Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: John Koerner on June 20, 2016, 06:00:08 pm
-
Breaking the Mold:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/d500.png)
More than just taking the lead over APS-C (crop-sensor) cameras, the Nikon D500 is arguably the prime pick pro sports/wildlife camera today, especially for the money.
Before you take my word for it, check out some of the other reviews on this camera:
DP Review of the Nikon D500 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500):
Result = Gold Award
"The D500 is the most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested."
Other notable quotes:
- "Cameras such as the Canon EOS 7D Mark II and Sony's a6300 appear to offer comparable capabilities on paper, but these appearances prove deceptive in real-world use: the D500's autofocus and continuous shooting performance are noticeably better."
- "Autofocus is the D500's great strength: along with the D5 it's the best we've ever used. Just as mirrorless cameras appear to be closing the gap when it comes to following simple subjects, the D500 comes and blows them (and its DSLR rivals) all out of the water."
- " ... as an APS-C sports and wildlife camera, the D500 is without rival, and that puts in on the top of our awards podium."
But it isn't just DP Review saying this, check out what Camera Labs has to say:
Camera Labs Review (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D500):
- "I've always felt Nikon enjoyed an edge over Canon in terms of continuous AF and the D500 further cements this belief. In my tests the D500 effortlessly tracked any subject I pointed it at, rattling-off bursts of focused images with eerie precision and consistency."
- "There's no doubt the D500 is a very impressive DSLR - arguably the most powerful with an APSC sensor to date. It delivers professional handling that's supremely confident in use, rattling-off fast and deep bursts of focused, well-exposed action. The more I shot with the D500, the more I reveled in how easy it made sports and wildlife photography."
Also check out what wildlife photographer, Steve Perry, has to say on video:
Steve Perry's Video Review (http://petapixel.com/2016/06/02/nikon-d500-review-eyes-wildlife-photographer):
In a nutshell, the D500's truly professional features make it not only the finest ASP-C camera on the market, but its handling, rugged durability, and ability to AF and handle "live action" are actually superior in many regards to the current top-level, $6,500+ pro DSLRs made at the time of this writing.
But first let's see how it compares to Canon's finest APS-Cs, before we compare the D500 to Canon's best FF sports cameras:
Jack
-
I am sure the new D500 is a great pro camera, but to imply that it is the first one in APSC to break it into pro status is probably overstating it.
Even the old Canon 7D was already pro-level, as exemplified by the photos taken by one of the great contributors to this site, Glenn Bartley and his fantastic bird photos.
Also, the camera itself is not enough, Canon has great lenses like the recent upgrade of the 100-400, and recent 400 DO, or 200-400 with telextender.
-
I am sure the new D500 is a great pro camera, but to imply that it is the first one in APSC to break it into pro status is probably overstating it.
I disagree.
The D500 has multiple features that equal, or surpass, Canon's best pro DSLR.
Even the old Canon 7D was already pro-level, as exemplified by the photos taken by one of the great contributors to this site, Glenn Bartley and his fantastic bird photos.
I understand what you mean, as I have taken better spider and macro shots with my old 7D than what most people knew how to take with their "better equipment," also.
I too enjoy Glenn's photos, but you're confusing the issue. Glenn puts himself in a position to take wonderful photographs, and he has the experience of where to go and how to use his equipment optimally ... but that doesn't make his 7D any different from mine.
The simple fact is there is no aspect of the 7D that can in any way compare to Canon's 1Dx. Not a single one (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-1Dx-versus-Canon-EOS-7D___753_619).
Similarly, there is no aspect of the 7D II that can in any way compare to the 1Dx. Not one (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___977_753).
In other words, Canon APS-Cs are all lesser cameras, in every respect, to the 1Dx.
By contrast, there are many respects in which the D500 not only "equals" the 1Dx, but surpasses it (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D500-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___1061_753).
The D500 has better, more accurate Auto-Focus than the 1Dx (which is huge for a wildlife camera!), better Dynamic Range, better Tonal Range, while the 1Dx only enjoys a marginally-better SNR and slightly better color sensitivity.
This puts the D500 at a totally different level than any other APS-C, by surpassing the most-used pro camera in many important respects.
Also, the camera itself is not enough, Canon has great lenses like the recent upgrade of the 100-400, and recent 400 DO, or 200-400 with telextender.
I don't use zooms anymore, as they don't equal the quality of primes, except for the 200-400, which I agree is truly a great lens.
(BTW, the Canon 100-400 is nothing compared to a prime telephoto lens in any respect.)
Still, as great a lens as the 200-400 f/4 is, my 300mm f/2.8 VR II is still a slightly-better lens optically ... and with a 2x converter it can do anything the other lens can do, reach-wise and quality-wise ... at less than half the price ... and the 300mm is also a faster lens, when needed.
Jack
-
The D500 Compared to Canon's Finest APS-Cs
Again, the D500 actually out-performs the Canon 1Dx in many categories, even the 1DxII in some respects, but let's first compare the D500 to Canon's best APC-S offerings in its class.
The New DxO Mark Scores (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Nikon-D500-versus-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II___1076_1061_977)
Make sure you check out the Measurements tabs on each comparison: SNR | Dynamic Range | Tonal Range | Color Sensitivity
It looks like the D500 is approaching D810 levels of Dynamic Range ... and while Canon closes the gap on Nikon's superiority in some respects, with the 80D, they remain pretty significantly-behind Nikon in others.
To see how it breaks down, check out this matrix (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/showthread.php?84-NIKON-D500-The-First-True-Pro-Level-APS-C&p=143&viewfull=1#post143).
With the D500 being able to shoot unlimited 10 FPS (the 7D II tires-out and stops, the 80D isn't even close), track like no other APS-C (or even FF) can track, and with the D500 being the Class Leader in image quality (shooting 4k as well), it is difficult to find fault here.
For the first time, Nikon really does put truly-professional capabilities in an APS-C camera with the D500 ... so much so ... that it actually may be not just the better buy, price-wise, but the better tool for professional sports and wildlife photographers.
No other APS-C camera has ever been able to compete with a FF sports camera ... until now 8)
Check it out (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/thinking.gif)
Jack
-
John, you do realise you are comparing a brand new camera to a camera more than 5 years old in the 1DX don't you? The 7DMKII equally old... But a fair fight wasn't what you were after now was it.....
Id recommend you take a closer look at what DXO scores actually mean... a few points difference is as irrelevant as your post. Unless of course you feel that this amp is better because it goes to 11 :P :P :P
AS an aside, we are all delighted of course that you are enraptured with your D500. I suggest abandoning the forum for a while and going forth and making art... I know thats what I intend to do.. since your post has squarely reminded me what I dislike most about most forums. ;D ;D ;D
-
AS an aside, we are all delighted of course that you are enraptured with your D500. I suggest abandoning the forum for a while and going forth and making art... I know thats what I intend to do.. since your post has squarely reminded me what I dislike most about most forums. ;D ;D ;D
I don't believe Jack owns one. At least not yet. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't believe Jack owns one. At least not yet. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Oh.. I must be forgiven... From his post I thought he was on the payroll... ;D ;D ;D
BTW: D500 - great camera. Best "in class" at present. Not a patch on a D5 or 1DXMKII though.
-
BTW: D500 - great camera. Best "in class" at present. Not a patch on a D5 or 1DXMKII though.
Indeed.
On a different note, how did the 1DXII work for you during your NZ trip?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
John, you do realise you are comparing a brand new camera to a camera more than 5 years old in the 1DX don't you? The 7DMKII equally old... But a fair fight wasn't what you were after now was it.....
Hi Josh,
Do you realize you're lying?
The 1Dx is a 4 year old camera, being released in April of 2012.
The 7D II is isn't even 2 yet, being released in September of 2014.
Id recommend you take a closer look at what DXO scores actually mean... a few points difference is as irrelevant as your post. Unless of course you feel that this amp is better because it goes to 11 :P :P :P
The DxO differences between the 7D II and D500 are more than "a few," in many respects, but are in fact quite significant.
It's the differences between the D500 and the 1Dx that are slight, hence the topic of this thread.
The D500 either surpasses, or is only slightly behind, the 1Dx in virtually every respect. And the D500's AF system is better than not just the 1Dx, but the 1Dx II. (In fact, it will be interesting to see how close the D500 is to Canon's brand new 1Dx2 in other respects when the stats come out.)
AS an aside, we are all delighted of course that you are enraptured with your D500. I suggest abandoning the forum for a while and going forth and making art... I know thats what I intend to do.. since your post has squarely reminded me what I dislike most about most forums. ;D ;D ;D
May I suggest you do a reality check, and realize you're in a Cameras, Lenses and Shooting Gear forum?
Therefore, if you "dislike" gear talk, and only want to "make art," that you confine yourself to those areas of this resource? ::)
I am sorry if it pains you that I made this post.
But this is, in fact, the first time a APS-C camera has eclipsed the capabilities of a true pro camera, almost in every respect, with the release of the D500.
It is also true that the 1Dx is still being sold as a new camera at B&H for $4,600 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/827036-REG/Canon_5253B002_EOS_1D_X_EOS_Digital.html) (more than double the price of a new D500), so I am not talking about yesterday's model, but *the* most-used pro camera currently still available.
IMO, it is a significant topic that an APS-C camera can do what this camera does. This has never actually happened before, where a crop camera can match the muscle of a true pro DSLR.
Traditionally, APS-C cameras were significantly under-equipped compared to high-end pro sports/wildlife cameras ... but this APS-C has some muscles of its own.
What do you "dislike" about such a topic being posted? Or is the truth what you dislike is merely the fact the system you're invested in didn't come out with the product? :o
I am quite sure that, if I made this same post about a Canon product, you would have responded differently ;)
-
Let me make one more statement for clarity: the Canon 1Dx is a great camera.
One of the nature photographers, whose work I follow, uses this camera and takes some incredible images with it.
He has the 7D II and has taken some nice images with it as well. However, he very clearly has posted that "the files of the 7D II" cannot match those of his 1Dx.
With the D500, here is a crop camera that finally is able to deliver pro-level image files in many respects superior than the 1Dx ... and ... can zero-in and AF-on targets better than any pro-level camera before it, or now, except its own big brother the D5.
Therefore, I believe this is a very relevant topic of discussion in the "Cameras, Lenses and Shooting Gear" forum.
Jack
-
I own a D500 (and D810) and I love it. It is exactly what I was looking for when I was upgrading from the D300, but had to go to the D7100 instead. While from a sensor perspective it is relatively comparable to both the D7100 and D7200, from a design, functionality and performance standpoint it is in a class by itself. The focus system is amazing thanks to the processing and throughput capability of the CPU. And while I don't find the D810 "big" in any way, the D500 is almost perfect in your hand!
As to what "Pro-level" means...most people think in terms of a certain level of performance, durability, functionality. However, it really means would I use this tool if my livelihood depended on it. Under that last definition, the D300, D7100 and D7200 fit. Lots of people making lots of money and great art with "lesser" cameras than a D5 or D500. Just look at all those guys shooting Canon! ;D
-
Hi Josh,
Do you realize you're lying?
The 1Dx is a 4 year old camera, being released in April of 2012.
The 7D II is isn't even 2 yet, being released in September of 2014.
John to be technically correct, the 1DX was released in March 2012 (thats when I took delivery). That makes it somewhere between 4 and 5 years old... if you care to split hairs. Irrespective you are still comparing 4.X year old sensor tech to brand new tech and then jumping up and down about it as if it should be surprising? Im not surprised at all.. Sensor tech has moved on significantly since the 1DX.
The 7D MKII was misread on my part. I read as your post as 7D. I apologise for misreading it. Calling me a liar though was a bit of a stretch.
This might be a camera / lens and shooting gear forum but that doesn't mean we have to get all jumpy about a few points difference in DXO. DXO state themselves on their website that differences of a few points are basically irrelevant in general use. Of further note, DXO scores do not take into account a whole lot of other usability factors in the field. Its akin to my car is better than yours because it has more horsepower.. whilst it might... there are many other factors that make up a good ride....
Your posts just smack of fan boy 'ism' to me... 'super camera status...' pluueeassee... but each to their own. And your opinion is just that. As is my own.
I think Ill leave this thread alone and move on.... Enjoy the D500. Its a great camera.
___
Bernard, I mostly shot landscape when in NZ and used the 5DSR mostly as a result. The 1DX MKII I used for Yellow Eyed penguins in low light and found it excellent. Ive since used it for owl photography here in Australia and it surpasses the 1DX for focus accuracy and speed and its obviously better in the ISO dept. *shrug* its jut a camera though and if you know what you are doing the camera brand and model are basically irrelevant to the production of a good photograph.
-
John to be technically correct, the 1DX was released in March 2012 (thats when I took delivery). That makes it somewhere between 4 and 5 years old... if you care to split hairs. Irrespective you are still comparing 4.X year old sensor tech to brand new tech and then jumping up and down about it as if it should be surprising? Im not surprised at all.. Sensor tech has moved on significantly since the 1DX.
Aren't you a pro who gets the first waive of any new Canon camera?
The release date was officially April 2012, and seeing as it's June, that makes it a 4-year, 2-month camera.
It's not just the sensor technology, it's the AF technology, LCD, etc.
I agree we're always moving forward. However, the point is, in no prior time did an APS-C ever come close to FF, let alone beat them in several categories.
My belief is that, eventually, the D500/D5 (and 7Dxxx and 1Dx) will ultimately just become one camera.
They are too close now to justify a price disparity like what they have (at least in the case of the D500).
The 7D MKII was misread on my part. I read as your post as 7D. I apologise for misreading it. Calling me a liar though was a bit of a stretch.
I apologize for calling you a liar, and agree it was too much.
I should have said, "Exaggerator."
This might be a camera / lens and shooting gear forum but that doesn't mean we have to get all jumpy about a few points difference in DXO. DXO state themselves on their website that differences of a few points are basically irrelevant in general use. Of further note, DXO scores do not take into account a whole lot of other usability factors in the field. Its akin to my car is better than yours because it has more horsepower.. whilst it might... there are many other factors that make up a good ride....
You obviously didn't read what I wrote, which makes it difficult to engage in a dialogue.
It would be more productive if you'd refrain from writing until you at least read what I have to say ... you might actually discover that we agree :)
I mentioned all of those "other things" that the D500 has that the 1Dx doesn't have, either.
Your posts just smack of fan boy 'ism' to me... 'super camera status...' pluueeassee... but each to their own. And your opinion is just that. As is my own.
I am a fan, it's true. Same as you're a fan of Canon.
Lol, on the 'super-camera' ... was waiting for someone to take the bait :D
Cheers,
Jack
-
Bernard, I mostly shot landscape when in NZ and used the 5DSR mostly as a result. The 1DX MKII I used for Yellow Eyed penguins in low light and found it excellent. Ive since used it for owl photography here in Australia and it surpasses the 1DX for focus accuracy and speed and its obviously better in the ISO dept. *shrug* its jut a camera though and if you know what you are doing the camera brand and model are basically irrelevant to the production of a good photograph.
Thanks for the update.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
John, you do realise you are comparing a brand new camera to a camera more than 5 years old in the 1DX don't you?
Josh, you mentioned I wasn't being fair by comparing the new D500 to the elder Canon 1Dx.
Well, with the new DxO mark scores out on the 1Dx II, read my comparison (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/showthread.php?84-NIKON-D500-The-First-True-Pro-Level-APS-C&p=146&viewfull=1#post146) as to how the new D500 provides as many superior options over the new Canon 1Dx II as the 1Dx II provide certain superior capabilities over the D500.
With basically comparable image quality, this means if sports/wildlife still-photography is a person's mainstay, the D500's superior reach, AF coverage, and AF tracking (not to menion $2000 to $6500 in price) place the lion's share of advantages with the D500 ...
However, if video recording is an integral part of what you do, then the 1Dx II is the indisputably the choice to make.
Jack
-
Another fancier mentioned the 7D II + Canon 200-400 combo.
This combo costs $12,800 ($11,000 for the lens, $1,800 for the camera). I honestly drooled for this combo, for quite awhile, but ultimately decided that's a lot of money for one camera and one lens.
For that same money, this is what I got instead:
Nikon 810 ($2,800) + Nikon D500 ($2,000) + Nikkor 300mm VR II ($5,700) + Nikon 2x Extender III ($500) + RRS TVC 33 Tripod + ($995) + RRS BH-55 LR Ballhead ($595) Cotton Carrier 2-Camera System ($190) ... or $12,780 ;D
Where spending my money with Canon would have given me "two" tools ... with that same money, the way I went gave me an entire field setup.
Now, as far as reach goes, the 7D II is a crop-sensor camera, adding 1.6x to the reach of the 200-400mm lens, making it effectively a 320-640mm lens, and when you add the 1.4x TC (teleconverter) that's built-in, you can get up to 896mm.
Yet the way I did things, I have two cameras (one FF the other cropped), and so my combined reach is slightly broader, and longer, with a 300-900mm span of effective coverage.
Better still, my image quality is superior every step of the way.
D500 + 300mm compared with Canon 7D II + 200-400 (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-200-400mm-F4L-IS-USM-Extender-14x-on-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-300mm-F28G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D7100__1161_977_478_865)
This is actually comparing with the D7100, since they haven't put it on the D500 yet, which I am sure will score even higher ...
D810 + 300mm compared with Canon 7D II + 200-400 (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-200-400mm-F4L-IS-USM-Extender-14x-on-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-300mm-F28G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810__1161_977_478_963)
An utter blowout - more than twice the score here.
With the 1.4 extender on the Canon 200-400, it is an even bigger rout for the 300mm VR II:
200-400 ex on 7D II compared with 300 VR II (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-300mm-F28G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-Canon-EF-200-400mm-F4L-IS-USM-Extender-14x-ON-on-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II__478_865_1162_977) (pretend it's the D500, which will likely be higher - but even the D7100 doubles the score here)
200-400 ex on 7D II compared with D810 (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-300mm-F28G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Canon-EF-200-400mm-F4L-IS-USM-Extender-14x-ON-on-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II__478_963_1162_977) (Decimation here - the D810 triples the score :o)
Now before you say I am being unfair again, I can't add the 2x Extender here for Nikon. Rest assured, however, since the "without extender" scores totally favor Nikon, my money says that the "with extender" scores will too.
Heck, the mere Nikon D7100 + Nikon 300 VR II is also equal the Canon 1Dx + 200-400 (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-300mm-F28G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-Canon-EF-200-400mm-F4L-IS-USM-Extender-14x-on-Canon-EOS-1Dx__478_865_1161_753) (extender off) too ... so I am confident the D500 is going to surpass it.
The D500/D810 combo I chose pretty much kills the 7D II + 200-400 combo, in image quality, and saved me ~ $5,000 extra spending money to complete my kit, to boot.
I will also bet, when the DxO scores finally come in on the 1Dx II + 200-400mm (and the scores finally come in on the D500 + 300 VR II), that the scores will be dead even, or the D500 will have the slight advantage + adding better AF + better reach ... and I will have saved an additional $4,500 here, on top of the $5,000 I already saved.
So, yes, Josh I am a fan of this kind of performance + savings.
And so should anyone.
Jack
-
Hi Josh,
Do you realize you're lying?
I thought that maybe he was just mistaken. So wrong, rather than lying. I may be wrong, but where there is a reasonable explanation that doesn't assume the worst of someone, I prefer to go with that. Just a thought.
-
I thought that maybe he was just mistaken. So wrong, rather than lying. I may be wrong, but where there is a reasonable explanation that doesn't assume the worst of someone, I prefer to go with that. Just a thought.
Point well-taken, Bill.
But let's get back to the topic, which is how this is the first APS-C camera that can compete with the best FF pro cameras, actually surpassing them in many important areas (reach, AF coverage, AF accuracy, better Base ISO dynamic range, comparable mid-ISO dynamic range to 2000, and better tonal range throughout), while being less than 1/3rd the price.
-
Point well-taken, Bill.
But let's get back to the topic, which is how this is the first APS-C camera that can compete with the best FF pro cameras, actually surpassing them in many important areas (reach, AF coverage, AF accuracy, better Base ISO dynamic range, comparable mid-ISO dynamic range to 2000, and better tonal range throughout), while being less than 1/3rd the price.
Assuming all this is true (I have no reason to doubt it, but I don't shoot Nikon nor do I yet have a 1DxII), I guess I have to wonder how much it even matters today? I mean, I've shot highly regarded, awarded, images with an old Sony NEX7 and the plastic, consumer grade Sony 18-200. I've shot award-winning images with a Canon 5DII and a freaking *lensbaby* (go figure??).
If you're already invested in the Nikon system, this new piece of equipment is undoubtedly top-notch, and is capable of providing what might be the very best delivered image possible. But if you're NOT already invested in Nikon, I guess my question is, what are you losing by not switching to Nikon? You're losing some spec on paper, and I guess you might be losing some acuity with certain outlying areas of extreme autofocus usage, but on the whole, I think, at this point, arguing image quality is largely useless. I can pick up just about any current camera, and most latest-gen lenses, and, if I have the understanding of composition and a basic technical grasp of what's in my hand, the final result, in most usage cases (excepting extremes like 60" prints etc.) is going to be not just usable, but excellent (and probably largely indistinguishable from something shot with a competing system).
All that said, I think you're right to be excited about the value proposition that the D500 represents. While I can't speak to them directly, obviously factors like durability, manufacturer support, and quality/quantity of expected updates, fixes and problems would also play a role in the true value of the purchase. Hopefully Nikon has those areas locked down as well...
-
Assuming all this is true (I have no reason to doubt it, but I don't shoot Nikon nor do I yet have a 1DxII), I guess I have to wonder how much it even matters today? I mean, I've shot highly regarded, awarded, images with an old Sony NEX7 and the plastic, consumer grade Sony 18-200. I've shot award-winning images with a Canon 5DII and a freaking *lensbaby* (go figure??).
Hi James,
The issue of being a good photographer is a separate issue from which of today's tools are the best, as well as the most cost-friendly for what you're getting.
If you're already invested in the Nikon system, this new piece of equipment is undoubtedly top-notch, and is capable of providing what might be the very best delivered image possible. But if you're NOT already invested in Nikon, I guess my question is, what are you losing by not switching to Nikon?
I was moderately-invested into the Canon system.
What was I losing by staying with Canon?
Going back to my Reply #15, I was losing $5000 if I wanted to upgrade from the 7D to the 7D II, and if I wanted to purchase their vaulted 200-400 lens. As stated, these two purchases would have cost me $12,800 combined.
By going with Nikon, that $5,000 difference purchased me a Nikon D810, a RRS tripod + ballhead, a 2x extender, and a Cotton Carrier ... and it gave me better image quality from one end to the next ... so that was a helluva deal IMO.
For the same $12,800, I'd be shooting the 200-400, hand-held, and would have to spend still more money to get a nice tripod, etc.
I considered that a significant cost, by getting the range I wanted and staying with the Canon system.
You're losing some spec on paper, and I guess you might be losing some acuity with certain outlying areas of extreme autofocus usage, but on the whole, I think, at this point, arguing image quality is largely useless. I can pick up just about any current camera, and most latest-gen lenses, and, if I have the understanding of composition and a basic technical grasp of what's in my hand, the final result, in most usage cases (excepting extremes like 60" prints etc.) is going to be not just usable, but excellent (and probably largely indistinguishable from something shot with a competing system).
It's more than "specs on paper," James, it's legitimate usefulness.
With the D500 and especially the D810, I can pull details out of the shadows that I never could with a 7D II (or even a 1Dx). With the AF of the new D500, I can nail erratic movements that I might have missed with the 7D II. Etc.
If you really look at the value of what I would have got, staying with Canon, it was actually a $5,000 unnecessary expense to have inferior capabilities across the board.
I am sure, in optimal conditions, there might not be much of a difference ... but in sub-optimal conditions, it's nice to have the better tools.
It is always better to have something, and not need it, than it is to need something and not have it ... especially when the latter, under-equipped proposition actually costs more money than being better-equipped.
All that said, I think you're right to be excited about the value proposition that the D500 represents. While I can't speak to them directly, obviously factors like durability, manufacturer support, and quality/quantity of expected updates, fixes and problems would also play a role in the true value of the purchase. Hopefully Nikon has those areas locked down as well...
They do. Nikon just upgraded the D5 firmware, and the D500 files work wonderfully in Lightroom.
Not trying to make anyone feel bad about Canon, but I am quite pleased with the direction I took, and feel I have much higher quality equipment (and a full roster of equipment) by going the direction I did, rather than purchasing the 7D II + 200-400 lens.
Having a D500 plus D810 ... a 300mm VR II ... a 2x extender ... a top notch tripod + ballhead ... and an integrated holstering system with the Cotton Carrier for the same money was a much better move IMO.
-
I apologize for calling you a liar, and agree it was too much.
I should have said, "Exaggerator."
You haven't had much experience during your lifetime in offering apologies to people have you.......I'll let you in on a secret, that's not how you do it, especially to a well respected professional photographer who was being extremely well mannered in his approach to your extremely enthusiastic thread.
Last week I tested the D500, D5, 1dxII and Pentax K-1 head to head. The Pentax couldn't compete in the AF department sure, but it was lovely to use. I found the D500 to be an absolute head-spin to use, not logically thought-out, difficult menu system, heck I spent 20mins trying to find out how to get a histogram in live view and gave up.
The 1DxII on the other hand was a joy. AF was great, AF felt better than the D500 (but splitting hairs), interface was nicer and all round a better camera to use.
The Nikons seem to have the specs on paper, high res screens, 160,000 AF points and all the rest but I am not sure that it translates to a better experience. The Canon felt better, operated better and gave me that "want" feeling that the Nikon just didn't do. Like somebody said, its more than on paper specs.
Scott
-
Last week I tested the D500, D5, 1dxII and Pentax K-1 head to head. The Pentax couldn't compete in the AF department sure, but it was lovely to use. I found the D500 to be an absolute head-spin to use, not logically thought-out, difficult menu system, heck I spent 20mins trying to find out how to get a histogram in live view and gave up.
The 1DxII on the other hand was a joy. AF was great, AF felt better than the D500 (but splitting hairs), interface was nicer and all round a better camera to use.
The Nikons seem to have the specs on paper, high res screens, 160,000 AF points and all the rest but I am not sure that it translates to a better experience. The Canon felt better, operated better and gave me that "want" feeling that the Nikon just didn't do. Like somebody said, its more than on paper specs.
Hi Scott,
Well, there you go. Specs on paper only tell you so much, but nothing beats the real test which is also about handling and setting the camera/menus to one's hands (assuming it fits one's hand size). And for those who need it, 15 versus 10 frames/sec. can make a difference, and the Full frame 35.9x23.9mm sensor would render detail a bit different (more image magnificaton for the same FoV leads to better MTF) than an APS-C cropped size, and be less sensitive to diffraction. I've always liked the weather-sealing and ruggedness of the Series 1 Canons that I used, I have no idea how a D500 would hold up under typical 'abuse' conditions in practice. Technical service may also be different depending on location.
I also do not know how battery life compares in practice (in theory they're similar), but I've always liked the handling in Portrait orientation and the double grip and release buttons/wheels. And typically the life expectancy of the shutter is a bit better than for the prosumer models. Of course we do not know how the shutter shock compares, but the larger sensel pitch helps a bit there as well. Also, interchangeable focusing screens can be very helpful. Also things like Eye-relief distance can be important, especially for those who wear glasses.
The only thing I find a bit puzzling from the DxOmark measurements, is the somewhat lower Tonal range for the 1DX Mark II, yet at the same time a better Color sensitivity than the D500.
DR performance seems quite similar from the measurements, we'll see how the studio comparisons at DPreview will look. I do not know if the D500 Raws have a clipped shadow bias, but the usual offset of the Canon bias is helpful in many types of photography, and potentially helps with Denoising software.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You are right about more magnification for the same field of view. I see that with my 645z medium format camera. The focal lengths are slightly longer for the same FOV which seems to draw out detail. Same applies for APSC to FF, if anything slightly more than FF to MF (0.78x crop).
Of course everybody's mileage may vary so its a personal thing. What that test told me was that as much as I love the K-1, it wasn't for me and as much as I wanted to like the D500, I would always feel uncomfortable with it and slightly annoyed. On the other hand the 1DxII is a bit big for what I am looking for with this second camera system, but it did tell me that whatever I choose it will most likely be a Canon. I can't wait to see when and what the 5DmkIV will soon bring. Exciting times to be a photographer.
Scott
-
It all goes back to what works for you and gets the job done best.
For me it's the K1, and a lot of Nikon gear will soon be for sale. Just no comparison for what I shoot. But that is for another thread.
I agree the D500 is a great camera and Nikon added plenty of features to it, however two things that stand out for me.
1. APS-C, just can't justify a body limited to that format for what I shoot, and for what I need the D810/150-500 will work.
2. The D750, still outperforms the D500 in higher ISO's in fact the D750 still seems to be the standard for others, (at least for what I consider real high ISO
ranges, (3200 to 6400). 12K, and 25K, 51K, even what I have seen from the 1Dx MKII and D5 are not going to hold up for much more than a 11 x 14
print if any push was done. Of course if you can shoot with pixel shift on the K1, none of the current contenders will hold up, the difference at 6400
is amazing as is 12K. I realize many shooting situations won't allow this but I will sure look to when I can use it.
I also hope for Nikon's sake that they have a better launch with the D500 in QA than the D600 or D750. My D750 has had to go back to Nikon 2x for quality fixes, (light leak) and (shutter issue), both were handled fast and promptly, but I never like to send in a camera.
What I won't be doing is taking other posts and breaking them apart into individual responses, I respect others on this forum enough not to do that and I also understand that there is no one camera for the job.
Paul C
-
I found the D500 to be an absolute head-spin to use, not logically thought-out, difficult menu system, heck I spent 20mins trying to find out how to get a histogram in live view and gave up.
The 1DxII on the other hand was a joy. AF was great, AF felt better than the D500 (but splitting hairs), interface was nicer and all round a better camera to use.
The Nikons seem to have the specs on paper, high res screens, 160,000 AF points and all the rest but I am not sure that it translates to a better experience. The Canon felt better, operated better and gave me that "want" feeling that the Nikon just didn't do. Like somebody said, its more than on paper specs.
Scott
These might be very valid points if you were either unfamiliar with the operations of DSLRs in general and were handling them for the first time, or if you were equally familiar with both Nikon and Canon DSLRs and the D500 was significantly different in its arrangements.
However, if you are more familiar with the handling of Canon DSLRs, or not familiar at all with Nikon DSLRs, then it's understandable that the different arrangement of the menu and buttons on the Nikon model will be the cause of some frustration.
Heck! I recall my own frustration when I bought my first Nikon DSLR after using Canon models for a number of years. Before I took my first shot with my new Nikon, I had difficulty in attaching the lens to the body, because one had to twist it in the opposite direction to the attachment of a lens on a Canon body. ;D
-
The only thing I find a bit puzzling from the DxOmark measurements, is the somewhat lower Tonal range for the 1DX Mark II, yet at the same time a better Color sensitivity than the D500.
D500 Full SNR curves look (very) suspect (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4024820). Until shown otherwise I would consider results obtained from them just as suspect.
Jack
-
You haven't had much experience during your lifetime in offering apologies to people have you.......I'll let you in on a secret, that's not how you do it, especially to a well respected professional photographer who was being extremely well mannered in his approach to your extremely enthusiastic thread.
Hi Scott.
It's probably best if you save your personal comments. The truth is, you have no secret to let me in on.
But it does seem that you need to hear a little secret, and that is being "a professional photographer" puts no one on a pedestal.
In fact, if anything, it places a higher duty of care on their being accurate and not exaggerating, or getting their facts wrong, when they make statements.
With that out of the way, thanks for responding and giving your views.
Last week I tested the D500, D5, 1dxII and Pentax K-1 head to head. The Pentax couldn't compete in the AF department sure, but it was lovely to use. I found the D500 to be an absolute head-spin to use, not logically thought-out, difficult menu system, heck I spent 20mins trying to find out how to get a histogram in live view and gave up.
You realize these are all subjective comments, right?
When I first switched from the Canon 7D to the D810, I too found the D810 "a head spin" to use ... but now it is second-nature. So what you are used to, previously, affects what you call 'intuitive.'
Like you, I also spent about 30 minutes to an hour setting my D500 up, but now that I have it configured the way I want, my only regret is that I almost never use my D810 anymore.
The D810 is cleaner, and better, if you're pixel-peeping, but the D500 is really good and its reach for me, as a wildlife photographer, is so much more useful for what I do than the D810 in most cases.
I also love the handling and total ability to be customized that the D500 has, so I don't think it's fair to reject a camera's total usefulness, simply because it requires some time to set-up the way you like it. Remember, when you say a camera is "not logically-thought-out," that only applies to your logic, not everyone's.
Now that I have the D500 configured the way I like it, I personally find the set-up and ergonomics highly-intuitive, and DP Review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500/12) lists the D500's ergonomics as one of its strongest points, as do most other reviewers:
- "The D500 is the most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested, and among the very best."
Different strokes, I guess.
The 1DxII on the other hand was a joy. AF was great, AF felt better than the D500 (but splitting hairs), interface was nicer and all round a better camera to use.
Again, in your opinion.
If you have to "split hairs" to find a difference between a $6500 camera and a $2000 camera, then that underscores the value of the D500 ... which was the point of this thread topic.
The Nikons seem to have the specs on paper, high res screens, 160,000 AF points and all the rest but I am not sure that it translates to a better experience. The Canon felt better, operated better and gave me that "want" feeling that the Nikon just didn't do. Like somebody said, its more than on paper specs.
Scott
You must be a Canon shooter then. Again, I felt the same way as you did, when I first started using my Nikon, but now I prefer the ergonomics of the Nikon, especially the D500.
The funny thing is, my girlfriend has a Canon, and now I have to stop and go, "Huh?", for a second trying to help her get the settings right. So, really, it all boils down to what you're used to.
And, finally, "specs on paper" do translate to reality ... when you're getting shots your other system couldn't get ... pulling detail out of shadows that was just noise on another sensor, etc.
Based on what you wrote, it is clear you simply didn't put in the time to actually use the D500 for several days, to get used to it, but several minutes before going back to what you're familiar with.
Thanks for commenting.
-
Hi Scott,
Well, there you go. Specs on paper only tell you so much, but nothing beats the real test which is also about handling and setting the camera/menus to one's hands (assuming it fits one's hand size). And for those who need it, 15 versus 10 frames/sec. can make a difference, and the Full frame 35.9x23.9mm sensor would render detail a bit different (more image magnificaton for the same FoV leads to better MTF) than an APS-C cropped size, and be less sensitive to diffraction. I've always liked the weather-sealing and ruggedness of the Series 1 Canons that I used, I have no idea how a D500 would hold up under typical 'abuse' conditions in practice. Technical service may also be different depending on location.
Bart, you do realize you're "speculating" here.
Speaking of sensor-size, the reach of the D500 eclipses the 1DX II, and if you try to crop the 1Dx II to get the same framing, the quality will not be as good as just being framed by the D500.
Again, the very fact no APS-C can be compared to the D500 ... but that its pros/cons have to be compared to the current $6,500 FF sports cameras ... underscores the theme of this thread topic of what an outstanding APS-C camera the $2000 D500 is.
I also do not know how battery life compares in practice (in theory they're similar), but I've always liked the handling in Portrait orientation and the double grip and release buttons/wheels. And typically the life expectancy of the shutter is a bit better than for the prosumer models. Of course we do not know how the shutter shock compares, but the larger sensel pitch helps a bit there as well. Also, interchangeable focusing screens can be very helpful. Also things like Eye-relief distance can be important, especially for those who wear glasses.
Funny you mention that, because when I first got the D500 everything in my viewfinder was blurry ... but once I set it up ... it is now razor-sharp ... and I too use glasses. In fact, the 1x viewfinder (rather than .7) is another pro feature of the D500.
The only thing I find a bit puzzling from the DxOmark measurements, is the somewhat lower Tonal range for the 1DX Mark II, yet at the same time a better Color sensitivity than the D500.
Why do you find it 'puzzling' that the D500 is better than the 1Dx II all throughout the tonal range?
Tonal ranges and color sensitivities are different measurements, and the 1Dx II is better here (though not as good as the D5).
DR performance seems quite similar from the measurements, we'll see how the studio comparisons at DPreview will look. I do not know if the D500 Raws have a clipped shadow bias, but the usual offset of the Canon bias is helpful in many types of photography, and potentially helps with Denoising software.
Cheers,
Bart
What I notice most here is that you don't even bother to compare the D500 to the Canon 7D II or 80D, but are "hoping" that the new $6500 1Dx II compares favorably to the $2000 D500 in critical pixel-peeping.
Again, thanks for underscoring the point of this thread topic.
In time, I think it will really begin to dawn on people how good this D500 really is, to have "no rival" in its class (DP Review's quote), and to be "splitting hairs" with the best, most modern pro FF bodies, for only a fraction of the cost.
Jack
-
These might be very valid points if you were either unfamiliar with the operations of DSLRs in general and were handling them for the first time, or if you were equally familiar with both Nikon and Canon DSLRs and the D500 was significantly different in its arrangements.
However, if you are more familiar with the handling of Canon DSLRs, or not familiar at all with Nikon DSLRs, then it's understandable that the different arrangement of the menu and buttons on the Nikon model will be the cause of some frustration.
Heck! I recall my own frustration when I bought my first Nikon DSLR after using Canon models for a number of years. Before I took my first shot with my new Nikon, I had difficulty in attaching the lens to the body, because one had to twist it in the opposite direction to the attachment of a lens on a Canon body. ;D
Exactly right.
-
It all goes back to what works for you and gets the job done best.
For me it's the K1, and a lot of Nikon gear will soon be for sale. Just no comparison for what I shoot. But that is for another thread.
Edit: I looked at your site, nice.
You clearly don't shoot action, but landscapes, so of course the D500 isn't the choice for you, so I am not sure why you're participating here.
I agree the D500 is a great camera and Nikon added plenty of features to it, however two things that stand out for me.
1. APS-C, just can't justify a body limited to that format for what I shoot, and for what I need the D810/150-500 will work.
2. The D750, still outperforms the D500 in higher ISO's in fact the D750 still seems to be the standard for others, (at least for what I consider real high ISO
ranges, (3200 to 6400). 12K, and 25K, 51K, even what I have seen from the 1Dx MKII and D5 are not going to hold up for much more than a 11 x 14
print if any push was done. Of course if you can shoot with pixel shift on the K1, none of the current contenders will hold up, the difference at 6400
is amazing as is 12K. I realize many shooting situations won't allow this but I will sure look to when I can use it.
1. For what you shoot. Again, it's in selecting the right tool for the job. Since you don't shoot wildlife, only landscapes, the extra reach of a crop and FPS don't mean anything to you.
2. I don't know anything about the D750, but I personally seldom shoot over ISO 1600.
The thing that really stands out for me about the K1 is its limited overall usefulness, lack of lenses for it, which render it useful only for a very few applications ... whereas a D500/D810 are virtually limitless in lens options, and features, and therefore in what they can achieve photographically.
If your style of photography operates within the limitations of where the K1 can perform, then it does sound interesting.
I also hope for Nikon's sake that they have a better launch with the D500 in QA than the D600 or D750. My D750 has had to go back to Nikon 2x for quality fixes, (light leak) and (shutter issue), both were handled fast and promptly, but I never like to send in a camera.
I have never had to send in any camera, and hope it remains that way :D
What I won't be doing is taking other posts and breaking them apart into individual responses, I respect others on this forum enough not to do that and I also understand that there is no one camera for the job.
Paul C
It is, of course, a great irony to speak of "respect" ... and yet disrespect another's manner of responding in the same breath :o
Further, an effective argument can be made that, really analyzing and acknowledging each thing another member says is the highest form of respect, because it shows sincere consideration of every point that person took the time to make.
By contrast, I am not sure how ignoring what everyone else says, and even the thread topic itself, just saying something about "you," offers respect for others.
We agree that there is no "one" camera for the job. The K1 you desire has no place on this thread topic, as (although its pixel shift may be ideal for you, as a landscape shooter) it would get blown away as an action camera by the D500 (or any of the tools mentioned here) in the capacities that matter for this thread topic.
For that matter, at Base ISO, my D810 blows away my D500 at bringing out fine detail/colors from shadows ... and pretty much every other camera to boot.
But it is not as good a camera to use on a hike, shooting wildlife, as the subjects of this discussion either.
Jack
-
Bart, you do realize you're "speculating" here.
No Jack, because I'm not.
Speaking of sensor-size, the reach of the D500 eclipses the 1DX II, and if you try to crop the 1Dx II to get the same framing, the quality will not be as good as just being framed by the D500.
Why crop (unless the sensor already does it for you.)? Use a proper lens, or position yourself at the proper distance to fill the frame with your composition. I've attached an almost full frame (only cropped for composition aspect ratio) example of properly filling the frame by positioning oneself and using the right focal length.
'Reach' is an often used 'budget' excuse for crop sensors, but then the MTF quality differences between same angle of view compositions and real resolution in same sized output, are usually conveniently dismissed.
It's simple, a properly composed smaller sensor needs more output magnification for same size output, in the case of the D500 to some 150%. The sensor size of the D500 (e.g. 23.5 mm wide) compared to the 1DX2 sensor size (e.g. 35.9 mm wide) requires magnification to 152.8% to match the size of output. That required extra magnification reduces the relative sampling density and on sensor resolution differences.
The EOS-1D X Mark II has a photosite pitch of 6.55 µm (onset of diffraction at f/7.1), and the Nikon D500 has a photosite pitch of approx. 4.23 µm (onset of diffraction at f/5.0). That about cancels out the on sensor resolution benefits for same size output, because of the physical size difference of the sensors.
Again, the very fact no APS-C can be compared to the D500 ... but that its pros/cons have to be compared to the current $6,500 FF sports cameras ... underscores the theme of this thread topic of what an outstanding APS-C camera the $2000 D500 is.
It probably is a fine camera, for its target audience.
Funny you mention that, because when I first got the D500 everything in my viewfinder was blurry ... but once I set it up ... it is now razor-sharp ... and I too use glasses. In fact, the 1x viewfinder (rather than .7) is another pro feature of the D500.
Bullshit (sorry for being frank), the smaller APS-C sensor has a smaller focus-screen size, so needs more ocular magnification to show some detail. It's not a Pro-feature, but a feature born out of necessity.
Why do you find it 'puzzling' that the D500 is better than the 1Dx II all throughout the tonal range?
Because the D500 is shown to have worse Color sensitivity throughout the ISO range (although negligibly so at ISO 100-200).
Tonal ranges and color sensitivities are different measurements, and the 1Dx II is better here (though not as good as the D5).
Different yes, but hey are very much related, and both depend on the (comparable) DR measurements. Color sensitivity also depends on the Bayer CFA design, which e.g. gives the D500 an SMI of 82, and the 1DX2 an SMI of 81. Yet despite the virtually identical SMI and very similar DR, the differences that I noted in an earlier post seem not logical.
What I notice most here is that you don't even bother to compare the D500 to the Canon 7D II or 80D, but are "hoping" that the new $6500 1Dx II compares favorably to the $2000 D500 in critical pixel-peeping.
The thread topic was a fan-boyish praise of the D500, no doubt a fine camera as such, but the comparisons with really rugged Pro bodies are a bit artificial, and more budget based rather than e.g. reliability based.
Have fun with your D500, but please do it in the field and preferably not by infesting many threads with your same message.
Cheers,
Bart
-
so I am not sure why you're participating here.
John, I'm speculating here, but probably because the thread title doesn't specifically mention the niche you're interested in.
..........and not exaggerating...........
;)
-
No Jack, because I'm not.
You were.
Why crop (unless the sensor already does it for you.)? Use a proper lens, or position yourself at the proper distance to fill the frame with your composition. I've attached an almost full frame (only cropped for composition aspect ratio) example of properly filling the frame by positioning oneself and using the right focal length.
You ask, "Why crop," and then proceed to justify cropping. Classic.
In your effort to explain yourself, you missed my point: I don't have to crop as much with the D500 as I would the 1Dx II.
If my object is to fill the frame, if I have a 300mm lens it is a 450mm on a crop body, thus I am able to fill the frame easier.
'Reach' is an often used 'budget' excuse for crop sensors, but then the MTF quality differences between same angle of view compositions and real resolution in same sized output, are usually conveniently dismissed.
If you were speaking of the 7D II, I'd agree with you, quality-wise.
However, if you look at the stats, the D500 provided better DR, Tonal Values, and comparable resolution.
It's simple, a properly composed smaller sensor needs more output magnification for same size output, in the case of the D500 to some 150%. The sensor size of the D500 (e.g. 23.5 mm wide) compared to the 1DX2 sensor size (e.g. 35.9 mm wide) requires magnification to 152.8% to match the size of output. That required extra magnification reduces the relative sampling density and on sensor resolution differences.
The EOS-1D X Mark II has a photosite pitch of 6.55 µm (onset of diffraction at f/7.1), and the Nikon D500 has a photosite pitch of approx. 4.23 µm (onset of diffraction at f/5.0). That about cancels out the on sensor resolution benefits for same size output, because of the physical size difference of the sensors.
No it doesn't cancel it out.
If you put the same lens at the end of the 1Dx II, you have to get closer to get the same framing. If you stand in the same spot as the D500 shooter, you would need to crop to fill the frame.
Cropping the 1Dx II will not give you as good an image as the D500 got.
- "The D500's dynamic range and high ISO noise performance are as good as we've ever seen from any APS-C sensor: it's essentially ISO invariant and on a par with the best we've tested."
Canon sensors are not ISO-invariant.
Also,
- "While the specification of the AF sensor in the D500 matches (FF), its smaller sensor area means the array (of focus points) extends over more of the frame, virtually reaching the far left and right sides. This provides it with the broadest tracking area of any DSLR to date which coupled with the DX field-reduction makes it ideal for photographing distant and unpredictable subjects like birds. Indeed some photographers will actually prefer the D500 over (FF) for these reasons."
Camera Labs (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D500)
It probably is a fine camera, for its target audience.
Its target audience is wildlife and sports photographers, and offers many advantages that even the 1Dx II cannot match:
- "The Canon AF array may be respectably wide, but again can't match the coverage of the D500 which is both broader and denser. A solid win for Nikon there, especially with its traditionally superior tracking algorithms."
Camera Labs (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D500)
Bullshit (sorry for being frank), the smaller APS-C sensor has a smaller focus-screen size, so needs more ocular magnification to show some detail. It's not a Pro-feature, but a feature born out of necessity.
I am not sure "frank" is the way I would describe your tone. Regarding your point, I will refute it this way:
- For more considered shooting, the viewfinder is a pleasure to use: the closest thing in size to a full frame viewfinder to grace an APS-C DSLR.
DP Review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500/12)
Because the D500 is shown to have worse Color sensitivity throughout the ISO range (although negligibly so at ISO 100-200).
It's funny how you question DxO only when it rates the 1Dx II lower ... why don't you question the results where it rates the Canon 1dX II higher? ;)
Seems you like to pick and choose what you believe.
Different yes, but hey are very much related, and both depend on the (comparable) DR measurements. Color sensitivity also depends on the Bayer CFA design, which e.g. gives the D500 an SMI of 82, and the 1DX2 an SMI of 81. Yet despite the virtually identical SMI and very similar DR, the differences that I noted in an earlier post seem not logical.
Have you ever considered the possibility there is technology involved in the sensor design that is over your head?
The thread topic was a fan-boyish praise of the D500, no doubt a fine camera as such, but the comparisons with really rugged Pro bodies are a bit artificial, and more budget based rather than e.g. reliability based.
I am curious how, when Josh comes on and extols the virtue of the 1Dx II (and you chime in), how that is not anymore "fanboyish" than what I have put here?
IMO, you two are just as "fanboyish" of your Canons as I am of these Nikons, but you don't see me giving either of you these ad hominem labels, do you?
My comparison of the D500 to pro bodies is very real, and there are a multitude of pro review sites (and sensor-measuring sites) that confirm this.
Have fun with your D500, but please do it in the field and preferably not by infesting many threads with your same message.
Cheers,
Bart
Again, why the disdain? The truth is, you're infesting my Nikon thread with Canon-love (which is okay, in my book).
That is the point of gear threads: to discuss and compare gear.
I am sorry if many of the comparisons are unfavorable to your preferences.
It is difficult for some to discuss these things without becoming offended, especially if their equipment is on the wrong-end of the high-marks.
Jack