D500

htid said:
gramps at what price would you consider it, just out of curiosity?
Click to expand...

ATM I think it's too early to say, I've seen both good and bad results and wonder if it's camera or user that is getting the results.
At the moment it's £1600+ grey and £1700+ UK ... maybe at £1k I would consider it but only if I felt there was enough real advantage in improving my photography and that is yet to be established :)
 
Just a thought, and turning your question around @BillN_33 is the older glass outperformed by the newer sensors and why Nikon seem to be improving some of their lenses with the newer Phase Fresnel/Fluorite designs?
 
Swanseajack said:
Just a thought, and turning your question around @BillN_33 is the older glass outperformed by the newer sensors and why Nikon seem to be improving some of their lenses with the newer Phase Fresnel/Fluorite designs?
Click to expand...

Isn't that to decrease the weight?
 
htid said:
Isn't that to decrease the weight?
Click to expand...

Possibly a combination of both?.

I'm sure I have read in the past, some of the older design lenses were for cameras like the D700 which is 12MP. We are up to 36MP (24mp more common) with Nikon and more with Sony and Canon. Again, IIRC Sony are designing lenses to outperform their current 42MP A7Rii camera.
 
I don't think PF affects IQ, as Chris says it significantly reduces weight and size, the F (Flourite) lenses are more to do with combating CA, dust & water so neither would seem to be aimed at meeting some new camera technology advancement ... however the E (Electronic Aperture) is designed to meet the higher frame rate of the newer cameras. Nowt to do with IQ though :)
 
gramps said:
I don't think PF affects IQ, as Chris says it significantly reduces weight and size, the F (Flourite) lenses are more to do with combating CA, dust & water so neither would seem to be aimed at meeting some new camera technology advancement ... however the E (Electronic Aperture) is designed to meet the higher frame rate of the newer cameras. Nowt to do with IQ though :)
Click to expand...

Uh oh...I hope that doesn't mean I won't be able to get 10fps on my 500mm then since that's the older D type :confused:
 
htid said:
Uh oh...I hope that doesn't mean I won't be able to get 10fps on my 500mm then since that's the older D type :confused:
Click to expand...

I think it's more precautionary that de facto Chris ... D5 is 12fps continuous for up to 200 shots, when I believe it stops in case it's been activated 'in bag'. :)
 
gramps said:
I don't think PF affects IQ, as Chris says it significantly reduces weight and size, the F (Flourite) lenses are more to do with combating CA, dust & water so neither would seem to be aimed at meeting some new camera technology advancement ... however the E (Electronic Aperture) is designed to meet the higher frame rate of the newer cameras. Nowt to do with IQ though :)
Click to expand...

Just had a look on the Nikon site for the 300mm PF.... Looking at their blurb it also helps with sharpness along with CA and Ghosting. Also it goes onto say that they are better for peak performance from Full Frame cameras. The old design had been around for a few years and needed updating even if it was just for VR. These new designs are the way forward, but are they worth the extra bucks for the longer lenses like the 500mm and what would the improvement be on a camera like the D810 or D500?

"But handling isn't the only advantage; the PF element also performs brilliantly—achieve new levels of sharpness and clarity with virtually no chromatic aberration or ghosting".

"The AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR is a cutting-edge lens engineered to draw peak performance from high-resolution full-frame cameras. The Phase Fresnel element nearly eliminates chromatic aberration on its own. When combined with an Extra-low Dispersion (ED) glass element and Nano Crystal Coat (N), it delivers strikingly clear, accurate images".

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-300mm-f%2f4e-pf-ed-vr.html
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
Just had a look on the Nikon site for the 300mm PF.... Looking at their blurb it also helps with sharpness along with CA and Ghosting. Also it goes onto say that they are better for peak performance from Full Frame cameras. The old design had been around for a few years and needed updating even if it was just for VR. These new designs are the way forward, but are they worth the extra bucks for the longer lenses like the 500mm and what would the improvement be on a camera like the D810 or D500?

"But handling isn't the only advantage; the PF element also performs brilliantly—achieve new levels of sharpness and clarity with virtually no chromatic aberration or ghosting".

"The AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR is a cutting-edge lens engineered to draw peak performance from high-resolution full-frame cameras. The Phase Fresnel element nearly eliminates chromatic aberration on its own. When combined with an Extra-low Dispersion (ED) glass element and Nano Crystal Coat (N), it delivers strikingly clear, accurate images".

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-300mm-f%2f4e-pf-ed-vr.html
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised that Nikon 'gild the lily' on description ... take out some of the bumph and it's basically what I said above :)
 
BillN_33 said:
One of the areas that has always slightly worried me slightly is if "good glass" is really used to it's best on DX sensors ......... I just wonder is say the expensive Nikon lens perform differently, (slightly worse) than they do on the FX sensor bodies ..... there must be some technical test around to compare this......... or if DX designed lens will perform better than non DX designed glass
Click to expand...
DX sensors make the most of FF glass because they only use the (higher IQ) center portion of the FOV... not that I ever really care about the corners w/ wildlife/sports. DX lenses are easier to design/make for the same reason, they only have to optimize a smaller image circle (or smaller portion of it).

I've used the 300 PF lens... I would call it more of a tradeoff than an improvement. Plenty sharp and lighter, but weird bokeh (like a mirror lens).

Sensors do out resolve lenses now, particularly depending on how they are used (aperture). But they all have more resolution than you need/can see. So loosing resolution isn't really "a problem," and there are some benefits to the higher resolution sensor even if it doesn't come through as detail (i.e. color information).

F/11 equates to ~16MP on a full frame sensor, regardless of how many pixels the sensor has... but that's still more than you need. F/8 is ~13MP on APS, which is right around the limit of what you need. F/8 is also right at the diffraction limit for the D500 (around f/7 is the limit for the D7200).
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Sounds like he's in the camp that believes an uncropped/lesser cropped APS-C shot will be better/show more detail than a heavily cropped FF then.
Click to expand...
Yeah... but that's wrong/oversimplified...
It's not about the size of the sensor or even cropping exactly... It's about the resolution of the sensor (pixel size), resolution of the lens (IQ/aperture), and what you have left after cropping/not cropping. Simply saying DX vs FX leaves too many variables.
 
Re: DX verses FX cropped, there is a 'technical' argument and an 'in the field' argument .. personally I am of the view that for much of the wildlife shooting I do an FX cropped just does not offer the benefit of DX.
 
sk66 said:
DX sensors make the most of FF glass because they only use the (higher IQ) center portion of the FOV... not that I ever really care about the corners w/ wildlife/sports. DX lenses are easier to design/make for the same reason, they only have to optimize a smaller image circle (or smaller portion of it).

.
Click to expand...

This would be logical, but I have read this several times but I have also read that certain (FF) lens perform poorly on DX bodies

I will try to find the references, but I think the Canon 70 200mm was mentioned

but one source says one thing and the other source another
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
This would be logical, but I have read this several times but I have also read that certain (FF) lens perform poorly on DX bodies

I will try to find the references, but I think the Canon 70 200mm was mentioned

but one source says one thing and the other source another
Click to expand...
I've seen/heard of numerous cases where an old FF lens design performs worse on digital, and sensors w/ smaller pixels will emphasize that. And it's not too uncommon for older lens designs to require significant AFMA.

And there's always specific lens/body combinations that work better/worse... I have lenses that work better on the D810 than they do on the D4, and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
Re: DX verses FX cropped, there is a 'technical' argument and an 'in the field' argument .. personally I am of the view that for much of the wildlife shooting I do an FX cropped just does not offer the benefit of DX.
Click to expand...
It may not; or just as likely, there is no benefit to FF cropped...so why pay for it?

I had a D800 and a D7000 at the same time... the D800 DX crop was/is essentially identical to the D7000.
 
sk66 said:
Yeah... but that's wrong/oversimplified...
It's not about the size of the sensor or even cropping exactly... It's about the resolution of the sensor (pixel size), resolution of the lens (IQ/aperture), and what you have left after cropping/not cropping. Simply saying DX vs FX leaves too many variables.
Click to expand...
Yep I get that, but there's been an ongoing argument that a cropped FX will look better than an uncropped DX that's all :p

Looking at that review though the D500 is sharper/ shows better detail than the D5 using the same lens so this throws some argument against the statement that DX can never be as sharp as FX due to the extra demands on the lens. Of course there's the aa filter to consider (God knows why they put this on the D5, or any modern camera for that matter) and the fact that the lenses may or may not have been calibrated, but still. A £1.7k DX body 'appears' to produce better/sharper images than a £5k FX body :eek:
 
sk66 said:
It may not; or just as likely, there is no benefit to FF cropped...so why pay for it?

I had a D800 and a D7000 at the same time... the D800 DX crop was/is essentially identical to the D7000.
Click to expand...
That's surprising as they're roughly the same MP. In this case I would expect FX to be better :confused:
 
BTW, one way to prevent moire is "oversampling," and that's essentially what the high resolution (small pixel) sensors do. They don't need an AA filter because they have very high resolutions but are generally displayed/printed much smaller.
 
sk66 said:
Why? All of the advantages the D800 sensor has are being cropped away/discarded...
If you are only left with a DX sensor area, then it *is* a DX sensor (or 4/3, 1", etc).
Click to expand...
Well I would have expected the D800 to have less noise and better DR etc. Resolution would be the same but I'd expect the D800 to look cleaner and sharper.
 
snerkler said:
Well I would have expected the D800 to have less noise and better DR etc. Resolution would be the same but I'd expect the D800 to look cleaner and sharper.
Click to expand...
It doesn't work that way... If the area remaining is the same size, and the pixels are the same size, then the image is made up with the same information (qtty of light, noise, color, etc, etc).

Check out the comparisons in screen display mode (pixel for pixel)... http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D800-versus-Nikon-D7000___792_680

The advantage the D800 has in the "print comparison" is due to oversampling (printing/displaying relatively smaller).
 
sk66 said:
It doesn't work that way... If the area remaining is the same size, and the pixels are the same size, then the image is made up with the same information (qtty of light, noise, color, etc, etc).

Check out the comparisons in screen display mode (pixel for pixel)... http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D800-versus-Nikon-D7000___792_680

The advantage the D800 has in the "print comparison" is due to oversampling (printing/displaying relatively smaller).
Click to expand...
OK, if I get this right are you saying that if you downsample a D810 to match the resolution of the D7000 then the D810 will show less noise, but if you crop the D800 to match the D7000 the appearance of noise will be roughly the same? ( I say roughly as the D800 pixel size is marginally larger)
 
snerkler said:
OK, if I get this right are you saying that if you downsample a D810 to match the resolution of the D7000 then the D810 will show less noise, but if you crop the D800 to match the D7000 the appearance of noise will be roughly the same? ( I say roughly as the D800 pixel size is marginally larger)
Click to expand...
Yes. And the same is true for color information, DR, etc... pretty much everything. That's because for the same smaller size print/display (D7000 at 100%) the information of 4 pixels from the D800 are being combined. That's 4x the light, color data, etc, for a given pixel displayed. But when cropped that can't happen.

We really cannot just simply say FX vs DX any more... resolution and size both affect things, but they are not directly related and they don't even necessarily correlate any more.


*Edit: we *can* say FX vs DX when it comes to uncropped/printing
 
Last edited:
Gremlin said:
Managed to see one first hand yesterday the guy was using a 200/500 lens on it and I had the 80/400 on my D7100 with the 80/400and if I am truly honest I can't really
see me spending the money, I don't need/use loads of FPS, focusing seems on a par as does picture quality so will wait and see how things pan out with those that have them.
Might just settle for a new/used D7200 or see what Nikon does next
Click to expand...
How did you come to the conclusion that "focusing on a par" with the D7100 ?
 
FX v DX .... I have in the majority times found FX images to be better, (less noise) than DX, (D750 v D7200, but certainly D810 v D7200) .........but I think it may depend on the shot and how near you are

say a small bird from 8 to 10 - FX v DX ....... and certainly if you are very near .. at almost cropable portrait head distance .... are less noisy taken from the same distance and cropped FX v DX ........ not sure what the cut off point is

with the latest NR software, especially if you have a clean background, noise can be reduced considerably on the DX image bringing it near the FX ...... in many cases .. but when you have to go into the bird, NR get noticeable

as I said, just my experience

.....
 
Perhaps I should add that the guy also had a D4s as a spare body
 
BillN_33 said:
FX v DX .... I have in the majority times found FX images to be better, (less noise) than DX, (D750 v D7200, but certainly D810 v D7200) .........but I think it may depend on the shot and how near you are

say a small bird from 8 to 10 - FX v DX ....... and certainly if you are very near .. at almost cropable portrait head distance .... are less noisy taken from the same distance and cropped FX v DX ........ not sure what the cut off point is

with the latest NR software, especially if you have a clean background, noise can be reduced considerably on the DX image bringing it near the FX ...... in many cases .. but when you have to go into the bird, NR get noticeable

as I said, just my experience

.....
Click to expand...
That's why I don't own DX any more... but it also depends on your uses and how you are comparing them (100% zoom, same size print, 2048x web, etc)
I rely on actual focal length/magnification (expensive) and getting closer. But when that is not an option, the tradeoffs become more vague.

The general tradeoffs as I see them:
FF captures more light per pixel (or area) and therefore has lower noise. But it requires a longer FL which (generally) has a smaller max aperture and therefore may require using a higher ISO.
TC's increase FL for less cropping of the FF (or any) sensor. But they cost 1-2 stops of light and therefore may require a higher ISO. Plus they degrade IQ somewhat and that costs another stop or two in order to regain it (if that's even possible).
DX/cropping doesn't require TC's or longer FL's so you can use a wider aperture/lower ISO, but they have more noise at lower ISO's (same generation/pixel count/smaller pixels).
There is no clear winner here and it will really be dependent on the specific camera characteristics/tradeoffs being compared...
DOF is another quality that varies with FL/TC's/sensor size/cropping...and it's not one that the calculators are much help in with understanding (I can't put it into definitive/empirical terms).

But there is one general truth that can be applied... The larger the size of negative you have (sensor area remaining) the better the image quality will be for any given display/print size.
Sensor resolution doesn't really matter that much because all modern sensors have more than you really need... (ever wonder why DOF/sharpness calculators (COC requirements) don't change with sensor resolution/MP's?)
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
These are really really nice. How far away from the white throat and flycatcher were you, and how much (if any) cropping was there? I'm assuming with crop factor you're getting the effective focal length of over 1200mm?
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'll guess at the distance at approx 25' - 30' for the White throat and closer for the PF about 15' - 20'

The White throat is cropped to remove all the twigs and shrubbery that surrounded it, then reduced in size for the web, then sharpened with USM. Less cropping with the Pied but basically the same process. I did apply some light NR to the pied background.
 
xmh said:
Thanks. I'll guess at the distance at approx 25' - 30' for the White throat and closer for the PF about 15' - 20'

The White throat is cropped to remove all the twigs and shrubbery that surrounded it, then reduced in size for the web, then sharpened with USM. Less cropping with the Pied but basically the same process. I did apply some light NR to the pied background.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, appreciate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xmh
Ooh, my camera's arrived, :banana: and now waiting seemingly ages for the battery to charge. :mad: :rolleyes: :LOL:

It didn't come with a manual (grey import), but looking back at the listing it isn't mentioned as being in the box. Ah well, I can peruse the manual with on the tablet. :)
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
Ooh, my camera's arrived, :banana: and now waiting seemingly ages for the battery to charge. :mad: :rolleyes: :LOL:

It didn't come with a manual (grey import), but looking back at the listing it isn't mentioned as being in the box. Ah well, I can peruse the manual with on the tablet. :)
Click to expand...

Only about 90 mins, will seem like 300 though :D
 
FLIPPIN 'eck.
I've got a D750 which I've taken 9 frames with since last October. Now I NEED a D500 to put with a 200-500 which I don't own....HELP...!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top