D500 sensor from Sony ?

[scyth]

D500 sensor from Sony Semiconductor ? I do not own nikon gear and do not follow nikon stuff of course, but I happen to read a recent article "by Thom" where he says that... http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/current-nikon-dslr-reviews/nikon-d500-camera-review.html = "Internally, we have a state-of-the-art, Sony-made, CMOS sensor that generates 20mp."

[Paul2660]

Nikon uses Sony for several cameras, D750, D800 family, D810 and the D500. 

They use a non Sony Sensor in the D4s D4, D5 level of cameras.  Sensor is designed by Nikon, but fab is not done by Nikon. 

The 36Mp Sony has a very large range in various companies,

Sony A7r,
Nikon D800, D810
Pentax K1

As I understand it, the same Sony 36Mp sensor is used throughout these cameras.

Paul C

[kers]

Nikon uses Sony for several cameras, D750, D800 family, D810 and the D500....

As I understand it, the same Sony 36Mp sensor is used throughout these cameras...

Paul C

At least the D810 must be something different for it is the only sensor that can cope with more light  (aka 64asa)

[E.J. Peiker]

The D810 does use an updated version of the original sensor that includes Electronic first curtain capability and lowers th base ISO.  It's the same sensor technology made on the same sensor line but some mask changes to the control circuitry.

[John Koerner]

The awards are coming in now ...

• “The search for the perfect DSLR starts and ends with Nikon’s D500”
  -Digital Trends: Editor's Choice
  
  
  “The D500 is the most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested, and among the very best.”
  -DPReview: Gold Award

More will follow.

It has to do with the sensor, yes, but there is a whole lot more to the D500's rounded excellence than that.

[shadowblade]

Awards and subjective reviews don't take photos, nor do they critically measure and compare performance. There may also be an undisclosed financial interest behind them, too. Besides, almost every camera from the two major manufacturers, except the most basic models, tends to get similar reviews and awards. They said similar things about the 7D and 5D3 back in the day too.

The D500 is probably king of crop cameras. That's because no-one else is even trying to play in that field - everyone else's pro-oriented bodies are full-frame. But there's no way the sensor outperforms the D810, A7r2, D5, 1Dx2 or A7s2 in their respective specialty areas, and no way the AF outperforms both the D5 and 1Dx2 for action shooting. Which leaves the D500 essentially a specialist in focal-length-limited photography at reasonably low ISOs.

[John Koerner]

Awards and subjective reviews don't take photos, nor do they critically measure and compare performance. There may also be an undisclosed financial interest behind them, too. Besides, almost every camera from the two major manufacturers, except the most basic models, tends to get similar reviews and awards. They said similar things about the 7D and 5D3 back in the day too.

Apparently you don't either, you just talk.

I can see why you're named "Shadowblade," because you follow me around, everywhere I post, like a Shadow

None of these other camera has had such things said of it.

The D500 is probably king of crop cameras.

Not 'probably'; it is.

That's because no-one else is even trying to play in that field - everyone else's pro-oriented bodies are full-frame.

Not so; the Canon 7D tried, and failed.

But there's no way the sensor outperforms the D810, A7r2, D5, 1Dx2 or A7s2 in their respective specialty areas, and no way the AF outperforms both the D5 and 1Dx2 for action shooting.

Its sensor is all that is needed for wildlife/sports, making it much better for these things than all but the D5 and the 1Dx2.

Its AF out-performs the 1Dx2 and is similar to the D5.

Its reach out-performs both.

Therefore, it puts more pixels where it counts, out-performing ALL of the above-mentioned cameras, which you'd have to crop to get the same image, due to the reach.

Which leaves the D500 essentially a specialist in focal-length-limited photography at reasonably low ISOs.

Wrong.

It makes the D500 what these other credible resources call it (as opposed to your nameless, faceless self): the most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested, and among the very best.

The D500 succeeds where the 7D II fails.

Because of the lousy 7D II sensor, you can crop a D810 photo and still get a better image than with the 7D II ... but such is not the case with the D500.

Jack

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Nikon uses Sony sensors in most models. The low resolution/high ISO bodies, like Df, D4, D5 have Nikon designed sensors. Some APS-C models had non Sony sensors, too.

Just a few thoughts/observations…

• Canon's sensors perform bad at low ISO DR, because their ADC-pipeline is noisy. Sony sensors are better in that sense, period.
• A latest generation camera generally has an advantage as it can use latest technology.
• I wouldn't think review sites are more biased than camera owners, I am pretty sure it is the other way around.
• Contrary to camera owners, review sites actually test a lot of cameras and have a broader experience than camera users.

Now, Canon has a new sensor in the 80D, it is in all probability not as good as the one in the D500, but would still rake up the ranking of a future 7DIII a bit.

DPreview has an interesting feature that can compare cameras in different areas. Comparing the D500 to the 7DII it seems that John has a point, it seems that the D500 is an improvement over the 7DII in all areas.

I also attach the same figures for the Sony Alpha 6300. That camera doesn't pretend to be professional, but in all probability uses a sensor very similar to the D500.

It would also be interesting to include the Fuji XT2 (or what it is called), but it has not been tested yet.

Best regards
Erik

Awards and subjective reviews don't take photos, nor do they critically measure and compare performance. There may also be an undisclosed financial interest behind them, too. Besides, almost every camera from the two major manufacturers, except the most basic models, tends to get similar reviews and awards. They said similar things about the 7D and 5D3 back in the day too.

The D500 is probably king of crop cameras. That's because no-one else is even trying to play in that field - everyone else's pro-oriented bodies are full-frame. But there's no way the sensor outperforms the D810, A7r2, D5, 1Dx2 or A7s2 in their respective specialty areas, and no way the AF outperforms both the D5 and 1Dx2 for action shooting. Which leaves the D500 essentially a specialist in focal-length-limited photography at reasonably low ISOs.

[shadowblade]

Apparently you don't either, you just talk.

I can see why you're named "Shadowblade," because you follow me around, everywhere I post, like a Shadow

As a matter of fact, it's a combination of two old call-signs. It's not meant to mean anything to you.

No camera has gotten these awards.

You mean apart from when they give these awards out, year after year, to a different camera each time?

Not probably; it is
Not so; the Canon 7D tried, and failed.

The 7D never tried. It was clearly aimed beneath the contemporaneous D300s. The D300s used the D3s AF system; the 7D didn't use the 1D3/1D4 system, but a different system that's clearly aimed at a lower level.

Its sensor is all that is needed for wildlife/sports, making it much better for these things than all but the 1Dx2.

Then why all the demand for full-frame from action photographers, back when the 1Ds first came out and Nikon had no full-frame camera? And later with Canon shooters, when Nikon had the full-frame D3s vs Canon's crop-sensor 1D4?

Crop sensors have a much harder time with subject isolation than full-frame sensors. Dense crop sensors like the D500 are good when you're focal length limited. If you're not, full-frame gives you far more options.

Its AF out-performs the 1Dx2 and is similar to the D5.

Where's the test confirming that? The only thing you've got supporting that is your own opinion. Not that you've tried the 1Dx2, by your own opinion - more like 'the D5's AF is better because I like Nikon.'

Therefore, it puts more pixels where it counts, out-performing ALL of the above-mentioned cameras, which you'd have to crop to get the same image, due to the reach.

Which only applies when you're at 800mm and still focal length limited.

If not, you need a longer lens, not a smaller sensor.

It makes the D500 what these other credible resources call it (as opposed to your nameless, faceless self): the most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested, and among the very best.

They're not 'credible resources'. They're the opinion of some random reviewer.

A 'credible resource' would be, 'We've tested A, B and C cameras side-by-side, A was better than the others in this aspect, B was better at this other thing, and these are the numbers/comparative test shots that demonstrate this.' Not something that says, 'Camera C is the best because we liked it and think it's well-rounded.'

The D500 succeeds where the 7D II fails.

The 7D2 also never pretended to be a pro body. It's a slightly-better 70D, whereas the D500 was designed as a D5 with a crop sensor.

[shadowblade]

• Canon's sensors perform bad at low ISO DR, because their ADC-pipeline is noisy. Sony sensors are better in that sense, period.
• A latest generation camera generally has an advantage as it can use latest technology.

That much was never in doubt, although the latest Canon sensors go a long way towards fixing the ADC issue. The issue is the contention that the D500 is better than the 1Dx2 in every aspect because... well, I guess it's cheaper, and better when you're already at 800mm when cropping, but I can't really think of any other reasons. Maybe the 'Nikon' badge on the front of it makes all the difference.

• I wouldn't think review sites are more biased than camera owners, I am pretty sure it is the other way around.
• Contrary to camera owners, review sites actually test a lot of cameras and have a broader experience than camera users.

Yet any opinion or award is meaningless without data to back it up.

Even Stephen Hawking wouldn't be able to publish a theory in physics without numbers and data to back up his theory, nor a new hypothesis without a detailed and logical explanation backing it up.

No data = no sell.

DPreview has an interesting feature that can compare cameras in different areas. Comparing the D500 to the 7DII it seems that John has a point, it seems that the D500 is an improvement over the 7DII in all areas.

That much was never in doubt. It's a brand-new, pro-oriented 1.5x crop sensor against a two-year-old, advanced consumer-grade 1.6x crop.

The issue is the contention that the D500 is better than the 1Dx2 in almost every aspect.

[BJL]

Crop sensors have a much harder time with subject isolation than full-frame sensors. Dense crop sensors like the D500 are good when you're focal length limited.

Subject isolation through low DOF is easier for a larger format at wide to moderately narrower the normal FOV (so called "short telephoto", though such lenses are usually not actually telephoto designs).  However when the topic is sports and wildlife photography, the focal lengths typical used are distinctly longer than normal, and then minimum DOF available is not much different, due to the typically higher minimum f-stops of the longer focal lengths needed to get the same FOV in the larger format, like 200/2 vs 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 vs 600/4 vs 800/5.6.  (And of course once the smaller format can use a shorter lens about one stop faster, it also uses half the ISO speed to get the same shutter speed, so noise levels about balance out.)

As has been said many time before, the low-light and shallow DOF advantages of a larger sensor come from it being able to use "bigger glass", in the sense of lenses with larger front elements and a larger effective aperture diameter (focal length divided by aperture ratio).  This is what leads to gathering light faster from the subject.  Larger sensors and the corresponding use of lower focal lengths sometimes help to make these larger apertures possible or easier, by making a given aperture size available at a higher f-stop and thus with an easier lens design – but not always.

[shadowblade]

Subject isolation through low DOF is easier for a larger format at wide to moderately narrower the normal FOV (so called "short telephoto", though such lenses are usually not actually telephoto designs).  However when the topic is sports and wildlife photography, the focal lengths typical used are distinctly longer than normal, and then minimum DOF available is not much different, due to the typically higher minimum f-stops of the longer focal lengths needed to get the same FOV in the larger format, like 200/2 vs 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 vs 600/4 vs 800/5.6.  (And of course once the smaller format can use a shorter lens about one stop faster, it also uses half the ISO speed to get the same shutter speed, so noise levels about balance out.)

As has been said many time before, the low-light and shallow DOF advantages of a larger sensor come from it being able to use "bigger glass", in the sense of lenses with larger front elements and a larger effective aperture diameter (focal length divided by aperture ratio).  This is what leads to gathering light faster from the subject.  Larger sensors and the corresponding use of lower focal lengths sometimes help to make these larger apertures possible or easier, by making a given aperture size available at a higher f-stop and thus with an easier lens design – but not always.

Well, you're pretty much shooting fixed apertures up to around 400mm - f/2.8 zooms up to 300mm and f/4 zooms or f/2.8 primes up to 400mm - which is well within the typical range for many sports (court sports/indoor sports vs field sports), and even many kinds of wildlife. On the Galapagos Islands, I was using a 70-200 on full frame most of the time.

With a 120-300, you're at f/2.8 whether you're shooting at 160mm or 240mm, while, with a 200-400, you're at f/4 whether you're at 240mm or 360mm (and f/5.6 if you go beyond 400mm). You wouldn't switch to a prime unless you were focal length limited and cropping even at the close end of the field you were shooting, or had multiple cameras ready to shoot at the same time.

So, little difference at the 500/600/800mm end, but plenty of difference at the 100-400mm end, which is still well within the scope of wildlife and, especially, sport.

[John Koerner]

A 'credible resource' would be, 'We've tested A, B and C cameras side-by-side, A was better than the others in this aspect, B was better at this other thing, and these are the numbers/comparative test shots that demonstrate this.' Not something that says, 'Camera C is the best because we liked it and think it's well-rounded.'

Shadow, you waste too much time following me around. I am not going to dignify the majority of your post, but this comment deserves some scrutiny:

DP Review is arguably the most widely-read, credible resources on the planet. Every sentient photographer on earth reads it and monitors it. And they say:

• "(The Nikon D5) has the best autofocus system that anyone in the DPReview offices has ever used - bar none.
  
  "The D500 is the most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested, and among the very best. Every one of us who has picked it up, regardless of which brands we've most often shot, has been impressed by its autofocus system's wide coverage and ability to find and follow a subject. If you need this, the large viewfinder, solid build and the ability to just keep shooting, then the D500 is peerless. It's not cheap but it looks like pretty good value if you look at it as a huge chunk of the D5's capabilities for a fraction of the money.
  
  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. It's not just a question of the mirrorless-esque across-the-frame AF coverage or of the number of cross-type focus points, it's this plus some of the best subject tracking we've seen and the fine-grained customization that allows the behavior to be tailored to shoot a wide range of different sports."

As always, Shadow, denial isn't rebuttal; it's only denial.

Jack

[shadowblade]

Shadow, you waste too much time following me around. I am not going to dignify the majority of your post, but this comment deserves some scrutiny:

DP Review is arguably the most widely-read, credible resources on the planet. Every sentient photographer on earth reads it and monitors it. And they say:

• "(The Nikon D5) has the best autofocus system that anyone in the DPReview offices has ever used - bar none.
  
  "The D500 is the most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested, and among the very best. Every one of us who has picked it up, regardless of which brands we've most often shot, has been impressed by its autofocus system's wide coverage and ability to find and follow a subject. If you need this, the large viewfinder, solid build and the ability to just keep shooting, then the D500 is peerless. It's not cheap but it looks like pretty good value if you look at it as a huge chunk of the D5's capabilities for a fraction of the money.
  
  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. It's not just a question of the mirrorless-esque across-the-frame AF coverage or of the number of cross-type focus points, it's this plus some of the best subject tracking we've seen and the fine-grained customization that allows the behavior to be tailored to shoot a wide range of different sports."

As always, Shadow, denial isn't rebuttal; it's only denial.

Jack

Appeal to authority.

If you don't have the supporting data, you don't have a point. Regardless of who you are. That's how science works.

And that article was published before the 1Dx2 was reviewed (it still hasn't been). Of course it was the 'best they had ever used' at that time - they hadn't yet tested the only competitor.

[dwswager]

The awards are coming in now ...

• “The search for the perfect DSLR starts and ends with Nikon’s D500”
  -Digital Trends: Editor's Choice
  
  
  “The D500 is the most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested, and among the very best.”
  -DPReview: Gold Award

More will follow.

It has to do with the sensor, yes, but there is a whole lot more to the D500's rounded excellence than that.

Having just spent 10 days in Spain with both the D810 and D500, the lack of a pop up flash meant that around town, I stuck with the D810.  While the intended application for the D500 does not typically require a pop up flash and not having it makes it more rugged, the lack makes is less usable in walkabout situations where I would recommend the D7200.  The D500 is an awesome camera, but unless you need the 10fps or super extended burst shooting, the D7200 value is hard to pass up. 

[John Koerner]

Having just spent 10 days in Spain with both the D810 and D500, the lack of a pop up flash meant that around town, I stuck with the D810.  While the intended application for the D500 does not typically require a pop up flash and not having it makes it more rugged, the lack makes is less usable in walkabout situations where I would recommend the D7200.  The D500 is an awesome camera, but unless you need the 10fps or super extended burst shooting, the D7200 value is hard to pass up.

I walk around with the same two cameras, and my experience is the opposite: I use the D500 9x out of 10 on a hike now.

For "people photography," around town, I would probably pick the D810 as well ... but for a nature hike, there is no contest, the D500 is the choice.

There are times when a pop-up flash is nice, but the times when it's nicer to have the reach far exceed the times it's nicer to have a pop-up flash.

The D7200 has a comparable sensor/reach, but not comparable ergonomics. And surely not comparable AF.

[dwswager]

I walk around with the same two cameras, and my experience is the opposite: I use the D500 9x out of 10 on a hike now.

For "people photography," around town, I would probably pick the D810 as well ... but for a nature hike, there is no contest, the D500 is the choice.

There are times when a pop-up flash is nice, but the times when it's nicer to have the reach far exceed the times it's nicer to have a pop-up flash.

The D7200 has a comparable sensor/reach, but not comparable ergonomics. And surely not comparable AF.

My point is there is no perfect camera...for everyone.  I would prefer the D500 have a pop up flash because I value that convenience and additional functionality more than I value the water tightness and durability not having it allows.   For others, it is just the opposite.

[BJL]

Well, you're pretty much shooting fixed apertures up to around 400mm - f/2.8 zooms up to 300mm and f/4 zooms or f/2.8 primes up to 400mm - which is well within the typical range for many sports (court sports/indoor sports vs field sports), and even many kinds of wildlife. On the Galapagos Islands, I was using a 70-200 on full frame most of the time.

With a 120-300, you're at f/2.8 whether you're shooting at 160mm or 240mm, while, with a 200-400, you're at f/4 whether you're at 240mm or 360mm (and f/5.6 if you go beyond 400mm). You wouldn't switch to a prime unless you were focal length limited and cropping even at the close end of the field you were shooting, or had multiple cameras ready to shoot at the same time.

So, little difference at the 500/600/800mm end, but plenty of difference at the 100-400mm end, which is still well within the scope of wildlife and, especially, sport.

Fair enough with sports photography and the "moderately long" lenses also of significant interest there – if partly due to high-end long lens offerings being oriented to the needs of high-end 36x24mm format cameras. (For example, it would be feasible to make f/2 lenses in "DX" format giving about the same FOV and DOF options as their f/2.8 "FX" counterparts at 1.5 time the focal length, and do it at comparable weight and unit cost, and likewise to offer f/1.4 telephoto prime lens counterparts of 1.5 times longer f/2 primes, but there is probably not a big enough market for Nikon or Canon to be interested in the extra cost of adding those lenses – especially if they mostly lead to some "action" photographers moving from 36x24 to 24x16 format cameras, rather than adding customers.)

I was fuzzily thinking more of wild-life photography and the longer telephotos of most interest there; say 400mm and up for 24x16mm format, vs 500mm and up for 36x24mm.

[BJL]

I would prefer the D500 have a pop up flash because I value that convenience and additional functionality more than I value the water tightness and durability not having it allows.   For others, it is just the opposite.

I'm divided too.  A couple of points:
- It is possible to have water tightness with a pop-up flash, as Olympus formerly did in the E3 and E5 DSLRs.
- On the other hand, I like the new Olympus approach of a very small removable flash that gets power from the camera and so does not need room for its own battery, as in the EM5 and EM1.

If only some flash-averse museums would acknowledge the lack of a built-in flash and let me use my EM5!

[razrblck]

If only some flash-averse museums would acknowledge the lack of a built-in flash and let me use my EM5!

That's a problem I had in many places. Doesn't matter how big or small a camera is, if it looks like a more serious piece of gear you'll always have issues in some places. Meanwhile, the tourists around you are snapping away with their phones and tablets using the integrated LED flash without a single care in the world and no one is stopping them.

This has happened to me countless times inside old castles, ancient monuments and inside specific houses in Pompeii and Ercolano.

I'm pretty sure the bigger sensor that is passively collecting light will not degrade anything I point it at, but what do I know? I just have to follow the rules and hope my gear and not my attitude doesn't get me into trouble.