Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Colorado David on April 20, 2016, 12:13:51 pm
-
Tomorrow is supposed to be the day. I haven't heard anything about the release yet. I still entertain this vague hope that Nikon has used all this time to frontload the queue. I realize that's probably a fantasy. Has anyone who has pre-ordered the Nikon D 500 heard anything about a shipping date?
-
I have a pre-order placed early (within two days of announcement), none NPS member, nothing heard, UK based.
-
Official date is Apr-28 in Tokyo.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Tomorrow is supposed to be the day. I haven't heard anything about the release yet. I still entertain this vague hope that Nikon has used all this time to frontload the queue. I realize that's probably a fantasy. Has anyone who has pre-ordered the Nikon D 500 heard anything about a shipping date?
I preordered from Amazon on 7 February and Amazon tracking estimate is that I will receive my D500 on Wednesday 27 April. From what I can tell, that means it is expected to ship on Monday, 25 April. Guess I should add non-NPS so I got no priority from Nikon's side. I am a long time Amazon prime user and spend loads of money with them yearly, but I doubt that gets me anything from the Amazon side!
Apparently, they did a good job with the roll out and the used the month delay for product accumulation for a smoother rollout. That, combined with a staggered release schedule around the world seems to be working much better than the D800 roll out. Now if the camera performs....
-
Well that's odd. I'm not NPS. I ordered in January and have not received the shipping date email. However when I check my Amazon order status on my phone it's says Delivered, but here is no tracking detail and it's definitely not here. I'm not a Prime member, but I've ordered a lot of stuff from Amazon for many years. I wish they'd just communicate.
-
Well that's odd. I'm not NPS. I ordered in January and have not received the shipping date email. However when I check my Amazon order status on my phone it's says Delivered, but here is no tracking detail and it's definitely not here. I'm not a Prime member, but I've ordered a lot of stuff from Amazon for many years. I wish they'd just communicate.
First, this item from Amazon requires a signature for delivery. So I assume that is an error in the system, but I would contact Amazon immediately.
Second, I did not get any notification from Amazon. When Amazon changed the item from Pre-Order to Temporarily Out Of Stock, I started checking the order status. Last night it showed with a shipping estimate. Important point being ESTIMATE. It may or may not actually ship Monday.
Finally, I do have shipping and delivery notifications enabled. When it actually ships, I will get an email from Amazon. For something like this, I will probably redirect it to the local FedEx or UPS location based on how it ships. As long as they don't use that damn SurePost service from the post office, I'm in good shape.
-
When you just have to have it now, you can always go to Ebay and pay $1000 over list price for it! LMAO. Though I think it brings up the point that Nikon underpriced this thing because they really did under-estimate demand.
-
Ordered mine the day after release. Received an email from B&H today saying my D500 was shipped and I will get it Tuesday April 26th. I am in CA.
-
I received my email saying it will be delivered tomorrow. I'm looking forward to it.
-
I received my email saying it will be delivered tomorrow. I'm looking forward to it.
Excellent. I'm expecting mine on Wednesday 27 April 2016. If that occurs, I tip my hat to Nikon and Amazon for decent roll out of a much anticipated and high demand release.!
Got a shipping notice from Amazon last night (Sunday, 24 April 2016)! Now if the camera performs anywhere near expectations, life will be good. It will be great to get back to a FX/DX (D810/D500) pair for shooting.
-
Arrives tomorrow 28th, the dealer, UK Nikon Pro, received 9 cameras today.
-
Arrives tomorrow 28th, the dealer, UK Nikon Pro, received 9 cameras today.
I have tried to mute my expectations, all I really wanted was DX body with high ISO somewhere in the vicinity of my D810. But based on stuff I'm reading, the D500 looks like a winner. High ISO noise looks like it beats the full frame D810 and focus tracking beats the D4 and 7DmkII. I can live with that!!
-
I have tried to mute my expectations, all I really wanted was DX body with high ISO somewhere in the vicinity of my D810. But based on stuff I'm reading, the D500 looks like a winner. High ISO noise looks like it beats the full frame D810 and focus tracking beats the D4 and 7DmkII. I can live with that!!
Maybe at pixel level is better than D810, I doubt that when they are adjusted for the same size the D500 is ahead.
-
Maybe at pixel level is better than D810, I doubt that when they are adjusted for the same size the D500 is ahead.
But I will have less cropping due to the 1.5x sensor crop and get the center sweet spot of the lens covering most of the image area.
-
Try the raw comparison, the D500 has better jpeg engine.
-
How is the AF and tracking?
For a body whose primary pro-level application will be shooting wildlife at sports with long lenses, where full-frame bodies would be focal-length-limited anyway, that's probably the most important thing.
-
Unboxed and played with the D500 last night. This is one Bad A$$ little camera. Even got Snapbridge to work.
+1 on checking RAW vs JPEG for noise. And the reason it would have a better JPEG process would be the Expeed 5 vs 4 capability. Other than the image sensor, the processor in a camera is the most important aspect. It is what makes all other functionality possible. Including AF Tracking.
How is the AF and tracking?
For a body whose primary pro-level application will be shooting wildlife at sports with long lenses, where full-frame bodies would be focal-length-limited anyway, that's probably the most important thing.
Pretty decent, so far as I have tested, which isn't much. Seems better than my D810, but again, not much experience yet. Will shoot a High School Softball game (#1 team in the state) tonight to test it out. From what I've gathered from others, including personal contacts it seems to trail slightly behind the D5 (general impression, not data related), but beats the D4 and 7DmkII. No mention of the 1Dx was made to me, but I guess the 7DmkII is it's direct competitor.
Oh, and though it is targeted at sports and wildlife, and I wouldn't pop the extra over a D7200 if you don't need that capability, there is nothing about the camera that doesn't make it the best DX general purpose camera in the Nikon line, maybe in any line.
I do have a couple complaints...more preference differences. First, it needed XQD for the shooting speed and I find at this point, I would have preferred dual XQD slots. I liked the D810 with 1CF/1SD, but that was only because I already had significant investment in high speed CF and SD. I understand why SD is there, but for most, they will be using XQD at least as overflow or backup and if you already have to deal with it and the reader requirements, you might as well just use it. I also don't like the moving of buttons around. Yes, the ISO button belongs on the right hand side, but why the missing AF-L/AE-L lock button? I back button focus, but still used it from time to time.
-
Oh, and though it is targeted at sports and wildlife, and I wouldn't pop the extra over a D7200 if you don't need that capability, there is nothing about the camera that doesn't make it the best DX general purpose camera in the Nikon line, maybe in any line.
Thing is, that's the only real professional/high-end use for the camera. If you didn't specifically need the frame rate and pixel density, you'd probably get a D810 (for non-action/slow action) or D5 (for fast action without focal length concerns) instead.
Yes, it's likely the best APS-C camera out there. But, outside of a few specific circumstances (focal length limited), APS-C is, these days, basically a consumer-grade format.
-
Thing is, that's the only real professional/high-end use for the camera. If you didn't specifically need the frame rate and pixel density, you'd probably get a D810 (for non-action/slow action) or D5 (for fast action without focal length concerns) instead.
Yes, it's likely the best APS-C camera out there. But, outside of a few specific circumstances (focal length limited), APS-C is, these days, basically a consumer-grade format.
Agree in principle, and that has certainly been Nikon's take that DX was consumer and FX for pros, but for long lens shooters it is all about getting pixels on target both on the sensor and in the viewfinder.
-
Agree in principle, and that has certainly been Nikon's take that DX was consumer and FX for pros, but for long lens shooters it is all about getting pixels on target both on the sensor and in the viewfinder.
Exactly - which is why I'm saying its only real professional use is with long lenses. It's the only area where it is the best tool for the job and not surpassed by a full-frame body.
Even then, it depends a lot on the resolution and AF performance of the D810's successor. As the D500 has only 20MP, the D810 successor is almost certain to give you more pixels on target than the D500 (it would need 45MP to do so), while retaining the flexibility in cropping and framing that full-frame brings. It would almost certainly lose out on the frame rate, but, for many wildlife photographers, the added flexibility will outweigh the loss of frame rate.
I'd really love to see a D5x, based around a 54-80MP sensor and the D5's AF system and mirror mechanics. 80MP and 3.5fps at full resolution, mRAW/pixel-binning modes at 40MP/7fps and 20MP/14fps, and 1.5x crop mode at 35MP/8-10fps. Perfect for those long shooting trips where you could find yourself shooting everything and anything...
-
APS-C is, these days, basically a consumer-grade format.
Allow me to respectfully disagree.
I believe that APS-C today is better than full frame 5 years ago in terms of image quality (D500 vs D3x for example), speed, usability,...
So there is less and less reasons why APS-C couldn't be used for the most demanding pro applications.
There are many pros who use the Fuji X system at 16 mp already, some of the lenses are second to none and superior to most FF lenses (the 56mm f1.2 comes to mind).
The only problem is the lack of sweet APS-C lenses for F mount so I sure hope that Sigma and Zeiss come to the rescue since Nikon doesn't seem to be able to get the job done.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Allow me to respectfully disagree.
I believe that APS-C today is better than full frame 5 years ago in terms of image quality (D500 vs D3x for example), speed, usability,...
So there is less and less reasons why APS-C couldn't be used for the most demanding pro applications.
There are many pros who use the Fuji X system at 16 mp already, some of the lenses are second to none and superior to most FF lenses (the 56mm f1.2 comes to mind).
The only problem is the lack of sweet APS-C lenses for F mount so I sure hope that Sigma and Zeiss come to the rescue since Nikon doesn't seem to be able to get the job done.
Cheers,
Bernard
1. Subject isolation/narrow depth of field. You can rarely use the subject isolation possible with MF (and the fast lenses for MF are generally slow enough that FF lenses give you the same degree, if not more, of subject isolation at the same angle of view), but crop is too far in the other direction, unless you're shooting with long lenses, where anything that isn't in sharp focus is blurred to oblivion anyway. If you don't need subject isolation and narrow depth of field, you're probably shooting landscapes, architecture or something else that really benefits from the increased detail of full-frame sensors anyway.
2. Output at reasonable print sizes - 12x18, 16x24, 20x30 and similar. Common enough sizes, and you can easily tell the difference between crop and full-frame output even there.
Sure, a new 24MP crop sensor matches the D3x in resolution, and beats it at high ISO. But, when shooting at low ISO, there's still no comparison between the two, image quality wise.
-
1. Subject isolation/narrow depth of field. You can rarely use the subject isolation possible with MF (and the fast lenses for MF are generally slow enough that FF lenses give you the same degree, if not more, of subject isolation at the same angle of view), but crop is too far in the other direction, unless you're shooting with long lenses, where anything that isn't in sharp focus is blurred to oblivion anyway. If you don't need subject isolation and narrow depth of field, you're probably shooting landscapes, architecture or something else that really benefits from the increased detail of full-frame sensors anyway.
2. Output at reasonable print sizes - 12x18, 16x24, 20x30 and similar. Common enough sizes, and you can easily tell the difference between crop and full-frame output even there.
Sure, a new 24MP crop sensor matches the D3x in resolution, and beats it at high ISO. But, when shooting at low ISO, there's still no comparison between the two, image quality wise.
1. If you need more DOF you'll have to use smaller apertures on full frame and the diffraction might take some of that extra detail back
2. I doubt that in blind test most will be able to pick them apart at smaller print sizes (such as 12x18). There was a test on this site long time ago and since then the gap is even narrower.
-
In my experience, the vast majority of images shot by "professional" photographers are shot on "non-professional" cameras. That is to say, compared to the number of images shot by professionals with D5s, D4s, D500s and D810s is dwarfed by the number of images shot by professionals with D7000, D7100s, D7200s, D610s, and D750s. There are certain areas of photography where this is not true, but overall it is.
I was shocked when I first started selling images and doing photo jobs, that as an amateur, I had "better" equipment than most professionals doing the same type of work. Though in some venues they might have a D610, but they have a 400mm f/2.8 mounted up.
-
2. Output at reasonable print sizes - 12x18, 16x24, 20x30 and similar. Common enough sizes, and you can easily tell the difference between crop and full-frame output even there.
Sure, a new 24MP crop sensor matches the D3x in resolution, and beats it at high ISO. But, when shooting at low ISO, there's still no comparison between the two, image quality wise.
Sorry but I don't believe your comment is based on facts. Both the D7200 and the D500 have more DR than the already excellent D3x at base ISO.
And yes, I owned a D3x and shot with a D7200.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
DXOMark tells the story regarding noise comparisons between the D7200 and the D3X. Normally one would expect a full-frame sensor to deliver a full stop better SNR because it gathers more light than the cropped format, from identical scenes.
However, the march of technology tends to reduce such advantages when comparing a recent cropped-format model, such as the D7200, with the older full-frame D3X.
As Bernard has mentioned, the D7200 has better DR than the D3X, by almost a full stop at base ISO. SNR at 18% is still slightly better on the D3X, by about 1.5dB, but that advantage is not as significant as the DR advantage of the D7200.
On balance and on average, the D7200 image quality should at least equal that of the D3X, noise-wise, and in circumstance where DR in single shots is important, the D7200 will be better. There will be certain situations, such as the requirement for the shallowest DoF, where the D3X will still retain an advantage with a given lens. However, there will also be other situations, such as the requirement for a wide DoF and/or fast shutter speed, where the D7200 will have a clear advantage.
For example, if I'm shooting a scene with the D7200 with 50mm lens at F8, ISO 100, and 160th, the equivalent settings on the D3X would be a 75mm lens at F11, ISO 200 and 160th.
Comparing noise on the DXO charts at these different ISO settings, the DR of the D7200 is about 1.5 EV better, (which is very significant), the SNR of the D7200 is about 1dB better, and tonal range and color sensitivity are also marginally better, which is not significant, but at least we know that the D3X has no noise advantage at all, in such circumstances.
Nevertheless, I have to admit that resolution is another issue. In circumstances where one is able to use a particular lens on the D3X at its sharpest aperture for the required DoF, one would expect the image from the D3X to be noticeably sharper and more detailed than the image from an equivalent focal length of lens of equal quality, attached to the D7200, at least in the central part of the image.
This is a result of the wider pixel spacing of the D3X which makes less demands on any given lens. Ideally, any cropped-format camera requires a higher quality lens in order to deliver resolution equal to that from a full-frame format of equal pixel count, excepting the borders of the image of course, where the cropped format will usually retain an advantage.
-
Sorry but I don't believe your comment is based on facts. Both the D7200 and the D500 have more DR than the already excellent D3x at base ISO.
And yes, I owned a D3x and shot with a D7200.
Cheers,
Bernard
I don't know about the D500, since it just came out.
But take a photo of something with a lot of subtle nuances of one colour - say, something with lots of slightly different shades of blue or green (e.g. a grassy field). You'll find that the D3x does a better job of picking up these nuances and give you better detail in these near-uniform areas than the D7200.
It's not in the DR - it's in the colour reproduction. I believe the D7200, and other newer crop sensors, have achieved better SNR and better high-ISO performance partly by reducing the strength of their colour filters, trading accuracy for sensitivity.
Also, the curves look pretty similar to me: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D3X,Nikon%20D500 (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D3X,Nikon%20D500)
-
It's interesting to note that the D500 has much better DR at base ISO than the D5... ;)
A very tempting camera for sure.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But take a photo of something with a lot of subtle nuances of one colour - say, something with lots of slightly different shades of blue or green (e.g. a grassy field). You'll find that the D3x does a better job of picking up these nuances and give you better detail in these near-uniform areas than the D7200.
That's interesting, but also puzzling. Is this something which DXOMark does not test? I would have thought that a capacity to pick up nuances of different shades of color would come into the category of Color Sensitivity.
Attached is a capture of the DXO graph showing the Color Sensitivity for both cameras as being virtually identical.