Photoworks: Lloyd Chambers sums this issue up perfectly:
Actually, nantho is correct.
JollyRogge1980: One can already utilize the camera's CDAF to calibrate auto focus for any Nikon camera with CDAF and AF Fine Tune.
- Use CDAF to take the shot of the target using the 40x FL rule. - Turn off AF - Engage AF Fine Tune and set to the lowest (-) setting and hit OK. Keep doing this moving up on tick at a time until the AF focus dot begins to appear. Take note of the setting.- Now keep going up in the same fashion one tick at a time until the focus dot begins to drop off, and take note of that setting.- If, for example the first setting noted was -4 and the second setting noted was +8, you now simply split the difference and set it to +2. At plus +2, your focus dot (focus lock) will be perfectly calibrated for that lens.- Turn your AF back on and enjoy. Note that YMMV for zoom lenses.
Nice explanation of the dot-tune method.
Daniel Bliss: This is a nice feature, but I hope Nikon doesn't slip up with another critical determinant of AF performance -- mirror alignment. There was evidence at least from my point of view of this problem creeping in all through the 2000s, and it affected both my D7000 bodies and judging by forum posts, tens of thousands if not even six figures overall. The most depressing manifestation of this was my D200 clearly backfocusing under incandescent compared to normal focusing under sunlight, while a Fuji S5 Pro (for newbies, this was camera with Fuji imaging sensor and processing but Nikon D200 kit for everything else) I rented was spot-on perfect.
wombat asked the question. I suggested using the UV/IR cut filter.
nicchiaphoto: why is it that at very high ISOs the image quality of the D500 looks almost the same (just slightly slightly better) to the a6300 IQ when in RAW mode, wile instead in jpeg the colors and performance of the d500 is ten times better than the a6300?? Even if in raw mode they are similar, they perform much differently in jpeg. Could it just be because of different processing?
Leandros, the DSP and processor used are far different than the algorithms they are employing.
Leandros: It's just a consensus out there. Sony's ooc jpegs are far better than they used to be, but they still aren't quite up to Canikon standards.
tecnoworld: There are only two real competitors to d500. One is canon 7d mk2, the other is samsung nx1. You didn't care to include the latter in your comparison. Pity, since despite being 2 years older, it has 28mp bsi sensor, more fps, lighter body, real 4k downscaled from 6.5k, 120fps in video @1080 and much more.
And...it fares so well that I still prefer it even from your samples:
Now, some ppl will moan that it's discontinued and such usual things one says when he's without real arguments. But you can still buy it,at prices well below d500.
Samsung NX1 cannot match the AF tracking of the 7DMkII, much less the D500.
Amateur DSLR Guy: I can get a refurb. D7200 for $699 now... I want to upgrade from a D3300 but I'm not sure what to go with.
D7200 $699 Not tilt screen - 24.2 vs 20.9 is that a big difference? D500 $2000 (a lot of money) But awesome featuresNow I hear rumors of a "D3500"
Maybe I should wait another year.
Unless you really want the tilt screen, I think the D7200 will be much better than any D3300 replacement. The D7200 has far, far better handling with twin dials, far better autofocus performance and ease of changing modes, AF fine tune, etc., not to mention the ability to autofocus with the D (screw drive) lenses.
Pull the trigger on the D7200 and you won't be disappointed.
Who makes the sensor in the D500? Is it a Nikon design like the one in the D5?
Nikon and Canon have far better jpeg engines than most of the industry.
Roland Schulz: Not bad, but is this the full truth?! Is the PD AF now compensated in regards of light temperature? With my D4 it is not. Simply do a test using a D4, 85 1.4G and the AF illuminator of a SB910 for example. This lens tuned to "daylight" is way off when using the SB910 AF illuminator. There were many talks about issues regaring AF accuracy using PD AF cameras under different lightning. No problem with a mirrorless...
When I look at the latest samples here using the D5 with 35 1.4G I can´t ignore that some pictures are still OOF, even with this masterpiece of AF system.
Try a UV/IR cut filter.
pdussart: Two toughts:
1) in the computer industry, you have open and proprietary systems. With open systems, your application can be used on many hardware, ... A Nikon software with a very limited scope (D5 and D500) does not seem to have a bright future,.... It locks you in a narrow and costly upgrade path. Marketing, ....
2) regarding the mirror, I like to see what I shoot with natural colours. I am not convinced by electronic viewers. A traditional viewer or a mirror does this job.
Some attempts were made with fixed semi reflective mirrors. There might other ways: what if the reflective area of the mirror went on and off, say at 60fps. One frame to the sensor, then one frame to the eye, and so on. Or another frequency to eliminate any kind of flickering, ....
Wouldn't have to oscillate mechanically, necessarily. I'm thinking of some kind of electrically induced polarization that would turn it on/off...
Put on an UV/IR cutoff filter. Problem solved.
PVCdroid: Somebody needs to tell them about mirrorless full frame.
Yeah, those 800mm mirrorless system lenses are awesome, especially Sony's.
Caerolle: If I was going to shoot a lot of action, for sure I would have a dSLR for the OVF and for the off-sensor PDAF for continuous AS.
Fortunately, I only take some pics of my son playing rugby occasionally, and can get some decent shots with my mirrorless system, so I don't need two systems. Though if I had enough money, I would for sure have something like a 7D Mark II (NOT the old one, lol) and probably a 100-400/4.5-5.6 even just for that. Action is one thing that dSLRs are just way better at.
"Is the aperture 2.8*1.4, too?"
Yes. One full stop.
Interestingness: Fantasic amazing work! Mr. Garcia is a talented photographer and talented in post - makes a killer combination!
But wait, what is going on here? Yet ANOTHER fantastic Canon shooter? How can this be as the Sony kool-aid boys are telling everyone that this can't be so. The, the, the DR isn't supposed to be good and where is the 4K? One should be incapable of taking a picture without that extra bit of DR and seriously, smartphones have 4k now. I'm confused, what's going here?
Devil's advocate mode now off ;)
Hey Interesting, I got the sarcasm - I was agreeing with you.
I too was looking for the Sony fanboys to spout off on how an A6000/6300 could do the job better and with smaller lenses, etc. It seems even they have clued in that some people need real weather sealing, handling, etc., and that DR at base ISO is not the defining characteristic of a camera.
a-flying-wuss: "Because I travel lots I like to take advantage of the APS-C format with smaller and lighter lenses. My lens kit include the 300mm F2.8, 70-200mm F2.8, 100mm macro, TS-E 90mm, 50mm and 16-35mm F4, all L-series."
So he's "taking advantage of the APS-C format smaller and lighter lenses" by using full-frame lenses only? Interesting technique, not sure how it works though. :-D
"A 300/2.8 on 1.6 APS-C vs a 500mm/2.8 on FF. Just a *bit* of a size and weight difference."
Actually, the FF equivalent would be ~450mm f/4... still probably no size or weight savings there, though.
bgbs: So, this camera costs $330 per megapixel for H6D-100c and $520 per megapixel for H6D-50c. I'd say 100c is a much better deal.
The better question is, is each pixel gold plated on this thing?
Yes, practically speaking. It's not just the 100MP and 15 stops of dynamic range. The 16 bits per pixel and the large pixels deliver a tonality and colour accuracy that is simply unmatched in FF and cropped cameras.
Dave C 150: Of course night concerts look fine with grainy pics as it adds to "mood" and who needs detail. They look very noisy above 32000 to me. I would be more interested in shots in poor daylight of wildlife, especially birds where any noise ruins a shot. I'd like to see what ISO produces the breakthrough point for this type of shot. I'd say it's around ISO 1600 currently for most modern full frame cameras for this type of shot although I am completely happy to be shot down as I don't own one!
It helps to read the article as well:"For low resolution usage, magazines and newspapers I find images exposed up to ISO 51200 usable, with still not much noise in the shadows or colors. At ISO 102 400 the color noise starts to be too disturbing in my opinion, but with some noise reduction plugin / software this can be fixed (to some point). Above ISO 51 200 – 102 400 the noise is visible with reduced color quality, sharpness and the overall image quality and I’m not uploading any images at higher ISO value than 102 400."
I believe him, given that he's forgotten more about photography than I'll ever learn. So, basically, good to 32,000. 51,200 is adequate for small prints and magazines, and 102,400 could be ok under certain circumstances, depending on the shot.
That's pretty impressive in my opinion.
rich07: "This aperture dependence of focus is unfortunate, and somewhat crippling in some scenarios, sometimes forcing you to dial in F1.8, focus, switch to MF, then stop down and shoot. Sony says this is intentional design to avoid the extra time it takes to open and close the aperture during AF acquisition - a valid concern"
Is this a valid concern? Or is it Sony BS to create a point of different between this and more expensive lenses?Can anyone tell me if any other Sony lenses have this "feature"?
Rishi, I'm not saying your article is BS. I thought it was well done. It's simply my opinion that, in 2016, designing a new, fast, prime lens with stop-down focusing is... well, let's not use that word again. Silly. Yes. Silly. Especially when one notes that pretty much every other maker produces a 50mm lens with adequate focusing speed, and at a lower price. Slower focusing would be preferable to their choice. Again - just my opinion, but i suspect it's shared by many.