S
SushiEater
Guest
I am not the birder or landscaper luckily. I bought D500 for portrait work (kind of) and I have no interest in higher resolution camera. But D520 with 36mp would be welcome.
-
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
mansod
Senior Member
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
That's a great video. HOWEVER... it does not test the whole premise of the OP. The OP contends that if you are shooting birds that you will often be cropping all cameras down to 6MP and below. In this situation he contends that the DX files fall apart more readily than the FX files and that FX wins. If you compare DX uncropped vs. DX cropped FX files then DX wins.
mansod
Senior Member
theonetruepath
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,744
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,406
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
mansod
Senior Member
Dr Bob
Senior Member
Thankyou Mike for stating succinctly what I was trying to say. Also thanks to Lance for giving his experience. Having now shot my D500 for nearly a month and 5000 clicks I am even more convinced the Dx does not stand up to being cropped to the level of the FF (at least at iso's over 2000 - I need to get some more experience at sub 800 isos).
To be clear - if I crop a D800E shot to 1600px long side, to get an equiv shot on Dx I need to crop to circa 1800px. If both bodies give similar IQ at these crops then the Dx has no reach advantage. (see images on first post if you dont believe me). Now see the image at
http://andyburnsphotography.zenfolio.com/portfolio/h73d60d0d#h31368c83
This was a D800E cropped to 1600px. I have not yet been able to get anywhere near that IQ on the D500 with that iso cropping to 1800px.
When I started this thread it was in response to Tony B challenging my views on additional reach from Dx bodies. I said in the original post that this argument has raged for 3 years and will never be solved by yet another 'test' and another thread. What is interesting to me is that the experienced birders understand the problem. You cannot crop a dx image nearly as far as a FF at higher isos. I have spoken to many many bird photographers in the last 2 weeks with all the Waxwings we have had here. 90% of those shooting with big primes are in full agreement.
We will never resolve the issue here, but I would pose the question - if there are so many strong views to support my initial premise, then there must be some merit in that premise. As Lance said, he is happy with his view as I am with mine and I know who's experience I value most on this forum when it comes to shooting birds. Sushieater by his own admission does shot birds. If you dont shoot birds then you are unlikely to have to crop so deeply so will not be aware of the issue or have experience of the issue.
If anyone wants to convince me that the D500 has additional reach ie can be cropped to lower than 1800px at high isos then please produce some images similar in IQ to the goldcrest in the link above.
Andy
Last edited:
wasserball
Senior Member
A lot of effort went into the comparisons, and there are many follow up posts. Now, without spending hours trying to decipher all the opinions can someone summarize the outcome here? Thanks!
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
Okay, now we need to step back for a moment here. All of this is true for higher ISOs, but not for lower ISOs. According to Thom Hogan who says that many newer Nikkors should be able to resolve 72 MP FX sensors, lenses are not the issue either. If you are going to be disappointed by pixel densities greater than the current 36 MP FX sensors then most of you already know who you are -- so if you have less expensive lenses (already an issue with the 36 MP FX sensors), sloppy technique, are constrained by conditions (lowlight, really long lenses being used on fast moving subjects, etc.), then the next generation of FX sensors aren't going to show any appreciable difference in resolution. OTOH, if you have good lenses and you are photographing landscapes or even birds at lower ISOs then the next generation of higher MP density sensors will show mostly marginal resolution improvements with no real image quality compromises (the IQ argument comes up with every new generation of sensors, it's mostly a canard, and it's going to be there with the next generation of sensors too).
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
Short answer to that would be no because there's still disagreement.
My take would be that high ISOs are the "great" equalizer when it comes to reach.
Nikon should just come out with a niche dslr that has a 1" sensor, optical viewfinder, good AF, and native F mount with no adapters needed. Might be a birders dream camera for those worried about pixels on the subject. More than likely the discussion would then turn into a 1" vs DX debate instead of what we are seeing here.
Dr Bob
Senior Member
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
We agree up to the point where you suggest that the sensor's characteristics change at some point. I said high ISO is an "equalizer," and not that it changes which sensor does better. I accept that you are seeing an image quality advantage to using the D800E at higher ISOs, but it defies logic that equal areas look the same when they are larger areas but that one camera suffers more when they are smaller areas (i.e., more heavily cropped). I suspect that as you attempt to magnify the D500 files more though that something surfaces under the greater scrutiny that is effected by the high ISO -- and that points to NR/sharpening algorithms, and/or possibly very slight focusing differences -- and I don't have an answer at this time to whatever it is that you are seeing that is adversely effecting the D500 files vis-a-vis the D800E files.
--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Last edited:
mansod
Senior Member
O
OlyPent
Guest
The equivalency thing breaks down when different pixel counts are involved. On lens per lens basis, a DX doesn't provide 50% greater reach, it provides about 20%, because the most pixels I have in DX is 24, but I have 36 in FF. All that remains 50% different is the narrowing of the angle of coverage going from FF to DX.
Dr Bob
Senior Member
O
OlyPent
Guest
Dr Bob
Senior Member
Yesterday, Wasserball asked if someone could summarise the findings of this thread!!! As the discussion seems to be finished, let me then try and summarise where we got to. I will split this into two bits, Facts and Interpretation.
Facts:
The original post contained a number of test shots comparing IQ of the D500 and D800E at high iso but cropped hard down to 1500px (for the FF) and 1700px (for the Dx) – images giving the same field of view.
Nobody criticised the test method, test target or way it was all presented.
The test was trying to show that when both bodies were deeply cropped to the same size, for the Dx body to have more reach, the DX IQ would need to be better (and significantly better so the image would stand further cropping).
Of all the respondents, five preferred the IQ of the FF body on the A and B series (Tam63, J-photo, Winslow, Larry Wilson, Dyun27), 2 saw no difference (NatuRaOx2 & Tony Beach) and no one saw the Dx images as better in the 800-3000 iso range. A number of others commented on the premise that the 'additional reach' of the DX does not exist at high iso but they did not specifically comment on the comparison of the shots.
In discussing the premise of 'no additional reach at high iso for DX' the respondents who agreed that when cropping deeply, the extra cropping on the FF body makes up for the additional reach were:
Dr Bob (OP)
Pmenear
Larry Wilson
theonetruepath
TyrSog
LanceB
The respondents who did not support the premise were:
Mansod (but Mansod did think the images presented did look similar. Mansod also produced a reasonably sharp D500 image cropped to <1500px but this was at iso 400 – less than range we were discussing)
Billslatteryjr (but Bill said he did not shoot over iso 800-1000 which is the main point of the premise)
Sushieater (but sushieater did say “only limited experience with the D500 and was not a birder)
T. O. Shooter and Wasserball commented on the thread but made no statement of which way they are leaning.
…...and finally Mike Dawson is keeping an open mind but keeping up with the story!
Interpretation:
I started in the OP saying this one set of tests will never be enough to solve this issue (so I am not wrong there then!)
Looking at all the information presented in this thread there is a significant amount of information and support for the thoughts proposed, including support from a number of 'expert' birders. Birders are likely to be the only people who regularly (50% of the time) work with high crops of FF and Dx bodies so their experience has to be treated with respect. Billslatteryjr (as a birder) did argue that DX did give extra reach but his limit of iso is 800-1000 which is my 'cross over' iso level. Mansod maintained his position that DX does give more reach. Perhaps one of the most respected birders here is Lance and he was strongly in support of the premise.
There were a couple of other external inputs viz Steve Perry's video introduced by Mansod and Arash's views (moderator of the Avian forum – probably the best site to see C&C on bird images world wide). I think Steve's video is good but does not look at the high cropping we are discussing here and he does not mention iso's at all. Arash clearly sees a limit on how hard you can crop dx bodies at high iso which therefore significantly affect the 'extra reach'.
My own view has not changed at all on this issue. The data on the D500 seems to be the same as previous information so I am still convinced the Dx body shows no reach advantage at high iso when cropping extensively. When not cropping extensively, the FF IQ is good enough so we dont need any further reach.
If I was new to all of this, does the evidence in this thread help me decide. Probably not, but the high level of support for the message in the OP must indicate there is a good degree of merit in the premise and the statement that a Dx body gives 1.5* the reach of a FF cannot be taken for granted.
I valued Tony B's input as he was the one who initiated the thread and was trying to identify 'why' there is a difference between the FF and DX pixels. Whilst the argument will go on and on, if someone can identify the 'why' then maybe it can be resolved quicker. Tony, back to you.
Andy
Facts:
The original post contained a number of test shots comparing IQ of the D500 and D800E at high iso but cropped hard down to 1500px (for the FF) and 1700px (for the Dx) – images giving the same field of view.
Nobody criticised the test method, test target or way it was all presented.
The test was trying to show that when both bodies were deeply cropped to the same size, for the Dx body to have more reach, the DX IQ would need to be better (and significantly better so the image would stand further cropping).
Of all the respondents, five preferred the IQ of the FF body on the A and B series (Tam63, J-photo, Winslow, Larry Wilson, Dyun27), 2 saw no difference (NatuRaOx2 & Tony Beach) and no one saw the Dx images as better in the 800-3000 iso range. A number of others commented on the premise that the 'additional reach' of the DX does not exist at high iso but they did not specifically comment on the comparison of the shots.
In discussing the premise of 'no additional reach at high iso for DX' the respondents who agreed that when cropping deeply, the extra cropping on the FF body makes up for the additional reach were:
Dr Bob (OP)
Pmenear
Larry Wilson
theonetruepath
TyrSog
LanceB
The respondents who did not support the premise were:
Mansod (but Mansod did think the images presented did look similar. Mansod also produced a reasonably sharp D500 image cropped to <1500px but this was at iso 400 – less than range we were discussing)
Billslatteryjr (but Bill said he did not shoot over iso 800-1000 which is the main point of the premise)
Sushieater (but sushieater did say “only limited experience with the D500 and was not a birder)
T. O. Shooter and Wasserball commented on the thread but made no statement of which way they are leaning.
…...and finally Mike Dawson is keeping an open mind but keeping up with the story!
Interpretation:
I started in the OP saying this one set of tests will never be enough to solve this issue (so I am not wrong there then!)
Looking at all the information presented in this thread there is a significant amount of information and support for the thoughts proposed, including support from a number of 'expert' birders. Birders are likely to be the only people who regularly (50% of the time) work with high crops of FF and Dx bodies so their experience has to be treated with respect. Billslatteryjr (as a birder) did argue that DX did give extra reach but his limit of iso is 800-1000 which is my 'cross over' iso level. Mansod maintained his position that DX does give more reach. Perhaps one of the most respected birders here is Lance and he was strongly in support of the premise.
There were a couple of other external inputs viz Steve Perry's video introduced by Mansod and Arash's views (moderator of the Avian forum – probably the best site to see C&C on bird images world wide). I think Steve's video is good but does not look at the high cropping we are discussing here and he does not mention iso's at all. Arash clearly sees a limit on how hard you can crop dx bodies at high iso which therefore significantly affect the 'extra reach'.
My own view has not changed at all on this issue. The data on the D500 seems to be the same as previous information so I am still convinced the Dx body shows no reach advantage at high iso when cropping extensively. When not cropping extensively, the FF IQ is good enough so we dont need any further reach.
If I was new to all of this, does the evidence in this thread help me decide. Probably not, but the high level of support for the message in the OP must indicate there is a good degree of merit in the premise and the statement that a Dx body gives 1.5* the reach of a FF cannot be taken for granted.
I valued Tony B's input as he was the one who initiated the thread and was trying to identify 'why' there is a difference between the FF and DX pixels. Whilst the argument will go on and on, if someone can identify the 'why' then maybe it can be resolved quicker. Tony, back to you.
Andy
Loading…
andyburnsphotography.zenfolio.com
larrywilson
Veteran Member
Thanks Andy for all the time and effort you have put into the subject of comparing the d500 to the d800E IQ using both cameras cropping heavily at iso's above 1,000.
I try to go easy on the crops with either the d500 or d810 mainly because I like the option of printing different to different sizes, but I personally don't print over about a 12 X 18 on my printer. I have very few images under 2500 on the long side of a 3:2 ratio image and 90% at 3000 and over.
I have limited shooting the d500 to around an iso of 1600 especially where I am going to crop much. I am seeing at around 800 iso and higher that the d810 looks noise wise better than the d500. The d810 is just not as grainy and to me it seems the noise reduction in raw is easier to edit with the d810.
90% of my photography at present is bird photography and I have taught myself over the years to have more patience and find a way to get closer to my subject. Extensive cropping to me means deleting the image in the end so I just don't take these type shots.
Once again, thanks Andy, both of us have to get out and shoot more if only this darn weather would get a little brighter and less wet.
Larry
I try to go easy on the crops with either the d500 or d810 mainly because I like the option of printing different to different sizes, but I personally don't print over about a 12 X 18 on my printer. I have very few images under 2500 on the long side of a 3:2 ratio image and 90% at 3000 and over.
I have limited shooting the d500 to around an iso of 1600 especially where I am going to crop much. I am seeing at around 800 iso and higher that the d810 looks noise wise better than the d500. The d810 is just not as grainy and to me it seems the noise reduction in raw is easier to edit with the d810.
90% of my photography at present is bird photography and I have taught myself over the years to have more patience and find a way to get closer to my subject. Extensive cropping to me means deleting the image in the end so I just don't take these type shots.
Once again, thanks Andy, both of us have to get out and shoot more if only this darn weather would get a little brighter and less wet.
Larry
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum