Nikon D500 Review vs D7200, D5 and Canon 7D MkII

Whiskeyman

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
Lawrence said:
Our first one came into the shop the other day with the 16-80 f2.8 kit lens.

All I can say is this is one awesome, AWESOME, FREAKING AWESOME piece of machinery. We took a photo in a dark (seriously dark) cupboard at ISO 51200 f2.8 hand held and it came out like daylight with hardly any noise.
certainly way less noise than my camera (D7100) has at 6400.

To Summarise I would give anything to have one but they are NZ$5500.00 here in this combo - and that I don't have.
Click to expand...

Wow, for $5500, you could fly to the USA next February for our Nikonites Circle B Bar trip, buy the camera, and have money left over!!!

Oh,wait, NZ$5500, ahhh, never mind!! ;)

WM
 
Whiskeyman

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
It's great stuff. I never in a lifetime would have thought that a DX sensor gets "less light" in some fashion from an FX lens, and as soon as I think I have my mind wrapped around it something slips away again. Still, as a math and science geek this stuff always intrigues me.
Click to expand...

Jake, all other things being equal, the the FX sensor will almost always "get more light" than a DX sensor, as long as the image circle is large enough. However, on average, the light falling on a DX sensor is usually of better quality since it is located in the sweet spot of most lenses, whereas most lenses will exhibit at least slight vignetting on an FX sensor.

Whether it matters or not is a different matter.

Science and Math? I'm in!! :D

WM
 
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
While I'll admit I haven't watched the video linked to, I think what might be being referred to here is what's called "Equivalence". It has more to do with the comment about losing light (DX vs FX) than sharpness, however. Maybe I should watch the video because I associate equivalence with "noise" more than sharpness... *scratches head*

Anyway, you may want to see this article: What is Equivalence and Why Should I Care?

Pertinent Quote from article: You are no longer capturing all the light that the lens is projecting [with a DX lens]. The light intensity on the sensor remains the same, but the amount of light you can capture has dropped. (Because you're now only capturing the inner, bronze colored cone of light, rather than the more yellow one).
Click to expand...
Isn't the middle the best quality wise and least issues? Why should I care how much empty space there is between photoreceptors?
 
Last edited:
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Whiskeyman said:
Jake, all other things being equal, the the FX sensor will almost always "get more light" than a DX sensor, as long as the image circle is large enough. However, on average, the light falling on a DX sensor is usually of better quality since it is located in the sweet spot of most lenses, whereas most lenses will exhibit at least slight vignetting on an FX sensor.

Whether it matters or not is a different matter.

Science and Math? I'm in!! :D

WM
Click to expand...

I've actually had time to really read the article. It's an interesting read, but it's also very misleading in some ways. It's more about lens ratings than anything to do with an FX lens rendering an image any differently on a DX body than it would in the cropped portion of an FX body. And that is what I thought the initial question was all about. Yes, a DX shooter who never upgrades to full frame may be "wasting" both light and (probably) money by purchasing that expensive full frame glass, but there's also optical quality to consider as well. DX glass wastes light all the time, but it does it by not projecting it through the last element - it's just lost against the walls.
 
E

Elliot87

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
I've actually had time to really read the article. It's an interesting read, but it's also very misleading in some ways. It's more about lens ratings than anything to do with an FX lens rendering an image any differently on a DX body than it would in the cropped portion of an FX body. And that is what I thought the initial question was all about. Yes, a DX shooter who never upgrades to full frame may be "wasting" both light and (probably) money by purchasing that expensive full frame glass, but there's also optical quality to consider as well. DX glass wastes light all the time, but it does it by not projecting it through the last element - it's just lost against the walls.
Click to expand...

I still haven't sat down to read the article yet but from what you're saying I don't think its conclusions will differ much from what I already thought.

As for buying full frame glass for a DX body I guess that can be a waste of money but it really depends on the lens I suppose. I bought the DX Nikkor 35mm 1.8, buying the full frame version would have cost me a lot more for probably no real gain so that would have been a waste. I also bought a full frame 70-300mm instead of the DX 55-300mm because I wanted the sharpest version I could afford so I don't see that as wasteful.

Anyway I've not got much planned for my friday night so I might educate myself with some science and math!
 
V

Vincent

Senior Member
I was wondering where to put this, came to this thread. Did not want to make a new thread for it.

It is a Nikon D5 vs 1DXmkII shoot out, with the conclusion you should get a D500 due to AF, fps and no anti aliasing filter.

 
Woodyg3

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
Vincent said:
I was wondering where to put this, came to this thread. Did not want to make a new thread for it.

It is a Nikon D5 vs 1DXmkII shoot out, with the conclusion you should get a D500 due to AF, fps and no anti aliasing filter.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's going to make the full frame fans a little upset. :)

The D5 is a specialty camera, and if I were a photojournalist or Sports Illustrated-type sports photographer who had to be out in all kinds of weather in every lighting situation imaginable, I'd want the D5.

Meanwhile, after two long outings shooting wildlife with my new D500, the only problem I've encountered is human error. (My own, that is. :) )
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Vincent said:
It is a Nikon D5 vs 1DXmkII shoot out, with the conclusion you should get a D500 due to AF, fps and no anti aliasing filter.
Click to expand...
The D500 won, very specifically, when shooting birds in flight, yes; but beyond that it was all about the Canon 5DSr, the Canon 1DX MkII and the Nikon D5 with each having its respective pros and cons. There was no overall conclusion you should get the D500 over a Nikon D5, or either of the Canon models tested.
 
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
The D500 won, very specifically, when shooting birds in flight, yes; but beyond that it was all about the Canon 5DSr, the Canon 1DX MkII and the Nikon D5 with each having its respective pros and cons. There was no overall conclusion you should get the D500 over a Nikon D5, or either of the Canon models tested.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't you though? I can see the attractiveness of the Canon with the DX pixel pitched FF sensor but not the others.
 
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
Let's face it, the D500 has the secret sauce (a-d converters, firmware, etc) Nikon has been reserving for the FF models. I told you guys before the camera was even announced that this would end up happening.

Truth be told, most of us here really need that sensor from the 18mp V3 mounted in the D500 body with the unused space applied towards VR on the sensor itself (what does Sony call this?). Can you even imagine how good a birder camera that would be with the 80-400mm?
 
Last edited:
V

Vincent

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
... There was no overall conclusion you should get the D500 over a Nikon D5, or either of the Canon models tested.
Click to expand...

Correct, still I found it very shocking the way Toni really put the D500 and 5DSR (arguably the D810 is better) as clearly delivering better pictures.
I do believe that what you do in photography is important for the body you will choose, if you do wildlife in reasonable light (face it wildlife should move) the D500 comes out as the best image quality delivering. I still chase more wildlife just before dusk or at down and believe the ISO advantage of the D5 might be more important then the picture quality advantage of the D500, but the question seems to be valid, APS-C is a professional choice.
 
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
Vincent said:
Correct, still I found it very shocking the way Toni really put the D500 and 5DSR (arguably the D810 is better) as clearly delivering better pictures.
I do believe that what you do in photography is important for the body you will choose, if you do wildlife in reasonable light (face it wildlife should move) the D500 comes out as the best image quality delivering. I still chase more wildlife just before dusk or at down and believe the ISO advantage of the D5 might be more important then the picture quality advantage of the D500, but the question seems to be valid, APS-C is a professional choice.
Click to expand...
He got called on one of his pronouncements that FF were twice as sharp as DX using the same FF lens. Maybe he's got some perspective now. They seem to be weaning themselves off the FF is best koolaid.
 
Top