D500 a bit disappointed

Hi Guys

Perhaps i'm expecting too much but Ive been having a change around with my kit as some of it is getting old and very worn so needed replacing, I shoot motocross professionally so tough conditions for cameras. My main body is a D5 with a D4 as my second camera with a 70-200 f2.8 and a 300mm f2.8, I just traded the D4 in and decided to give a D500 a try. I took the D500 to the track today for the first time, the light was quite poor here in the Uk a typical grey winters day so I was shooting at 1000-2000 ISO and minimum shutter speeds 1/1000+ as normal but I found the D500 seemed to often struggle with the conditions causing a lot of soft wasted images that wouldn't have been an issue normally. The shots that where good where sharp perhaps sharper than the D5 but my keeper rate dropped from my normal 90-95 percent to around 65-70 percent. Im now in two minds if to return the D500 and get another D5, reason I went for a D500 is I will likely buy a Z9 next year once they are in stock so seemed a sensible & cheaper option in the short term. I took some random static shots or people and signs etc and they where nearly all pin sharp....

Keep in mind that the D5, being FX, needs about 1 stop less light than the D500, which is DX.

You mention the shutter speed you use and the ISO, but how about the aperture?

Say you shoot at 1000 ISO, 1/2000s and f/4 with your D5, under the same illumination conditions with the D500 you need to change one of the following: ISO 2000, or speed 1/1000, or aperture at f/2.8, more or less. If you are already using the lens at maximum aoerture, you will need to increase ISO, or lower the shutter speed ...

It could also be that your AF needs some tuning.

Can you post one of the offending images so we can see if the softness is caused by camera motion (effective focal lenght is now 1.5 times what you use on FX), or maybe your lenses need to be fine tuned on a new body?


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

[ATTACH]3053857[/ATTACH] n057 said:

Keep in mind that the D5, being FX, needs about 1 stop less light than the D500, which is DX.

You mention the shutter speed you use and the ISO, but how about the aperture?

Say you shoot at 1000 ISO, 1/2000s and f/4 with your D5, under the same illumination conditions with the D500 you need to change one of the following: ISO 2000, or speed 1/1000, or aperture at f/2.8, more or less. If you are already using the lens at maximum aoerture, you will need to increase ISO, or lower the shutter speed ...

It could also be that your AF needs some tuning.

Can you post one of the offending images so we can see if the softness is caused by camera motion (effective focal lenght is now 1.5 times what you use on FX), or maybe your lenses need to be fine tuned on a new body?

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Click to expand...

Thanks for reply, i was shooting full manual with auto ISO, I never dropped below 1/1000 and varied the aperture between f2.8 and f5 and had equal amounts of soft shots at all apertures. MX is an erratic thing to shoot and not helped in poor light but normally I have no issues hand holding a 300mm and shooting at f2.8 all day with 90+ keeper rate. I was shooting in Jpeg as I normally do with MX, I need a fast turn around of images as print onsite. Hopefully its user error as not used a crop body for years. Heres a good and 2 bad shots from today. I did fine tune the lenses yesterday, and theres no obvious front/back focusing it has produced some very sharp images at f2.8 just a lot of soft ones as well. I took some shots of my dog later in the day and they seemed better but light was also nicer by then, I basically shot the same as I normally do with the D4-D5 so perhaps thats the problem ...

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

[ATTACH]3053857[/ATTACH] n057 said:

Keep in mind that the D5, being FX, needs about 1 stop less light than the D500, which is DX.

You mention the shutter speed you use and the ISO, but how about the aperture?

Say you shoot at 1000 ISO, 1/2000s and f/4 with your D5, under the same illumination conditions with the D500 you need to change one of the following: ISO 2000, or speed 1/1000, or aperture at f/2.8, more or less. If you are already using the lens at maximum aoerture, you will need to increase ISO, or lower the shutter speed ...

It could also be that your AF needs some tuning.

Can you post one of the offending images so we can see if the softness is caused by camera motion (effective focal lenght is now 1.5 times what you use on FX), or maybe your lenses need to be fine tuned on a new body?

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Click to expand...

Thanks for reply, i was shooting full manual with auto ISO, I never dropped below 1/1000 and varied the aperture between f2.8 and f5 and had equal amounts of soft shots at all apertures. MX is an erratic thing to shoot and not helped in poor light but normally I have no issues hand holding a 300mm and shooting at f2.8 all day with 90+ keeper rate. I was shooting in Jpeg as I normally do with MX, I need a fast turn around of images as print onsite. Hopefully its user error as not used a crop body for years. Heres a good and 2 bad shots from today. I did fine tune the lenses yesterday, and theres no obvious front/back focusing it has produced some very sharp images at f2.8 just a lot of soft ones as well. I took some shots of my dog later in the day and they seemed better but light was also nicer by then, I basically shot the same as I normally do with the D4-D5 so perhaps thats the problem ...

Click to expand...

The question to be answered is if you have AF Fine Tuned the lens to the D500 or not. I find it is a rare occurrence that a lens is perfect at 0 (no fine tuning needed) The softness is likely due to a lens slightly front or back focusing on that D500 (any lens is likely to need AF FT on each new body but not all the time)

Also, what AF mode are you using? Group, single? D25? If using group, and the bottom AF point/box is touching the front wheel, fender or shocks, it will pull the AF to that. It graqbs the closest object to focus on. So the bottom AF poin tin group should be on the helmet do not center the helmet on the center of the group AF.

Group wouldn't be ideal for this anyway, maybe D25 or 3D.

I also see that the images are a touch over exposed which can lead to softness a bit.

--
Eric
Wildlife/BIF Hunter: Nikon D500 is my weapon of choice, the 500mm f5.6 PF is my ammo.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nikondoesabodygood/

Image #1

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

Click to expand...

Thanks for reply, i was shooting full manual with auto ISO, I never dropped below 1/1000 and varied the aperture between f2.8 and f5 and had equal amounts of soft shots at all apertures. MX is an erratic thing to shoot and not helped in poor light but normally I have no issues hand holding a 300mm and shooting at f2.8 all day with 90+ keeper rate. I was shooting in Jpeg as I normally do with MX, I need a fast turn around of images as print onsite. Hopefully its user error as not used a crop body for years. Heres a good and 2 bad shots from today. I did fine tune the lenses yesterday, and theres no obvious front/back focusing it has produced some very sharp images at f2.8 just a lot of soft ones as well. I took some shots of my dog later in the day and they seemed better but light was also nicer by then, I basically shot the same as I normally do with the D4-D5 so perhaps thats the problem ...

Click to expand...

Image #2

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

Image #3

Click to expand...

It looks like illumination in that venue was essentially even? Shutter speed was the same at 1/1000s, aperture was almost the same at f/2.8 or 3.5, less than a stop difference, but ISO varied between 450 and 1100.One image is using the 300/2.8, the other two with the 70-200/2.8. Were you using a tripod?

Image #1 seems to be both shaky and out of focus. That was taken with the 300/2.8, on the D500 that yields an equivalent focal of 450mm, harder to hold still. And looking at the gravel, there does not appear to be any area in sharp focus.

Image #2 is the one that appears sharper. the gravel under the front wheel appears to be the sharpest, which means you were in focus.

Image #3 is front focused, looking at the gravel. And strangely, it shows the lowest ISO value.

And I wonder, did you have VR ON? That can cause some strange effects at shutter speeds above 1/500


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Thanks for the reply's guys

VR was not on for any shots

Most shots are single point or D25 with a few in group, actually group worked quite well.

No tripod, most shots I took with the 70-200, the ones with the 300 are with me crouched down using my knee for support. The hit rate was no better or worse with the 300mm.

70-200 fine tune -5, 300mm fine -9 similar to on the D5. 70 percent of shots where usable so maybe its randomly back/front focusing.

Light at venue was dull and flat with the odd brightness popping through hence some lower ISO. Im well used to shooting at this track, I have been working there 4 days a week for several years.

I don't feel it's a lens calibration issue as so many shots are in focus, it seems to me the D500 struggled with the flat/dull light and some riders being wet.muddy didn't help things although Ive shot at this venue many times at much higher ISO on very dark days with the D4 and D5 without a problem.

Heres some more shots that where good, the dog shots are later in the day near my home when the light was nicer. Black dogs are also historically tricky to focus on and I would say the D500 did as well as my D5 does with the dog running in more contrasty light. Random static test shots nearly all came out sharp.

Wonder if its a connection issue on the lens mount, i'm going to get out with the dog again today and see what results I get, i'm working all weekend shooting MX but using the D5, will try with the D500 if I get time..































m wondering is could this be a connection issues on the lens mount...

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

Click to expand...

... i was shooting full manual with auto ISO, I never dropped below 1/1000 and varied the aperture between f2.8 and f5 and had equal amounts of soft shots at all apertures.

Click to expand...

It might help if we were able to diagnose the specific problem. "Soft shots" isn't very specific. A shot can be soft due to missed focus, motion blur or noise, among other reasons. Perhaps it is different problems on different shots.

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

MX is an erratic thing to shoot and not helped in poor light but normally I have no issues hand holding a 300mm and shooting at f2.8 all day with 90+ keeper rate. I was shooting in Jpeg as I normally do with MX, I need a fast turn around of images as print onsite. Hopefully its user error as not used a crop body for years.

Click to expand...

OK

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

Heres a good and 2 bad shots from today.

Click to expand...

Its not entirely clear which one you think it the good one and which are the two bad ones. Was the shot of bike #24 supposed to be the good one?

The 1/3 stop of +EC has done you no favours. There are some needlessly blown highlights. This may be leading to some lack of contrast and indistinct detail in the rider's jacket.

The first of the two shots of bike #175 has perfectly adequate focus. The shooting conditions have not impaired focus. It is noisier than the other two images. This is partly because was exposed for 1.3 stops less light than the other image of the same bike. Also this image is cropped, so it has lost another 1/2 stop of light. The noise in this image is expected to be similar to what you would have had in an FX image at ISO ISO 3,200. The advantage of a D500 over an FX camera is more reach from a given lens, but it comes at the price of 7/6 stops more noise at a given exposure.

The second shot of bike #175 has simply missed focus. Focus is so far in front of the bike that I don't want to call it front focussed. It is just missed focus. Had the camera indicted it has actually acquired focus? The noise is of least concern in this image as it has captured the most light and you haven't cropped any of it away.

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

...

Click to expand...

EricK214 said:

The question to be answered is if you have AF Fine Tuned the lens to the D500 or not.

Click to expand...

Why?

The OP reports much better focus consistency with static test shots - so focus is good.

It might be that faster shutter speeds needed for a tighter DX crop or the more closely spaced in the DX viewfinder AF points are issues to investigate as a possible cause of the reduced success rate.

EricK214 said:

I find it is a rare occurrence that a lens is perfect at 0 (no fine tuning needed)

Click to expand...

Most photographers seem to disagree - with a majority not needing fine tune.
I have yet to test a Nikon lens that has not had an impact using a first class AF target where fine tune produced more accurate focus.

This is not the same as saying no lens can benefit from fine tune.

On the other hand with consistent good focus for static shots and some issues with moving targets that the OP reports - whatever the problem is - a need for fine tune is highly unlikely to be a solution.

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

...perhaps sharper than the D5 but my keeper rate dropped from my normal 90-95 percent to around 65-70 percent.

Click to expand...

It's a fairly common complaint that the D500 can be too quick to change to the wrong AF point, which is why I have Blocked shot AF response under a3 set all the way to 5 (Delayed).

It could be that the greater relative spacing of the AF points on the D500 compared to the D5 contributes to a greater propensity for the AF to wander off target.

--
DPR, where gear is king and photography merely a jester

Thanks for the feedback Guys, I tested the D500 and D5 back to back today and the output from the D5 is so much cleaner just hits focus like a train. I have now organised returning the D500 and have purchased another D5 with only 7000 clicks on it. I don't the D500 fits my needs although its fantastic value for money...

All three photos have issues. The biggest issue is the in-camera JPEG processing settings you've chosen. The in-camera noise reduction is too aggressive. Sharpening also looks pretty aggressive, given the aliasing of details in the photos.

I'd also suggest getting out of auto ISO and being a bit more aware of changes in the lighting. The first photo is obviously blown out. You could've been at 1/2000 and ISO 250 (or thereabouts) for better results with that image. Your motion panning is off in the third photo. That's to be expected with sports. Nobody's perfect when following a fast-moving object. But it's also clearly not a camera issue. The second photo looks to be the best of the three but it's difficult to evaluate given the unnecessarily high ISO and aggressive in-camera noise reduction and sharpening.

It'd be interesting to see what you consider to be your best photos made with the D5. If the in-camera processing is as aggressive as the D500 settings were, I'd be surprised if they look much better.

Have you tried shooting a race or two in raw, full manual (to protect the highlights) and doing targetted processing in Lightroom or your photo processing/editing app of choice? I suspect you'd find that an eye-opening experience in regards to the image quality potential to be unlocked in images made with the D5/D500/etc.

Bill Ferris said:

All three photos have issues. The biggest issue is the in-camera JPEG processing settings you've chosen. The in-camera noise reduction is too aggressive. Sharpening also looks pretty aggressive, given the aliasing of details in the photos.

I'd also suggest getting out of auto ISO and being a bit more aware of changes in the lighting. The first photo is obviously blown out. You could've been at 1/2000 and ISO 250 (or thereabouts) for better results with that image. Your motion panning is off in the third photo. That's to be expected with sports. Nobody's perfect when following a fast-moving object. But it's also clearly not a camera issue. The second photo looks to be the best of the three but it's difficult to evaluate given the unnecessarily high ISO and aggressive in-camera noise reduction and sharpening.

It'd be interesting to see what you consider to be your best photos made with the D5. If the in-camera processing is as aggressive as the D500 settings were, I'd be surprised if they look much better.

Have you tried shooting a race or two in raw, full manual (to protect the highlights) and doing targetted processing in Lightroom or your photo processing/editing app of choice? I suspect you'd find that an eye-opening experience in regards to the image quality potential to be unlocked in images made with the D5/D500/etc.

Click to expand...

No time for RAW, this side of my business is event work dealing with hundreds of riders in a short period of time. Shoot, upload to multiple viewing stations then print onsite with a quick 1 click edit in lightroom before printing. its very intensive & non stop I also I work on my own. I swing from one direction to another shooting the action and the light can be very different with no time to change settings.

If you want to see more of my work look at my websites

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

No time for RAW, this side of my business is event work dealing with hundreds of riders in a short period of time. Shoot, upload to multiple viewing stations then print onsite with a quick 1 click edit in lightroom before printing. its very intensive & non stop I also I work on my own. I swing from one direction to another shooting the action and the light can be very different with no time to change settings.

If you want to see more of my work look at my websites

https://picturebike.smugmug.com/

https://www.harrylessmanphotography.co.uk/

Click to expand...

Looking at your images and reading the description of your workflow, a Z9 will be great for you !


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

n057 said:

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

No time for RAW, this side of my business is event work dealing with hundreds of riders in a short period of time. Shoot, upload to multiple viewing stations then print onsite with a quick 1 click edit in lightroom before printing. its very intensive & non stop I also I work on my own. I swing from one direction to another shooting the action and the light can be very different with no time to change settings.

If you want to see more of my work look at my websites

https://picturebike.smugmug.com/

https://www.harrylessmanphotography.co.uk/

Click to expand...

Looking at your images and reading the description of your workflow, a Z9 will be great for you !

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Click to expand...

Yes Im very interested to try one, although the D5 does a very good job as did my previous D4's. When i'm not shooting motocross my workflow is very different and much slower, always shooting RAW. Motocross event photography is all about speed and the images are mostly printed at 8x6 or 12x8 onsite or social media jpegs. It's very demanding on cameras and me having to focus on multiple bikes one after the other coming over blind jumps and corners. I always say Its like clay pigeon shooting with a non stop barrage of clays coming in all directions and trying to hit each one....

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

Thanks for the feedback Guys, I tested the D500 and D5 back to back today and the output from the D5 is so much cleaner just hits focus like a train. I have now organised returning the D500 and have purchased another D5 with only 7000 clicks on it. I don't the D500 fits my needs although its fantastic value for money...

Click to expand...

I am somewhat surprised to find the D5 so much better, I would have thought them about the same as far as focusing goes.

I am still back in the dark ages with the D300S admiring all this new gear.

717 said:

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

Thanks for the feedback Guys, I tested the D500 and D5 back to back today and the output from the D5 is so much cleaner just hits focus like a train. I have now organised returning the D500 and have purchased another D5 with only 7000 clicks on it. I don't the D500 fits my needs although its fantastic value for money...

Click to expand...

I am somewhat surprised to find the D5 so much better, I would have thought them about the same as far as focusing goes.

I am still back in the dark ages with the D300S admiring all this new gear.

Click to expand...

Yes I expected similar to be honest focus wise anyway. I had a chat with the supplier today and they seem to think the used D500 I purchased from them has a fault. I still have a D200 and D300 tucked away somewhere....

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

717 said:

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

Thanks for the feedback Guys, I tested the D500 and D5 back to back today and the output from the D5 is so much cleaner just hits focus like a train. I have now organised returning the D500 and have purchased another D5 with only 7000 clicks on it. I don't the D500 fits my needs although its fantastic value for money...

Click to expand...

I am somewhat surprised to find the D5 so much better, I would have thought them about the same as far as focusing goes.

I am still back in the dark ages with the D300S admiring all this new gear.

Click to expand...

Yes I expected similar to be honest focus wise anyway. I had a chat with the supplier today and they seem to think the used D500 I purchased from them has a fault. I still have a D200 and D300 tucked away somewhere....

Click to expand...

Did you share the three sample photos you've posted to this thread with the supplier? Those clearly indicate aggressive noise reduction & sharpening, combined with poor exposure and ISO settings, and poor panning technique contributed to the issues in those three images.

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

n057 said:

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

No time for RAW, this side of my business is event work dealing with hundreds of riders in a short period of time. Shoot, upload to multiple viewing stations then print onsite with a quick 1 click edit in lightroom before printing. its very intensive & non stop I also I work on my own. I swing from one direction to another shooting the action and the light can be very different with no time to change settings.

If you want to see more of my work look at my websites

https://picturebike.smugmug.com/

https://www.harrylessmanphotography.co.uk/

Click to expand...

Looking at your images and reading the description of your workflow, a Z9 will be great for you !

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Click to expand...

Yes Im very interested to try one, although the D5 does a very good job as did my previous D4's. When i'm not shooting motocross my workflow is very different and much slower, always shooting RAW. Motocross event photography is all about speed and the images are mostly printed at 8x6 or 12x8 onsite or social media jpegs. It's very demanding on cameras and me having to focus on multiple bikes one after the other coming over blind jumps and corners. I always say Its like clay pigeon shooting with a non stop barrage of clays coming in all directions and trying to hit each one....

Click to expand...

Did you use a grip on the D500? Could be the AF was less responsive because the battery is smaller, thus maybe delivers less drive current for AF?

Also, the effective focal length on DX is 1.5 times the actual FL. When shooting at 300 mm, the effective FL is 450 mm. That affects your ability to handhold? You could test that one by shooting in DX mode on one of your FX bodies. That might be more difficult though, because of the smaller frame in DX mode.


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

717 said:

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

Thanks for the feedback Guys, I tested the D500 and D5 back to back today and the output from the D5 is so much cleaner just hits focus like a train. I have now organised returning the D500 and have purchased another D5 with only 7000 clicks on it. I don't the D500 fits my needs although its fantastic value for money...

Click to expand...

I am somewhat surprised to find the D5 so much better, I would have thought them about the same as far as focusing goes.

I am still back in the dark ages with the D300S admiring all this new gear.

Click to expand...

Yes I expected similar to be honest focus wise anyway. I had a chat with the supplier today and they seem to think the used D500 I purchased from them has a fault. I still have a D200 and D300 tucked away somewhere....

Click to expand...

I would agree something is wrong. The D500 is supposed to be the best focusing camera sold by Nikon along with the D5.

Bill Ferris said:

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

717 said:

PicturebikeMXphotography said:

Thanks for the feedback Guys, I tested the D500 and D5 back to back today and the output from the D5 is so much cleaner just hits focus like a train. I have now organised returning the D500 and have purchased another D5 with only 7000 clicks on it. I don't the D500 fits my needs although its fantastic value for money...

Click to expand...

I am somewhat surprised to find the D5 so much better, I would have thought them about the same as far as focusing goes.

I am still back in the dark ages with the D300S admiring all this new gear.

Click to expand...

Yes I expected similar to be honest focus wise anyway. I had a chat with the supplier today and they seem to think the used D500 I purchased from them has a fault. I still have a D200 and D300 tucked away somewhere....

Click to expand...

Did you share the three sample photos you've posted to this thread with the supplier? Those clearly indicate aggressive noise reduction & sharpening, combined with poor exposure and ISO settings, and poor panning technique contributed to the issues in those three images.

Click to expand...

Too late now, it went back, but for future reference the OP could shoot both RAW and JPEG. I do this with my D300S set on vivid for pretty decent OOC stuff and then I can dive into the raw photos when I need to get the last bit out of them.