D500 ISO samples

[Tony Beach]

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".

My mistake.

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.

Getting back to your argument though, Thom isn't getting paid to do lens reviews, so expecting him to load up the page with photos documenting his observations isn't reasonable. You can choose to ignore what he writes, that's your prerogative, but when his conclusions are so at odds with some reviews and he has put his money where his mouth is (he uses the lens we are discussing here), then it's his prerogative to simply say why.

 

[Tony Beach]

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.

Understandable, but I'm sure you realize that cropping changes the size of the file and handicaps the camera as far as high ISO performance (among other things) is concerned.

 

[Bill Dewey]

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.

Understandable, but I'm sure you realize that cropping changes the size of the file and handicaps the camera as far as high ISO performance (among other things) is concerned.

 

[Albert Silver]

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".

My mistake.

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.

Getting back to your argument though, Thom isn't getting paid to do lens reviews, so expecting him to load up the page with photos documenting his observations isn't reasonable. You can choose to ignore what he writes, that's your prerogative, but when his conclusions are so at odds with some reviews and he has put his money where his mouth is (he uses the lens we are discussing here), then it's his prerogative to simply say why.

I don't disagree. I merely pointed out reviews on the 16-80 were less than enthusiastic, then someone pointed out Thom's review, one I was familiar with, and I said I had issues with it, and explained why. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Bill Dewey]

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!

Titles now carry the ISO. As well, If you go down to the lower right corner of the page you will see a little "I". Click that and all the EXIF will be displayed.

 

[Bill Dewey]

In the lower right corner when looking at an image you will see a little "I". Click and that and all EXIF will be displayed.

 

[Tony Beach]

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.

Understandable, but I'm sure you realize that cropping changes the size of the file and handicaps the camera as far as high ISO performance (among other things) is concerned.

If I had not cropped that, I would had to do some removal and cloning or my wife would have killed me :-D

Yes, that's why I said it was understandable.

These are not meant to be overall or scientific tests at all, but are indicative of what I would shoot. In the real world cropping is done, so for my purpose this is quite valid. The other "Wheat Thin" shots in the Gallery are all uncropped of course.

Yes again, and I'm just pointing out how people need to be careful when evaluating image quality (especially when it is anecdotal), lest they draw overly broad conclusions. FWIW, I'm very impressed with the D500's image quality so far, it seems to be more or less what I was expecting.

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

 

[Cultured Vulture]

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".

My mistake.

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.

Getting back to your argument though, Thom isn't getting paid to do lens reviews, so expecting him to load up the page with photos documenting his observations isn't reasonable. You can choose to ignore what he writes, that's your prerogative, but when his conclusions are so at odds with some reviews and he has put his money where his mouth is (he uses the lens we are discussing here), then it's his prerogative to simply say why.

I don't disagree. I merely pointed out reviews on the 16-80 were less than enthusiastic, then someone pointed out Thom's review, one I was familiar with, and I said I had issues with it, and explained why. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Bill Dewey]

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.

Understandable, but I'm sure you realize that cropping changes the size of the file and handicaps the camera as far as high ISO performance (among other things) is concerned.

If I had not cropped that, I would had to do some removal and cloning or my wife would have killed me :-D

Yes, that's why I said it was understandable.

These are not meant to be overall or scientific tests at all, but are indicative of what I would shoot. In the real world cropping is done, so for my purpose this is quite valid. The other "Wheat Thin" shots in the Gallery are all uncropped of course.

Yes again, and I'm just pointing out how people need to be careful when evaluating image quality (especially when it is anecdotal), lest they draw overly broad conclusions. FWIW, I'm very impressed with the D500's image quality so far, it seems to be more or less what I was expecting.

 

[ImageAmateur]

Thanks for posting these. Looking very good at that low light, and the pyjamas seem to have helped get that ISO10000 planter photo ;-).

Really low light and it (you) still did well.

Thanks for sharing.

The other ISO images are certainly impressive.

One thing I am noticing is the clarity, there is something about this sensor that makes it shine it seems, it has a clarity above even say the D750 images that I am seeing at equivalent ISO's, not sure if you see it or agree.

Early images such as yours are seriously stirring my interest.