The software (and how it’s used) makes a huge difference. I think you will find that an optimally processed D500 RAW will still be in the same ballpark as the X-H2s using the same software (not necessarily the same settings). The D500 file will likely require more color NR, but I suspect the end result will still be pretty close to a modern Fuji.
Looking at RAW files from both with no noise reduction or sharpening, ISO 1600 which was the top ISO I'd use on the D500 shows more apparent noise than the X-H2s yet at ISO 3200 the X-H2s shows more apparent noise than the D500 at ISO 1600 so there is an improvement of less than a stop. As you point out, the lower color noise level makes the X-H2s files more pleasing to look at.
Those are all at 51,200. Playing around with the comparison scene, it’s clear that Fuji’s jpegs do a better job with less aggressive noise reduction, but if anything the Nikon raws look better at most higher ISOs.What ISO are those?Hmm - I was prepared to argue that seven years is a long time and maybe in another seven years there’d be some big progress - but looking at the DPR test image it seems like the older D500 is actually better, or am I missing something?
Morris
What about a comparison against the Fuji 16 and 24mp sensors, see how they hold up to the D500?Those are all at 51,200. Playing around with the comparison scene, it’s clear that Fuji’s jpegs do a better job with less aggressive noise reduction, but if anything the Nikon raws look better at most higher ISOs.What ISO are those?Hmm - I was prepared to argue that seven years is a long time and maybe in another seven years there’d be some big progress - but looking at the DPR test image it seems like the older D500 is actually better, or am I missing something?
Morris
Morris, I expect the difference is more related to the XH2s uses a dual gain sensor which your D500 didn't. There are a lot of advantages to the newer technology while not making a huge difference most of the time - produce better images.
I have not used the mechanical shutter on my X-H2s since testing that it works. Before X-H2s firmware 1.03, I used to see rolling shutter yet none in quite some time. Having shot with both the Z9 and the X-H2s it's easy for me to say they are both amazing cameras. I frequently come home with images that would have been near impossible without the technology improvements.
Often advances in technology simply makes our life easier and provides more consistent results. I haven't used my Pro3 for a long time, mostly being replaced by my Q2M. But the Pro3 feels somewhat antiquated compared to the Q2. My wife's H2 is a big step forward to my Pro3. Since the Leica has replaced Fuji for street, I'm looking at adding a GFX 100S primary for landscape, cityscape, etc.
You’re welcome to play with the comparison tool yourself and check those out, I’ve always found that getting into comparisons of the 16 vs 24mp fuji sensors tends to open up a whole other can of worms! I guess either way the point is that of course sensors have improved, but the rate of improvement has been slowing for a while. I’m not convinced that there are any dramatic changes to come in the next few iterations of existing CMOS technology, but maybe something else entirely is just around the corner that will shake things up.What about a comparison against the Fuji 16 and 24mp sensors, see how they hold up to the D500?Those are all at 51,200. Playing around with the comparison scene, it’s clear that Fuji’s jpegs do a better job with less aggressive noise reduction, but if anything the Nikon raws look better at most higher ISOs.What ISO are those?Hmm - I was prepared to argue that seven years is a long time and maybe in another seven years there’d be some big progress - but looking at the DPR test image it seems like the older D500 is actually better, or am I missing something?
Morris
Do you process with no NR or sharpening at high ISOs?
Of cause not :-} With today's noise reduction software I can use the top ISO and it will look fine. Not exactly camera advancement yet superb to have.
This is the X-H2s (L) and D500 (R) 100% view with roughly the same brightness and contrast (and the same exact minimal Lightroom NR settings). Yes, the Fuji is higher resolution (26MP vs.20MP), but there is no dramatic improvement in high ISO performance here. there have certainly been sensor speed and resolution improvements over the years, but high ISO performance/image quality hasn't really changed much at all in a very long time ...which is why I'm still not feeling super compelled to "upgrade" from my X-T2.
X-H2s (L), D500 (R), ISO 6400 at 100% view
Agreed, but today's noise reduction also works on old D500 files too
This is the X-H2s (L) and D500 (R) 100% view with roughly the same brightness and contrast (and the same exact minimal Lightroom NR settings). Yes, the Fuji is higher resolution (26MP vs.20MP), but there is no dramatic improvement in high ISO performance here. there have certainly been sensor speed and resolution improvements over the years, but high ISO performance/image quality hasn't really changed much at all in a very long time ...which is why I'm still not feeling super compelled to "upgrade" from my X-T2.
X-H2s (L), D500 (R), ISO 6400 at 100% view
Ya, and probably would wonders for my D200 which produced absently wonderful colors.Agreed, but today's noise reduction also works on old D500 files too
This is the X-H2s (L) and D500 (R) 100% view with roughly the same brightness and contrast (and the same exact minimal Lightroom NR settings). Yes, the Fuji is higher resolution (26MP vs.20MP), but there is no dramatic improvement in high ISO performance here. there have certainly been sensor speed and resolution improvements over the years, but high ISO performance/image quality hasn't really changed much at all in a very long time ...which is why I'm still not feeling super compelled to "upgrade" from my X-T2.
X-H2s (L), D500 (R), ISO 6400 at 100% view
