-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Long post - comparison of D500 and D800E IQ - for birding
- Thread starter Dr Bob
- Start date
Dr Bob
Senior Member
Similar reach yes.
That is what my first post in this thread showed. That is what I experiened a few years back with the D600 and D7100. That is what I am seeing now in how much I can crop my D500.......and a large number of respondants to this thread are seeing. Did you read my post above on the comment from Arash Hazeghi (moderator) of the Avian forum? I find his response pretty difficult to dispute.
If you think the reach from the dx is better, can you show me a shot cropped to 1600px (long side) at iso 4000 that matches this one for iq?
Loading…
andyburnsphotography.zenfolio.com
I have spent time doing the testing on the original posts and posted 25 shots (best from the FF and DX on the waxwings - see link in previous post). It is now time for you provide evidence we are all talking a load of rubbish.
I think I now understand the limitations of my D500 and they match Lance's findings. I also find that pretty hard to dispute - given Lance's experience.
Andy
http://andyburnsphotography.zenfolio.com/p108142935/h818276ff#h818276ff
Last edited:
S
SushiEater
Guest
O
OlyPent
Guest
Just not enough difference to merit the FF and all its downsides like more expensive (depending which lens) lenses, heavier kit to do the same job as the APS. Now I know why some wildlife shooters have moved to the D500.
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
Yes, I agree. I've never been one who says more pixels necessarily translates to more reach, it's just one element in the image chain.
Yes, I did read that post. I didn't see where Arash said an FX sensor similarly cropped (i.e., same area) would do better. He just said it was too much cropping at too high an ISO.
1600 D800E equivalent pixels, and yes because your own samples showed it.
I didn't spend a lot of time looking at the waxwings shots, but it did look to me like there was a difference in the focus, which I have just mentioned might be a factor in what you are seeing. I didn't say you are "talking a load of rubbish" as regards what you are seeing, what you are seeing is what you are seeing; I said it isn't because of the sensors. The evidence I've seen so far is that the D500 sensor does no worse than the D800E sensor over any equal given area -- and it simply doesn't make any sense that when both are DX cropped they are the same but the D500 gets worse by comparison when both are cropped beyond that.
As for me providing evidence, let me start by seeing your evidence (the Raw files) so that I can evaluate them.
What I've seen looking at the files is that NR does a different job on them, and that has some visual effects that do not favor the D500. This is where it pays to spend more time with the files and figure out how to optimize them. By every measure, the D500 has at least as much reach as the D800E sensor, at any ISO, and if you or anyone else is not seeing that then something is wrong and that's something that needs to be addressed. Writing the D500 sensor off as somehow inferior, and inferior because it's a DX sensor, just isn't supported by any evidence I've seen.
larrywilson
Veteran Member
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
Of course.
O
OlyPent
Guest
T O Shooter
Forum Pro
theonetruepath
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,744
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,406
S
SushiEater
Guest
S
SushiEater
Guest
theonetruepath
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,744
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,406
Not so vague. He's saying that with a small subject the extra pixels of the D500 are typically/frequently of no use, that they don't give an actual benefit over the fewer pixels of the D810, due to the increased IQ of the D810 pixels.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum