NIKON D500 COMPARED TO THE CANON 1Dx II

[Scotty-S]

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

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[Scotty-S]

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

[Paul2660]

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

[Ray]

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. 

[Jack Hogan]

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.  Until shown otherwise I would consider results obtained from them just as suspect.

Jack

[John Koerner]

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 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.

[John Koerner]

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

[John Koerner]

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. 

Exactly right.

[John Koerner]

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

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

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_van_der_Wolf]

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

[pegelli]

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...........

 

[John Koerner]

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

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

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

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