NIKON D500 COMPARED TO THE CANON 1Dx II

[John Koerner]

Breaking the Mold:

 

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:

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:

• "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:

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

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.

[John Koerner]

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.

Similarly, there is no aspect of the 7D II that can in any way compare to the 1Dx. Not one.

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.

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

[John Koerner]

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
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.

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

Check it out

Jack

[Josh-H]

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 

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. 

[BernardLanguillier]

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. 

I don't believe Jack owns one. At least not yet.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Josh-H]

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... 

BTW: D500 - great camera. Best "in class" at present. Not a patch on a D5 or 1DXMKII though.

[BernardLanguillier]

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 Koerner]

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 

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. 

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 (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?

I am quite sure that, if I made this same post about a Canon product, you would have responded differently

[John Koerner]

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

[dwswager]

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! 

[Josh-H]

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 Koerner]

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

Cheers,

Jack

[BernardLanguillier]

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 Koerner]

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 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

[John Koerner]

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

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
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
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 (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 (Decimation here - the D810 triples the score  )

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 (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

[Chairman Bill]

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.

[John Koerner]

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.

[James Clark]

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...

[John Koerner]

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.