Making a splash: Nikon D500 real-world sample gallery

This camera is the F..k up of the century. Terrible image quality. All shots of the music stage look solarized, no detail in color at all. Acceptable noise till 3600 ISO, at 4000 and beyond it is for the trashcan.

May 8, 2016permalink

rwol1970

Have you checked your monitor? Images look fine on my screen.

May 8, 2016permalink

GarysInSoCal

Yeah right... read the dozens and dozens of very favorable reviews FROM OWNERS (not shet-talkers) in the 'Nikon ProDX Forum' here on DPReview... haters gonna hate... ;)

May 9, 2016permalink

bear740

I have to agree, this is either a bunch of Nikon Haters or they have terrible monitors. I did not see much that was wrong with these pics. They came out in most cases better than I expected.

May 9, 2016permalink

Paul Petersen

The D500 as the new king of cropped photography really brings out new shooting styles like shooting into the sun. Yes my D7200 does a great job and I really like it their IQ is almost identical. But the body is really where the 500 steps out. For the cost of the upgrade I could add another Sigma 1.8 zoom. Decisions.

May 7, 2016permalink

afterswish1

Not sure if you were looking for opinions, but I'd go for the zoom. Nothing against the D500: my thinking is that if you absolutely needed any of the new features you probably would have no dilemma there.

If you say the IQ is about the same, I'd say the lens makes more sense. I'm also a bit biased in favour of Sigma, so take it with a pinch of salt.

May 8, 2016permalink

afterswish1

If you say the IQ is about the same, I'd say the lens makes more sense. I'm also a bit biased in favour of Sigma, so take it with a pinch of salt.

May 8, 2016permalink

afterswish1

May 8, 2016*permalink

Cthulion

I was ready to ditch my 7d mk2 for this camera until I saw these samples

May 7, 2016permalink

anna20

very great camera. Very sharp with fast Nikkor lenses.

May 6, 2016permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_d500&attr13_1=fujifilm_xpro2&attr13_2=nikon_d750&attr13_3=fujifilm_xt10&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr171_1=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=print&widget=1&x=0.5879254658385094&y=-0.19319022945965952

Wow, i expected so much more. I thought while 1600 ISO seems a little high, 51.200 should be ok.
But even 12.800 or the examples of 8.000 ISO are worse than i expected.
Taking pictures of people in the dark require high iso settings just because they move, even when setting the camera on a monopod.
Sport also needs short shutter-times, sometimes 1/800 or shorter in dark environments.
So may be my expectations where to high, but in my opinion even my Fuji can deliver more.
So maybe 16mpix is the sweet spot for APS-C?
In many ways for me the D500 could be a good or even perfect little cam, but not in the high ISO department.

May 6, 2016permalink

bwoodahl

Fuji is soft:

May 6, 2016permalink

PeaceKeeper

Fuji does not perform better at high ISO Raw.

As an owner and frequent user of an X-T1, I can tell you this with confidence.

You are looking at Fuji jpg's, which are corrected for noise(HEAVILY in camera), or raw's which have also been corrected. I saw no note of noise reduction being added to those band scenes. Only exposure which, obviously, increases the visible noise.

May 7, 2016*permalink

Anything beyond 3600 ISO is for the trashcan. The 12000 ISO out of camera is Sony style washed detail processed. I am disappointed from what I see, i expected much better.

May 8, 2016permalink

Fuji is soft? Maybe in this comparison, but no, it´s not my experience.
What lenses do they use for the comparison? It´s not the same using a for example a Nikon 70-200 compared to a Fuji 50-140 on a fuji. Using the Nikon 70-200 on a D750 or maybe even on a more demanding D810 is quite another story.
When i look at the pics of the house at 12800 ISO or other high-iso Sample Pice i try to look at the RAWs, jpegs don´t make sense for comparison.
And, of course, for my Fuji RAWs i use Irident Developer. Does DPReview use Irident also? Or maybe Capture One? Adobe Lightroom is plain and simple not the appropriate converter, so a comparison is meaningless. You cannot fault Fuji (or maybe not Fuji´s only fault) if Adobe cannot deal with it´s files. Other Converters do a much better job. And no, Nikon doesn't share it´s RAW-file-code also.
Maybe you can compare the D500 to the D750 where the former looks a little less sharp to me.

May 9, 2016permalink

And for the comparison. I just compared the D500 to the D4 and the D5 and guess what? Both look soft compared to the D500.
I prefer real world 3d-pictures in inappropriate lightning situations. I don´t think i could use the D500 in low-light at 8000 ISO, and of course not at 51600, not to speak about the 1.6 Million ISO Nikon offers (of course marketing....).

May 9, 2016permalink

Some sub-ISO 1000 shots look questionable to me and then there's a shot at ISO 14400 that is also pushed more than 1 EV up and yet it looks totally usable to me. I guess I'm starting to look for reasons NOT to buy it.

May 6, 2016permalink

Boky

Undeniably a great camera. Very sharp, in particular with fast Nikkor lenses. But.... something is not right with the colour saturation / color cast. I am pretty sure the results are close to natural, but..... when I check that Canon 80D... my hart warms up and I simply enjoy those Canon colors better.

That being said, Canon shots do look muddy... sharpness-free... ahhh well....

May 6, 2016*permalink

This may be up to taste or up to what you're used to. To me, most Nikons have neutral or close to neutral tone whereas many Canons look kind of warm.

May 6, 2016permalink

Mac McCreery

I'm a Pentax user- but this does seem a cracker!

May 6, 2016permalink

riman

I wonder if some of the complaints are coming from people with bad monitors? These are as good as the ones from my D750..yet I read all these complaints....I mean how can someone say they are disappointing? What am I missing?

May 6, 2016*permalink

I think that this is a camera that will keep many from stepping up to FX. Unless, of course, Nikon releases a full frame with the features of the D500 and at only slightly higher price.

May 6, 2016permalink

From what i´ve seen your D750 can do much more combined with the right lenses.

May 6, 2016permalink

PeaceKeeper

People don't know what this camera is, that's the problem.

Firstly, it's not a replacement for a high res full frame DSLR in a studio or on a tripod. Never will be. It is a specially designed and marketed piece of equipment made specifically for high ISO performance, unbeatable AF and AF/tracking in any kind of light, and high speed continuous(nearly never ending) bursts.

Secondly, it's the APSC version of this! Built for people who want a slimmer(and cheaper!) version of the D5 that can get a little more reach due to the crop factor, and still remain a manageable sized doing it.

If that is not what you are looking for... move on. But people still think every camera is made specifically for them, and get hurt when it's not exactly what they wanted. :-p

May 7, 2016permalink

hydrospanner

"I think that this is a camera that will keep many from stepping up to FX. Unless, of course, Nikon releases a full frame with the features of the D500 and at only slightly higher price."

...or...you know...they'd like wide primes.

(For the record, I'm a Nikon DX shooter.)

May 8, 2016permalink

@hydrospanner - Everyone wants something, but it's the market as a whole that dictates what is made and sold.

May 8, 2016permalink

hydrospanner

I think that's pretty clearly not the case when the Nikon DX crowd has been waiting on primes to cover the wide range for years, and instead are repeatedly given the option of this season's 18-xx variable zoom or jumping to FX.

If you've got data to show that DX shooters don't want wide primes, I'd love to see it. Every source I've ever seen says exactly the opposite, though I'd be the first to admit the flawed methodology in trusting only the searching results of a DX shooter who himself wants wide primes finding mostly data that support his position.

May 10, 2016permalink

riman

Great color and detail!

May 6, 2016permalink

Cytokine

What a great camera.

May 5, 2016permalink

What do loyal D300/s owners think of this upgrade. I can only go by what I see on screen. But the D300 always impressed me with its continuous tonality. Was I deceived or was the D300/s one of Nikon's finest achievements. Thanks.

May 5, 2016*permalink

I think you're seeing and describing what only some can perceive. The majority of people would describe a camera's image quality by its sensor, engine, and firmware. But you're right to notice "a flavor".

Part of the D300's successful look was simply chance itself with what sensor and engine was available at the time. The rest of it was steered by the Nikon engineers in firmware for how that data was interpreted in a raw or especially a JPEG file. The D300's output was cooked very well, right out of the camera. I was also fond of Olympus output.

I think you can get a sense of flavor, but unless its at your house for a real taste I think it might too hard to tell. You should be able to rent one. You might find that it's not what you're after, or that it is, but at least you'll know before purchasing.

May 5, 2016permalink

So you like the D300s output? I´ve tried the D300 and decided to buy a Fuji S5pro. The output surpasses even some modern cams. The Fuji-Sensor with it´s small and large sized Pixels made the Pics a little like a HDR picture but with a realistic tonality. The small pixels where underexposed so the highlights came into the game with saturated colors of the sky, while the unusual large pixels cared for the lowlight and the midtones. Maybe you can find a Fuji S5pro, i´m shure you´ll have lots of fun with it.

May 6, 2016permalink

Great notes. So few have tried to expand the sensor array (Fuji, Foveon). Reminds of film days, the mixed size grains of conventional films and the "every grain is exactly alike" T-Max films.

May 6, 2016permalink

Define "continuous tonality" please.

May 6, 2016permalink

Sometimes the undefinable is still understandable, as some posters have.

May 6, 2016permalink

Agreed. But aren't we delving into the "subjective" universe? I think we are on the same page. Your comment that "I can only go by what I see on screen" seems to confirm this. Not a criticism, just an observation.

May 6, 2016permalink

I would define continuous tonality as having color gradients that continue into the highlights and into the shadows in a useable manner.

For instance, my Sony Rx10 showed false colors on sunsets. I really wanted to use it, but I like sunsets and it's just not capable of the continuous tonality that I require.

My D7100 & D7200 manage it better, and the D7200 is superior because it does not show banding in the shadows like the D7100 does.

So, for me, the D7200 has the best continuous tonality from 0,0,0 to 255,255,255.

May 7, 2016*permalink

KevinG

Nice job guys, I really appreciate seeing the out of camera shot compared to the after PP result. Shows not only what the camera can do but also what judicious PP can accomplish.

Kevin in CT

May 5, 2016permalink

Ditto. PP results mean little without the Raw "control" for our inspection. This needs to be the standard approach for reviews. It's becoming so at DPR, I think.

May 6, 2016permalink

Uh oh. Very disappointing image quality.

I was praising this camera because 2 friends own it and said the picture quality was as good as the FF Nikon D750. These pictures, and the RAWs they sent me are underwhelming.

At the end of the say its a tool for speed and the 1.5x crop people need but I can't image anyone shooting portraits, fine art, macro, landscape, architecture etc using this over a cheaper Pentax K-1 or the Nikon D750.

As for the price people are complaining about - No issue with me there, Pentax is the value champ but the Nikon mount is great for their lineup and Zeiss Milvus options.

Next up is Sonys a9 and the Canon 5DMK4.

Fun times!

May 5, 2016permalink

http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS5568x3712~sample_galleries/4137508448/7066422487.jpg

Ill keep trying some raw files but this is iso 6400 - not that extreme by today's standards. No color, no detail, waxy and noisy.

Not giving up hope yet. Fingers crossed.

May 5, 2016*permalink

Robert Garcia NYC

that's jpeg? I just tried the raw myself very quickly this is what i got.

check out the original:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2427869311/photos/3442177/dan_d500_1958

May 5, 2016*permalink

Thank you for trying. I appreciate it. Your sample even resized down looks terrible as well.

Ill keep trying myself to find something that looks good. I am not giving up!

May 5, 2016permalink

martindpr

Nowadays most DSLRs deliver great IQ. This camera can be used for portraits, though that's not its obvious purpose. Pair it with Sigma 30 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.4 or 135 f/2 and you get a durable pro body with pro focusing/metering ability and a pro level quality at practically any ISO. Not to mention Auto FP ability which only D7200 and D500 have and the 1/8000 shutter speed... The IQ is similar if not better than my 5D MkII, which doesn't really matter - I still keep my old D2X which produces amazing results with fast lenses and strobes even printed large poster size and which gained a stop or more with the modern RAW converters.

May 5, 2016permalink

@Thematic You're complaining about a photo taken in awful conditions. When did you last shoot live music using only available light?

May 6, 2016permalink

@disasterpiece - good point.

Ill keep trying to get better results from RAW files.

Not having any success. The D500 is very disappointing.

May 6, 2016permalink

robmanueb

Just don't compare it to a full frame camera and it will look fine :)

May 8, 2016permalink

martindpr

#Thematic, first learn how to shoot, it helps!

May 13, 2016permalink

phoman

disappointing IQ but then what did you expect from a crop sensor

May 4, 2016permalink

Nicholas128

Which shots specifically, and please describe the poor IQ. I want to understand what you are seeing.

May 5, 2016*permalink

Trubbtele

Looks nice!

May 4, 2016permalink

win39

This is a really nice camera. It is a shame that Nikon broke the line. So many of sold our D300s and lenses and moved into FX at Nikon's urging. Many of us sought our D400 DX equivalent camera somewhere else. Both involved a new system of lenses. Few of us will find any enthusiam for downgrading from FX or switching back to DX from another APS-C camera system.

May 4, 2016permalink

robspeed750

I have to say I agree. I moved up from a D3200 but had been collecting FX lenses the whole time I owned it. Now that I have my wonderful D750 I see no reason to step back down to DX. After looking at the studio scene tool here, I think if I did want a faster body I'd get a D4 for the same money as the D500 but keep FF dynamic range and DOF.

May 5, 2016permalink

blink667

Any reason, IQ wise, I would buy this over a used D7100?

May 4, 2016permalink

The ISO quality at 6400 to 8000 is actually usable territory. It's the ISO quality equivalent of 3200 on your camera.

The Auto-focus is more accurate, so you end up with sharper images. The auto-fine tune of lenses allows for the first easy way to manage back-focusing on all your lenses, lens by lens. It results in sharper images.

The action focus of the D7200 or D500 is faster than yours for anything moving. The D500's buffer and AF speed and accuracy are much faster than your camera. The D7200's buffer lasts for more than 6 shots without the writing delay. There is *NO* image quality when you aren't taking the picture. It's important.

The JPEG output is actually quite useful. The D7100 JPEG output is not stable across it's ISO range, so images don't output the same as with the D7200 or D500 cameras.

There are a lot of reasons. Touchscreen allows for easier focus point selection, etc. And whether your making macros or under the gun in live-view any advantage is good.

May 4, 2016permalink

n057

Until ISO 400, the D7200 has a slight edge. Above that, the D500 has a slight edge. But then the D500 extends from ISO 50 to 100, which the D7200 cannot touch, and also above ISO 25600, which the D7200 knows nothing about.
And the D500 has qualities other than ISO, which the D7200 cannot touch either.

May 5, 2016permalink

Reilly Diefenbach

There is absolutely nothing you'd want to look at taken at ISO 25,600 by any DX camera.

May 5, 2016permalink

LO Rivera

@Reilly Diefenbach Don't you mean by any camera period?

May 5, 2016permalink

aris14

The only disadvantage I see in this cam is that's overpriced...

May 4, 2016permalink

blink667

$1,699.95 would be more like it.

May 4, 2016permalink

GNM1

Probably, but I tried the D7200 and commented in this forum, got slated for commenting on the slow buffer and the lack of ISO in the viewfinder, as I like to see it when I shoot and during focus (Manual Mode- auto ISO). So far, on the D500, Nikon has answered all my questions and given me a very workable machine for focus, ISO, Buffer and my style of photography. I pay for what I want and Nikon, even if overpriced now, delivered what I want now. For the D7200 lovers, the D500 and price associated delivers so much more. Sorry.

May 4, 2016permalink

FBoneOne

Compared to what really? This is not meant as a generalist cameras that does everything somewhat OK. It is a camera that does a number of things amazingly well, and has no real downside in performance (at least compared to APS-C cameras of like resolution). You can't get a D500 featured camera from anybody else. If you don't need those unique features then it is over priced, but so is a D5 or a canon 1DX mkII... If you need this level of AF performance, FPS and buffer depth with high ISO quality, then this is the cheapest way to get those features.

May 4, 2016permalink

n057

It is priced correctly for that line of cameras, about the same price as the D200 and D300 when they got announced.

May 4, 2016permalink

robspeed750

That's just business. Launch at $2k and soak all the early adopters, then drop the price to pick up the wait-and-see-ers. Nikon isn't exactly grotesquely profitable so they need every bit of it.

May 5, 2016permalink

Dam' right, Sony's A6300 makes a better shot for much less money.

May 8, 2016permalink

you get Pentax FF with kit lens for the same price, so what? Video you say ? FTV.

May 8, 2016permalink

Jostian

IQ a bit disappointing actually, especially the landscape shots, foliage looks very mushy imho on this photo http://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries?galleryId=4137508448 the woodwork is devoid of detail and the flowers and grass looks no better than much cheaper DSLR's. and detail in general has an unnatural look (could be the processing though).... Maybe I just had too high hopes given all the hype??? But I guess the AF and speed etc. are the wow points. Will wait for full review.

May 4, 2016*permalink

I checked your link, but the photo did not display, just the entire gallery.

I would like to know what you are referring to so that I can consider it.

May 4, 2016permalink

GNM1

Probably better to look at the 'now' released D500 shots from people that have them. No idea what the lenses that are used in the gallery or post above, but looking at a spitfire and hurricane that appeared with 24-105 attached that I shot off guard, more than happy. Cropping scope much better. But it depends what glass you shoot I suppose.

May 4, 2016permalink

Jostian

Hi, if you open the gallery and scroll down a bit you'll see a scene with greenery and wooden fencing with a square wooden arch, thats the one.

May 5, 2016permalink

I guess I mostly agree with you on that Jostian.

When you use the Loupe, I can see detail; but the 100% sized image doesn't do much for the grass and flowers. My guess is that it's just not focused on what's important, or that it could've benefitted from focus-bracketing or a better lens or f/11 to f/14 as that particular shot has a lot of z-axis depth. Still, I mostly agree with you on that one.

May 5, 2016permalink

PeaceKeeper

This, in NO way, was designed as a landscape camera. Had they even considered landscapes in their process, the end result would have suffered.

If you are a landscape photographer and are considering this camera, you need your head checked.

One step farther, if you are anything but a natural light sports/action/event/news photographer who happens to work outside and are considering this camera, you *might* need your head checked. ;)

This Ferrari doesn't carry enough luggage for my 4 person family on a 3 week vacation! Terrible machine! :D

May 7, 2016*permalink

naththo

I have fair amount of suspicious is that the DCP profile might be truly well off in ACR or Lightroom for Nikon images, some of colour look really strange. Like blue skies toward cyan, some grass are not nice green, few are washed out. The highlight is blownout which always a prone in ACR/Lightroom raw editing. So need to watch on that both shadow and highlight clipping. I doubt this is as good as D7200.

May 4, 2016permalink

Henry McA

Sony cameras have a yellow-green bias too (like Panasonic cameras). Reds are not accurate either. Some people are skilled enough to fix it but most people don´t see it or don´t care. Could be a profile problem or a sensor problem.

May 4, 2016permalink

naththo

It is totally unrelated to sensor. It is more of profile problem. Canon sensor I found are very similar to Sony in DxOMark in graph of RGB. So there is hardly any difference. When you take picture with RAW image, it is totally RAW which mean nothing edit in it, all softwares have to work to render the colour to get the result using colour profile. Without any render to the RAW image, it is just all green almost.

May 4, 2016permalink

Henry McA

Thanks, I didn´t know that. So a different raw developer might look better?

May 4, 2016permalink

Tristan Jones

Different RAW developer, or you can just change your default profile settings for that camera, I do this in lightroom for my cameras so every raw file I bring into lighroom is adjusted to my preference at import. Make your own profile and set it as the default for your camera, adjust the base colours to your liking and job done.
With my D800 I always found that I had to adjust the WB +15 in magenta to get what I like. I saved this as part of the defaults for that body. Never looked back.
Just remember I am only referring to RAW files here.

May 4, 2016permalink

naththo

Yes Tristan, thats why I often notice Adobe brings out bit too green so yeah that was good idea to set that +15 in magenta to get it right. It helps. For Sony I think you need to adjust to shift toward yellow and magenta to compensate it. Sony are very blue and green but thankfully A7 is not as severe as A7RII for example, A7RII came out too glowing/radioactive green and they have to compensate it to reduce green probably more than Nikon. Its good to see Nikon is keeping it tone down on those colour to make it more natural. I still like Canon colour, like old 10D or 50D or whatever that is, so good. Now this Sony a bit silly, very blue and green. Yellow is missing in green sometimes. Grass usually contain yellow in green. (More toward warm green).

May 5, 2016permalink

Jozef M

The boat scene at iso 720 is very, very noisy; most images are very disappointing IQ wise ...
No revolution image quality. Don't see much evolution also.

May 4, 2016permalink

Frank C.

just get a d3300 with pro lens and be done with it

May 4, 2016permalink

GNM1

Why not get a pro camera and do a proper job?

May 4, 2016permalink

Tristan Jones

Frank C. has not uploaded any photos to their gallery yet.
Wonder why?

May 4, 2016permalink

Frank C.

My D3300 takes better pics than my old D300 and that camera was pro-level, I wondered how the pros managed back then.... must have been awful

May 5, 2016permalink

GarysInSoCal

Huge IQ fan of D3300 also... but AF is alittle on the dissapointing side. Conquer the slight AF problems with some predictability, and the D3300 is Nikon's BEST bang for the buck camera. I will be conducting some of my own D500 tests to determine whether it's right for me.

May 8, 2016permalink

Quest21

My Nikon D7100 can recover lots of over exposed highlights in RAW. I wish there was a test between cameras to see how much highlights can be recovered in RAW...

May 4, 2016permalink

panos_m

The highlight DR range is the same for all digital cameras old or new, large sensor or small sensor. The difference in DR in digital cameras is only in the shadows. There is often a misconception on this because people tend to confuse camera lightmeter calibration to highlight DR range.

May 4, 2016permalink

I'm going to disagree with you Panos.

I've had a lot of variance in detail recovery over the years. Can you please elaborate or point me in the direction of a website you know about that can better explain this?

May 4, 2016permalink

panos_m

http://www.libraw.org/articles/zone-v-in-digital.html
The variance you see its because the cameras you are using have their light meters calibrated differently (to underexpose). Camera makers do this in order to protect highlights. The amount of underexposure is different between camera brand and camera models and the result is that the user believes that camera A can recover more HL than camera B.

May 4, 2016*permalink

That's not the way I understand the over-brightness of light.

As people, we see over-brightness. But we have tonality away from that brightness which is a useful representation of gradients we can understand. We still see the world as blown out sometimes, but our recovery from that place to the rest of our vision is much better than a frame in photography.

I think it's okay to have blow-outs. It really doesn't bother me. What bothers me is having artificial colors that look artificial surrounding the blown out areas.

However, given that most cameras are not very good at this I can see that underexposing everything will prevent or reduce the blown-out look that many cameras have in how they interpret loss of contrast at 255x3 or beyond the pure white, or even in per color 255 and beyond.

I think camera makers try to measure exposure well and match eachother as well as they can. There is an ISO standard which manufacturers try to adhere to.

May 4, 2016*permalink

I'm still interested in this discussion and I think that it's possible that you have more to add in why you believe the way you do. And I am willing to reconsider my perspective.

For me, it's not such a problem as it is a minor obstacle. I'm fine with blown out colors or full blow out over-white 255s. I would just like to see a better recovery to the visible light spectrum in an image without false colors or banding, etc.

Maybe not many cameras do well here at all; but my D7200 is pretty good. I can photograph the sun setting and I get very nice tonality away from the event. The sun's surface is just a color-mass of detail-less nothing, but it recovers well unlike many other cameras. The trees in front of the sun have a color halo over them, but it's not distasteful.

I'm okay with it. Unless you can prove to me that my shadows aren't worth more detail, I kind of like nailing exposure most of the time.

May 4, 2016permalink

Quest21

I did compare cameras and I was able to pull more from some and less from others... I wish dpreview would start doing these tests again like they did in a past.

May 5, 2016permalink

panos_m

The HL range of the DR is the same. The reason that someone thinks is different is because there is more or less hidden negative exposure compensation dialed in the camera light meters.

A 18% gray (a gray reference card) is the amount of gray that separates the HL range from the shadows range.
From 18% to pure white is only 2.47 stops (as explained in the article I linked above).

2.47 stops is too narrow so camera makers calibrate camera light meters to less than 18%. Some as of 12% to give its users a little more HL. That is essentially a dialed in hidden exposure compensation and does not mean that digital cameras have different HL range.

Spot meter a evenly lit surface. Add 3 stops of exposure and you are near or over saturation. Where are all the other stops of the 10-14 stops of contemporary digital cameras? Answer: in the shadows (bellow 18%).

May 5, 2016permalink

thejohnnerparty

1st, to the shooters: Nicely done. A very nice cross section of photos - daylight, low light, dark; good sample of lenses. You made one thing crystal clear: the D500 is a solid all around camera. Whether the photos came SOOC or processed in ACR, the end result was very good. I don't think I saw one photo that made me pause, made me wonder. If the keeper rate is acceptable, the D500 looks good to me. If you've got good glass and know what you're doing, you're going to be satisfied. What else can we ask for? .... Thanks for the photo post.

May 4, 2016permalink

beavertown

Is it just me? They don't look like Nikon colors?

May 4, 2016permalink

What are Nikon colours?

May 4, 2016permalink

beavertown

More neutral, less saturated.

May 4, 2016permalink

I see, gallery is adjusted to taste of photog.
Good thing about a flat colour profile.

May 4, 2016permalink

Frederick LIN

I feel the same too.

May 4, 2016permalink

Boludo

I'm just a newb, so doesn't say much coming from me but... I must say the photos shot with the Nikkor 20mm f1.8 looked really clean compared to the others.

May 3, 2016permalink

Eleson

Really nice and varied samples!

May 3, 2016permalink

dennishancock

Nikon needs to offer the option of dual XQD cards or dual SD cards for the D500.

May 3, 2016permalink

Absolutic

From everything I am reading, anyone who thinks that the photos from D500 will rival full frame cameras even of yester years, is a dreamer. The AF system on the other hand is a top notch. However, the AF system on say D750, which can be had cheaper, is still good enough for most applications plus you get superior image quality plus benefits of shallower depth of field with full frame sensor. D750 will also track things extremely well...... I believe for most people something like D750 is much better buy Today

May 3, 2016permalink

alcaher

i think dx will never be fx. There are hundreds of dx vs Fx comparisons and almost all end up with the same conclusions: DX is good but if one person has just one sensor format to choose, it will be FF, no matter how good the d500 is. That why i alwyas see the apples vs oranges (fx vs dx) comparisons very redundant. Now dx users like me would love to see an in the field head to head comparison betwenn apples (d500 vs d7200), specially AF and natural lowlight performances.

May 3, 2016permalink

stevevelvia50

Absolutic, read the following article this link.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html

May 3, 2016permalink

Absolutic

read the article, hope you cared to read the comments that follow from other photographers. You don't always need to shoot wide open on a full frame for a successful shot. However, it is BETTER to have options, than NOT TO have options, right?

May 4, 2016permalink

DX will always have better reach whether it's working space for macros or wildlife telephotos. FX will always have noticeably better IQ in low light and a hint more softer bokeh.

May 4, 2016permalink

stevevelvia50

This article by Thom Hogan explains dx and fx very well.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-full-frame-debate.html

May 5, 2016permalink

Nick Brundle - Photography

Thom's trying too hard to justify DX's existence. there.

Not agreeing with Thom on the basketball shot. Washed out colours not my thing.

More shutter freezing power for FX for the same DOF. Also trying to get less DOF is not possible in some cases with DX.

He's saying most of us don't know the difference.
I do. That's why I upgraded from D200>D90>D7000>DF.

I noticed the incremental differences whenever ISO is pushed, shutter speed is sacrificed.

May 6, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

These real-world sample galleries are pointless. I'd prefer shooting a real-world subject at different ISO, say 100 throughout 51,200.

May 3, 2016permalink

nunatak

is that photo of the Ferrari Barney's car?

May 3, 2016permalink

Barney Britton

Good lord no.

May 3, 2016permalink

Simon Joinson

it might be one of mine - it's hard to keep track of them all

May 4, 2016permalink

bgbs

I'm glad to know my ancient D700 does just as good as the latest cameras. I have no reason to upgrade after looking at D500 and D5 images.

May 3, 2016permalink

Luke Kaven

The D700 cannot do anything above ISO 6400 to save its life. That sensor had so much blooming and pattern noise, that Nikon traded my D3 for a D3s at no charge. These new sensors are miles ahead of the D700. They do a good ISO 25600, good enough for publication. Then they keep going. The D700 produces pure junk under those conditions!

May 3, 2016permalink

chile7236

right tool for the right job. the D700 still produces quality images when the lighting is good enough...if something better is needed, so be it.

May 4, 2016permalink

GarysInSoCal

HUGE fan of D700 also... with IQ from ISO 800-3200 UNMATCHED by any other Nikon I've shot with, regardless of format.

May 8, 2016permalink

Luke Kaven

I liked the D3, but I liked the D3s and D4 better. The D4 has great DR at base ISO, unlike the D3/s, and produces smooth shadows.

May 8, 2016permalink

FBoneOne

It is obvious that DPR is on Nikon's payroll by posting pictures of both a cat AND a dog and refusing to take sides and tell us which animal it is better suited for, therefore pandering to Nikon's evil plan to take over pet photography... why would they have paired a cropped sensor with ultra fast AF, ultra fast FPS and deep buffer otherwise?

May 3, 2016permalink

Sorry but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see with the pictures in the gallery?
Just about any of the modern digital cameras available today could have taken these I'm sure.
Is there anything new here?

May 3, 2016permalink

Nick, you look thirsty. The Kool-Aid line is down the hall. And the bandwagon is due to arrive shortly.

May 6, 2016permalink

Where's the clarity. Amazing the chromatic abberation on the ferry shot.

May 3, 2016permalink

Mister Joseph

IQ difference is marginal, but I bet the AF and overall speed of the camera is very satisfying!

May 3, 2016permalink

Samuel Spencer

Yes the AF and controls are the D500's strong suits, a story that can't really be told with photos alone.

May 3, 2016permalink

fakuryu

Nicely composed images but in terms of low light performance and IQ, it is really not far off the old 16mp Sony sensor found on the Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5

May 3, 2016permalink

Barney Britton

When normalised, or at actual pixels?

May 3, 2016permalink

fakuryu

I'd say actual pixels. The only way I compared it was using the low light studio samples comparing the D500 and D7000 RAW at ISO 6400. It looks like the sensor of the D500 is not really that far ahead.

May 3, 2016permalink

Barney Britton

Normalise it to 16MP and tell me how you feel then, when compared to the 'old' sensor.

May 3, 2016permalink

MWilliford

I agree with the assessment at 6400iso, but the differences do grow with higher isos, which I need for shooting in challenging conditions during concerts and ballet performances. The harder question for me is justifying the difference between the D500 and D7200...especially when the 7200 is just a bit higher-res. I've missed the premium build quality of my old D2x while I've been a D7000 shooter, and I think the D500 could satisfy that.

May 3, 2016permalink

eholshouser

As someone who upgraded from a D7000 to a D500, I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. If you said D7200 you might have a point, but the D500 is a world apart from the D7000 at high ISO.

May 4, 2016permalink

D7000 was good in its time but it wouldn't compare well today.

May 4, 2016permalink

rshnvjy

I've shot with a D7000 for more than three years and recently (a month ago) upgraded to a D7200. The D500 and D7200 seem to have almost identical noise performance up to a certain ISO (maybe 8000-10,000) after which the D500 is clearly ahead, owing to better sensor technology and larger pixels. Of course, the D7200 has much better high ISO performance than my old D7000, at both the pixel level, and at normalised resolution. So, the D500 should obviously be noticeably better than the D7000.

May 4, 2016permalink

Retro1976

This seems like another example of how FF image quality isn't progressing as fast as smaller sensors. The images are not bad, it's just they are also not any better (and in some ways worse??) than what I see from crop/m43rd sensors.

May 3, 2016permalink

PerL

This is not a FF sensor.

May 3, 2016permalink

DWinter

It looks like Retro is a little late.

May 4, 2016permalink

Thank you for the sample images.

Most are not what I would want to photograph, but I feel you guys did a good job trying to mix it up for us.

It makes me want the camera more. I'm pretty surprised by the out-of-camera JPEG quality. Baked and ready for the printer! Besides removing sensor dust or unwanted trash from the images, it might be the first camera I'll own that doesn't really need cooking the pictures with Photoshop.

May 3, 2016permalink

Fred Mueller

Certainly going to be a great camera for action and general use ...

Just from what I can see here, I'd still go for my 750 for file quality that is just a little bit better all around ... but can't hold a candle to the speed and, likely, AF accuracy of this new body

Will be interesting to see the DXO scores when they appear ...

May 3, 2016permalink

fakuryu

The speed and AF accuracy of the D750 is nothing to scoff at since it shares the same AF module of the D4S AFAIK

May 3, 2016permalink

Suntan

These look like mere pictures... Alas, from the hype, I had expected more.

May 3, 2016permalink

DualSystemGuy

A camera is only as good as the person using it. You can take the same bad pictures with a D5 or 1DX II and it would be no fault of the camera.

I'm not saying you're guilty of this necessarily, but it absolutely blows my mind that people look at sample galleries like this and come to conclusions on the camera's performance. Many of these pictures (and many posted in the forums) could have been taken with a cell phone or P&S, or D3300 - it's not very useful for coming to any overall conclusions.

You see it in the forums too. Someone will post a blurry, underexposed photo of a cat that is pure garbage and you wil l get people replying like "wow, thanks for posting - canceled my preorder" LOL

May 3, 2016*permalink

Suntan

Don't know if you caught it or not, but I was being sarcastic.

May 3, 2016permalink