NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: gryphon1911 on November 09, 2016, 15:00:46
-
Hello all just wanted to get out there and throw my thoughts to the masses about my feelings for the 2 cameras above.
So, lets get this out of the way up front. I'm now the owner of a Nikon D500.
I thought about this long and hard. I'm still a 2 camera camp. I love the m43 for what it does and gives me, and I also love my Nikon kit for the same rationale.
I've never been one to care about size or weight. Performance was always king. If a camera did what I wanted it to, and had the speed to keep up, it would be a winner in my eyes. One of the failings that m43 had was in C-AF performance. While decent, it always seemed to be just a step behind.
Then they announced the EM1 Mk II. From the promises, it seemed that the EM1 Mk II would be the m43 that finally got me where we wanted to be. Then the reviews started coming out from the early releases.
1) They were all portrait and landscape photographers
2) Olympus was talking up the AF and speed performance but not proving - putting their money where their mouth is. This is what is scaring me. If the AF performance is all you say it is, why am I not seeing the proof of this in the hands of all the early testers? Robin Wong tried to show some of it, but he admits, he is not a sports shooter and his examples while decent are something that I know I can already get with the EM1.1
3) The D500 was $300 cheaper and I already have the high performance lenses I need to make the camera sing.
My D300 is getting a little long in the tooth. It still performance decent enough, but I realized that some of the shooting situations, the 70-200/2.8 and ISO 1600(my current usable ceiling for the D300) just are not going to cut it anymore.
I was in the camera store the other day and I was test shooting the D500 with an old 80-200/2.8D lens. Inside I was hand holding at 200mm 1/200, f/2.8, ISO 6400 and the files were clean and the images sharp. Out the door I spent $1700 and they threw in a second battery to boot. Right from the store, the battery had less than half charge. I threw the 70-200/2.8 on it, went out and shot 300 frames with the basic setup(pretty much factory stuff - I still need to dig into the camera manual and fine tune it).
The camera is a beast. Period. End of story. It is flat out the best performing camera I have very used. The AF-S is fast and accurate, the AF-C blew my mind. I pretty much followed my dogs around the dog park, and shot images of them playing. Not sure if you are familiar with how fast little Chihuahua dogs are, but the AF-C kept up with them. The only images that were out of focus were the ones where I just started loosing them from the frame because I physically could not keep up with them.
Without having seen/used an EM1 Mk II I won't say that is it not capable of that. What I will say is that I was willing to save $300 and get a commodity that I was 99% guaranteed would deliver.
Again, don't get me wrong, I love and will continue to use both systems. The EM1 Mk II is not enough of an upgrade to have me hold out for it. The D500 against the D300 and D700 most certainly is worthy of the upgrade. I'm hoping to go out and do some more testing soon. Not sure if I can guarantee more worthy moving targets, but the images I am getting from the camera are spectacular. So far, no regrets.
All sample images here and in the next reply thread were taken with the D500 and the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC
Here are the dogs!!
-
Here are some additional images:
The one image of the rectangular building reflected in the river was taken at ISO 14,400.
-
Cool work, Andrew!! Isn't it fun to freeze that action? You've added to the consensus that the D500 can perform.
I've got a D500 now meself. And WOW! I do also love this camera. It's like a D4S+D700 combo. I quite like the DX sensor even though I had a few apprehensions initially.
I just put the Nikkor 200-500VR on the D500 with great results. I'd like to also try that 300 PF/VR with the D500.
-
Love your pictures. Always loved them as you know. With the wonderful White balance the D500 can perform you can take them in full color now. Is that not amazing? I just came back from the cold and wet St Martin's parade. Will show pictures later. I only had to stop shooting when Auto ISO maxed out at 20.000. Above that I do not like what I see anymore.
-
Very nice set of images, with a Bus Shelter Selfie thrown in. 8)
-
me too like the results - so to you and Andrea both - congrats
-
It is unusual for me to be an early buyer. Did it two times. The 1V1 was somewhat dissatisfying, buying the D500 early was one of the best decisions i ever made. Being fast and accurate and high fps without grip plus crop factor makes it a perfect tele action camera for me . It replaced the D800E a bit in this function which served as crop camera in DX mode before. I find the D500 a perfect combo with the AF-S 80-400 for travelling and hiking having the lens still fit in a normal shoulder bag. The 200-500 is a good lens, but too heavy and not compact enough for this purpose. The 300 mm PF would be worth trying (less range though) but i dont have, did take the 70-300 before.
-
It is unusual for me to be an early buyer. Got one of the first D500 in Germany in very early May 2016. Did not regret a single moment with her. Great camera!
-
To me small size and low weigth is very important. I have tried the E1 mark II and it si a very fast beast. I cant compare to the D500, but I think the E1 probably shots faster - but I can´t say if the autofocus also is faster. However, I am sure the D500 is not a less capable camera when all pluses and minuses have been summed up. The dealbreaker for me is as I said weight and size, and the Nikon D500 and the 70-200 is way to big for me. If this is important the new Olympus is surely a qualified alternative. My consideration is if I should go for a Fujifilm X1 or X2 instead for the Olympus. I also consider the future for these both systems. The camera industry is declining, and truth is there are to many camera manufacturers at todays market. Olympus is not doing well, and can be one of them who have to leave the market. If this is true for Fujifil to do I nor know, but even Nikon is struggling and losing market shares. I think Nikon will survive, but I think some bigger player will buy the company and restructure their businesses strategy. They seems to be confused.
-
Great first shots!!
Nice to hear from "happy" cam owners ;D
-
Nikon D500 = 860g with battery & card
Nikkor 70-200/4G VR = 850g
Total: 1700g
Olympus OMDEM1 MarkII = 574g with battery & card
Olympus M.Zuiko 12-200/4 IS = 561g
Total: 1135g
I had to go look this up because I was curious what the weight difference might be. I chose f/4 zoom lenses though -- because I already have that Nikkor 70-200/4G VR for use on the D500. (That is a very very nice lens, btw. So sharp!)
So yes. The Oly set up is 565g lighter than the Nikon set up. That's about 1.2 pounds for those of us still stuck in the land of imperial or US units of weight. 8)
*****
Having many frames per second is nice. But I cannot track and shoot action through an EVF with my particular style of action shooting. I've tried and tried. I just can't do it. This is not to say that others can't. I'm sure there are a lot of successful sports shots with mirrorless EVF.
(I use back button focus with constant tracking, panning and resetting of focus. If I can't see thru the viewfinder this does not work.)
-
To me small size and low weigth is very important. I have tried the E1 mark II and it si a very fast beast. I cant compare to the D500, but I think the E1 probably shots faster - but I can´t say if the autofocus also is faster. However, I am sure the D500 is not a less capable camera when all pluses and minuses have been summed up. The dealbreaker for me is as I said weight and size, and the Nikon D500 and the 70-200 is way to big for me. If this is important the new Olympus is surely a qualified alternative. My consideration is if I should go for a Fujifilm X1 or X2 instead for the Olympus. I also consider the future for these both systems. The camera industry is declining, and truth is there are to many camera manufacturers at todays market. Olympus is not doing well, and can be one of them who have to leave the market. If this is true for Fujifil to do I nor know, but even Nikon is struggling and losing market shares. I think Nikon will survive, but I think some bigger player will buy the company and restructure their businesses strategy. They seems to be confused.
I dont think that the E1 mark II is as fast as the D500, especially when it comes to autofocus
The 1V1 also had 60fps, that does not say anythin about usability
Olympus and Fuji were about to be endangered getting lost years ago - to my surprise they reinvented themselves and managed to keep track somehow
-
The camera industry is declining, and truth is there are to many camera manufacturers at todays market. Olympus is not doing well, and can be one of them who have to leave the market. If this is true for Fujifil to do I nor know, but even Nikon is struggling and losing market shares. I think Nikon will survive, but I think some bigger player will buy the company and restructure their businesses strategy. They seems to be confused.
There were many small players in the film camera era. I don't see why there could not be with digital.
Prices will go up and dedicated cameras will be bought mostly by those who are serious about photography. I don't see why this would be a problem. IMO the DSLR craze where everyone bought one was never going to last. Consumers realize they're not really that into photography and the market will decline to similar size as it was in the film era. I am sure that a sustainable business is possible within that scale.
Nikon's camera business remains profitable, as far as I know. They are managing their business froma financial point of view quite well in hard conditions. I think their management of software development and testing needs a major overhaul. Poor software can lead to their demise, I'm afraid.
-
There were many small players in the film camera era. I don't see why there could not be with digital.
Camera sales now (cameras with interchangeable lenses) are about the same as in the eighties and nineties. Then came digital cameras and sales skyrocketed for some years. Then sales have declined. Problem is the cost for research and product development has increased. In the film days the technology was mainly mechanical and to a much lesser degree electrical, and not at all digital. If you bought a camera, say a Nikon FM or F you expected it to last a very long time. If you buy a D something today, it´s lifespan is just some few years. I think it was easier to be a small camera manufacturer in the film era, because the need and cost for development was not the same. Nikon makes profit, but it´s relative market share is declining and sales is not meeting Nikons own expectations. Sony however is growing. I suspect their mirrorless full frame cameras is eating market shares from both Cannon and Nikon. But then Sony is a very huge company compared to Nikon.
-
I dont think that the E1 mark II is as fast as the D500, especially when it comes to autofocus
The 1V1 also had 60fps, that does not say anythin about usability
The main problem with the 1V1 was (and is) the UI. Alright, the 1V1 could do with a better sensor (like the one they used in the J5), but the main problem as far as I'm concerned is the UI. No idea what Nikon thought when they designed it, but it's horrible for a fast camera, and the 1V1 is fast. But no AF-on button, no quick way to change ISO, automatic ISO is a bad joke and so on. And they crippled the FT1 of course. *One* focus point when you use an AFS-Nikkor? They must be joking.
On the EM-1 Mark II - I really wonder how good the AF is. So far I haven't seen a single M4/3 camera with a usable AF-C. They're all awful. My ancient D200 runs circles around them.
Hermann
-
As far as I know, mirrorless ILC sales are currently declining at a comparable rate as DSLRs (CIPA 2016 vs. 2015). Nikon and Sony are affected by lack of availability of Sony sensors due to the earthquake, so sales data do not only reflect demand but also lack of supply. Canon reported an 8% increase in their ILC sales thanks to succesful DSLRs the 80D and 5D IV. I suspect Canon is partly benefiting from Sony's and Nikon's misfortune but they have also made great products. After the production problems have been solved, sales data should more accurately reflect demand. Perhaps in 2017 or 2018 we can revisit CIPA data.
Nikon has made several outstanding products this year (D500, D5, 105/1.4, 19 PC) but their consumer products seem to be in trouble. DL is not out yet, compact camera sales in decline, and highly criticized launch of Keymission. Personally I am very happy with Nikon's DSLR and lens products of recent yearsw and it is a pity that they are not doing so well in the consumer sector. I think it is excellent that there is now more choices for the photographer; in the early years of digital cameras, options were much more limited. I hope Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Pentax etc. all stay in the business.
-
...If you bought a camera, say a Nikon FM or F you expected it to last a very long time. If you buy a D something today, it´s lifespan is just some few years....
The lifespan is getting longer. Once the D cameras reached universally high image quality, the incentive to buy the "next one" evaporated. There is still no "better" camera(for my uses) than my current one...and I've had it for 4 years.
-
Andrew, nice write up. I've been holding back on the D500 but.... it turns out that my wife is perfectly content with her EM1 and we are both looking forward to picking up the PEN-F , which will be her only camera in the UK next week . I am waiting on my local dealer to return from holiday since he will take a lens, D300 as trade-in o the D500 and maybe buy some other gear (D700/D3S and a few lenses) . Not many birds around but D500 should do me for Soccer/Kite surfers. The Sony a7II and a7rII should do me for travel/walkabout. I lust after the 105 f1.4 but will wait awhile on that one. Very tempted to buy 2nd DF (mint) instead of the D500 but the D500 is more practical and I would be quite upset if Nikon does offer a Df mk II in the new year.
I like the selfie on the image of the guy in the motorized wheel chair . I may need one of those soon. If I fitted a monopod to it , I could still roam the sidelines just slower ;)
All the best and enjoy the ne camera.
Tom
-
So, had chance to use the D500 on assignment today. Was covering an international festival here in town.
Just cemented the "beast" moniker. I was shooting at ISO 4000, f/2.8 and the AF was killing it and the images look fantastic.
-
Andrew: I feel in the last set you let the NR kick in too much, esp in the first picture. Try is with a bit more luminance noise which leaves room for much more details....
-
They look fine on my home PC. I'm thinking I might have had some output issues(mine - settings and such) on this last batch in Lightroom. I'll look into it.
-
They look hazy and/or soft in some way on my monitors,,,
-
I just looked at the images again. I think I had a few images selected when I was working on a particularly hard high ISO image....a bunch of them had some pretty extreme settings. I've done that to myself a bunch of times. I gotta be better at that. :S
-
Yep that is a calculated risk when batch processing :) Been there done that