Which to Buy Now? D500 or D750
- Thread starter trev864
- Start date
It's really difficult to see the difference. Where it becomes more prominent is when you zoom in really close in solid colors and dark areas. I have images printed for customers regularly and I can tell you most of the grain you see on a screen would not readily be visible in a print in the sizes most people have printed.
To really compare pull down the Photoshop file assuming you have Photoshop.
To really compare pull down the Photoshop file assuming you have Photoshop.
Stoshowicz
Senior Member
While they do look similar , I am not clear on how I should regard the result . Several factors are not being held constant..( Since the lenses are not the same , the amount of zoom is not the same , and with the actual exposure - amt of light- being controlled by the A mode. )
Could you replicate this using the same lens , at the same distance to target , in manual , at a far target , with the same amount of light hitting the sensor?
The reasons being that all lenses vary their sharpness with zoom , and the amount of light used is the available true signal.
If I took a photo of a bird , its distance to me is fixed , the amt of zoom is also usually maxed out , the shutter speed and aperture also are non negotiable because the depth of the target is fixed , as is the speed of its motion vs shutter (to freeze action ). The variable choice is actually the ISO.
But The noise levels of both do look very good compared to a 7100 in that ISO range.
Do you think I am incorrect in how I am regarding the images somewhere in this ?
Could you replicate this using the same lens , at the same distance to target , in manual , at a far target , with the same amount of light hitting the sensor?
The reasons being that all lenses vary their sharpness with zoom , and the amount of light used is the available true signal.
If I took a photo of a bird , its distance to me is fixed , the amt of zoom is also usually maxed out , the shutter speed and aperture also are non negotiable because the depth of the target is fixed , as is the speed of its motion vs shutter (to freeze action ). The variable choice is actually the ISO.
But The noise levels of both do look very good compared to a 7100 in that ISO range.
Do you think I am incorrect in how I am regarding the images somewhere in this ?
In the end you are saying. DX and FX can not be compared. Where I understand this might be true technically, I have trouble with the concept since we seem to be comparing 2 pictures, we only care about the result. However you are right, it is not only an effect of camera, heat+distance or lens, etc... all have their influence. Is this enough difference for the decision? I believe that indeed the results are close enough to say that the technical (not comparable part) does not matter enough, it is the use of the photographer which determine the choice of tool.
Stoshowicz
Senior Member
Yes , I suppose I am saying that a bit ,, in the end , one buys a camera , and keeps their lenses , and wants to see better end result.
I do understand why people want to see equivalent exposures but comparing fx to dx and having to use different 'gear' to get similar looking results the comparison is obscured.
("Equivalent exposures ,arrived at differently, have differences in noise and detail") I doubt Nikon is going to send me a whole set of longer lenses to make up for the FX format of the 750
But for shooting birds , or any small moving objects far away , you just don't have the luxury of filling the frame at will.
One walks up to the waters edge , and knows they are going to have to crop in on the duck , and that they have to deal with the light that's available when he takes off. So you want to know how smooth and detailed , you can get the image, for the shutter speed you're forced to use,,, right?
You could be correct the results could be close enough to be moot , its just that comparison as done, doesn't allow one to to come to that conclusion based on this comparison , in the situation I would like to know about , mostly because the lenses aren't the same.
Last edited:
Do not forget the user. There are photographers the have different approaches to the subject, giving different results. It is almost impossible to know how an other photographer will amaze you with what you thought impossible with the gear that person is using, differently then how you would use it.
Stoshowicz
Senior Member
You are quite right about that , he makes some beautiful shots , and would probably still be able to , shooting with his phone.
but I feel like there some technical issues I am bumping into with the 7100 and that a gear upgrade would make a difference. I just cant evaluate whether the downside in reach of going FX is going to be more than the upside of the nice ISO, because the comparisons I have seen elsewhere obscure what I want to see, and at least here there's a human who might be able and willing to do this other comparison. Dunno.Whiskeyman
Senior Member
I got the D750 first. But then again, the D500 wasn't out then... I'd still get them in that order, but keep in mind that my lenses are almost all FX format.
WM
WM
Overall, it makes no difference. Real world or studio photography is of a subject that is unique in time and intent, has no bearing on what other cameras do, and if it takes pixel peeping and side by side comparisons, there is no real world difference because the next shot might favor the other camera. The image quality is a non-issue, it is plenty good to satisfy any application and any viewing medium.
When I see such comparisons it tells me there is not enough attention to the problem spending a bunch of money is supposed to solve. The current camera, if purchased any time in the last 7 years or so, exceeds the DR and IQ quality requirements of any image printed moderate in since or for any current display size. An image viewed as the indented scale and distance from any of these cameras is superior to the display or printer DR and resolution.
There are lots of reasons to change cameras but looking for minute differences in IQ just does not hold much promise of change in what one has now.
What makes an image compelling or even desirable has little to do with these tests and pixel peeping. Photos that mean something are meaningful for reasons that a camera spec has no bearing on..
Admit that the reason to buy a camera is to buy a camera, not for meaningful improvement in audience response. Buying new toy is fun, and harmless provides all other more important needs are covered. That temporary high from a new purchases is a good enough reason, and more logical than an expectation of improved images.
Anything that jazzes you enough to try new subjects or techniques, or work harder to get to subjects, or motivates to take a lot more images are good things but a new bag or a len could do the same and cost a lot less. If one's bag is full of great primes and devoid of slow zooms and lighting accessories are solid, changing bodies is harmless. When I see a focus on camera spec but the camera bag has a poor supporting cast, like a slow zoom, I wonder what expectation are going to be met.
If buying a new camera is broken down to its constituent parts, emotions must be placed at the top of the list. To that end, forget specs and pixel peeping, just rent both and feel, touch, operate both in various conditions and one will say in loud exclamations "BUY ME". That is probably the best match to the most important reason to buy a camera; emotions. Holding a fine camera is its own reward. Rent them for a weekend and one will feel right. But only if the rest of the bag is up to the challenge of a higher res camera.None of the slow popular zooms are able to resolved much more than 10-12mpx, even some top primes on Dx fall flat about 16-20mpx. There are very few lenses up to challenge the resolving power of a 36mpx D810, let along a 42-46mpx D850. Resolution is over emphasised in photography and it makes a lot less difference than assumed, because very good images are being taken now with lenses that are crippling the 24-46mpx sensors. Micro-contrast is more important for the impression of resolution than resolving power.
To properly evaluate what specs are important, look at your best prints or screen images and detail exactly how a camera held you back or what camera spec would have resolved that problem. I will wage a bet I am not able to afford to lose that the real world problems with a specific image is not due the camera. Please post images that would have been better with a new camera.
When I see such comparisons it tells me there is not enough attention to the problem spending a bunch of money is supposed to solve. The current camera, if purchased any time in the last 7 years or so, exceeds the DR and IQ quality requirements of any image printed moderate in since or for any current display size. An image viewed as the indented scale and distance from any of these cameras is superior to the display or printer DR and resolution.
There are lots of reasons to change cameras but looking for minute differences in IQ just does not hold much promise of change in what one has now.
What makes an image compelling or even desirable has little to do with these tests and pixel peeping. Photos that mean something are meaningful for reasons that a camera spec has no bearing on..
Admit that the reason to buy a camera is to buy a camera, not for meaningful improvement in audience response. Buying new toy is fun, and harmless provides all other more important needs are covered. That temporary high from a new purchases is a good enough reason, and more logical than an expectation of improved images.
Anything that jazzes you enough to try new subjects or techniques, or work harder to get to subjects, or motivates to take a lot more images are good things but a new bag or a len could do the same and cost a lot less. If one's bag is full of great primes and devoid of slow zooms and lighting accessories are solid, changing bodies is harmless. When I see a focus on camera spec but the camera bag has a poor supporting cast, like a slow zoom, I wonder what expectation are going to be met.
If buying a new camera is broken down to its constituent parts, emotions must be placed at the top of the list. To that end, forget specs and pixel peeping, just rent both and feel, touch, operate both in various conditions and one will say in loud exclamations "BUY ME". That is probably the best match to the most important reason to buy a camera; emotions. Holding a fine camera is its own reward. Rent them for a weekend and one will feel right. But only if the rest of the bag is up to the challenge of a higher res camera.None of the slow popular zooms are able to resolved much more than 10-12mpx, even some top primes on Dx fall flat about 16-20mpx. There are very few lenses up to challenge the resolving power of a 36mpx D810, let along a 42-46mpx D850. Resolution is over emphasised in photography and it makes a lot less difference than assumed, because very good images are being taken now with lenses that are crippling the 24-46mpx sensors. Micro-contrast is more important for the impression of resolution than resolving power.
To properly evaluate what specs are important, look at your best prints or screen images and detail exactly how a camera held you back or what camera spec would have resolved that problem. I will wage a bet I am not able to afford to lose that the real world problems with a specific image is not due the camera. Please post images that would have been better with a new camera.
Stoshowicz
Senior Member
Depending on how much one needs to crop, and detail one needs to have, due to the subject size and type and display , for the type of photography one does, yes, that is somewhat true. but
Not so much , though, when one needs to crop heavily. The big issue driving my consideration is focus acquisition and lock on to flying targets which will just look like they are not in focus, and therefore would not be a surprise regardless. The D750 is credited well in that area , but it would be FX compounding the issue of having to crop so much as it is.
Another thing that will not lend itself to 'posting images that would be better with a new camera' is that the buffer is slow on the 7100, and so there are photos one does not get at all , that one might get, with better buffer speed.
If one switches to FX, I believe the birds will also be smaller targets, to see, to focus on, even when perched,, and so getting a good lock on the bird itself - may be disadvantaged.. again the -post an image you wished to get better -method isn't going to yield much information in this situation. But thanks for the offer.
Not so much , though, when one needs to crop heavily. The big issue driving my consideration is focus acquisition and lock on to flying targets which will just look like they are not in focus, and therefore would not be a surprise regardless.
The D750 is credited well in that area , but it would be FX compounding the issue of having to crop so much as it is. Another thing that will not lend itself to 'posting images that would be better with a new camera' is that the buffer is slow on the 7100, and so there are photos one does not get at all , that one might get, with better buffer speed.
If one switches to FX, I believe the birds will also be smaller targets, to see, to focus on, even when perched,, and so getting a good lock on the bird itself - may be disadvantaged.. again the -post an image you wished to get better -method isn't going to yield much information in this situation. But thanks for the offer.
If you feel it would be of value to you I certainly can. However, let me explain why I chose to do different lenses.
1. Because one is a crop and the other is full frame they are not using the same amount of glass. A lens generally has its best qualities at the center and degrade as you get further out. If I used the 50mm on both, the D500 will only being using the sharpest part of the lens thereby making it a sharper image.
2. I chose two different lenses that nearly match each other because as a photographer you would choose the lens you need for the job you need to do - in part that requires taking into consideration the crop vs full frame. On the lattice I photographed I placed two push pins in the upper corners of the shooting area with the leaf centered for focus. With a given standing point I would need a 35mm for a crop body and a 50mm on a full frame given a specific shooting environment. By using the 50mm on the crop I would have had to back up further allowing for additional light into the camera and a greater distance from the subject allowing for further degradation of the fine details.
3. There is no readily apparent difference in quality of glass between the two Nikon lenses used.
4. Aperture priority - This was again a choice of not wanting to cause a disparity between the results. A slight underexposure on either will cause a greater amount of grain. A well exposed image will minimize grain. My thinking is the best way to eliminate the human influence because both camera's are going to try to create the same histogram based on Nikon's programming. In the end the histogram were pretty identical.
In the end, you could certainly make both arguments against different lenses and aperture priority. My explanation is that you can't readily compare two different size sensors with the same lenses. My approach would be the realistic approach a photographer would have to do in this given shooting scenario.
I get the impression you are trying to compare based on which identically reproduces the same image with the same conditions, no they are not the same under the same conditions but you also would not use them identically but to frame the subject as you intend. But it is certainly possible to realize the shot as you intended with both using different settings and the most appropriate lens. Even before picking up the camera you have a goal in mind and that goal dictates which lens, and from what vantage point, settings etc those will be different between the 750 and 500 but the image resulting will be equally able to satisfy your goal. Then you added another non-IQ related factor, burst. That need depends on the photographer, if one needs a high burst speed he is looking at a A9 or D5, but not that many pros depended on burst speed to bring home the image they sought. If you need high burst speed, you don't need either of these cameras, stating in the Mikon domain, get the D-5, problem solved.
If on the other hand IQ is the deciding point, the camera you have, or either D750 or D500 will be fine, and no they will not deliver an identical image but since before you take the shot there is no other image to compare to it is a non-issue. You are making it too complicated without need. Adjust your lens compliment for the subject first off, if there is need for heavy cropping you are focusing on the wrong topic which should be "which" lens do I need for my goal?"
If on the other hand IQ is the deciding point, the camera you have, or either D750 or D500 will be fine, and no they will not deliver an identical image but since before you take the shot there is no other image to compare to it is a non-issue. You are making it too complicated without need. Adjust your lens compliment for the subject first off, if there is need for heavy cropping you are focusing on the wrong topic which should be "which" lens do I need for my goal?"
Stoshowicz
Senior Member
I get the logic , there however is a different logic I would like to satisfy , which is rooted in the particulars of a different photographic scenario. Landscape isn't like portrait , Bifs are not like weddings ,etc, In various respects, some yes , others not so much , Right? you know things differ.
Last night in my googling I read some things on DP preview , comparing the 7100 to the 750 , they claimed the 750 was softer. Comparing the 7100 to the d500 they only gave a slight edge in sharpness to the 500
.. which brought together, either suggests that in terms of sharpness ,
(whether it has to do with the OLPF I am not certain)
I would in fact be losing sharpness by going from 7100 to the 750 , and losing the DX reach factor as well.
By going from the 7100 to the 500, I wouldn't be gaining much in sharpness , (and with both not having the olpf) , I wouldn't be eliminating the graininess that one sees at almost any ISO image out of the 7100.
( I am told the 'base level ' graininess is due to 'folding over' of the high pass noise ,, most of which can be blocked out digitally by applying a 15-20 value luminance reduction in LR .. going higher makes the feathers smudgy , turn off the detail -sharpness entirely )
What all that is I am getting at, is that in order for the purchase to be a wise one , I should gain something in sharpness , and lower noise level.
At least I shouldn't lose anything for 2000 bucks.
The contortions made to ' even the field ' , I feel , have the effect of minimizing the advantage of going to the DX , which does, in practice ,use less of the edge of the lens, does make it easier to see your target .
And if the clarities of the lenses , or efficiencies of the sensors renders a darker unmodified result , ( which one has to correct for with higher ISO ),, thats all stuff I would like to get a visual of.
The differences are all being massaged away to make the images look the same., and I have to make unnecessary assumptions - that the lenses are similar enough that in the scenario they are negligible.
Without all the corrections , Whats the difference in the result changing out JUST the camera?
is what I would like to see,
presented by someone who has no reason to bias me. ( that would be You in this case )
One shot of each taken raw , processed in LR any way you like , so that the second ones settings adjustments are exactly the same as the previous (by using that button they provide to do it) .
Stoshowicz
Senior Member
That is precisely what I am Not trying to compare
This mindset is more for product photography or portraits.
I think its not the real world scenario for most BIF hobbyists .
Not speaking for anyone else , if I buy a camera, it will be for its attributes whatever that whole package is ,
and my biggest lens will generally live on the front of it.
So I or someone doing that , really needs to know what the sum total of all effects is going to be changing the camera body , at least roughly speaking.
Its not complicated , If I want to change just the camera body , what change will it have? Keeping the rest exactly the same.
It is Literally the simplest thing you can do to compare.
That is what I would like to see , and so that is all I asked, if he is willing to do that , I would like to see the two photos and compare them, and they will not look alike , and they are not supposed to look alike. That's the point , they will be different.
If you wish to compare two photos which are the same , you could just make a copy of one , and look at the original vs the copy, right? But looking at a comparison one is not supposed to be holding the results the same , and change the means you take to arrive at it, you are more correct to make the change in the thing you would be substituting and just let the results speak for themselves.
Stoshowicz
Senior Member
Just checking back in , to see if you had the opportunity this weekend to do the comparison which I thought would be useful to me , and others who just want to know what changing the camera body does.
Stoshowicz
Senior Member
Just Checking again.
Stoshowicz
Senior Member
N again,, oh nevermind !
last post by the OP was on the 7th. Starts a 6 page post and leaves. LOL!