D500 ISO samples

[Dodi73]

Albert, I meant relatively to FX

FX has D5 and D810 as top of the line and they weight much more than D500, so is for price.

Although they have clearly different purposes, I think the D500 may well serve as a general purpose pro camera, what once were D300 and D700.

Consider my point of the next FX, no matter if D760 or D820 or D900. Now the D750 doesn't cost that much but it's also lighter because of the carbon fiber monocoque, but D810 is always around 3000 $/€ and I'm sure next one will be even more. So will be for the D620 which will probably have the same D750 price, when it will show up.

In the past I've been very happy with my D200 and I used it for everything. The two reasons why I chose fx were much better iso (especially comparing D200 and D700) and a broader lens choice.

 

[Ray Soares]

[No message]

 

[Michael Kaplan]

It was the 16-80mm lens at 38mm, f5 and 1/5 to f22 and 1/400.

How do you find the 16-80? I was thinking of getting it but some test results show the lens is not great (the digital Picture for one).

I was thinking of the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 because much better quality but would miss the extra range although I have no f1.8 glass so that would be nice...

 

[Cultured Vulture]

It was the 16-80mm lens at 38mm, f5 and 1/5 to f22 and 1/400.

How do you find the 16-80? I was thinking of getting it but some test results show the lens is not great (the digital Picture for one).

I was thinking of the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 because much better quality but would miss the extra range although I have no f1.8 glass so that would be nice...

 

[Albert Silver]

It was the 16-80mm lens at 38mm, f5 and 1/5 to f22 and 1/400.

How do you find the 16-80? I was thinking of getting it but some test results show the lens is not great (the digital Picture for one).

I was thinking of the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 because much better quality but would miss the extra range although I have no f1.8 glass so that would be nice...

 

[Cultured Vulture]

It was the 16-80mm lens at 38mm, f5 and 1/5 to f22 and 1/400.

How do you find the 16-80? I was thinking of getting it but some test results show the lens is not great (the digital Picture for one).

I was thinking of the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 because much better quality but would miss the extra range although I have no f1.8 glass so that would be nice...

 

[Albert Silver]

It was the 16-80mm lens at 38mm, f5 and 1/5 to f22 and 1/400.

How do you find the 16-80? I was thinking of getting it but some test results show the lens is not great (the digital Picture for one).

I was thinking of the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 because much better quality but would miss the extra range although I have no f1.8 glass so that would be nice...

 

[Absolutic]

I sneaked a card in D500 and managed to make some photos. Camera had 0.20 firmware in it, it is a pre-production camera

Thank you for your post! Looking at 100% noise or rather grain starts at ISO800. ISO400 very clean. Kind of surprising I expected less grainy photos at ISO800-ISO3200, but nothing that offends me.

 

[Iliah Borg]

It was the 16-80mm lens at 38mm, f5 and 1/5 to f22 and 1/400.

How do you find the 16-80? I was thinking of getting it but some test results show the lens is not great (the digital Picture for one).

I was thinking of the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 because much better quality but would miss the extra range although I have no f1.8 glass so that would be nice...

 

[Albert Silver]

It was the 16-80mm lens at 38mm, f5 and 1/5 to f22 and 1/400.

How do you find the 16-80? I was thinking of getting it but some test results show the lens is not great (the digital Picture for one).

I was thinking of the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 because much better quality but would miss the extra range although I have no f1.8 glass so that would be nice...

--
Michael Kaplan
http://www.pbase.com/mkaplan

Never read the Digital Picture for anything Nikon. They are a Canon fanboy site.

LensTip said the same thing.

Try Thom Hogan

I'm familiar with his review, but I have issues with it. If you are going to take shots at test results, then I expect images to back up some of the claims. The climate of 'just take my word for it' is less and less viable nowadays, and one I have never supported.

"Nowadays"? Through _many_ years of interactions with Thom I came to an opinion that he is very trustworthy, unbiased, and open.

That is absolutely not the issue.

He has a habit to answer e-mails, btw, so you can email him with your questions.

That is also not the issue.

And you are right, do not take anybody's word for it, rent the lens and see if it suits you.

If you are going to write in a product review that the tests everyone has done are wrong and are not representative of reality...

"The so-called MTF numbers that get reported by other sites using Imatest, for example, tend to suggest that recent Nikkors aren’t top performers. I’d argue that such tests are being done in ways that don’t mimic use and are giving misleading results."

...then I expect those words to be backed up with something, anything, to support that statement.

For example, he wrote:

"So virtually everyone that’s reviewed this lens prior to me seems to come up with the conclusion that it’s a decent lens, but overpriced.

That’s not the way I see the 16-80mm in actual use. I find it very well-behaved and producing images with good snap and very good edge-to-edge consistency (other than vignetting), even wide open."

That last statement is easily measurable via the much-maligned tests. And is not at all supported by them:

http://www.lenstip.com/458.4-Lens_r...16-80_mm_f_2.8-4E_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html

"As you see after praising a lot the frame centre the performance of the lens on the edge disappointed us. It is not a megazoom to tolerate such slip-ups on the edge of the frame. For such an amount of money you really should expect something better.

(...) the maximum relative aperture leaves a lot to be desired across the whole focal range, never approaching even the decency level."

So yes, Thom, for whom I have the utmost respect, may indeed claim these tests are meaningless, but needs to back the statement up if he does. No matter what you may think of the MTF tests, at least LensTip backs up their comments with their results. Thom repeatedly criticizes such reviewers in his own review but does not back up his comments.

 

[Iliah Borg]

So yes, Thom, for whom I have the utmost respect, may indeed claim these tests are meaningless, but needs to back the statement up if he does. No matter what you may think of the MTF tests, at least LensTip backs up their comments with their results. Thom repeatedly criticizes such reviewers in his own review but does not back up his comments.

As I said, email Thom, he appreciates the feedback.

And yes, I also tend to use MTF tests and noise figures only as some guidelines which need to be checked against real life shots, as they speak nothing of the lens character or noise character; plus they are often done over just one sample of lens / camera.

 

[Bill Dewey]

High ISO NR turned off in the camera, all NR set to zero in LR, profile Camera Neutral, nothing scientific at all, ISO's from 3200 - 10,000 at my house. All images are here:

D500 High ISO

I will make NEF's available, just have not decided how yet. My hope was ISO 6400, I am not at all disappointed. The last picture in the gallery, I will post that here, was ISO 10,000 SS 1/2.5 f4.5 taken out of my backdoor at 9:20PM of a planter box with flowers. More of an AF test, I was amazed it could AF at all, only a slight bit of hunting. I attribute the "not completely sharp" to the shutter speed and my standing in an open door in my jammies :-D

I should also note that the only thing done to any of these images was a crop of my dog to protect the person sitting on the couch.

Lola, ISO 6400

Lola ISO 8000

ISO 10,000 Flower ISO test

--
Bill Dewey
www.thefocusedeye.com

 

[mmakay]

"Nowadays"? Through _many_ years of interactions with Thom I came to an opinion that he is very trustworthy, unbiased, and open.

That is absolutely not the issue.

And you are right, do not take anybody's word for it, rent the lens and see if it suits you.

If you are going to write in a product review that the tests everyone has done are wrong and are not representative of reality...

"The so-called MTF numbers that get reported by other sites using Imatest, for example, tend to suggest that recent Nikkors aren’t top performers. I’d argue that such tests are being done in ways that don’t mimic use and are giving misleading results."

...then I expect those words to be backed up with something, anything, to support that statement.

For example, he, post: 57647279, member: 984825"]
"So virtually everyone that’s reviewed this lens prior to me seems to come up with the conclusion that it’s a decent lens, but overpriced.

That’s not the way I see the 16-80mm in actual use. I find it very well-behaved and producing images with good snap and very good edge-to-edge consistency (other than vignetting), even wide open."

That last statement is easily measurable via the much-maligned tests. And is not at all supported by them:

http://www.lenstip.com/458.4-Lens_r...16-80_mm_f_2.8-4E_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html

"As you see after praising a lot the frame centre the performance of the lens on the edge disappointed us. It is not a megazoom to tolerate such slip-ups on the edge of the frame. For such an amount of money you really should expect something better.

(...) the maximum relative aperture leaves a lot to be desired across the whole focal range, never approaching even the decency level."

So yes, Thom, for whom I have the utmost respect, may indeed claim these tests are meaningless, but needs to back the statement up if he does. No matter what you may think of the MTF tests, at least LensTip backs up their comments with their results. Thom repeatedly criticizes such reviewers in his own review but does not back up his comments.

Thom's point is that "real life" photos are not often shot at the distances used for MTF testing, nor are the subjects flat and perpendicular to the lens. I'd add that companies are wise to this, and I believe some have started to tailor their designs to perform extremely well in these conditions at the expense of all around performance.

I agree, though, that examples of performing well in "real life" would be a nice addition to his reviews.

 

[Yxa]

I believe these are real. I'm not sure what motivation the OP would have to lie about this???

Youngjun91 - You must be new to the internet. I take it 91 is your birth year I was gulliable when I was young ;-)

__________________________________________________________________________

Looks like D810 noise level. Thanks for posting.

And it looks like the "now way like FX" -guys were wrong.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57067552

Let's wait and see, I still doubt it will beat any of the current FF bodies, once one normalizes final output size, no NR applied.

Hi Renato!

Why wouldn't it be possible after 4 years of technical evolution to get better high iso with a 20Mp DX sensor than with a FX sensor which has a 16Mp DX crop mode?
Finally D810 isn't anything special at iso 6400+ and 100% view, comparing images straight OOC it comes nowhere close to what Df, D4, D4s or D750 deliver.
Having both, my test --> Nikon D750 vs D810 in very low light - iso 100-> 25600

Kindest regards,

Stany

The DX technology may exist but I doubt they will release it at this stage. The two things they need to do is to one, to give added value over the D7200 and we already know what that is, 10fps, better AF, chunky body to make people feel good about themselves and a breakable rear flippy screen and secondly, make something that has better image quality than the Canon 7DII. Well the D7200 already has better image quality so add to it all the bells and whistles mentioned above and you've beaten the competition. They can save releasing their latest DX image quality for the next Canon/Nikon punch up.

Why would they release a DX camera that can compete with a full frame camera. If they left the DX with the crop and speed advantage and the FF with the image quality advantage they're more likely to sell two cameras to someone rather than just the one camera $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Market share? I am sure the number of D500 sold will exceed the number of D5 sold, and they will make more profit. Any sale by Nikon is a lost sale to the competition.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

The D500 looks great but I'm waiting for the D900 with the same sensor tech

 

[Albert Silver]

"Nowadays"? Through _many_ years of interactions with Thom I came to an opinion that he is very trustworthy, unbiased, and open.

That is absolutely not the issue.

And you are right, do not take anybody's word for it, rent the lens and see if it suits you.

If you are going to write in a product review that the tests everyone has done are wrong and are not representative of reality...

"The so-called MTF numbers that get reported by other sites using Imatest, for example, tend to suggest that recent Nikkors aren’t top performers. I’d argue that such tests are being done in ways that don’t mimic use and are giving misleading results."

...then I expect those words to be backed up with something, anything, to support that statement.

For example, he, post: 57647654, member: 659763"]
"So virtually everyone that’s reviewed this lens prior to me seems to come up with the conclusion that it’s a decent lens, but overpriced.

That’s not the way I see the 16-80mm in actual use. I find it very well-behaved and producing images with good snap and very good edge-to-edge consistency (other than vignetting), even wide open."

That last statement is easily measurable via the much-maligned tests. And is not at all supported by them:

http://www.lenstip.com/458.4-Lens_r...16-80_mm_f_2.8-4E_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html

"As you see after praising a lot the frame centre the performance of the lens on the edge disappointed us. It is not a megazoom to tolerate such slip-ups on the edge of the frame. For such an amount of money you really should expect something better.

(...) the maximum relative aperture leaves a lot to be desired across the whole focal range, never approaching even the decency level."

So yes, Thom, for whom I have the utmost respect, may indeed claim these tests are meaningless, but needs to back the statement up if he does. No matter what you may think of the MTF tests, at least LensTip backs up their comments with their results. Thom repeatedly criticizes such reviewers in his own review but does not back up his comments.

Thom's point is that "real life" photos are not often shot at the distances used for MTF testing, nor are the subjects flat and perpendicular to the lens.

I understood his point, but unless you can back it up to demonstrate a case where the MTF presents one reality, and his image shows another, it is just speculation. In his review, Thom repeatedly (not once) criticizes other reviews and reviewers and their methods or results, instead of just reviewing the lens. I think that once you go down that path, you either back up your comments or refrain from making such comments. In a nutshell he is saying everyone else is wrong and he is right. He might be, but I expect more than just a blanket comment stating this.

I'd add that companies are wise to this, and I believe some have started to tailor their designs to perform extremely well in these conditions at the expense of all around performance.

That is also speculation, and the reviewers such as CameraLabs or LensTip review all aspects of the lens, not just sharpness tests.

I agree, though, that examples of performing well in "real life" would be a nice addition to his reviews.

 

[Tony Beach]

So yes, Thom, for whom I have the utmost respect, may indeed claim these tests are meaningless, but needs to back the statement up if he does. No matter what you may think of the MTF tests, at least LensTip backs up their comments with their results. Thom repeatedly criticizes such reviewers in his own review but does not back up his comments.

As I said, email Thom, he appreciates the feedback.

And yes, I also tend to use MTF tests and noise figures only as some guidelines which need to be checked against real life shots, as they speak nothing of the lens character or noise character; plus they are often done over just one sample of lens / camera.

Focus distance is an issue too, which is why I specifically check lens performance for distances I generally intend to use them at, which I believe is something Thom is also critical of with online lens testing.

 

[Tony Beach]

"Nowadays"? Through _many_ years of interactions with Thom I came to an opinion that he is very trustworthy, unbiased, and open.

That is absolutely not the issue.

And you are right, do not take anybody's word for it, rent the lens and see if it suits you.

If you are going to write in a product review that the tests everyone has done are wrong and are not representative of reality...

"The so-called MTF numbers that get reported by other sites using Imatest, for example, tend to suggest that recent Nikkors aren’t top performers. I’d argue that such tests are being done in ways that don’t mimic use and are giving misleading results."

...then I expect those words to be backed up with something, anything, to support that statement.

For example, he, post: 57647914, member: 984825"]
"So virtually everyone that’s reviewed this lens prior to me seems to come up with the conclusion that it’s a decent lens, but overpriced.

That’s not the way I see the 16-80mm in actual use. I find it very well-behaved and producing images with good snap and very good edge-to-edge consistency (other than vignetting), even wide open."

That last statement is easily measurable via the much-maligned tests. And is not at all supported by them:

http://www.lenstip.com/458.4-Lens_r...16-80_mm_f_2.8-4E_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html

"As you see after praising a lot the frame centre the performance of the lens on the edge disappointed us. It is not a megazoom to tolerate such slip-ups on the edge of the frame. For such an amount of money you really should expect something better.

(...) the maximum relative aperture leaves a lot to be desired across the whole focal range, never approaching even the decency level."

So yes, Thom, for whom I have the utmost respect, may indeed claim these tests are meaningless, but needs to back the statement up if he does. No matter what you may think of the MTF tests, at least LensTip backs up their comments with their results. Thom repeatedly criticizes such reviewers in his own review but does not back up his comments.

Thom's point is that "real life" photos are not often shot at the distances used for MTF testing, nor are the subjects flat and perpendicular to the lens.

I understood his point, but unless you can back it up to demonstrate a case where the MTF presents one reality, and his image shows another, it is just speculation.

No, it's his considered opinion, not speculation on his part.

In his review, Thom repeatedly (not once) criticizes other reviews and reviewers and their methods or results, instead of just reviewing the lens. I think that once you go down that path, you either back up your comments or refrain from making such comments. In a nutshell he is saying everyone else is wrong and he is right. He might be, but I expect more than just a blanket comment stating this.

Take everything with a grain of salt. Lenses that disappoint can be returned, and I've returned a fair number of them.

I'd add that companies are wise to this, and I believe some have started to tailor their designs to perform extremely well in these conditions at the expense of all around performance.

That is also speculation,

How do you know? Thom is pretty well informed when it comes to these things. It seems to me you are speculating about what Thom is or isn't speculating about.

and the reviewers such as CameraLabs or LensTip review all aspects of the lens, not just sharpness tests.

The resolution tests are typically done at just one focus distance.

 

[camelguy]

Thanks for posting those Bill. On the linked page, it would be helpful to know which images were shot at which ISOs (and at what shutter speeds / apertures) Maybe even just changing the file names to "Wheat Thins ISO 8000" or something would be simple enough?

Thank you!

 

[Albert Silver]

"Nowadays"? Through _many_ years of interactions with Thom I came to an opinion that he is very trustworthy, unbiased, and open.

That is absolutely not the issue.

And you are right, do not take anybody's word for it, rent the lens and see if it suits you.

If you are going to write in a product review that the tests everyone has done are wrong and are not representative of reality...

"The so-called MTF numbers that get reported by other sites using Imatest, for example, tend to suggest that recent Nikkors aren’t top performers. I’d argue that such tests are being done in ways that don’t mimic use and are giving misleading results."

...then I expect those words to be backed up with something, anything, to support that statement.

For example, he, post: 57648007, member: 747849"]
"So virtually everyone that’s reviewed this lens prior to me seems to come up with the conclusion that it’s a decent lens, but overpriced.

That’s not the way I see the 16-80mm in actual use. I find it very well-behaved and producing images with good snap and very good edge-to-edge consistency (other than vignetting), even wide open."

That last statement is easily measurable via the much-maligned tests. And is not at all supported by them:

http://www.lenstip.com/458.4-Lens_r...16-80_mm_f_2.8-4E_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html

"As you see after praising a lot the frame centre the performance of the lens on the edge disappointed us. It is not a megazoom to tolerate such slip-ups on the edge of the frame. For such an amount of money you really should expect something better.

(...) the maximum relative aperture leaves a lot to be desired across the whole focal range, never approaching even the decency level."

So yes, Thom, for whom I have the utmost respect, may indeed claim these tests are meaningless, but needs to back the statement up if he does. No matter what you may think of the MTF tests, at least LensTip backs up their comments with their results. Thom repeatedly criticizes such reviewers in his own review but does not back up his comments.

Thom's point is that "real life" photos are not often shot at the distances used for MTF testing, nor are the subjects flat and perpendicular to the lens.

I understood his point, but unless you can back it up to demonstrate a case where the MTF presents one reality, and his image shows another, it is just speculation.

No, it's his considered opinion, not speculation on his part.

In his review, Thom repeatedly (not once) criticizes other reviews and reviewers and their methods or results, instead of just reviewing the lens. I think that once you go down that path, you either back up your comments or refrain from making such comments. In a nutshell he is saying everyone else is wrong and he is right. He might be, but I expect more than just a blanket comment stating this.

Take everything with a grain of salt. Lenses that disappoint can be returned, and I've returned a fair number of them.

I'd add that companies are wise to this, and I believe some have started to tailor their designs to perform extremely well in these conditions at the expense of all around performance.

That is also speculation,

How do you know? Thom is pretty well informed when it comes to these things. It seems to me you are speculating about what Thom is or isn't speculating about.

No, I was commenting on the previous poster who said "I believe".

and the reviewers such as CameraLabs or LensTip review all aspects of the lens, not just sharpness tests.

The resolution tests are typically done at just one focus distance.

--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages

--
My Flickr albums: https://www.flickr.com/photos/124992764@N04/albums

 

[Iliah Borg]

So yes, Thom, for whom I have the utmost respect, may indeed claim these tests are meaningless, but needs to back the statement up if he does. No matter what you may think of the MTF tests, at least LensTip backs up their comments with their results. Thom repeatedly criticizes such reviewers in his own review but does not back up his comments.

As I said, email Thom, he appreciates the feedback.

And yes, I also tend to use MTF tests and noise figures only as some guidelines which need to be checked against real life shots, as they speak nothing of the lens character or noise character; plus they are often done over just one sample of lens / camera.

Focus distance is an issue too, which is why I specifically check lens performance for distances I generally intend to use them at, which I believe is something Thom is also critical of with online lens testing.

Sometimes zoom focal range is off too for certain distances.