D500 General Discussion Thread

spraynpray

@donaldejose: Nice link. So, the D500 is sharper and has better DR than the D5? Wow!

One thing I didn't get though, he said the D5 'uses all of the optical sharpness of the FX glass whereas the D500 uses less than half'. My understanding of the situation is that DX sensor with FX glass uses the part of the glass with least aberrations so is better at the edges - what's he talking about?

heartyfisher

I think all he is saying is that a DX sensor is more demanding on lenses.. which we all know. Yes the DX crop uses the sharpest part of the lense(and least vignette and other aberrations) but for an unsharp lense, a DX crop can really highlight this weakness of a weak lense ( in terms of sharpness ).

Its one of the reasons I am not getting the Tamron 150-600. Not because its a "weak" lense on FX and DX but when paired with a TC it wont cut it on DX. Its strength is that it is sharper from edge to edge and that is great for FX cameras ! but because of that Its "weakness" is that its centre sharpness is significantly enough less than the 200-500 Nikkor to make a large difference on DX +TC. If you don't intend to use TC on DX then the Tammy is still an excellent lense!

donaldejose

spraynpray: Tony's strange sharpness comment jumped out to me also and I didn't understand it either. I don't think DX uses half the sharpness of an FX lens. I think Tony was wrong. Perhaps he meant DX uses half the light coming through an FX lens because its sensor is smaller or half the surface area of FX glass? I don't see how DX could use only half the sharpness. In fact, DX should use the center portion of FX glass which is the sharpest part.

NSXTypeR

D500 review from The Camera Store.



Nothing surprising honestly, and heaps of praise all around.

Paperman

What Tom probably meant was that one gets only half the sharpness ( not exactly ) figure of a lens on a DX sensor ..... Sharpness figure of an FX lens is around +/-4200 lp/ph where as same lens will probably give +/-2800 lp/ph on a DX . Does not matter how sharp the lens is, it is limited by pixel size/density of a APS-C sensor.

retread

24 MP DX has a higher pixel density than a 36 MP FX. Seems this would require more from a lens to resolve sharpness. The smaller pixel would gather less light though.

donaldejose

Paperman: I don't understand that. Can you explain more? And does it make a difference between a 12mp FX sensor and a 36mp sensor?

PB_PM

retread said:

24 MP DX has a higher pixel density than a 36 MP FX. Seems this would require more from a lens to resolve sharpness. The smaller pixel would gather less light though.

Too bad the D500 is only 20MP. I'd guess the pixel density is about dead even.

Paperman

I am just giving examples I remember from lens sharpness tests. It has been a while since I last looked at them but I will check Photozone now .

Paperman

Can't match same Mps for both FX & DX on Photozone . Below is from DxO ... Had to go with D750 to be able to find same Mp match in DX.

24-70mm E ED on a D750 Sharpness 16
24-70mm E ED on D7100 - Sharpness 9

I'm sure the difference is not this much with every lens.

So this is what I mean ( Tom H. means ) ... Pixel size must have effect on sharpness.

donaldejose

Seems like a dramatic difference to me and a strong reason to shoot FX if this is true with most lenses. But why would this relationship be true? That is what I don't understand. And why does the lens sharpness increase to 19 when mounted on a D810? What is the physics here?

Paperman

36 Mps ?

Paperman

Not that surprising for me. One has to enlarge a DX more to reach same ph ( picture height ) for the sharpness test. The test is based on how many lines can be counted at a certain contrast level. I believe more the enlargement, less the contrast ...

spraynpray

@PB_PM: DX equiv. of 36mP is 16mp IIRC.

So this sharpness thing isn't that the pixel density of 24mp DX is so much greater than 24mp that when both are viewed at 1:1 the DX image is 'zoomed in' a lot more so the image falls apart by comparison to the FX image?

donaldejose

I thought as a rule of thumb with the same lens a 36mp sensor will produce a sharper image than a 12 or 24 mp sensor because it has greater pixel density to better define the edges of a subject. If greater pixel density yields a sharper picture why doesn't more mps density in a 24mp DX sensor also yield a sharper image than a 24mp FX sensor?

spraynpray

Where's @Ironheart when you want him?

PB_PM

It's possible that the larger sensor, due to the physically larger pixels, can simply see more of the object than the smaller one. I personally noticed this in the day when all the cameras had 12MP sensors. The D3/D700 simply looked better than the D300/D90 when cropped, even though the latter two cameras had greater pixel density (I'm speaking of base ISO, not high ISO).

Ironheart

A D500 DX sensor scaled to an FX size would yield a 49mp sensor.

However, I'm not sure this fully helps explain the comment. @Paperman is right in that each lens design maxes out at a certain lp/px, which is how DxO publishes their (much debated) "perceptual megapixel" score. And that a DX sized crop out of an FX sized lens circle is about half of the size of an FX sized one.

Think of the lens as a 4200lp scanner, and if you zoom and crop into that, you get less resolution or "sharpness". It's the lens that is limiting, not the sensor per se. @spraynpray This is also why crop sensor pictures "fall apart" when you zoom to 100%, it's the lens that is "falling apart", not the sensor.

This may be why Nikon hasn't issued a 50mp sensor yet.

Or my $0.01 (after taxes) anyway.

donaldejose

IF the lens is "falling apart" on DX are we saying DX can resolve more than a lens can produce? Are we saying DX lenses need to be twice as sharp as FX lenses in order to produce an equally sharp image when comparing one image shot at 85mm with FX sensor with the same subject shot at 50mm with DX sensor to get about the same size image on the sensor? If DX is half as sharp as FX then must CX be crap? Or is it just a matter of using the same lens on both sensors and then printing same size prints means the DX sensor image has to be enlarged more so what you are observing is an effect inherent in enlarging? Take a sharp lens such as the Sigma Art 50 and shoot it with FX, DX and CX (using the FT-1. Does that lens loose a significant amount of sharpness each step down in sensor size? Or is this "effect" an artifact of the DxOMark sharpness rating system? If not, what is the physical cause of this loss of sharpness? I still don't understand.

DaveyJ

I have seen a lot of images and reviews on the D500. I fail to see the fullframe advantages that many are touting. Having had some very large cameras that sure could do scenery so well.......8x10 and 2/14 panoramic....but the D500s pretty darn good detail and the ability to,do,it quickly enough to shoot wildlife and other things in motion from cars to people, DX looks pretty good from here. Also it looks like the D500 is a speed champion of fast focus.And maybe that to me is now of paramount importance. But donalddejose has a D500 which also sure has had a number of people try it......almost tough to say what the NR get together folks came away as a collective view of that camera. I also wish a 16-80 had been part of that exposure as for me it is sure nice. But then I am very happy with my 70-300VR Nikkors!

DaveyJ

Nikon sure needs to focus on building a few DX lens to add to the stable!

BVS

The sharpness scores on DXO seem very misleading to me. When you see that an FX camera+lens combo gets a "16" and the same lens on a DX camera gets a "9" it makes it sound like DX is crap. However, compare the following:

DXO Sharpness Scores:

D750 + 85 1.8G = 21
D750 + 50 1.4G = 18
D7100 + 85 1.8G = 15
D7100 + 50 1.4G = 13

Now, go to the DPReview studio comparison here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d7200&attr13_1=nikon_d750&attr13_2=nikon_d7100&attr13_3=nikon_d5500&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0.009223316865926446

In this comparison, the D750 is using the 85 1.8G (one of the sharpest Nikon prime lenses) and all the crop cameras are using the 50 1.4G (a fairly average prime lens). According to the DXO scores the D750 shot should be MUCH sharper than all the others. Do you see 8 Mpx worth of difference?

Dead Center: The high contrast circles seem to have a bit of color fringing on the crop cameras, and the D750 does seem a bit sharper, but the difference seems small. Could be a result of the sharper lens on the D750 shot.

Small Text (in the squares above center): D750 has a bit better contrast, but all have the same readability. Again, could be lens related.

Colored Balls (right of center): No visible difference I can see.

Bunch of Hair (right of center): Again, better contrast on the D750 shot, but all the single strands of hair sticking out from the bunch are equally visible in all the shots.

Money (below center): Same story. Slightly more contast on D750 and also D7200. Similar overall level of detail.

Overall, yes, the D750 combo is _slightly_ better, but the others certainly aren't crap by comparison. Remember too that the DXO score is for the sharpest aperture of the lens, and the DPReview shots are at f5.6, so the comparison should be valid.

donaldejose

DaveyJ: I am still early in my evaluation process of testing the D500 in various situations to see how it performs for me. I cannot speak for other people. At this time my impression is that it is amazing in two regards. 1. The focus system is awesome: fast and focuses in the dark producing great high ISO images and also has awesome full frame coverage of AF points. 2. The handling speed is great: very responsive and no buffer limit of note. I think it lacks just two things: 1. The vertical grip: that can be remedied by attaching the battery grip I have on order but have not yet received. 2. Whatever advantage a full frame sensor provides: that can be remedied by spending $4,500.00 more for a D5 but you also would gain a lot of extra weight. The D500 is well worth the money in my view and spending an extra $4,500 for "the FX sensor advantage" doesn't seem worth it to me. In my opinion the advantages are quite obvious and the D500 clearly is the best crop sensor body you can buy today. Now I am looking for its limitations. Perhaps as more reviews become available those limitations will become visually obvious and quantified with DxOMark numbers. Currently I grab the D500 for whatever I am doing just to see under what situations I regret not shooting on FX. As of now I think the only time I would clearly rather have shot on FX is when I want a 36mp FX sensor for poster size enlargements. I don't yet know how a well exposed D500 image will look when enlarged to poster size. Will the sharpness hold up? Will there be a noticeable difference in image quality between 20mp in DX compared to 24mp in FX? The 4 mp less shouldn't make a difference but the greater enlargement required from a DX sensor size might. Currently, I am thinking the D500 will clearly be superior to similarly priced FX (D750 and D810) for sports, BIF, wildlife, and low light (other than the D5 but that is $4,500 more). I also think it just may be superior to FX for natural light portraiture (other than the D5) because it has better focusing and high ISO ability. It is probably a wash with FX for studio portraiture because clients (and generally you) don't want ultimate sharpness showing all the skin defects of the subject. For landscape photography I cannot see how the D800, D800e and D810 will not be clearly superior to a D500 but just how frequently will you need to be printing poster size anyway? I am thinking perhaps a person can skip the D5 ($6,500.00) and for the same money get both a D500 ($2,000) and the expected 50+ megapixel replacement for the D810 ($3,000). It seems to me that is a better way to spend $6,500. Anyway, these are my thoughts as of now for what they may be worth. Evaluation continues.

Just some examples of the D500 with the 70-200 f4.

Go to flicker and zoom in on the mouth. Shot at f4 and ISO 800.


Go to flicker and zoom in on the feathers and face. Shot at f5.6 and ISO 100.


BIF AF. Go to flicker and zoom in on the wing feathers. Shot at f5.6 and ISO 400.


BIF AF. Go to flicker and zoom in on the feet. Shot at f5.6 and ISO 100


Go to flicker and zoom in on the two front lower teeth. Shot at f4 and ISO 800


It seems to me these examples would print fine at 24 x 36 inches but I have not yet tried it.

donaldejose

BVS: Maybe the sharpness comparison test should be conducted with the Sigma Art 50 on the D750 and the Sigma Art 35 on the D7200 or D500? Shoot both at f4 and at f5.6 to see if there is any significant difference.

heartyfisher

I am really surprised this FX/DX topic is coming up again...
1) so generally for any given lense the lense can either out resolve the sensor or not. but DX generally has higher pixel density vs FX.
1.1) If the lens out resolves both the DX and FX then the final image resolution is dependent on the Sensor MP.
1.2) if the lense is so bad that both FX/DX out resolves the lense then its just not a sharp lense (but DX will magnify the weakness of the lense.)
1.3) if the lense just manages to resolve the FX sensor(as many are designed to). FX will look sharp but then the DX sensor will "half" sharpness of the lense.

2) Of course all this base "sharpness" conclusions are further complicated by
2.1) AA filter .. the Lack of the AA filter in DX can and does result in sharper images compared to FX/DX cameras with AA.(with a good lense)
2.2) Centre sharpness characteristics of the lense. If a lense is designed for edge to edge sharpness it may sacrifice center sharpness and vice versa. Lenses with good centre sharpness may be considered weak on FX but are great for use on DX/CX.

But we all know this already ....