it.

Ilkka Nissilš

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1021
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Serious Question: Nikon D500 vs. D5 (Real World Comparison)
« Reply #29 on: February 14, 2018, 13:23:49 »
Indeed, manual focus with focus peaking might be a practical way to use the D850 hand held with silent shutter. So far I've mostly used the AF, and noticed that in low light the larger focus area can focus more securely but sometimes on the wrong target (within the selected area however); in some situations wide area AF focused on a brightly lit and detailed background instead of dimly lit subject in the foreground, whereas the pinpoint AF is very precise but might be difficult to use hand held because of camera shake and subject movement. I think I will start practising the use of manual focus for this kind of shots where I need to use LV hand held, such as when shooting from above crowd's heads. Silent shutter is then an additional option once the focusing technique is mastered. Still, I am used to the real-time image of the OVF and it is difficult to time shots using the LCD LV. Not having lag-free shooting, this leads to the use of high fps to catch moments which then fills up memory cards and hard drives unnecessarily. I think the OVF shooting experience is much better for photographing people; AF works without hunting, there is less lag, the subject is seen as a large part of the visual field when using the viewfinder and generally it is a more enjoyable experience than using LV, but for some situations, LV is necessary. For static subjects with the camera on tripod, LV is great, of course.

The sound from high fps within LV is less loud than when using the OVF, even when using the mechanical shutter (which is what I normally use as my subjects are moving and the lights are often flickering).