Absolutic: From everything I am reading, anyone who thinks that the photos from D500 will rival full frame cameras even of yester years, is a dreamer. The AF system on the other hand is a top notch. However, the AF system on say D750, which can be had cheaper, is still good enough for most applications plus you get superior image quality plus benefits of shallower depth of field with full frame sensor. D750 will also track things extremely well...... I believe for most people something like D750 is much better buy Today
Thom's trying too hard to justify DX's existence. there.
Not agreeing with Thom on the basketball shot. Washed out colours not my thing.
More shutter freezing power for FX for the same DOF. Also trying to get less DOF is not possible in some cases with DX.
He's saying most of us don't know the difference.I do. That's why I upgraded from D200>D90>D7000>DF.
I noticed the incremental differences whenever ISO is pushed, shutter speed is sacrificed.
beavertown: Is it just me? They don't look like Nikon colors?
I see, gallery is adjusted to taste of photog.Good thing about a flat colour profile.
What are Nikon colours?
Suntan: These look like mere pictures... Alas, from the hype, I had expected more.
There's sarcasm and then there's what I just read.
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
D7000 was good in its time but it wouldn't compare well today.
DX will always have better reach whether it's working space for macros or wildlife telephotos. FX will always have noticeably better IQ in low light and a hint more softer bokeh.
ThePhilips: I use Google Image search regularly, and I yet to encounter the stock photos of high resolution. Largest dimension rarely exceeds 400 pixels.
Also I have never seen Getty images in the search results.
that's why nobody wants to buy Getty's images. Photos that anybody can buy and sold multiple times and yet buyers have no right to use hires images openly.
That's the worst deal I've ever heard of.
stevevelvia50: If your main thing is landscape, casual street and fine art, the d7200 is simply the better choice. The price is Better by far, the build is absolutely fine, it is lighter, excellent AF, high iso is the roughly the same and it has higher resolution.
No it doesn't Stevevelvia50.You're comparing jpegs I suppose.
Yukon Ranger: Glad I didn't fall for the D500 hype. Download the D7200D/D500 @ 3200 ISO and compare faces at 100%. Even at this moderate ISO there are already fine details, lines and hairs the D500 simply does not pick up. ISO performance is a half stop improvement at best, so downsize your D7200 file to 20MP ... boom... advantage nullified.
The advantages of the D500 are AF fine tune, bluetooth, backlit buttons, and improved FPS/buffer. But if you can't get the shot with a 20 frame buffer, 100 won't help either....the moment will have already passed.
The problem for nikon is that a refurb 7200 is like ~750 bucks shipped, add to that a sigma 150-600 C lens and you are up and running with a high performing, extremely lightweight setup for LESS than the D500...with better IQ to boot.
I'll sum up the nikon buying guide for 2016:
-best DSLR IQ: D750-best DX IQ: D7200-best DX ISO: D500 @ the cost of resolution and detail
sorry to bust your bubble but you're looking at the jpegs. the RAWs tell a different story.
Retro1976: I don't know why there is so much hype over the Sony A series bodies and lenses. Look at these samples: The rich color, skin tones, contrast and detail - the images are lovely, superb. Sony doesn't come close to Canon in this regard, and yet time and time again people talk about the superiority of Sony sensors, yet my eyes don't see it.
Strange discussion. Especially since everyone has different tastes.
Rich colour can be easily had- FYI it's the contrast and vibrance slider or the dreaded saturation one.
Stunning images of a shy animal. Nice use of foreground to create depth.Talented & tenacious photog.
I would have asked them about DF2, focus peaking[for all the manual lenses out there], lens quality vs 3rd party & prices.
Dirk Nuary: Every camera geeks here. Please tell me what's the difference between Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop Lightroom when it comes to RAW editing. What's the advantage between the two? I'm already used Photoshop Lightroom and expect to use ACR.
ACR is a leaner fit together with Bridge & PS[if needed].
Because I also design stuff, PS is more useful than LR.
LR feels like an extra program, great if you only do photos. It's also cheaper than PS in the pre cloud days.
Alfonso Bresciani: I hate Lightroom, its interface sucks, the panes are all nested and to many, it's a big mess even with two monitors. I even hate the sliders in LR.
I don't like using sliders too. Much prefer using the arrow keys in ACR or PS.
Compared to Nikon software, Adobe is nimble as deer. LOL
Stanchung: Definitely something special. and nice review.
Since it's a shift lens, is it able to get front to back sharp of say a field of lilies? Something impossible with a non shift lens even when stopped down?
Definitely something special. and nice review.
Nice idea though not original. Lens is sharp at f2. Bokeh looks looks creamy.
However,700 is a bit steep. No VR/VC/IS or AF.T3.2 is quite a lot of lost light- more like a f2.8 lens in this respect.
Bokeh is really nice though but deal breaker for me is no AF.
(unknown member): This is a good lens with a beautiful feature for a decent price. 105mm on a FF is excellent for portraiture, f/2.0 is also excellent for shallow DoF on a FF. Add the lovely APO effect and you have an excellent tool. I think I will try one on the K-1 soon. This one checks more boxes for me than the K-mount Samyang 135mm f/2.0
Bokeh quality will be better than a regular. 105 f2.8
FuhTeng: I'm going to leave this here for all those who believe sharpness (resolution? accutance?) is the most important thing about lenses -
"Our young men should spend more time considering the composition and merit of their images, and less time with magnifying glasses counting how many bricks and shingles they can resolve." - from a Paris newspaper article on Daguerrotype photography, from 1841.
It's sharp but I feel underwhelmed by the pictures, especially the lighting. Can't really say much about the bokeh, not many f1.4 pictures.
The point of a technical real world[ real enough] gallery is to show off the lens. Top on the list is sharpness & bokeh. Colour is more of the camera's bias IMO.
I would add an into the sun, sunstars and more f1.4 shots, closest focusing shots.