Nikon D500 high ISO sample (LCD screenshots only)

Nikon-D500-with-MB-D17-multi-power-battery-pack

Nikon D500 with MB-D17 multi power battery pack

Similar to my previous D5 post, here are few Nikon D500 LCD screen captures of photos taken from ISO 25,600 to ISO 1,640,000 (I know, it's just pictures of the screen, but we have nothing better right now):

Nikon D500 ISO 25,600 info screen

Nikon D500 ISO 25,600 info screen

Nikon D500 ISO 25,600 100% crop

Nikon D500 ISO 25,600 100% crop

Nikon D500 ISO 51,200 info screen

Nikon D500 ISO 51,200 info screen

Nikon D500 ISO 51,200 100% crop

Nikon D500 ISO 51,200 100% crop

Nikon D500 ISO Hi1 info screen

Nikon D500 ISO Hi1 info screen

Nikon D500 ISO Hi1 100% crop

Nikon D500 ISO Hi1 100% crop

Nikon D500 ISO 1,640,000 info screen

Nikon D500 ISO 1,640,000 info screen

Nikon D500 ISO 1,640,000 full view

Nikon D500 ISO 1,640,000 full view

Nikon D500 ISO 1,640,000 100 crop

Nikon D500 ISO 1,640,000 100% crop

Thanks Horshack!

This entry was posted in Nikon D500. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • mas921

    there goes my d750 hesitation ^_^!!

    • Alex Knudson

      Same! Shooting a wedding in May and I was trying to decide if I wanted to rent a D750 or this new D500, with my only hesitation being low light performance.

      • manhattanboy

        The 750 and the 500 have totally different controls. You should rent the one that you are most comfortable using so that you are not fumbling with the controls during the event.

        • Tooki

          Totally different is a bit of an exaggeration. A few things will be different, but it’s not like going from a D3000 to d4, much less going between different Canon and Nikon.

        • Michiel953

          You rent both, and then decide which is best?

        • DB White

          I rented the D750 and a D810. I found the D750 body too small and “toy-like” for my hands. Loved the D810 body and controls. D500 should be similar to D810 body and controls. Nice to have that AF-on button!

          • Andrew

            Talking about rent, here is one Nikon commissioned photographer who got his hands on the D500. We get to look at its low light performance, but since it is a pre-production prototype that was produced in the months leading to his November 2015 photo shoot, about 6 months before its launch, I am sure there is a lot of tweaking going on before we get accurate low light pictures or high ISO samples of its capabilities.

            I would take the D7200 as the baseline in terms of image quality for the D500’s low light ISO performance and move up from there. Until the actual product is released, we just have to wait. It is evident that those floor samples at CES are all 6 months old prototypes as one reviewer noticed that the touch-screen features/functionality were not fully implemented.

            http://petapixel.com/2016/01/09/i-shot-with-the-nikon-d500-here-are-my-thoughts/

          • You can program the AE-L AF-L button to “AF-On”. I have done this on the D7000 and D7100

      • Aldo

        It won’t have better low light performance… You should go for a FF if you wan’t superior low light performance…. not to say d500 is bad.

        • Alex Knudson

          I know it won’t be better in low light, but if the D500 holds it’s own up to ISO 12800 (which I think it will considering the 25600 shot above), then the upgraded AF will be much more enticing.

          • Jordan C. Leyva

            You need to zoom in 1 to 1 in order to really see the noise well. Signal to noise of the d750 vs d7200 gives the d750 a full stop advantage that grows with iso. The d7200 is a pretty new camera and I don’t believe the d500 will come close to doubling the performance in such a short period.

            Plus, having higher pixel density stresses glass more. So 24mp d750 produces noticeably sharper images compared to the d5500 despite the same resolving power(given identically ff glass). Why the d500 and d750 cost the same, cause one has better iq and the other shoots like it’s on crack and doesn’t stop.

            Personally, I’d get the d750. It’s easier to shoot faster with it’s programmable u1 & u2 banks, it doesn’t have a buffer problem (especially for weddings), it resolves amazing shadow details at high iso, and will have better resolving characteristics.

            The d500 is a niche camera and probably won’t be too popular outside of the niche. Btw, I shoot with a d750 & d5500 and both sensor sizes get used almost equally but in very different fashions. I don’t take my d750 on hikes, but I only reach for it when the light drops(above 800 iso)

            • Morris

              but the d500 is another level from D7x00 series
              even if it does have 2 full stops advantage on d7200 then you have got to wait and see for the D760 which will regain some of the lost terrain over the d500

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              That’s not how it works. My d5500 has a stop higher native iso over my d750, yet the d750 has less than half the noise at every iso.

              Nikon isn’t getting magical sensors that provide 4 times (two stops) the performance in a years time.

              Look at the performance gains from the d7000 to the d7200. The 7200 has a iso score of 1300 while the d7000 has 1150. The d750 has over 2900. The d700 from 2008 has 2300! There is no way the technological improvement has grown so much, especially if Sony is making the sensor. Sony would have their own aps-c camera blowing away the nikon ff cameras.

            • P. Turtle

              I agree with you. I think the D500 sensor will be a modest improvement over the D7200. But it will be class leading for DX format though. Its real power comes from its auto focus, fps and buffer. The whole package will be be very appealing for the wildlife/sporting crowd.

            • DB White

              I agree: Nikon finally has something for everyone, especially sports and wildlife shooters who have been waiting many years for a sports-capable camera with AF-on button that doesn’t cost $6500. I’m still using my D7000 because it has a faster continuous frame rate than the D7200 when shooting 14-bit raw plus fine jpg. D500 should be worth the wait, a leap beyond the anticipated D400.

            • P. Turtle

              The D500 is undoubtedly a great release. It is not a FF camera, and the ones buying it know that. They are buying it BECAUSE it is DX. Wildlife photographers want the extra reach with killer autofocus/buffer/fps. I am also shooting with a D7000. I sold my D7100 because it was slow as molasses. I have squeezed every bit of life out of my D7000, Nikon has finally released the ultimate wildlife/sports camera.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Yeah. They are obviously going a certain direction of being well rounded and highly capable.

            • Aldo

              There are people still using the d300… and it is not because of its sensor for sure… This is what people dont get… even a d7200 sensor in a d500 body would have been welcomed and praised… the fact that is a new sensor is simply icing on the cake with a cherry on top… but go and say it will “match ” or “surpass” a modern FF sensor… thats just pure fantasy.

            • P. Turtle

              Amen!

            • Art-cri Tico

              you’re not considering the Expeed 5 Vs. 4 of the D5500 something must work better!…

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              I am. I was simply pointing out that native iso doesn’t indicate performance. The in camera jpeg previews are probably noise reduced more efficiently with the expeed 5, but that will hardly do anything for raw shooters.

            • D700s

              I’m sorry. Did I miss something? Where did you see Sony makes the Sensor?

            • We don’t know who made the sensor yet. It’s all speculations.

            • D700s

              I know. Just making a point with all the pontificating going on.

            • yep 🙂

            • Max

              I recall reading somewhere, I think in the press-release, that it said both cameras “feature new nikon-developed sensors”.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Sony makes the best sensors on the market… So if they choose a manufacturer other than Sony it will be even harder to produce dramatic performance gains.

            • D700s

              Guess I’ll take your word on it Jordan. I’ll be right back. Gotta go cancel my D500 order now based on this new knowledge.

            • Captain Insane-O

              I never said Sony makes the new sensor. But Sony makes the best, so a huge performance gap over Sony’s new bsi sensor is ludicrous.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              The expeed 5 is probably providing its own noise reduction to make the images look cleaner. I doubt that a nikon camera has the same processing power as a computer with professional software.

              The d500 and d750 cost the same, yet the d500 is professional, so its cost is more reflective of back lit buttons & pro controls; while the d750 cuts corners on the body controls(not the sensor).

              If what you’re saying is correct, then it will cost $3k as it will be killing the d810 in noise performance, buffer, speed, and reach.

            • Eric Calabros

              Expeed or any Jpeg engine can’t cancel out the magenta cast. Software and algorithms can’t generate data from nothing.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              My d750 does not get color noise even at hi2. So I don’t see the relevance considering I was talking about normal noise. And I can turn on high iso noise reduction for deceiving jpeg previews.

              But I see that these cameras get magenta cast when boosting ridiculously higher (much higher than my d750). Soooooooo what’s your point? We all know this will be a great, best, dx iso performer, but I highly doubt it will compete with a sensor that gathers twice the light.

            • RMJ

              Software can, and do, generate data from “nothing”. It’s called interpolating and extrapolating. But what comes to magenta cast, there is a limit where it is reasonable to stop trying to fight against it. It will eventually win or you will turn your photos into b&w. Thankfully, the new noise reduction algorithms are better and better by each generation.

            • Eric Calabros

              If it was the case, RED wouldn’t need temporal noise reduction for its cinema cameras, which is all about getting more data.

            • CERO

              You miss the fact that a dedicated processor is thousand times faster for a specified task than a general processor like the intel x86 tech.

              Take into account those chips specifically designed to render 3d. They can do it at between 2X to 100X times faster than a x86 processor.

              A fine example is the new 10Watt raytracing processor announced recently. That can render raytracing 4X times faster than a dedicaded nvidia card, which is like.. 10-40X times faster than a x86 processor.

            • HF

              How will you do it? Shot noise can’t be reduced. Read noise can and is very low already. Dual gain conversion like in the A7s, A7rii is very likely. It won’t be BSI. Quantum efficiency didn’t increase dramatically over the last three years, too (and BSI sensors show a higher value). So I guess (but I hope I am wrong) at maximum 1/2 stop improvement over a D7200 when sampled to the same output size, which would be very good already.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              1/2 stop is super generous. In 5 years, the d7000 went from 1150 to 1300(d7200) on dxomark’s testing. The ff’s are at 3000 now. This is most likely higher noise processing on the newer expeed processor which doesn’t reflect raw performance.

            • HF

              That’s my feeling, too. I was just getting curious by comments Thom Hogan made on the possible improvement of the D5 wrt the D4 (sensortech in D500 should scale similarly). It is difficult to judge, so I gave a maximum value, most likely it will be around 1/4-1/3 of a stop. But who knows?

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Yeah. That’s more reasonable given the larger pixels and newer tech. But since nikon isn’t making their own sensors, I doubt they will ever have that high of a lead when compared to Sony.

              We’ll see when the raw files behind to surface, but looking at the camera lcd isn’t going to show us much.

              Also people need to consider that soft light yield poor pictures regardless of iso performance. Iso 800 in bright light is FAR better than iso800 in low light. For me, lower light scenarios yield softer pictures even when using tripods and SLOW shutter speeds. The light rays are what ultimately give us resolution.

            • Andrew

              “But since nikon isn’t making their own sensor, I doubt they will ever have that high of a lead when compared to Sony.”

              Actually, Nikon does design their own sensors. They can use Sony’s sensor manufacturing technology expertise and contract out the manufacturing to Sony. Of course the sensor manufactured by Sony would also include license to some of Sony’s technologies. See reference below of a new patent application by Nikon reported on November 8, 2014:

              http://thenewcamera.com/nikon-patent-honeycomb-sensor-with-sub-pixel-to-improve-dynamic-range/

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Are you ok? You just said Nikon doesn’t MAKE their own sensors. Yes I know they design their sensor, but it lives within the means of the foundry they are created in. Sony produces their sensors and can make anything just as well for themselves. In fact Sony puts more tech in their own ff a7rii with bsi and on sensor phase detect.

            • PhilK

              No they cannot “make anything just as well for themselves”. You don’t appear to understand contract manufacturing very well.

              If every contract chip manufacturer stole the IP from every company that contracted them to build parts, then we’d have non-stop legal battles and lots of companies getting fined and shutdown over that nonsense.

              You don’t OEM manufacture something simply to steal the ideas of the people who contract with you to do business, or pretty soon you will be OUT of business.

              None of us here in this discussion that I know of has seen the contractual sensor manufacturing-agreements between Nikon and Sony. But if they do not include language that makes it abundantly clear that proprietary tech that you bring to the table with your contract manufacturer cannot get appropriated for their own competitive products, then they should fire their entire legal team.

              I don’t doubt for a minute that Nikon brings proprietary tech to these relationships. By the same token, one of the reasons that they may use a particular OEM manufacturer is to take advantage of THEIR technology. (Such as BSI tech, in the case of Sony.) Which they will pay a substantial license-fee for. That’s how it works.

            • Captain Insane-O

              Actually they can and do. The a7rii is the highest rated camera for a reason. Nikon cannot design a sensor beyond the means of production and Sony better under stands their own limitations. Also, Sony doesn’t need to allow their top manufacturing processes like bsi. Soooooooo unless you have a copy of their designs you’re declaring that Nikon is soooooooo much better than Sony. When in reality a Sony point and shoot rank over all but two Nikon ff cameras on dxo

            • … that’s a bit of an overstatement.

            • PhilK

              LOL.

              Yes, Nikon cannot ask a sensor manufacturer to build a sensor that requires a 10nm process technology if the sensor manufacturer doesn’t possess process equipment with that level of precision. But they certainly can bring other types of technology that can in some cases significantly improve the performance without requiring fundamental manufacturing equipment changes. The “subpixel” tech that was referred-to in the link that Andrew posted is probably exactly such an example.

              Also, do not forget that Nikon is one of the world’s largest and most cutting-edge manufacturers of silicon lithography equipment which allows silicon chip makers to pattern their chips. (They are world #2 in that industry) Ergo, in many cases Nikon may be partnering with their sensor manufacturers to actually improve their sensor fab tech. Example: Nikon is the largest provider in the world of such equipment to companies that produce flat-panel displays.

            • CERO

              design != make.
              Take AMD for example.. they can “design” the tech, but TSCM is the one who does most of the
              “making”.
              Which is pretty normal on fabless tech giants.

            • Interesting link, thanks!

            • Thom said in the other thread he expects or believes to be much more; at 1 stop improvement every 3 years, and D4 being launched that many years ago…

            • HF

              But he said too, that it is very dangerous to indeed believe such a large increase in performance. I, personally, can’t believe the D5 to improve by that much at intermediate ISOs. If it is constructed similarly to the A7s, 1-2 stops are likely in the very high ISO regions (>50k-100k). However, those ISOs are something I wouldn’t use anyway.

            • But then you would if they are good enough for you.

            • HF

              Not for weddings. With an improved D5, ISO6400-12800 became usable for larger wedding books.

            • Exactly what I said. Your usable (good enough) range got extended.

            • HF

              However, for a price of 7000 Euros. A fester lens serves me better here. Nevertheless, I don’t expect a huge difference.

            • True, he did say that, although he stays by his *average* historical trend (1 stop/3 years, give or take).

              Honestly, I never shot with a D? camera, so I’m not familiar with their high ISO. So I’m eagerly looking forward to proper reviews and comparisons.

            • AKH

              Check DxoMark and you will know that he is wrong.
              If you compare the D700 to the D810 there is less than 1/2 stop improvement and the D700 was released in 2008.

            • Hmm, where do you see that? I see exactly one stop improvement on Dynamic Range/Print. At ISO 200: D700 – 12.5EV, D810 – 13.48 EV. So 0.98 stops. This decreases towards ISO 800-1600, then it grows again: at ISO 25600, D700 6.45 EV, D810 7.33 EV, so again almost a stop.

              Are you referring to averages across all ISO values? Or to per-pixel measurements (which are invalid since they have different pixel counts; we’re talking about overall sensors not pixels).

            • AKH

              Your observations are correct, but this “sub-thread” is about low light performance and here the so called global score at DxoMark for the D810 is less than 1/2 stop better than the D700. The D700 is about 8 years old, so not much of an improvement ☺

            • Agreed. To clarify, I never look at DxO scores (the numerical values), only at the measurement graphs, both screen and print; I missed the fact you were talking about those numbers.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              If you look at dxomark’s snr performance, fx has gotten 20% better from the d700 to the d750 and 10% better from the d7000 to the d7200 (5 years). A stop is doubling effect, not 10%.

            • You cannot put a numbet on technological advancement rate. Having said that, I would agree that for high iso, expeed would be doing a lot of work. That is why I am waiting for the DR numbers. That should give us the actual performance gain.

            • RMJ

              FX went int 6 years from 3253 to 3434. What exactly is your point ?

              In theory, FX score should have raised much more, as it has larger area. But it didn’t.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              My point is that sensor technology is a marginal improvements over time based on the history of this tech. So having a huge leap without changing the sensor type is unlikely in one year. That is a very OBVIOUS point. When Sony went to bsi it didn’t make that huge of a difference. So its unlikely to be more than marginal in actual testing.

            • Michiel953

              I have this nagging feeling the D500 will be a huge success (not through me buying it though), and certainly not just a niche product.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              It will likely not have better image quality over the d7200, and will cost double the price. Unless you need unlimited buffer and high fps, 2k will get you a much better sensor. You’re trading ff performance for high fps.

              The d4s has lower iq than the d750 or d810 due to its lower resolving power. The cost gets you pro controls and durability.

            • Michiel953

              I’m not trading anything, because I’m not buying (are you able to read?). I was making a statement, or rather a prediction, on D500’s position in the market. Geddit?

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Are you able to read? I didn’t say you’re buying it. I’m saying that’s the trade off that should be in your niche calculations.

            • CERO

              considering its huge “all around” points. ID say yes.

              Small package? yes.
              Rugged Pro Body? Yes
              Rounded Cup? Yes
              4k Video? Yes
              Superb AF system? Yes
              SuperB Buffer size? Yes
              Super high ISO levels? Yes
              SuperB Fire rare? Yes
              Pro controls and buttons? Yes
              Swindle Screen ? Yes
              Touch Control? Yes

              It seems an all around winner for me. The only “weak” point for many guys here, its because a APS-C sensor size and its “huge price”.

            • Wade Marks

              I think the D500 sensor may be a new generation of sensor tech over the D7200 sensor. Thom noted that the D5 sensor is a whole new generation ahead of the D4s sensor, which is a tweaked D4 sensor, which is 4 years old. This new tech should be present in the new D500 sensor as well.

              Similarly, the D7200 sensor is really a tweaked version of the last gen sensor tech; still really great, but the D5/D500 sensor reflects next gen sensor tech.

              On a thread on dpreview, Mikael Risedal, who is pretty knowledgeable about this stuff, looked at the Nikon photo of the sensor, noticed some bluish metallization around the periphery, did some research, and seems to think this could be a new stacked sensor design from Sony. One such property of the stacked sensor is that DRAM is placed in the lower chip and allows for a huge buffer. Again, only speculation, but intriguing.

              The point is that these new sensors for D5/D500 could be a significant leap forward.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Highly doubt they will be a significant leap. Look at the newest Sony sensors to come out, and you’ll see that they are marginal with even better bsi tech.

              In the past 5 years, dx has improved by 10% in iso performance, and fx has gotten 20% better in 8 years.

              None of these well informed people can actually speak to the engineering behind these sensors, so saying that the current sensors are 4 year old tweaks is ridiculous. These companies aren’t publishing their trade secrets, so it’s just speculation by click bait journalists.

              I go by history, not by some one who hypes things up with absolutely no basis for their opinion. Just like Intel’s new tech chips… Everything has a point of diminishing returns. All the broadwell and newer projections have been a disappointment in gains.

            • D700s

              We know Jordan. You’ve made your point over and over again. You don’t believe it’s possible. Don’t be a hater. Embrace the fun until it arrives.

            • “…The d500 is a niche camera…”

              You mean that same niche that the D300/D300s occupied?

            • Captain Insane-O

              Considering you get ff cameras for the same price and the amazing d7200 for half YES this is a niche flagship camera! Do you understand that times have changed since the d300? It now has to compete in a drastically different market.

              Image quality of the d7200 is fantastic, so unless you have buffer problems, fps problems, or elitism needs, then their are SO many better deals.

              Being excited always creates new found ignorance, like teens who just started dating… LOL.

              But by your logic we all spend 2x on the d4s instead of the higher mp d810… Cause fps and buffer are EVERYTHING

            • 1) Check your grammar. Otherwise you may come off as an excited teen.

              I have nothing to be excited about. I’ve had up to 4 and no fewer than 2 Full-Frame cameras in my stable since 2011 and don’t have any professional needs for a DX body. (OOps, does that sound elitist? lol)

              That being said, there are tons of pros I personally know that shoot with both FF and DX side-by-side as it fits *their* needs. Those folks still want familiar controls, comfortable grips and the best new tech available (AutoFocus, buffer, FPS, EXpeed 5, whatever).

              You joke about elitism, but it’s a real thing. There are lots of non-industry people who buy the best shiny new toys because they think that they will be amazing photographers. Your doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, weekend warriors, etc. Folks with healthy disposable income who will buy the best, most expensive thing available just to show off at a few outings and then get bored of. (Coincidentally, these are the same people I tend to purchase my lightly-used pro bodies from on Craigslist and Ebay).

              So instead of dishing out light insults, show me some hard stats to back up your niche claim.

            • CERO

              D7200 cant do many things the new D500 can.

            • Captain Insane-O

              Guy goes into a niche forum and tried to say a specialized camera is not a niche… Priceless

              I love people’s detachment from reality.

            • LOL you must be the resident troll. Nice to meet you. Carry on.

            • Reggie

              The sensor in the D7200 is several years old now. It wasn’t a new sensor, it’s the same that was in the D7100 and a few other cameras. It’s like 4 or 5 years old. Thom Hogan has tracked sensor improvement over time, and I believe I saw him in one of these comment threads predicting a stop over the sensor in the D7200, and that’s based on tracking actual data regarding trends on the technology over time.

              Fact of the matter is that it’s WAY too soon to tell what this camera’s high ISO performance is really going to be.

          • HF

            Unlikely, see my comment above. Doing weddings myself, I never try to push my D750 higher than 3200 if possible. 12800 is emergency only. AF is already that good, I can’t see why I need to have the new AF system other than AF-point spread. 99% is pretty slow paced, such that even my A7x cameras hold up to the task.

          • Aldo

            I worked with the d610 for a while… I wouldn’t have upgraded if it didn’t hunt focus sometimes in darker places… the number 1 reason if not the only reason I switched it for the d750.

            I can understand how an AF system can make a difference… but honestly…. after I started using the d750.. I don’t worry about focusing anymore. Having said that… I find it sometimes annoying that I can’t rely much on other focusing points aside from the middle one… it seems to be the best one for dark places.

            • CERO

              I’m on a D610 as well, and I have the same issues when the day starts to get dark and I want to shot birds.
              Another thing that attracts me, is the 4k video and the stabilization all in the same package.
              I will have to see reviews to see if its worth buying.
              Might keep my D610 for landscape. But then I’m no pro, I’m a hobbyist.

          • Nikos Delhanidis

            i had D7200 focusing fine in church wedding without flash, D750 AF is even better than D7200

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              I just shot maternity pictures in the snow at night. You’d, not yourself as you already know, be very impressed with how dark the d750 can af. The biggest problem for me with low light af is actually finding contrast points, as my d750 can focus in light that I can’t see in lol.

        • Proto

          High ISO causes more noise in darker areas. Have you see how clean the black camera body looks at 51K ISO?

          ISO benefit from existing FF may not compare to this. Best is to wait for D900. Or Nikon produces D850 as a straight clone of D5, as D700 was cloned from D3 : )

      • stormwatch

        And you have to take in account that D500 doesn’t have integrated flash – so I suppose wedding professionals would avoid it like a high voltage cables.

        • Mike

          I disagree. 5D, 6D and 1Dx don’t have integrated flash and it doesn’t bother Canon users. And Nikon users have the D3 and D4 series cameras without flash. With over 150 weddings under my belt I have used the pop up flash exactly zero times. I would actually prefer bodies without it as sometimes a slip of the grip causes it to pop up. I would be mortified to see a wedding shooter using the pop up flash. I would actually feel sorry for the couple getting married.

          • stormwatch

            :-)))))))))))))

            But this is ridiculous. If you go trough messages posted here, people started to immediately complain about D500 not having integrated flash and calling it absolutely necessary on the camera, some even added the pro features to the integrated flash, and since it’s gone out of D500…it suddenly has the cult status, now it slowly becomes the main reason why all pro’s here are abandoning the possibility of bying the D500 – the lack of integrated flash.

            They also questioned my knowledge both on photography and reason when I asked them why do you need that s*tty integrated flash which is completely useless in any possible scenario….I got some very interesting answers.

            So, I posted this remarks about lack of the integrated flash to you just to be sure that I’m not dreaming about “usefulness” of the integrated flash. I would never use it in any ocassion either, and under my belt I have – let’s stop at 900+ weddings… well I guess it’s still not too much of experience, and some scenarios would require the power of integrated c….p.

            • DB White

              I welcome the lack of integrated flash on the D500 if it increases the weatherproofing of the body. When I need a little fill flash I’ll use an SB-400, very small and convenient to carry.

            • fanboy fagz

              if you have 900+ weddings, you should have no doubt that a camera flash is crap and no serious photographer should ever need to use it. I never shoot my flash pointed at the subject every. its always bounced or coming from off camera. im surprised you mention this…with 900+ wedding. maybe +9.00 weddings?

            • stormwatch

              Well, if you did not understand the irony behind the lack of pro featured integrated flash, then you’re surely A++ photographer – because utter lack of humor is omnipresent with any photographer I have ever met. And if you still need explaining, let me explain you in detail – I have loads of patience anyway.

              1. I have read tens of thousands of post of the D300(s) fans about how Nikon is treating them badly and they neeeeeeeed D400, 6 years I’m reading rants of pro (or wannabe pro) folks who just need D400 to become a sucessful photographs.

              2. They did not get the D400, but instead there is a new superb machine – a little D5 here, and it’s in a form of D500 and it features MUCH MORE they ever asked for – pro AF/10fps/21mpix/pro controls/superb ISO with tilt screen and 4k video as a huge bonus.

              3. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut…..since the D500 came out, I constantly read rant of the “we want D400” users on how some controls are not on the perfect spot, what is this tilt screen doing on their D400? Why only 21mpix? But the biggest problem of them all – LACK OF INTEGRATED FLASH they all achieved pro results with, and omitting the integrated piece of c**p is the main reason why they would not consider bying it.

              4. It’s like Only Fools and Horses – first class comedy.

              So glad I entered the business as an videographer, it’s much more fun – but money is in the photography…. :-)))))))))

            • Very well said!

            • CERO

              lol so true!!!.

              You should see the petapixels forums. Its insane at the complainers.

            • stormwatch

              Just check out the Nikonians forum. :-))))))))))))))))))))))

            • our NRForum is pretty nice 🙂

            • stormwatch

              NR. The best Nikon forum Nikon ever had.

            • I meant the real NRForum: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions

            • CERO

              Honestly, who would use the integrated flash in a wedding?
              You use it as commander mode?

          • Jordan C. Leyva

            Integrated flash always look like shit. But I bring note cards top reflect my d750’s flash in a pinch and it does alright. Definitely a consumer want, as professionals take time into considering their lighting needs

            • Sakaphoto Graphics

              I love the shadow cast by the integrated flash with anything bigger than the kit lens. It looks so professional.

            • Onnik J. Krikorian

              The only reason why integrated flash is useful is for triggering and controlling remote flashes. On-camera flash, especially from a pop-up, is quite nasty as you say. Guessing Nikon omitted it because of the built-in wireless trigger on the D500 and that’s fine with me. I’m anyway using a SC-28 with a SB 910 on a D800 for portraits (even though I could use the built-in flash) simply because people I was photographing were noticeably momentarily blinded by two flashes at relatively close range.

              Yes, the pop-up flash as a commander can still be useful, but wireless triggers are the way to go. It’s certainly not a deal breaker on a D500. In fact, I have to say, since moving from a D200 to a D3 I never thought I’d ever consider a DX format camera again, but the D500 looks so good (on paper at least) that I am seriously considering it as an additional body. A very nice surprise for 2016 from Nikon.

            • Onnik J. Krikorian

              Apologies. The wireless control isn’t built in to the D500, but in the new flash. Regardless, nice camera Nikon and a way for many of us to have access to D5 technology, especially the focusing system and 4K video, without needing to splash out $6.5K on a D5.

          • Commander mode enables me to fire two off camera flashes with the pop up, I can turn the output from the pop up off. Yes a full time professional is more likely to triggers, but it’s a useful addition. This camera is obviously designed to be weather proof in all conditions so it’s not a deal breaker, but at the same time people shouldn’t judge photogs who use pop ups. People will always complain though, Nikon obviously faced challenges with getting good quality 4k but the extra crop in 4k mode has caused uproar and bemoaning in equal measure. Sometimes I feel we are spoiled by technology and always want more.

            • Mike

              I agree Mark, before radio triggers were so prevalent I used to use the pop up flash for CLS triggering before getting the SU-800. It has its uses for sure. (Even when off, the pop up as a commander produces a catch light in the middle of pupils. So I got the SU-800 to speed up my editing time by not having to remove pop-up catchlights in eyes). I ran into too many limitations and work-arounds with optical triggers and switched completely to radio triggers. But as a useful flash in a most contexts, the pop up is often a hinderance.

            • three_fitty

              Agree Mike. The pop up flash was useful for triggering. It was possible to turn off the pop up flash and still use it for triggering. Just in case you need to use it again.

        • Nope I would welcome it with big wide open arms. Why? Because I use Pocket Wizards for remote flash setups.

        • fanboy fagz

          I had the D600 as a backup camera and I hated using it when I needed to. I constantly pressed the flash popup button by accident. I taped it down. ANYONE being payed to shoot a wedding with a built in flash should be thrown in jail. for $90 you can get the kick ass shanny sn600n. 1.8 second recycle, 1/3 stop less power max than SB910. great flash. no reason to use a pop up flash. IN FACT you should ALWAYS try to get the flash coming from off camera whenever you can. or AT LEAST use some additional off camera flash for fill.

          • CERO

            Or if they are seriously scroogy with money. They can just get a 45 USD Neewer VK 750 II.

            • fanboy fagz

              there you go. cheap ass flash that will be way better than the on camera flash.

            • CERO

              As an owner of that cheap flash.. Yes.. way better than the onboard one in my D610.

        • decisivemoment

          I don’t know. I don’t use integrated flash that much for triggering. It’s useful on full-frame with a small wide angle prime for grab-and-go fill flash. On DX, where “small wide angle prime” is an oxymoron and I’m likely using some kind of zoom, it gets shaded out by the lens, so is therefore useless. I’d be annoyed by omitting the flash on a D800/810 successor. But on this camera, which will hopefully replace my D7000, no problem. A DX body with a 17-55 and a 70-200 and perhaps a 1.4 converter for emergencies is a great multimedia and sports/event shooting platform.

    • RMJ

      Yeah, in the other thread I expected that the IQ would be close to D750 but I didn’t realize how close it would be…

      I don’t know what Nikon did with these two sensors (D5 & this) but apparently they did it right !

      • HF

        Come one! Do you want to do this kind of statement by looking at the back of the LCD? Judging from the progress of sensors over the years, do think it likely, that an APSC sensor can be so efficient as to overcome the 2.25 larger light gathering area of the sensor, but the NX1, D7200, A6000 etc. still aren’t? Especially since we have different noise sources like shot noise (physical, can’t be avoided) or read noise, the latter of which is already very low for some cameras. I am sure, the D500 will be improved, but I doubt, that it will be the equal of the D750.

        • RMJ

          I didn’t say they are equal. I said D500 is pretty damn good !

          And yeah, it seems like DX sensor indeed has come very close to those old FX sensors. Whoever made these two new sensors knows what they are doing.

          So, get over it. Every new generation will have better quality.

          • mas921

            exactly my thoughts, the “new gen” DX sensor is close (but not equal to) the “past gen” FX sensors, which is ecstatic!

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Wait to see raw images before you buy into hype. If these sensors were so good, then we’d already have seen similar ones in Sony bodies.

            • mas921

              of course.

            • Eric Calabros

              Maybe it’s not made by Sony 🙂

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Since sony owns dxo’s top ten, I’d say it’s not probable that Sony would be outclassed so badly.

            • RMJ

              If Sony owns the top 10, then how come the number one DX sensor is Toshiba ? (soon to be replaced by Nikon sensor)

              And Sony only shares the second place with older Toshiba ?

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              You should look again. A7r ii, d810,rx1r2,d800e,a7r,d800,d600,d610,d750,rx1

            • RMJ

              A7R II isn’t DX sensor. Nor is any of those mentioned.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              I said top ten not dx. No dx is in the top ten. They’re all Sony sensors

            • RMJ

              Yes, Toshiba doesn’t make FX sensors so what’s the point comparing them ?

              It’s like comparing D5 to V3 and tell that D5 is better.

              Btw, I did look closer and turns out that Samsung is over Sony also. So, Sony actually shares the third place with older Toshiba.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Sony bought out Toshiba…. You need to realize that you’re incorrect.

            • RMJ

              I’m aware of that. But the sensor in D7200 is made by Toshiba, not by Sony.

              Also, D5200 doesn’t have Sony but Toshiba. Much before Sony even dreamed about buying Thoshiba.

            • Eric Calabros

              What financial thing done very recently has anything to do with this? 🙂
              Even D500 sensor has finalized one year ago

          • Jordan C. Leyva

            The d7200 scores 1300 on dxomark for noise performance while the 7 years older d700 gets 2300. The d7000 gets an 1150.

            Do you really think that any dx sensor comes close to an fx sensor in noise performance?

            Noise is hard to see on a little screen zoomed out. Plus in camera jpeg processing is probably higher yielding deceiving previews.

            Plus, the d750 has 20% more pixels that are should out father. It will naturally out resolve the d500 and will pull even more detail out of full frame lenses since it will use the whole lens.

            • Eric Calabros

              DXO doesn’t care about noise. They measure DR and color accuracy to get the highest ISO number that above a arbitrary determined “border”. months ago I post a screen shot here from DPR studio shots, which clearly shows D750 has equal or even less noise than A7S at ISO 12800,especially downscaled to 8mp, but got much lower score in DXO.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Dxo does snr testing, so yes they do. You can compare multiple sensors and see how much noise rises at given iso. Their number is based of an arbitrary snr level. So whenever the sensor hits that level the score is the iso.

              I just checked dxomark. The differnce is 2990 to 2950. Not much, plus at 12,800 the graphs are on top of each other. Showing equal performance.

            • Eric Calabros

              You call it equal, I call it cleaner.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              It can be cleaner… Sample variation can easily account for that. Plus those were lab tests, not real world. But they are similar with similar scores. So it’s relevant.

              But it doesn’t tell you color noise performance, but that’s a canon problem

            • Let’s call it clequal, then.

            • RMJ

              Yes, definitely I do. It’s the about the pixel size, not about the sensor size.

              Let see how the D500 sensor will do against Sony’s 48MP sensor and we will see which one has more advanced sensor. They have almost excatly the same pixel size so per pixel noise should be very similar if made with same technology.

              And btw, DxO’s ISO rating doesn’t matter anything if you don’t understand what it means. It describes how well the sensor, as a whole, manages with the noise. It will obviously be higher in bigger sensor. D800 manages to get high value, even though it has very tiny pixels. It’s because the noise comparison isn’t done of full scale photo but from a photo reduced to 8MP or so.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              Pixel size isn’t going to be dramatically different than the current dx lineup.

              The reason why ff sensors have better performance is due to spreading the same light over a MUCH larger area.

              Signal to noise ratio isn’t dependent on area. Just like alcohol by volume isn’t dependent on the size of the can.

            • RMJ

              Yes, it won’t be. That makes it even more amazing what they have done. Pushing noise lower while making pixel count also small, is pretty impressive, no matter how you look at it.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              You’ve only seen terrible in camera jpeg previews and you’re declaring non sense. Dx camera’s haven’t been pushing noise. Historically, they’ve gotten marginally better in 5 years, and still nowhere near ff from 2008 (d700).

              Full frame cameras handle light better due to dispersing the light over double the area. Pixel size isn’t the determining factor, as the d4s has marginally better snr performance than the d810.

              Get off your rocker. Dx is not coming close, which is why a professional dx camera is the same price as a year old fx consumer camera

            • You said it yourself. Dx PROFESSIONAL same price as Fx CONSUMER. It has nothing to do with sensor size.

            • Eric Calabros

              It’s about pixel size. 1.5x crop of a 24mp FF sensor is only 10mp. so we’re comparing a 10mp DX sensor with new 20mp DX sensor.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              What are you talking about. It’s not just about pixel size. If it were, then the d810 would suck; but it doesn’t.

            • Eric Calabros

              as you are so obsessed with DxO, compare D800 and D7000 in “screen mode”.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              You don’t understand physics. Brighter light is harder to absorb cleanly, which is why pixel size does play a small role. Dispersing the same image over an area double the size reduces intensity and allows for FAR higher noise performance. There are even more factors, but no one knows those trade secrets and can actually speak about the sensors design.

              You don’t like science? Fine. Keep living your pipe dream.

            • Eric Calabros

              Dude we’re talking about pixel performance. Pixels from a 1.5x crop of D800 have similar performance of pixels from D7000 (read noise, QE, ..), same generation, same fab node, same density. and your beloved DXO’s charts show that.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              On a pixel level that is correct. But when comparing the ENTIRE sensor it’s wrong. Which is why dxo shows you the entire sensor performance.

              Pixel size isn’t everything, which is why the super high mp ff cameras still destroy crop sensor cameras when the picture is scaled to the same size.

              Unless you look at pictures at only their true resolution, then you need to consider their scaled performance. It’s not that difficult to understand. When you scale a d810 to 18mp it outperforms the d4s. (Overall picture quality)

              In real world performance, dx is nowhere near fx performance. Because you’re comparing a 21mp crop to a 50mp ff, they offer similar performance UNTIL you scale the pictures to be the same.

              Pixel efficiency isn’t the only determining factor. The area of the sensor matters more due to this.

            • HF

              ? If you view at 100%, yes. If you compare equal output size, no. S/N ratio for a FF camera is higher for an image scaled to the same output size (same fstop…) and same technology.

            • HF

              Do you print all your images at 100%? Downsize the a7rii image to 20mp and compare. S/N ratio increases and you get the 1 stop advantage. That is different from looking at individual pixels. Here pixel size is of course one important factor. A7rii downsized to A7s gives very similar performance in S/N ratio: http://www.dxomark. com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7S-II-versus-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Nikon-D4s___1047_1035_945 . In DR the A7s improves above ISO 6400.

            • RMJ

              No, I don’t.

              I DO understand DxO ratings. Just as I explained them. I understand the difference between per pixel noise and per sensor noise. Or whatever you wish to call it.

              Upsize the D500 sensor and you will have a killer 47MP sensor that will put D5 in the shame.

            • HF

              Do you mean using the same technology to generate a 47MP FF sensor out of the D500? Doesn’t need to be that way you describe. When I look at A7s vs. A7rii, then intermediate ISOs, the A7rii is on par in S/N ratio and DR (equal output size, at low ISO the A7rii prevails). After ISO 6400 the A7s DR is better according to measurements. Both are dual gain sensors but the gain in the A7rii starts earlier (ISO640). As you see, there are many parameters and design choices possible. Keep in mind, to, that as you increase the number of pixels, each pixel contributes to read noise. So I am not sure your statement is valid at all.

            • CERO

              I actually wonder if this guy as a mental issue or seriously trolling.
              He keeps going and going and going.

            • BlueBomberTurbo

              And this is why I hate DXO. The A7R. II is noisier than the D810, yet it’s ranked higher. Same goes for the D750, which is less noisy than thr D810. I’d think most people visiting DXO are pixel peepers. DXO doesn’t rate the per-pixel IQ, so its scoring really isn’t useful. Their charts, on the other hand, are much more important, and show the actual performance of the sensor.

            • Eric Calabros

              almost same SNR in most of the range

            • HF

              You are comparing “screen”, i.e. at 100%. So despite the smaller pixels, the Sony is on par. Downsized it is slightly better.

            • Eric Calabros

              Yes, and that makes the conclusion misleading for people who tend to crop. You surely seen complains about D8xx noise at ISO 800 all around the web.

            • Jordan C. Leyva

              They have unscaled testing scores that mainly show pixel level performance. But there is more to it than that.

              If a customer asks for an 8×10 then it doesn’t matter what camera you used that is what you need to scale to. So showing performance at the scaled level gives better real world performance.

              There is also more to low light performance than noise. The d750 can under expose in order to use lower iso due to its amazing DR performance.

            • CERO

              makes you wonder.. What if the D500 is the same as Sony’s 48MP, just cut down?

            • RMJ

              20.9MP by 1.5^2 is only 47MP, so the pixel size doesn’t match excatly.

              But yes, it’s quite possible that it uses similar technology (if it’s Sony sensor).

            • There is not much point comparing Dxxxx to D500. The pre D500 Dx cameras were crippled intensionally. Also for sensor as nikon didn’t put their heart in the developement. D500 has to be cutting edge as it is companion to D5 and that includes it’s sensor.

          • HF

            Look at the website from Bill Claff. He has read noise measured
            www. photonstophotos. net/Charts/RN_ADU. htm

            (I made a space after each dot to prevent Disqus problems). Choose D750, A7rii and the D7100 and D7200. The DX cameras have already much lower read noise than the D750. Nevertheless, they still show the almost 1 stop difference. A small improvement is likely, but given how incremental it is from D7100 to D7200, I can’t image the difference to the D500 to be huge. It is not a format war here. I don’t need to get over it, as improvements are normal. The question is by how much? And then what is probable?

            • Eric Calabros

              D7200 and 5Dmark3 (with 1000 higher dxo number) not scaled, at 6400.

            • HF

              Canon at low ISO is not known for low read noise 😉

            • Eric Calabros

              Ignore the brand, the discussion here is all about DxO.

            • HF

              My comments above weren’t.

            • Eric Calabros

              Ignore the brand, the discussion here is all about DxO.

            • HF

              Do that at ISO 12800 for the night scene (woman face on the left) and the difference is clearly there, even more pronounced when using the 6D.

            • Eric Calabros

              OK, look at this. D7200 and 6D but with one stop higher ISO. If the difference was 1 full stop, 6D should be cleaner.
              I say Nikon needs only half stop real raw improvement to bring DX to this FF territory. at the low end of it, but inside it.

            • HF

              For me it looks like about a stop difference and is in accord with the print size S/N measurements of DXO, showing this 1 stop, too. I can’t imagine the D500 to gain a stop over the D7200. 1/2 a stop is what I expect at a maximum. Nevertheless, I really hope for a big improvement of Nikon’s D5/D500, to prove me wrong, to help Nikon gain momentum in the declining market again (a little selfish, too, as I have a lot of cameras and lenses). Besides improvements in noise performance, the AF system and micro-tuning + joystick are more important to me. Being used to the accuracy of an A7rii with eye-af, I consider it more important for my work.

        • Eric Calabros

          There are different kind of improve! Noise quality is one of them. You might not be able to eliminate the noise, but make it finer or organic or whatever that easier for NR algorithms to deal with.
          as you see here the difference between 1DX and D610 snr is just 0.5db at ISO 25600 (Canon is 17.5 and Nikon is 17). But it makes noticeable effect on image quality. while both are quite noisy of course.

          • HF

            Of course, change the way noise is seen (Fuji’s xtrans is one attempt) makes an impact. This is not a hardware improvement _for me_ per se (maybe indirectly), but more of a software problem. I would then be straight and to the point in saying that Nikon improved performance by using more sophisticated noise reduction algorithms. I, however, would prefer pure data as much as possible to decide myself what program and algorithm to apply. Baked in noise reduction is not to my liking.

            • Eric Calabros

              for Nikon side, its still hardware. lack of magenta cast is a sign of that.

        • You can say that this is improvement simply by the fact that the image at HI5 is not just random pixels. How much improvement, we’ll see.

    • You really want to base your decision on uploaded photo of a camera monitor photo?

      • mas921

        ofcourse not, but the “photo of a camera monitor” is the best indicator so far

        • fanboy fagz

          it isnt even an indicator.
          the screen is not even accurate. my cameras arent the same exposure on the screen as it is on my monitor. it always seems to show it brighter by 1/2 stop on the camera lcd.

          • mas921

            sure this is a LCD shot: exposure, contrast and colors rendition are way off.

            but the context here is specifically noise ^_^. and its clear (although not definitive nor scientific) that the image is very usable noise wise.

    • David Swager

      Two totally different cameras. The only real similarity is approximate same MP count. Different body interface, Different sensor sizes, Different AF capabilities, Different frame rate and buffer. They complement each other, not replace each other. Though I will be pairing the D500 with my D810 since they have the same interface and accessories.

  • doge

    crazy

  • Rick Johnson

    Another one where Hi1 could be usable! Wouldn’t be afraid of 51,200 here at all! Just like 12,800 on my D750!

  • rensuchan

    It’s official, I no longer want a D750.

  • Sick

  • Aldo

    51000 looks better than 1200?

  • Brent Busch

    ISO 51,200 looks pretty good! Just from looking at the screen it seems better than my D4 at ISO 12,800.

  • jenxrj

    Whoa! I was hesitant at first, because of the D750. But this is insane, almost like a D4 in a compact body. If this is indeed true, then I’m certain that I’m not the only one who will be cancelling the D750 from the shopping list this summer.

    • DB White

      For sports and wildlife the D500 is likely to be the better choice. Even if there is only a minor improvement in image quality over a D7200 the faster continuous frame rate of the D500 is just what I’m looking for. D7200 image quality is excellent for DX, but the slow continuous frame rate (shooting 14-bit raw plus fine jpg at 1.3X crop) severely limits the camera. If I was shooting weddings I would pick the D750.

  • Morris

    I don understand, no flash, small senzor, bad card, 20000 dollar, can pay 3 D800, crazy ! no tanks you

    • Paco Ignacio

      Obviously you don’t understand.

      • Morris

        that i was joking 🙂

  • Erik

    Where are these numbers from?

    • RMJ

      The image seems to be linked from Tech Radar.

      A general tech site, so wouldn’t much put worth on those “results”.

      • CERO

        Are you saying that “general tech” sites cant make reviews?

        • RMJ

          Not in depth reviews. They lack the specializing in to the field.

          • CERO

            I’m just baffled. Because people throw dirt at DXO for testing sensor scores and lenses scores..
            It seems you cant please anyone.

            • RMJ

              DxO receives lots of bad mouth from the people because they don’t bother to take a look at test conditions and techniques. And what is actually measured.

              They look at the overall number and imagine it tells everything. The Truth.

              Sure… it tells everything… in overall…

  • Don’t care about crop-censor. Give me a full-frame D500.

    • Maji

      Check out the D5 🙂

      • Most people can’t check out the D5, as their checks will bounce 😛

        • Maji

          In that case, most people won’t be able to check out the D5… they can check out what ever their checks won’t bounce…

      • D5 is a large-size SLR. I’m talking about mid-size SLRs, hence my original comment.

        • Maji

          similar to D700 (in relation to D3)… I would love that too.

  • Eric Calabros

    D7200 noise is the lowest in all DX cameras. You can check Dpreview studio comparison tool.

  • HF

    This graph is from a know site which doesn’t know what it does. Many have commented on this already in the past. So forget it. Just for the fun of it, m43 leads the pack at 25600!

  • Eric Calabros

    People just imagine a scaled up version of this sensor, a ~47mp full frame camera with usable ISO 12800!
    I’m waiting for you dear D850

    • Aldo

      I’d prefer a lower mp but with better low light performance… like a d800 with clean ISO 800

      • Eric Calabros

        When there is no magenta cast up to ISO 100k, you can bet 800 will be clean

        • Aldo

          going from the d610 to d750 I noticed the d610 had a slight green cast… then the d750 a red one.
          I think the red cast is due to nikons attempt to fix the green cast? lol

      • That would be, basically, D750 successor but with “pro” body controls, right?

    • Rock Kenwell

      I’m hoping to see a 20.8 MP D900s as well as a 46.8 MP D900x. Launched concurrently.

  • Brent Busch

    The only thing wrong with this body is that it’s DX, not FF. It looks like this will be replacing my D700. 🙂 This might end up being my my main drag racing shooting body and my D4 will my D4 will be relegated to wide shots with my 24-70.

    • Eric Calabros

      If Nikon release a 400mm f/5.6PF lens, we’ll have a killer combo

      • Morris

        300+1.4 (f4 to 5.6) more likely 500 5.6, i’d welcome also 600 5.6 PF 😛

        • Persuasive Illusion

          Problem is that the 300 f4 PF is not a sharp lens to begin with:(, add a 1.4 converter and use it on a crop body and you can wave your hand at the details your looking to capture.

          300 2.8 with 1.4 converter and then stopping to 4.5-5.6 would be better:)

          People should focus more on the resolving power of their lenses if they care about getting the most

          • Yasfaloth

            300 f4 pf is not a “super-sharp” lens like the 300 2.8 indeed, but obviously you’ll never tried it… I have got one and never exchange it against anything else weighting 2 or 3 time more !

            • Persuasive Illusion

              So?, Where did I state it’s a horrible lens?
              or that it cannot be a good choice for people who are ‘crippled’ and cannot carry 3kg’s
              Or that it may be a good option for those wanting a prima but are on a budget.

              If you read my post you would see: People should focus more on the resolving power of their lenses if they care about getting the ->most<-

              Sure it's a great lens because it's light, but that doesn't make it sharp, and it actually resolves less than the ancient 300 f4 afs. That you are willing to make a compromise in Image quality to gain portability is your choice.

              Most people who are into (really) expensive lenses care more about image quality than weight

              Something even m4/3 are now starting to understand, their 300 f4 is like 30% heavier than your full frame 300 f4, but then the nikon will never be anywhere close to resolving the same

              Still I will give you credit for feeling the need to justify your equipment/purchase !, and then actually putting it into reality by replying like you did:D

      • Brent Busch

        For what I shoot I use zooms, not primes. I’ve got a Sigma 120-300 and with a 1.4x (168 – 420 f/4) or 2x teleconverter (240-600 F/5.6) it’s pretty damn impressive! My Sigma with a converter on a D500 would make a killer birding combo.

      • Ngoc Nguyen

        Did you try the 200-500 f5.6? It’s as sharp as my 500f4AFS-VR. Its VR is much better than the 500 and 70-200f2.8VRII. And it’s zoom too. Fanstatic lens. It may a bit heavier PF lens but totally handholdable.

    • RMJ

      There is also D5 option, it has the same sensor technology as the D500. And it’s FX !

      • mas921

        @$6500 its not an option for most of us, “non-world-cup-photographer-pro’s” … >_<

        • RMJ

          I know… but D700 mk2 just ain’t gonna happen. 🙁

      • Peter

        Are you sure? Nikon made a clear statement on the D5 sensor but was not so clear on the origin of the D500 sensor.

        • RMJ

          No, I don’t have facts to support it at the moment. Just based on the similar performance increase. It would be quite a co-incident that two new sensors performing similary would be completely unrelated to each other. Of course, the new EXPEED 5 plays a role in this, too.

          Nikon has developed DX sensors, too, in the past. Mostly for entry level cameras but still, it wouldn’t be impossible at all that they would have done it for the flagship this time. D500 is supposed to be the best DX out there, so why not do it properly.

      • Brent Busch

        Yeah, but it’s also $6K, too. I’m not spending that much money. I paid half that for my D4. I wish I could make the leap but it’s not going to happen. =/

    • mas921

      me too! i shoot mainly racing (autox, drifting) and plane spotting; at night. I desperately need to get a better body than my D5200, thats why was looking at the D750: fast AF with EV in the -ve, and low noise above 1600, which is my max now.

      D500 has faster AF with more frame coverage, AND good useable ISO till 6400, am sold! note that the above image is 25,600, but its an LCD shot, thats why am not hoping for more than 6400, which would be outrageous for a DX!

      • Brent Busch

        I’m really curious to see what it’ll do in low light. I’m guessing it’s going to surprise a lot of people with how well it performs.

        This has got me thinking of selling my D700 and D4 and replacing them with a D500 & D750. D500 for speed and reach, D750 for FF with my Tamron 24-70. I bet the new AF module in the D500 is going to smoke my D4 in every way.

    • outkasted

      This is what I did when I had my D300/ D700 Combo. The reach of the D300 during daylight images were amazing. The D700 had my 16-35 for people and group shots. Marathon images were perfect. Frame rate and more time to compose an image was beneficial also. Now when the light went down and I was at an event were there was low light I switched the lenses up. The 16-35 mm on the D300 effectively gave me a 24-52mm which kind of my 24-70mm along with a couple of steps with my feet (LOL). The 70-200mm then accompanies my 70-200mm /2.8. Over the past few years I now have a D3 and D700 combo. But I do miss the DX combo that I had. It worked very well for what i did. Looking forward to replacing my D300 which is no longer functioning well dude to saltwater damage.

      • Brent Busch

        I’ve got a D4 and D700 combo (and a D7000 and D90). If the D500 had come out last April I wouldn’t have bought my D4! The D4/D4s were the only newer bodies Nikon had that would shoot at least 8 FPS. I was was holding out on the D750 until I saw the neutered 6.5 FPS, so I made the jump to a D4 instead.

        So many possibilities to choose from now. Maybe I should dump the D4 and D700 and buy a D500 and a D750? D500 for speed and reach and the D750 so I don’t lose the benefit of the wide end of my Tamron 24-70.

  • lefantome

    Just a reminder: the D750 rear LCD has higher ppi than previous models and this could make noise less visible than on lower ppi screens. We do need to judge the actual performance after getting a sample file in hand.

  • KT

    I hope they still have some R&D money left around for the D810 replacement. Looks like they went all the way out to make these two cameras as complete as possible.

  • Michał Piotr Stankiewicz

    well, still win with hi1 on d60

  • jojo

    Hot Fuzz!

    Bit I still want one.

  • Eno

    Nice performance, it looks roughly about 1 ISO stop worse than D5….Impressing performance!

    • Yasfaloth

      I think you are very, very optimistic…

      • Eno

        ISO 100K on D500 looks very similar (and clean) to ISO 200K from yesterday D5 shots.

        • P. Turtle

          I think it would be wise to wait for proper test results. Looking at a photo of a camera screen doesn’t really provide any useful information.

  • Michiel953

    Great camera, which I’d acquire without blinking an eye, if it weren’t for the lack of f1.4 lenses and the DoF that comes with that aperture (and no, I don’t use 1.4 all that often, I use 2.0) on a full frame camera.

    • Jordan C. Leyva

      This camera is aimed in the opposite direction. Sports and wildlife. It’s reach and better dof is beneficial in those scenarios

      • Michiel953

        You’re condemning the whole DX format to a niche (and tourist) position. Don’t think that’s fair.

        • Jordan C. Leyva

          No. I’m saying that a $2000 dx camera is. My d5500 is a wonderful camera at its price point. But deciding between a dx and a ff d750 at the same price means you either really need the fps and buffer our you get the d750 (unless you just love dx)

          • CERO

            dont forget 4k video.

  • PhilK

    I didn’t know it was possible to up-vote your own post. =))

  • MonkeySpanner

    Wow – indoors, at F/13, 1/640 sec and ISO 51200 – and the image seems to still be holding together. Just amazing for aps-c.

  • CaMeRa QuEsT

    Wouldn’t this be the APS-C version of the A7RII sensor, just as the D7000’s 16MP sensor was A7R’s? The pixel multiplier is in the ballpark…

  • Veselin Gramatikov

    Wildlife Photographer Opinion

    Crop sensor and 12800 iso….hold it`s own? People even today the top Full Frame sensors hardly produce any good images above 6400 iso. And just maybe 12800 in this case sensors as 12mp a7s or A7R mk2. So to expect crop sensor to do that is simply naive. I have d7200 it`s good at 1600 iso and nod so bad at 3200 iso. So i expect d500 with lower pixel count and the new processor to have something like 1/2 stop real advantage. Witch means good 3200 iso and not so bad 6400. Witch is already great for small sensor. May be little bit more dynamic range at 1600-3200 iso. That`s it. And all this will be hardly noticable at the field. They will make now a lot of test saying d500 is aps-c low iso king and may be this will be true but with minor margin. So if you want low iso and best iq go with the d750. D500 selling point is overall the AF sensor, the buffer and the 4k video. New image sensor is only minor improvement and i feel that it`s new not because of the iso but because for the 4k and bigger buffer. Maybe faster reading than the 24mp sensor in d7200.

    • Steve Perry

      Yup, I agree as well. I think the days of gigantic ISO improvements are over. Honestly, if I could gain just a touch cleaner ISO 3200 over the D7200, I’d be happy. Most of the time when you start digging real deep into the ISO range, the light is so poor (at least for wildlife) that often you’re not going to get that great of a shot anyway (this assumes a fast-ish lens, not slow zoom with a TC attached). Of course, there are exceptions, but that seems to be the general way of it.

    • whisky

      “People even today the top Full Frame sensors hardly produce any good images above 6400 iso.”

      if one equates “good” with IQ — then that generalization is fine. if, however, one equates “good” with image capture, opportunity doesn’t wait for good IQ.

      for wildlife, i’ll take opportunity first and IQ second. any bump in IQ is a bonus. JMO.

    • totally agree, I never went above 25k on the A7 and limiting it to 12800 max on the A7rII….

    • Ful-time Wedding/Event/Portrait photographer. I Can confirm. My personal rule of thumb is to never go above ISO 3200 on any body. 4000 is reserved for UFO sightings only. If that’s too dark or blurry, then I guess I missed the spacemen. =)

    • P. Turtle

      Agree. Incremental sensor improvement. FPS, buffer and autofocus is the key to this camera.

  • alex

    odd that the date on it is February 4th 2016

    • whisky

      it’s imported from the future.

      • Michiel953

        Back to…

  • nukunukoo

    First off. Looking at the ISO 1640000 noise profile, under dark conditions, it’s very similar to my D7200’s ISO 12800 which supports earlier preview claims of more than a 1 stop advantage over the D7200 (which, by itself is already impressive). I eagerly await more formal tests to see how this sensor performs.

  • Thom Hogan

    I have to say that it’s highly amusing that n people seeing the same thing come up with n different opinions. It’s even more amusing when those same n people begin discussing “noise” and come up with n^2 different opinions.

    • But that’s expected, Thom. Noise is random, so of course oppinions about noise are as well. And the higher the ISO being discussed, the more divergent the discussion!

      • catinhat

        Great point — opinions about noise are not much different from noise itself. 😉

    • Eric Calabros

      without these variances comment sections would be so damn boring, wouldn’t be? 🙂

    • catinhat

      It would be interesting to see how this breaks down by party affiliation. 😉

    • outkasted

      i switched the 16-35mm/f4 on to the D300 to get the focal length needed for group shots along with an sb900. Noise was not a factor. I was talking more about how i used an effective combo of a cropped sensor and full frame sensor using the lenses I currently had. 16-35mm/f4 on full frame was too wide during event photography unless i needed that wide angle shot. This set of circumstances came about after dropping my 24-70 in the ocean. Thus the 24-52mm comparison. I worked with what i had.

  • T.I.M

    High ISO, your camera’s Viagra !
    Being an “old school” photographer who still shoot 50 ISO Velvia slides, I’m surprise how much people give importance to high ISO (I mean HIGH ISO).
    I get scared when I read people thinking about buying the D500 to shoot a wedding because they think the 102,400 ISO look “great” !
    What about using a flash and fast prime lenses ?
    If you know how to use a camera (yes it need years of learning and a lot of practice) then you don’t need crazy high ISO.
    Back in the 80s amateurs were spending $$ extra on a camera able to take 3 pictures/second, thinking that it will help them to catch the bird catching the fish !
    Yes, clean 800 ISO will make the job easier, but don’t expect any camera to do YOUR job.

    • T.I.M

      D800 + 400mm AF-I f/2.8 + SB900, ISO 280, 1/1000s

    • Mike

      True. But to me a high ISO rating is like horsepower in a car. Am I ever going to drive 300km/h in North America? Not legally. But it sure makes it easier, safer and more fun to merge onto a highway when traffic is moving fast. Same with high ISO. The higher the rating the more I know that ISO at 3200 is very usable in efforts to stop motion AND let in ambient light while using very little flash power which also allows for quick recycling. I don’t think people realistically look to shoot a wedding at 1 million ISO. But it’s also good to know that if your flash dies, or you want to mix in a bunch of non flash images with fast lenses for variation without noise penalty, that the camera you have can cover it no problem.

      • Michiel953

        As long as it’s ok up to 3200; good enough for me, and I’m an available light photographer.

    • happytron9600

      Get with the times, Grandpa. Seriously, old guys need to stop criticizing people for wanting better technology. “Back in my day…” Just stop. I can take photos that you couldn’t “back in the ’80s” because of advances in sensor sensitivity. Have fun with your 50 ISO Velvia slide film.

      • T.I.M

        I’m not grandpa yet, only 48 !
        (but I will, 3 daughters).
        So, 2 Nikon D800, AF-S VR lenses, 4.8GHZ processor, 64GB RAM dual 21″ screen computer, 13×19″ photo printers, Blu-ray/DVD/CD burners, I’m sure using very old technology !

    • Nice! The fish doesn’t look too comfortable though…

    • CERO

      no offense, but your rant almost read as ” back in my day…” type complain from old timers.
      Technology improves… and will continue to do so.

      • T.I.M

        Yes, but if you don’t know the basics of photography, technology is useless.

        • CERO

          Thats obvious.
          Except if you’re looking for mediocre or “ok” photos while using auto mode lol.

  • You mean Thom has a better DR (discussion range)? ☺

  • 10DollaEveryting

    Doesn’t look better than my XT1….at ISO 3200. Gonna ditch my Fuji hipster crap for this.

    • Blagoya D.

      Brand hating, really? So childish, doesn’t even deserve a “troll” label. Try harder.

      • 10DollaEveryting

        Huh, just said Nikon rocks. U mad?

      • Get some better reading glasses blagooya, because you’re clearly missing the periods.

  • 10DollaEveryting

    Nikon goes HAM on the competition. Heads at Canon will get chopped quicker than ISIS.

    • T.I.M

      What’s ISIS ?
      International Space Isolated Station ?

      • Michiel953

        ISolated IntellectS

  • Blagoya D.

    This body, paired with the D5 sensor, fps cut down to 8, buffer to 100 instead of 200, so it doesn’t compete with the D5 directly, would be the perfect camera, the true D700 successor. Priced at $3k. With H.265 encoding. Simplicity=divinity. Those that need the D5 will buy it anyways so it won’t be an issue at all. A second version would be the 47Mpix one as a model for the high-MP crowd (D800/810 successor).

    • peter w

      june or august?

      I hate this foolish high MP tendency. 36 really is a lovely amount of pixels to peep.

  • The memory card slot was sealed, but I wonder if the WiFi function didn’t work or the one who tool these photos didn’t bring any smartphone. Or the image must be written to a memory card be it can be sent via WiFi to a smartphone.

  • Mihai Pascu

    Like with most high iso demonstrations, for me it underscores once again there is little need for them. These journalists are running out of dark places they have to shoot at f/13 and high ss to get to those iso’s. On the upside is better to have them available and to have cleaner lower iso’s so it’s not a bad thing, but better high iso barely makes it to my top five qualities list

    • Obviously, you don’t need high ISO. Others do. I just got done shooting a restaurant job with a D750, arguably one of the top 3-4 high-ISO cameras you can buy right now. I was working at ISO 3200 at f4.5 and anywhere from a 1/160 to 1/250 most of the time. As you find in most dimly lighted situations, there was a tremendous range of values. I didn’t have the luxury, nor did I want, to use flash. I had to do some deft exposure compensation to get the higher values where I wanted them, as in, not off top edge of the sensor. Then I had to bring up the lower values in Lightroom. There’s plenty of DR to do that, but when you do, you get extra noise. The client is thrilled and that’s what matters. But I’d love a camera with another stop or so of USEABLE sensitivity.

  • Hardcore_Fanboy

    this is getting interesting – because if D500 iso performance will be anything better than just a marketing fluff – then its performance can beat d750… there fore we can expect a price drop for or better – a replacment. (I am still skeptical because of those “gather, gather people –
    billion, gazzilion izzos 153AF pointzz!!!” PR slides – where usually is
    so blatant PR there is weak RD)

    • Aldo

      D750 is a 2-3 year old sensor… I doubt (as others have mentioned) nikon has the technology match the d750 with the d500 in ISO performance.

  • Ez

    Any suggetions on a replacement to Capture nx2 that provide accurate colors as seen in camera? I want the D500, but it’s not supported by that software.

    • Do you mean it’ll never be supported by that software?

      • Ez

        Yes. As far as I know, the d7200 not soppirted as well.

        • I heard that with the free RAW2NEF software, the raw image from D750 can be edited in Capture NX2. While I don’t know if the raw file processing by this way is as good as before, I think there’ll be similar solution for the future D5/D500.

          I still don’t understand why Nikon abandon Capture NX2. The raw conversion, especially the shadow recovery in Capture NX2 is clearly better than in any Adobe software (at lest with D700 images). I didn’t try the new Capture NX-D (which is less powerful from what I heard) though.

    • CERO

      I dont know about you, but I’m loving DXOptics.
      I like how it automatically corrects your lens distortions.

  • Doug B

    The only thing that would make me any happier about this is if I had $2,000, LOL

  • Sawyerspadre

    Yes, as many have noted, I think the new cameras are a harbinger of a new generation of performance, and we will see these improvements trickle down, and up!

    I honestly don’t know how anyone can judge by the image on a camera LCD, which was shot with what, a mobile phone?

    I would imagine that there is still a big gap in high ISO performance between the D5 and D500. It still seems like basic physics that a sensor that is more than twice as big, with same number of pixels, would gather more light per pixel, given similar technology.

    I think it’s safe to assume that the next-gen D8xx, D7xx and D6xx will have dramatically improved high ISO performance.

    I am amazed at how good low-light shots look on the D750. The camera can see in the dark. If the D500 is anywhere close, and you need the reach of DX, just buy it.

    • Horshack

      LCD images were shot with a Sony RX1, at ISOs from 1000 to 2500.

  • BrainBeat

    It is a shame whoever took these photos did not get as good and angle as the D5 test but to me it looks like 51,200 looks very clean which is insane. Assuming this is true it looks like this sensor / processor have easily jumped 3 – 4 iso stops and that is for the full frame so maybe ever 4+ for the crops sensors. My 750 I thought was fairly good being able to do reasonably clean up to 12800 but this at H1 looks very similar. This I would then guess would easy beat a D4s in low light?

    I guess I will either have to save up for this one or get my boss to think about getting one for me.

    • Horshack

      I shot the images. They were clean in person but exhibited signs of NR even though I set High ISO NR to disabled. Detail and noise are opposite sides of the same code – both must be evaluated before conclusions can be reached on how much the sensor is improved. I can safely safe the level of raw-level improvement will be well below 3 to 4 ISO stops.

  • Trond Arild Ydersbond

    Anyone seen pictures from RAW S (small) – if that is an option?

  • nukunukoo

    Sadly the D500 4K crop is a little too severe to be practical for weddings. =( But for stills, this is the bomb!

  • Its a no brainer, this will be the camera to beat in APSC market for 2016!!! Just wish there wasn’t a 2x crop in movie mode! The ISO performance looks better than most of the top Full Frame cameras!! Go Nikon.

  • D700s

    I don’t expect anything. I hope for much. You make statements as if you’re the final authority. I don’t need a crop sensor but like this camera. If it sells well will you retract your statement about it being a niche camera?

  • Mike

    Admin. I attended an NPS event today showcasing the D5/D500 & SB-5000. The D5 is more of the same awesomeness. The D500, is really what people should get excited about. It with the 16-80 2.8-4 VR is a very very light combo. It handles very similarly to the D750. And, to my eye, ISO 3200 is better than the D700 at ISO 3200. The greater pixels and lack of OLPF and 8 years newer tech make it a surprisingly good low light camera. I could see event and wedding photographers incorporating it into their set up. A fast prime and a 2.8 zoom on FF body at higher ISO and you’d be hard pressed to see differences. It’s that good. Nikon has hit not just a home run or a grand slam but hit for the cycle, twice in one game it’s that great a camera. Be excited DX folks. It’s the first DX camera since switching to FF that has awe’d me.

  • nukunukoo

    If the tests show that the D500 is a good low-light performer, then it is, if the best but one of the leading choices for us events and wedding photographers like me for these reasons other than what I have just mentioned:
    (1) Having also an A7R2, I can tell you straight off the bat, battery life ain’t as good as my D7200. That’s not saying that the Sony’s bad in that, but for day-long events and thousands of shoots, battery life is key.
    (2) Crop lenses are more compact (and LIGHTER) than the equivalent FF. The bokeh and DOF argument is crap in real life use and application. Carrying in your person two cameras with different lenses for the entire day can be murder and can affect how you perform.
    (3) Finally! Having a dedicated ISO button close to the shutter is a godsend, as lighting conditions (indoors moving to outdoors and vice versa at the moment’s notice) change frequently in my trade.
    (4) -3EV focus (-4 at center) is extremely important at weddings, if you don’t appreciate it, you’re not a wedding photographer! =)
    (5) At 10 FPS and a big buffer, you won’t miss key critical moments on a wedding! Again, only seasoned wedding togs can appreciate this!
    (6) FULL WIDTH focus points! Need I say more?
    (7) The fact that you have a dedicated joystick for choosing focus points and having it positioned close to my thumb is incredible!
    (8) And for us who occasionally rent lenses, the automated AF fine-tuning is an amazing addition that takes the AF guesstimation out of the equation.
    (9) Having two memory card slots is always essential and is the equivalent of a RAID backup. In my 8 years in the biz, I had three failed memcards during an event and twice happened with my dual-slot Nikons which saved my a$$ big time. On paid events such as weddings, a single card IS a gamble.
    (10) IF (and this is a big IF), the D500 is a stop better in DR and low light performance than the D7200, then we are talking FF performance. Sure 20.9 MP is not 24MP (duh) but the difference is really negligible.
    (11) And did I mention D5-stye metering? Hell, if it performs as claimed, I’d be shaving off hours in Lightroom fixing WBs!

  • Mark

    My top priority in a camera is taking action shots indoors… (My daughter is a gymnast) I currently have a Nikon D600, and primarily use the nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 vr ii. The low light action images from this FX camera are modestly better than my previous Nikon, which was a D300. I was about to trade the D600 in for the D750, when the quality problem happened and I held off. Once Nikon fixed that, I was about to pull the trigger when I learned of the D500. I get the FX provides twice the light advantage, but the D500 has advantages over the D750 also. Any advice?

    • KnightPhoto

      Hi Mark, normally I’d be inclined to say D750 for gymnastics, great camera -3EV AF, FX sensor, etc.

      The wildcard is how closely will the D500 match D750 ISO, it’s probably going to approach the D600/D750 low light IQ abilities and have some AF advantage. Both great, and close enough in price, probably can’t lose either way!

      Probably still a slight edge for D750 for gymnastics due to FX sensor. But yeah D500 large buffer, fast FPS, and AF boost. The Nikon forums are going to be filled with these hard choices from now forwards!

      • Mark

        thanks! It’s tough to decide when the camera isn’t even out yet, but the longer I wait the longer the wait list grows…

    • KnightPhoto

      Update – did you see that $1,399 gray market D750 deal Admin just posted on the home page?

      • Mark

        gray markets make me nervous. Have you tried one before?

        • KnightPhoto

          Not tried Gray but if I could get this type of deal in my local currency I would 😉 It does sound a bit risky but on the other hand I’ve never had a problem with a Nikon DSLR that required servicing.

  • Back to top