Impressive high ISO performance

[Blacktop]

Maybe it is just me, but I was surprised at how close the D500 and D7200 noise compared in the DP Review link. I expected a bigger improvement and I did not see that much difference. That is JUST MY impression.

I didn't read the review yet, but I take it that if one doesn't care about the improved focusing, the higher frame rate/buffer and the auto fine tune capabilities, then there is no reason to make the jump from the D7200.
I still want one, but I just can't part with my D750. I would have to sell her off plus sell off the D7100 plus a few other lenses to afford this magnificent beast.

 

[Danno]

I didn't read the review yet, but I take it that if one doesn't care about the improved focusing, the higher frame rate/buffer and the auto fine tune capabilities, then there is no reason to make the jump from the D7200.
I still want one, but I just can't part with my D750. I would have to sell her off plus sell off the D7100 plus a few other lenses to afford this magnificent beast.

To me the things you mention are great. I like this beast too. But a big part of the draw for me was the claims of low light. I am not in the market for a new body, but now I am going back to my original thought that FX would suite me better. Besides, by the time I am ready for one the upgraded 750 will have these bells and whistles available on the 500.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

 

[TL Robinson]

I just do both BUT each has it's purpose - if I'm shooting landscapes wide, then the D750 gets the nod because, 14-24, that's why. I could buy a wider lens for the D500 but that sort of shooting is not the reason I bought the camera...

 

[Horoscope Fish]

To me the things you mention are great. I like this beast too. But a big part of the draw for me was the claims of low light. I am not in the market for a new body, but now I am going back to my original thought that FX would suite me better. Besides, by the time I am ready for one the upgraded 750 will have these bells and whistles available on the 500.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Just by way of comparison, here's a shot I took with my D750 at ISO 11,400 back in July of 2015: Prayers of the Faithful. There was *NO* noise reduction done on that photo because at the time, I didn't even realize I had shot it at such a high ISO. If you'd like to see the original raw file, I could send it to you. I like shooting DX when DX is the right tool for the job but, and this is just my opinion, if you want to shoot in low light, and you hate noise, you should be shooting full-frame.

Just my two-cent's.

 

[Danno]

Just by way of comparison, here's a shot I took with my D750 at ISO 11,400 back in July of 2015: Prayers of the Faithful. There was *NO* noise reduction done on that photo because at the time, I didn't even realize I had shot it at such a high ISO. If you'd like to see the original raw file, I could send it to you. I like shooting DX when DX is the right tool for the job but, and this is just my opinion, if you want to shoot in low light, and you hate noise, you should be shooting full-frame.

Just my two-cent's.

Wow...

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Wow...

Yeah.

Ask me why I love my D750.

 

[Woodyg3]

I didn't read the review yet, but I take it that if one doesn't care about the improved focusing, the higher frame rate/buffer and the auto fine tune capabilities, then there is no reason to make the jump from the D7200.
I still want one, but I just can't part with my D750. I would have to sell her off plus sell off the D7100 plus a few other lenses to afford this magnificent beast.

I hear what you are saying, Pete. I am sort of in the same boat. To your list of reasons to want one I would add improved metering, larger viewfinder, tilt/touch LCD, 4K video, bluetooth, 2 function buttons, a joystick style focus point selector, a beefier body, and XQD card slot.

I don't care about video or bluetooth. I guess we'll see if the XQD card technology catches on. Otherwise, though, there are a lot of reasons to want this camera. The one thing I have read over and over from new owners is how fantastic the focusing is.

Maybe I'll hit Lotto on Wednesday.

 

[Elliot87]

I could certainly have done with a D500 today when I was trying to photograph sand martins in flight, the few times I managed to keep up the D7100 wasn't fast enough to lock focus. I also got very frustrated with my buffer today. I will own the D500 but not for a couple of years, once I get one I can see it lasting me a long long time!

 

[Blacktop]

Yeah.

Ask me why I love my D750.

I already know why, as I have one and love it for the same reasons. However I think we need to be comparing the D500 to the D7200 to be fair. To a person like myself who can afford only one expensive camera at a time, and someone who loves shooting landscapes as well as wildlife, it's a real conundrum.

Right now I'm pretty much doing this back asswards. I'm shooting birds with the D750 and the 200-500mm lens and cropping, and shooting landscapes with the D7100, which BTW is not too shabby for that purpose either.

 

[Blacktop]

I hear what you are saying, Pete. I am sort of in the same boat. To your list of reasons to want one I would add improved metering, larger viewfinder, tilt/touch LCD, 4K video, bluetooth, 2 function buttons, a joystick style focus point selector, a beefier body, and XQD card slot.

I don't care about video or bluetooth. I guess we'll see if the XQD card technology catches on. Otherwise, though, there are a lot of reasons to want this camera. The one thing I have read over and over from new owners is how fantastic the focusing is.

Maybe I'll hit Lotto on Wednesday.

I'm with you. I don't care for the video nor the bluetooth, and the touchscreen only works in reviewing/playback. It doesn't work with the menu anyway.
I wish they made a D500 junior, without video for around 1500 bucks. Could have called it......wait for it...........The D400?:cheerful:

 

[Danno]

I already know why, as I have one and love it for the same reasons. However I think we need to be comparing the D500 to the D7200 to be fair. To a person like myself who can afford only one expensive camera at a time, and someone who loves shooting landscapes as well as wildlife, it's a real conundrum.

Right now I'm pretty much doing this back asswards. I'm shooting birds with the D750 and the 200-500mm lens and cropping, and shooting landscapes with the D7100, which BTW is not too shabby for that purpose either.

That is the same problem I have. I cannot afford a plethora of expensive cameras. So when I looked at the low light example I was a bit disappointed. I do not care about video either, or bluetooth. My hope was to see a jump in the low light... I don't have a 750 and 7100. I have a D7200. My thought had been to consider the D500 the Next Camera, when the price works it way down a bit, but instead I will look at saving for a D750. That will be a way out and who knows by than it may have a better focus system.

And frankly... I do not have the stability to take advantage of the focus system I have now. It brings on an uncontrollable desire to throw myself on the ground and neither me or the camera bounce :cheerful: I just break stuff...

 

[Vincent]

... in terms of ISO performance ... there isn't a huge difference...
Where the D500 beats out the other two is the AF systems ability to lock and stay locked in lower light along with the sheer speed of the camera in terms of fps and buffer. .

I do believe that is what you pay for:
- evolution on the ISO
- the D5 AF system
- serious fps / buffer, for someone who really needs this at a budget

I`m a bit disappointed with the ISO conclusion, however I do believe the D500 & D7200 show there is a serious place for DX.

 

[canuck257]

A couple of high ISO examples using the big Tamron. I'm very impressed.

 

[ryan20fun]

A couple of high ISO examples using the big Tamron. I'm very impressed.

View attachment 212807

View attachment 212808

Looks like a lot of the fine detail is retained, Could you post shooting conditions and 100% crops?

 

[canuck257]

Shooting conditions were gray skies, 8/8 overcast, drizzle and 15 kph winds. Subjects in both cases were in very dark areas under overhanging branches. These shots were taken from a bobbing R I B, not a very stable platform. I'm not really sure if these are 100% crop, I don't really know how to achieve that accurately.

 

[Vincent]

... I'm very impressed.

You are not the only one. Jared Polin has an ISO test video out, I did find a similar conclusion there, however I do trust only my experience. Clearly we are breaking some DX prejudices with the D500.

 

[salukfan111]

You are not the only one. Jared Polin has an ISO test video out, I did find a similar conclusion there, however I do trust only my experience. Clearly we are breaking some DX prejudices with the D500.

People are so hung up on the FF better the DX koolaid train and there is no pleasing people it seems. These fox were in the dark until I increased the exposure to reveal them. Not going to pull that off with D7200, D810 or D750.

 

[Blacktop]

View attachment 213337
People are so hung up on the FF better the DX koolaid train and there is no pleasing people it seems. These fox were in the dark until I increased the exposure to reveal them. Not going to pull that off with D7200, D810 or D750.View attachment 213336

How bout posting the original shot (fox in the dark) ? Better yet, a RAW file would be nice, to see just exactly how much NR was needed to achieve the final image. BTW, I have both FX and DX, and not at all hung up on any so called Kool Aid train. I have been waiting for a DX camera to outperform the D750 in high ISO quality. I am still however not convinced.

 

[Whiskeyman]

I already know why, as I have one and love it for the same reasons. However I think we need to be comparing the D500 to the D7200 to be fair. To a person like myself who can afford only one expensive camera at a time, and someone who loves shooting landscapes as well as wildlife, it's a real conundrum.

Right now I'm pretty much doing this back asswards. I'm shooting birds with the D750 and the 200-500mm lens and cropping, and shooting landscapes with the D7100, which BTW is not too shabby for that purpose either.

In my opinion, there is nothing "back asswords" about you doing this at all. Using a full frame camera makes it somewhat easier to locate birds, especially those on the wing. In addition, not all landscapes have to be wide-scale scenics; a lot of landscapes try to take too much, and end up less than they could be, no less than they should be.

WM

 

[Horoscope Fish]

How bout posting the original shot (fox in the dark) ? Better yet, a RAW file would be nice, to see just exactly how much NR was needed to achieve the final image. BTW, I have both FX and DX, and not at all hung up on any so called Kool Aid train. I have been waiting for a DX camera to outperform the D750 in high ISO quality. I am still however not convinced.

My thought's exactly.

That being said, and like @Blacktop I shoot both DX and FX and I'm not "hung up on FX being better than DX" either; I think of them as two different tools. Then too I think if there *is* Kool-Aid being drunk by FX users then it seems to me there's about an equivalent amount being passed around by the, "DX is just as good as FX!" crowd. Neither argument interests me, really.

Maybe the D500 *can* match the high-ISO performance of, say, the D750; I hope it can, all I'm saying is I'm not convinced it actually DOES just yet.