D500 Thoughts and Comments
- By K
- Third Party Lenses
- 3 Replies
First and foremost, it is way too early to make any definitive calls yet as the camera has not been tested. Especially given that Nikon is really big on pushing specs, but in reality falls short of those specs. Factor in all the fanatical Sonikon fanboys who are flooding the net with praise that has never been seen before creates a hype that could be a let down or reality check later on....let us begin!
1. ISO --- Any expanded ISO is automatically garbage. You can technically expand ISO all you want, and be able to publish a spec of 12,000,000 - it is meaningless. It is all about final image quality output. That said, we move to the native ISO. Like expanded modes, in most cases the highest native ISO setting, and often the highest 2 settings are often garbage also. Good enough for casual snapshots in low light, particularly when they will be size down for web - but that's about it.
The highest native ISO setting is important because most people use it as a measure of what the sensor can do in order to then judge how clean the "normal" ISO range is - typically 100 - 6400 ISO. The idea being, if a camera has a high end of 25,600 - 3200 will be cleaner on it, than a camera with a top setting of 6,400.
That said, Nikon does pretty well on noise lately. However, this is a crop sensor. Let's remember that. It is hard to believe that a crop sensor has made essentially a 2 stop leap in image quality in one generation. Sure, Nikon downgraded the megapixels from 24 to 20, but that shouldn't give them a 1 stop boost over their best 24mp sensors.
All in all, I expect this sensor to produce the best IQ ever seen from a crop sensor - but physics are physics and it is still a crop sensor. I would not expect more than a 1/2 stop improvement over the best crop image quality currently available. Realistically, probably just a 10-20% improvement, which would still be significant.
All the expanded ISO nonsense is likely in tandem with what might be some better JPG noise reduction tech is my guess. Canon for a long time has had incredible JPG quality and noise reduction. Of course, that has been overshadowed be the legions of vloggers screaming to shoot only RAW or you're a wannabe. I don't see 1 million ISO in RAW format from a crop sensor being even slightly usable. There must be a lot of software enhancement going on.
Yes, Nikon is ahead on sensor tech over Canon, yes it is newer than the 7D2, but to say it is 2 stops better than the 7D2 is hard to believe. Especially when the 7D2 closed the gap with FF by quite a bit. If NIkon's claims are true, the big story no one is talking about is how the D500 is going to murder all low end FF camera sales if it has IQ that good. And, it stands to reason the next gen of FF, given the same sensor tech, will start to approach medium format quality.
I don't think so. But hey, I hope so. If the IQ is that good, it will match current generation FF and I'll buy one. Not holding my breath on that.
2. -4 EV focus. Big win here. If it really works that well in that kind of dark, that is awesome.
3. XQD and SD ---
Two parts -
A. Good job Nikon on offering 2 card slots yet again on a $2K or less camera. Meanwhile, Canon's fullframe rumored 6D2 will sport one lousy SD card. Really, truly shameful by Canon on that.
B. A lot of criticism of the type of slots. I think this is the most ingenious combo and most practical. Yes, I think it sucks to have to buy expensive new cards, but it doesn't have to be that way. This arrangement offers the most flexibility. With such an arrangement, I personally would put in one large XQD card and use that as full time backup. It would basically become like the camera's internal SSD storage. SD card would be the main go to card for 95% of everything. When needed, (4K or extreme rapid fire sports shooting) the XQD card offers the faster write speeds to get the most out of the camera. Figure it like this, better to have and not need, than need and not have.
It is the best of all worlds. The reason this is criticized is for no other reason than people are invested in CF. CF sucks. It is no more reliable than any other format, and arguably worse with the stupid pins.
4. 10FPS, this is great, but the 7D2 was there a long time before.
5. AF system -- well, while Nikon appears to mirror the AF system from flagship to little brother crops, it isn't quite so. Aside from that, there's a lot of points, but not all of them are selectable. So the only way the extra points helps is for whatever intelligent tracking technology they're using. Real world tests will reveal what is going on here.
6. 4K. This is big because 4K is some make or break feature according to all the fanatics on the web. Personally, I don't care. Nikon also implemented it in some bizarre, annoying fashion that makes several smaller files. Uggh. But at least it is there. That will make the nuts go wild on the web, and Nikon is big about spec-generated hype.
7. Tiling screen, with crippled touch. This is just ok.
8. Connectivity. If this works - this will be very useful for many different scenarios. Big win here.
9. Moving the ISO button to the right side of the camera. This is great. Nikon's ergos and layout sucks, and this is a move in the right direction, literally and figuratively.
10. AF adjustment - Canon has been there for a long, long time now. That's catchup.
11. Higher resolution rear LCD - good. But if Nikon hasn't corrected the bad color on it, then it is still worthless.
Conclusion and final thoughts,
Nikon's biggest obstacle for success on this camera, other than actually delivering on the hype of these specs, is to dodge recalls, bugs and other issues. Their last 2-3 bodies all had issues or recalls. Nikon quality control is questionable.
This camera surprises me a lot. I was a firm believer that the flagship APS-C was dead. Especially since the 7D2, while still popular, isn't monumental as high end crop used to be. Particularly with full frame prices dropping and more lower end options there.
Which scenario is it? Is this simply a matter of Nikon finally giving in and satisfying their customer base who has been screaming for years to have a high-speed sports/wildlife crop like Canon? Or, is this a sign that the flagship crop concept is non dead, and is still viable?
If Nikon was looking to just satisfy their customers with a sports/wildlife crop - I don't think they would have specced it out to this extent. They would have only provided the high FPS and better AF points. No need for the other stuff. Think of a 10FPS, new AF D7200 with higher end body.
Notice how this is being treated differently on the web.....
When the 7D2 came out, what was the prevailing talk ???
"This is only for sports and wildlife"
"This is too expensive for a crop in this day and age, clearly for those already invested in the Canon system"
"For Canon shooters only who want speed"
NONE of that so far for this camera.
That is likely due to the more successful marketing by Nikon, and the propaganda by all their loud-mouth followers on the web. The vloggers and bloggers aren't immediately marginalizing and compartmentalizing this camera as a specialists tool the way they did the 7D2. Nikon, by adding token 4K and a tilt screen - those two somewhat novelty features - allows this camera to shed free of any "special purpose" kind of identity, and be an all-around flagship crop king. Whereas, the 7D2 is "just for Canon shooters" and wildlife/sports only. I'll be surprised if in time they start labeling it a sports/wildlife camera only. The price is high like the 7D2 at release (actually higher). And when all the fanboy cheering is over, and it comes time to bust out $2,000 on a crop - more level headed attitudes may arise.
I suppose the flagship crop isn't dead, yet. Or, it might be a case of Nikon trying to stop a defectors to Canon who are budget sports shooters or wildlife. Maybe 7D2 is more successful than the web-world makes it out to be and Nikon wants in on it? Maybe it is more successful because it was the only show in town?
And finally, what becomes of the Nikon lineup? At about the same price is the fullframe D750. No 4K, and while it's very fast FPS, it's not 10fps speed demon. How about the D610. Not getting much press anymore. Still a decent fullframe with dual slots that a lot of budget minded pros find useful. Want the fullframe look? Don't need 10fps? The short of it is, there's a lot more overlap in the Nikon system. The choice isn't as clear between cameras. That is a good thing in a way - it means more than one camera can suit many needs. In the Canon world, there is serious intentional crippling of cameras to force up-selling to higher end bodies.
One thing is for sure, this D500 has totally overshadowed their flagship D5. I think there's more to that than just the economics of more people being interested in an comfortable non-flagship body. This is without a doubt, spec-wise, the most bold release in a very, very long time.
Let's see if it lives up to the specs and hype.
1. ISO --- Any expanded ISO is automatically garbage. You can technically expand ISO all you want, and be able to publish a spec of 12,000,000 - it is meaningless. It is all about final image quality output. That said, we move to the native ISO. Like expanded modes, in most cases the highest native ISO setting, and often the highest 2 settings are often garbage also. Good enough for casual snapshots in low light, particularly when they will be size down for web - but that's about it.
The highest native ISO setting is important because most people use it as a measure of what the sensor can do in order to then judge how clean the "normal" ISO range is - typically 100 - 6400 ISO. The idea being, if a camera has a high end of 25,600 - 3200 will be cleaner on it, than a camera with a top setting of 6,400.
That said, Nikon does pretty well on noise lately. However, this is a crop sensor. Let's remember that. It is hard to believe that a crop sensor has made essentially a 2 stop leap in image quality in one generation. Sure, Nikon downgraded the megapixels from 24 to 20, but that shouldn't give them a 1 stop boost over their best 24mp sensors.
All in all, I expect this sensor to produce the best IQ ever seen from a crop sensor - but physics are physics and it is still a crop sensor. I would not expect more than a 1/2 stop improvement over the best crop image quality currently available. Realistically, probably just a 10-20% improvement, which would still be significant.
All the expanded ISO nonsense is likely in tandem with what might be some better JPG noise reduction tech is my guess. Canon for a long time has had incredible JPG quality and noise reduction. Of course, that has been overshadowed be the legions of vloggers screaming to shoot only RAW or you're a wannabe. I don't see 1 million ISO in RAW format from a crop sensor being even slightly usable. There must be a lot of software enhancement going on.
Yes, Nikon is ahead on sensor tech over Canon, yes it is newer than the 7D2, but to say it is 2 stops better than the 7D2 is hard to believe. Especially when the 7D2 closed the gap with FF by quite a bit. If NIkon's claims are true, the big story no one is talking about is how the D500 is going to murder all low end FF camera sales if it has IQ that good. And, it stands to reason the next gen of FF, given the same sensor tech, will start to approach medium format quality.
I don't think so. But hey, I hope so. If the IQ is that good, it will match current generation FF and I'll buy one. Not holding my breath on that.
2. -4 EV focus. Big win here. If it really works that well in that kind of dark, that is awesome.
3. XQD and SD ---
Two parts -
A. Good job Nikon on offering 2 card slots yet again on a $2K or less camera. Meanwhile, Canon's fullframe rumored 6D2 will sport one lousy SD card. Really, truly shameful by Canon on that.
B. A lot of criticism of the type of slots. I think this is the most ingenious combo and most practical. Yes, I think it sucks to have to buy expensive new cards, but it doesn't have to be that way. This arrangement offers the most flexibility. With such an arrangement, I personally would put in one large XQD card and use that as full time backup. It would basically become like the camera's internal SSD storage. SD card would be the main go to card for 95% of everything. When needed, (4K or extreme rapid fire sports shooting) the XQD card offers the faster write speeds to get the most out of the camera. Figure it like this, better to have and not need, than need and not have.
It is the best of all worlds. The reason this is criticized is for no other reason than people are invested in CF. CF sucks. It is no more reliable than any other format, and arguably worse with the stupid pins.
4. 10FPS, this is great, but the 7D2 was there a long time before.
5. AF system -- well, while Nikon appears to mirror the AF system from flagship to little brother crops, it isn't quite so. Aside from that, there's a lot of points, but not all of them are selectable. So the only way the extra points helps is for whatever intelligent tracking technology they're using. Real world tests will reveal what is going on here.
6. 4K. This is big because 4K is some make or break feature according to all the fanatics on the web. Personally, I don't care. Nikon also implemented it in some bizarre, annoying fashion that makes several smaller files. Uggh. But at least it is there. That will make the nuts go wild on the web, and Nikon is big about spec-generated hype.
7. Tiling screen, with crippled touch. This is just ok.
8. Connectivity. If this works - this will be very useful for many different scenarios. Big win here.
9. Moving the ISO button to the right side of the camera. This is great. Nikon's ergos and layout sucks, and this is a move in the right direction, literally and figuratively.
10. AF adjustment - Canon has been there for a long, long time now. That's catchup.
11. Higher resolution rear LCD - good. But if Nikon hasn't corrected the bad color on it, then it is still worthless.
Conclusion and final thoughts,
Nikon's biggest obstacle for success on this camera, other than actually delivering on the hype of these specs, is to dodge recalls, bugs and other issues. Their last 2-3 bodies all had issues or recalls. Nikon quality control is questionable.
This camera surprises me a lot. I was a firm believer that the flagship APS-C was dead. Especially since the 7D2, while still popular, isn't monumental as high end crop used to be. Particularly with full frame prices dropping and more lower end options there.
Which scenario is it? Is this simply a matter of Nikon finally giving in and satisfying their customer base who has been screaming for years to have a high-speed sports/wildlife crop like Canon? Or, is this a sign that the flagship crop concept is non dead, and is still viable?
If Nikon was looking to just satisfy their customers with a sports/wildlife crop - I don't think they would have specced it out to this extent. They would have only provided the high FPS and better AF points. No need for the other stuff. Think of a 10FPS, new AF D7200 with higher end body.
Notice how this is being treated differently on the web.....
When the 7D2 came out, what was the prevailing talk ???
"This is only for sports and wildlife"
"This is too expensive for a crop in this day and age, clearly for those already invested in the Canon system"
"For Canon shooters only who want speed"
NONE of that so far for this camera.
That is likely due to the more successful marketing by Nikon, and the propaganda by all their loud-mouth followers on the web. The vloggers and bloggers aren't immediately marginalizing and compartmentalizing this camera as a specialists tool the way they did the 7D2. Nikon, by adding token 4K and a tilt screen - those two somewhat novelty features - allows this camera to shed free of any "special purpose" kind of identity, and be an all-around flagship crop king. Whereas, the 7D2 is "just for Canon shooters" and wildlife/sports only. I'll be surprised if in time they start labeling it a sports/wildlife camera only. The price is high like the 7D2 at release (actually higher). And when all the fanboy cheering is over, and it comes time to bust out $2,000 on a crop - more level headed attitudes may arise.
I suppose the flagship crop isn't dead, yet. Or, it might be a case of Nikon trying to stop a defectors to Canon who are budget sports shooters or wildlife. Maybe 7D2 is more successful than the web-world makes it out to be and Nikon wants in on it? Maybe it is more successful because it was the only show in town?
And finally, what becomes of the Nikon lineup? At about the same price is the fullframe D750. No 4K, and while it's very fast FPS, it's not 10fps speed demon. How about the D610. Not getting much press anymore. Still a decent fullframe with dual slots that a lot of budget minded pros find useful. Want the fullframe look? Don't need 10fps? The short of it is, there's a lot more overlap in the Nikon system. The choice isn't as clear between cameras. That is a good thing in a way - it means more than one camera can suit many needs. In the Canon world, there is serious intentional crippling of cameras to force up-selling to higher end bodies.
One thing is for sure, this D500 has totally overshadowed their flagship D5. I think there's more to that than just the economics of more people being interested in an comfortable non-flagship body. This is without a doubt, spec-wise, the most bold release in a very, very long time.
Let's see if it lives up to the specs and hype.
