To save the world
Man I do wish that the Pentax K3 or K3II was a part of the Dynamic Range test
fakuryu: Nicely composed images but in terms of low light performance and IQ, it is really not far off the old 16mp Sony sensor found on the Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5
I'd say actual pixels. The only way I compared it was using the low light studio samples comparing the D500 and D7000 RAW at ISO 6400. It looks like the sensor of the D500 is not really that far ahead.
Nicely composed images but in terms of low light performance and IQ, it is really not far off the old 16mp Sony sensor found on the Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5
Fred Mueller: Certainly going to be a great camera for action and general use ...
Just from what I can see here, I'd still go for my 750 for file quality that is just a little bit better all around ... but can't hold a candle to the speed and, likely, AF accuracy of this new body
Will be interesting to see the DXO scores when they appear ...
The speed and AF accuracy of the D750 is nothing to scoff at since it shares the same AF module of the D4S AFAIK
If I remember it correctly, somebody from the Pentax thread suggested or thought of an idea about a modern digital camera without a rear screen. I guess he got his wish.
KobusReyneke: When I compare the D500 with the D750 in the Studio scene, the latter outperforms the D500 at every ISO point in both JPEG and RAW - up to 51200. Beyond 51200 the D500 images are barely useable, but if you need it, I guess the D500 wins. In my mind the D750 is a hands down the winner.
I think the D750 is still the better option of the 2 even if it uses an older AF system of the D4S, it is still an awesome AF system of the D4S! The only advantage of the D500 is the higher FPS anyway plus the longer reach for birding and such.
fakuryu: Comparing the Nikon D500, Canon 7DII, Sony A6300 and the Pentax K-3II at ISO 6400, it looks like the Pentax holds the most detail and lowest noise even more so with Pixel Shift enabled.
How come there are no Pentax cameras with the DR comparison tool? It would be very interesting to have the Pentax K5 there since it is quite known for its DR.
I don't know if you are trolling or just a fanboy, obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.
aramgrg: Wow! This is some very good news. I would love to get rid of FF as soon as prices of this guy goes down.
Why? It is bigger and heavier than the D750!
Comparing the Nikon D500, Canon 7DII, Sony A6300 and the Pentax K-3II at ISO 6400, it looks like the Pentax holds the most detail and lowest noise even more so with Pixel Shift enabled.
grcolts: I don't want it as it does not come in my camera mount. :)
What plastic DFA 100mm f2.8 WR Macro are you talking about?
racin06: I suppose that if you are primarily a sports/action shooter, then the $6500 may be justfied. However, from a pure image quality standpoint, sorry...I just don't see it. The low-light image quality of the D5 is only slightly better than what the best APS-C and even Micro 4/3 cameras are producing with good glass attached. Under adequate lighting conditions, the difference is even more minuscule. Let the flamming begin! I have thick skin.
Photo 11/80 the bride at ISO1600 has the similar grain and noise of the Pentax K5 at the same ISO but I could be wrong since I'm not exactly at home to compare it with some of my ISO 1600 shots
I'm not saying that the old K5 16mp APSC sensor si better than Nikon's latest and greatest. I'm just saying that they look similar at least on ISO 1600.
In a couple more iterations Sony might be able to surpass Canikons best when in comes to AF-C, who would've thought about that a few years ago about MILCs?
Will B Milner: Sweet! Anyone know a good surgeon to remove one of my kidneys?
I don't think 1 kidney is enough :D
What is the market rate of a healthy kidney these days anyway?
tonyreidsma: I was going to get the 6300, but with overheating issues reported, and the lack luster native 1080p quality, I'm passing and will look elsewhere.
Currently I don't have clients clamoring for 4K, and I don't need it for post, so I'm sitting tight and see what happens with 4K. I'm assuming it will be the standard, but I wonder how long that will take.
Well you can always compress 4k to 1080p, some people say that the image quality is better than native 1080p.
I liked #5 the best, basing on his description, that is a shot that you just cannot easily repeat or replicate
Was in San Francisco 2 weeks ago. Lovely city.
nunatak: Analysis: "The gentlemen we spoke to didn't quite say it, but let's be honest - the D500 is a camera for DPReview readers. All those who complained for years that the D300S didn't have a proper replacement can take pleasure in the fact that it was your complaints that lead directly to the creation of the D500"
indeed, let's be honest. DPreview had far less to do with this, i think, than Thom's persistent and nagging criticism. to be fair, when Thom engaged daily at DPreview, he got the crowd going. if he had his own forum, Nikon would have read his readers complaints there. simply said, w/o Thom stirring the pot as hard as he did ... i suspect the chances of realizing a D500 were far, far less. JMO.
Or probably because when Pentax released the K3 and Canon the 7DII with the risk of DSLR APSC customers going somewhere else
PieterB: I'm not an Nikon fanboy at all (been shooting Minolta and Sony for all eternity) but I think the D5 is still an excellent sports/action/wildlife camera.And paying this amount of money to do portraiture or wildlife is a bit silly.
For portraiture, Nikon has better and more affordable alternatives like the D750 and the D800 series. For wildlife, the D500 is a better option due to reach.
BattleBrat: Another crop DSLR *shakes head* I used to have a 60 D. I liked my 60 D, then I borrowed a 5D Mark two. And I realized crop sensor DSLRs suck if I'm going to tolerate something the size and the weight of a DSLR you might as well go full frame. Crop sensor DSLRs get the crappiest lenses and all the good glass is FF, so why bother? I picked up an Olympus EM5 and it completely destroyed the 60 D. If I am going to tolerate a sub full frame sensor, then I will get a system with the lens mount made specifically for it, like micro 4/3 or Fujis system. The same applies to Sonys APSC mirror less cams, all the good glass is full frame and very big, negating a all the size advantages of a mirror less camera, with no good lenses made just for the APSC sensor, so why bother? Why tolerate being a second-class citizen?Crop DSLR shooters do yourself a favor, try FF, or a camera system with a dedicated crop mount.
It's not Pentax's and Fuji's fault if Canon does not make excellent APSC lenses
Edit: Some of Pentax's "APSC" lenses are actually FF lenses
Battersea: I bet this camera would be such a joy to use. No way would I ever be in the market for this camera, but it would be a wonderful tool/toy to use to enjoy pure photography. Alas not for me even at a much much lower price. The few people who buy it will cherish using it though.
^ so basically any current camera with a prime lens?