Nikon D500 - first impressions

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I am curious to know how D500 balance heavier lenses like 300/2.8 +conv. 1.7 /2.0, 200-500?
Handheld, without monopod.
Krister

Not tried with 200-500. With the 300/2.8, it becomes as expected very front heavy and an added battery pack would be beneficial in terms of handling.

These medium to long lenses would perform better with support such as mono- or tripods, though, irrespective of what camera they are combined with.

[Krille]

Thanks, I agree in what you say about using a monopod for medium to long lenses. I have a monopod and usually use
mine with the 300/2.8 and 1.7 or 2.0 III combo. I just read the D500 thread, totally missed it, and was surprised about
yours and others members good experience with the camera. I guess you still are?
I was looking for a better camera for wildlife/birds than I own today (Df and D3x) but was only looking for an FX!
A used D4 is slightly cheaper than a D500+grip, a D810 expensive and not as fast as the D500. (got a D3x)
I use glasses as I think you do as well, how do you go along with the DX finder? Going from DX to FX years ago the
finder experience was really nice.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The D500 is OK and capable of delivering excellent image quality as long as ISO is kept 1600 or lower.

I wouldn't think of it as a substitute for any FX camera, though, more like an addition to the tool chest.

[John G]

Hi Krille
            There is a valuable list of comparisons between Nikon Bodies in the "D800E replaced by D4" topic in Cameras.
             The D500 is compared and much of what is said about it, is beyond the usual supplied information.
             For me the information is invaluable, and a valid reference to individual bodies performances.
             It will be revisited when the opportunity comes to upgrade a Nikon Body in the future, I was impressed by the
              options that can be considered, as to how a body can be selected for a specified use.   

[dslater]

The D500 is OK and capable of delivering excellent image quality as long as ISO is kept 1600 or lower.

In the case of a D4, where would you place this upper limit on ISO for delivering excellent image quality?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Higher, but haven't used that model sufficient to make more than an educated guess (6400?).

For sports etc. I assume getting the picture so to speak is far more important than getting the ultimate level of detail, so acceptable ISO range is probably much higher up the ladder.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

As an example, already the now "obsolete" D3s could, on occasion, provide quite good image quality at 25600 ISO. More likely so in daylight than at night though, so the high ISO was most useful for getting very fast shutter speeds than exploiting very dimly lit scenes. I have a feeling some of the traits are still present in today's cameras as well.

[richardHaw]

As an example, already the now "obsolete" D3s could, on occasion, provide quite good image quality at 25600 ISO. More likely so in daylight than at night though, so the high ISO was most useful for getting very fast shutter speeds than exploiting very dimly lit scenes. I have a feeling some of the traits are still present in today's cameras as well.

high speed film benefits from overexposure. is this also true for digital?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The situations are not directly comparable, but in a broad sense, the answer is a cautious 'yes'.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I find it that in natural light, the ISO can be increased higher than in artificial (low K, possibly discontinuous spectrum ) light before the image falls apart in terms of tonal and colour quality. I suspect this is because silicon photodiodes are less sensitive to blue than red and near IR light. Thus if the light is reddish, AWB increases the blue channel values to get a more neutral result, but in doing so it increases the noise of the channel that is weakest and so there is objectionable noise. In bluish light (skylight) the red channel is amplified but this is not as much of an issue as it has high sensitivity and SNR.

With the D5, I have gotten good results at up to ISO 25600 (D810: 6400) in waning daylight. However at the said ISO settings, in indoor artificial light, I've found the results "thin" and of poor quality. So I would say I prefer to stay at lower settings for indoor available light photography, or if I must, I will turn the results into black and white which reduces my objections to the noise a bit, also then there are no more colour quality issues. However, the new anti flicker mode in the D5/D500 may change this and allow shooting in flickering artificial lights when previously the results were poor or highly variable.

Sorry I have no real experience with the D500 or D4.

[Krille]

Thanks Björn and John G!
Will try to borrow the camera and try it out!
Krister

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Prepare yourself for a scenario in which you cannot return the camera

Ilkka's observations of the fundamental different behaviour in daylight vs artificial light mimic my own experiences. One cannot blindly assume a given ISO range will work everywhere, and this is a spanner in the works for relying too much on Auto ISO.

[Krille]

Prepare yourself for a scenario in which you cannot return the camera

Looks like a paraphrase from a car company slogan some 15 years ago!!

" Huyndai, prepare to want one"

 

[BW]

In the case of a D4, where would you place this upper limit on ISO for delivering excellent image quality?

I have printed ISO 25600 from the Nikon Df which have the D4 sensor. These were taken in low light around sunset. No problem. I have also printed images from the D3s and D4s up to 12800 ISO and never noticed problems. The biggest problem however is light conditions where the photons are scattered and randomly distributed. Night photography is a typical example. If you take successive images you will notice that the noise distribution are irregular and almost independent of exposure. Therefore one must take several pictures of one scene to make sure that you have a distribution of noise that doesn't affect the important areas of the image. There is no sensor built, or is ever going to be built to resolve this this limitation. Sensor technology are able to enhance a signal, but not to create light. Smaller area gather less light than a larger area, just as a wider bucket will collect more raindrops than a more narrow one, during a rain shower.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Old lenses like the D500. The 15 mm f/3.5 Nikkor AIS is no exception.

From today's collection;