Yukon Ranger: Let the Dpreview/Nikon/bhphoto viral marketing scam begin!
Don't be fooled.
The d7200 will give u sharper cleaner images up to 3200 ISO, with 15% more reach at less than half the price.
Every shot taken on d7200 picks up 3 mp of data the d500 can't even see.
100 bucks says 10 replies to this comment, arguing how wrong I am. But the math don't lie folks, and neither do the samples.
7200 is softer:
Ingo70: Wow, i expected so much more. I thought while 1600 ISO seems a little high, 51.200 should be ok.But even 12.800 or the examples of 8.000 ISO are worse than i expected.Taking pictures of people in the dark require high iso settings just because they move, even when setting the camera on a monopod.Sport also needs short shutter-times, sometimes 1/800 or shorter in dark environments.So may be my expectations where to high, but in my opinion even my Fuji can deliver more.So maybe 16mpix is the sweet spot for APS-C?In many ways for me the D500 could be a good or even perfect little cam, but not in the high ISO department.
Fuji is soft:
How will all Canon pros switch brands before Rio's Opening Ceremony, on the 5th of August? There's simply no time!
How will they be able to push 5EV on Bolt and Gatlin?
It's worse than ZIca!
(...good grief...splitting hairs on such behemoths, technical marvel cameras...You guys and DPR really lost it...)
After shooting with my D500 for five days, I can say that Nikon hit this one "out-of-the-ballpark". There's some magic in that 21 mp crop sensor that reminds me of film, but I'm not sure what it is. (Did I say crop sensor?)
petr marek: Nope, not class leading...Marketing words.Samsung NX1 is still leading APS-C class in IQ...But very close.
Compare apples to apples -- use "Print resolution (8MP)"
NX1 is softer:
RobLW: Not sure if it's just my naff work monitor, but on the first page on this studio test, the Sony 6300 and the Nikon 7200 both appear to look noticeably better in sharpness and clarity in picture quality, the edges of lines/circles look sharper and neater?
I feel like I've completely missed something here, or the test was just poorly executed, or are we really saying that the D500 is lesser quality than the D7200 and the Sony 6300?
It's your monitor, to me the a6300 is soft:
noflashplease: It's interesting that posters keep mentioning the Fuji X-Pro2? I'll give Fuji credit for well made cameras that have full controls and interesting form factors. In contrast, Nikon has produced a huge, overpriced, half-plastic APS-C DSLR with the most controversial and overpriced kit lens in recent years. The Nikon D500 is such an unconvincing, but overhyped, product that I fear for the future of the company, to the extent that I'm reluctant to invest in more Nikon gear.
Kit lens?! I doubt very few people will buy the D500 with the kit lens.
bwoodahl: RAW 400, compare with Nikon D7100, put box on the pencil drawing of old man (his eyes): Nikon handily wins.
Then what is the purpose of the "studio COMPARISON database"?
RAW 400, compare with Nikon D7100, put box on the pencil drawing of old man (his eyes): Nikon handily wins.
Folks, look at the old man's eyes "pencil drawing" at 400 / RAW with incandescent lighting. 5DMk3 > D7100 > LumixGX7 > 70D. To me, the 70D is not even close.