First Nikon D500 reviews and sample photos

Nikon D500 camera review
The first Nikon D500 reviews and sample photos started to appear online - check out this first look article from Hardwarezone. Sample photos at different ISO (100% crops) are available at Clubsnap forum:

Nikon D500 at ISO 25600
Nikon D500 at ISO 51,200
Another set of ISO samples was posted on dpreview.

Some interesting Nikon D500 videos:

A short demo of Nikon D500 Electronic Vibration Reduction mode - it reduces the effects of camera shake in the horizontal, vertical and rotational directions during hand-held movie recording and works well with the lens VR:

Another video of the D500 AF in extremely dark conditions:

The Nikon D500 camera is scheduled to start shipping in one week (April 21st), pre-order options are listed here.

This entry was posted in Nikon D500. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • The JPG engines are getting better and better at reducing noise.

  • Dino Brusco

    Wow, that’s really awesome !!! I thought it had locked focus when there was light but then saw the little focus bracket lit with extremely dim light.. impressive to say the least !

  • AlphaT

    There’s a window at the back, they can see something.
    But yeah, the D500 can focus even if it’s dark.
    And the EVR works, 3 seconds handheld and it nailed it (never mind, it looks like it’s on a tripod).

  • Jonathan

    Excuse me while I put my pants in the wash… This is much better than I expected. Granted I want to play with some RAW files, but even so this is incredible. I would use up to 12,800 no prob. Up to 32,000 for web work. With my D300 I hated to go over 1600. Though on occasion I pushed to 3200.

    • Stephen Corby

      I don’t think we will really know how good it is before the RAWs. The D5 also had extraordinary JPEGs but the RAWs told us a lot more about what was really going on there.

      • Rudi

        My D5 raws are even better in CO9!

        • Captain Insane-O

          No they weren’t. People were saying the jpegs looked like 2 stops better when in reality it isn’t even a full stop better than the d4s. And at the cost of a huge base iso hit and loss of iso invarience.

          • Rudi

            How could you say NO!? Despite I owened two D4s before I didn’t say anything about better stops. Just read carefully. My D5 raws look better in CO9 than my JPG out of cam!

            • Captain Insane-O

              You commented on someone who said extraordinary d5 jpeg, then said your raw files are even better.

              So yes I can say that, as you were commenting on someone else’s claim. The threat starter is claiming a full stop jpeg improvement, and you commented on someone saying that the jpeg engine was great but raw gave insight.

              So, you did speak to stops of performance by addressing someone else’s claim and making a grandiose claim yourself.

    • akkual

      D7200 is well usable up to ISO6400. About 1 stop worse than D750. D500 seems to match D750 quite closely (as it should as D750 sensor is already 3 or so years old).

      • Captain Insane-O

        You’re crazy if you think the d500 will match the d750 is high iso. Not only is cmos a matured technology therefore having minimal gain every year, but the fx sensor has twice the light gathering ability.

        If the d500 sacrificed everything the d5 did in gaining 3/4’s of a stop at high iso and 1ev of dr, then it possibly could come close, but still not match it and then have a terrible low iso performance.

        The magic of the d750 and d810 is that you can boost shadows dramatically at base iso and not be hit by a noise penalty. You can’t do that with the d5.

        Let me put this another way. If the d500 has d750 performance and the pro body, and the 10fps, and the d5 amazing sauce af, then why is it the same price as the d750? That makes zero marketing sense.

        I bet you the d500 will have a modest 10-15% boost over the d7200. No where near fx performance.

        • P. Turtle

          Agree 100%

        • JJ168

          I agree with what you said, but do not forget the resolution is lower from d7200 to d500 while in d5 case, while there is a slight improvement in raw the resolution was increased from 16MP to 21MP.

          I would expect the improvement in high ISO performance from d7200 to d500 will be higher than from d4s to d5.

        • DaveyJ

          This seems to be a FF is superior agrument your are pushing. I have used a D750 a lot and fail to see that it offers anything over a D7200 in the field. I don’t want or need shallow depth of field. Also look close at your own post. The D750 is from a different era in Nikon’s history. that was then an this is now. As a former large and medium camera user I no longer and willing to use bigger gear than I need. Looking back at the big rigs……my Nikon F5 was actually the best tool I carried. DX has it’s place. I own most of the cameras you are talking about. D500 a modest 10-15 percent boost over the D7200? I own all now but the D500 I have yet to get…….and there are tools on that camera that many modern user want desperately.

        • osynlig fog

          Light gathering ability, signal to noise ratio, has everything to do with the size of the individual pixels and nothing to do with how large the sensor is.

          • York

            Well when you look at the numbers a FF sensor has about 860 square millimeters of sensor and the DX has about 370 square millimeters… Give that both D500 and D750 have about the same number of pixels 21.5 vs 24.3 megapixels… the reality is the D750 uses fewer pixels per square millimeter which would likely mean the pixels it does have are larger than the D500…. In theory the D750 is probably better in low light… but there is really no way to know for certain until someone gets both cameras and does a direct comparison.

            • osynlig fog

              You are right.

              But then I think the image processing side of things is becoming more and more important as time goes on. Perhaps its a poor analogy, but it makes me think of car engines. How power used to be improved through bigger engines and more cylinders. But at some point more advanced engines could make up for smaller cylinders and smaller cylinder volume.

              Our brains do incredible amount of processing to the image that is actually projected on our retinas.

  • Aldo

    “Hi, may i know is the in-camera high ISO noise reduction feature turn ON? What picture control is being used? Standard or neutral…etc. Thanks!”

    “Sorry, it was quick and dirty, which means I just set to aperture priority and change the iso speed.

    Wait for detailed test and field test”

    It looks promising though… we have to wait for the real tests.

    • Thom Hogan

      With Nikon bodies at high ISO values, for JPEGs some form of High ISO NR is turned on even when the feature is turned off. Where that change occurs used to be disclosed in Nikon manuals, but is not any more. It also used to be that you could look in Capture to see where this change occurred, but not any more. I don’t get the need for obfuscation.

      • I was accustomed to canon people complaining about unwanted pre process NR in their raws which resulted in loss of fine detail in textures. Seems that we will also be doing the same from now on.

        • Allen_Wentz

          Hmm. I have not (yet) seen reviews saying NEF files had unwanted NR in them.

        • Thom Hogan

          That’s not what I wrote. I wrote about JPEGs.

          To my knowledge the only thing Nikon does to the raw data is some white balance pre-assignment, moving raw values some based upon the perceived light distribution so that you have optimal data. The D5 does this on all four Bayer positions, while earlier Nikon’s only did it on the R and B positions.

          • Oh. I read it wrong.

          • DaveyJ

            I would most appreciate Thom’s view on a strictly JPEG user of all of my Nikons……I have yet to get the pre-ordered D500 (of course)…..I see advantages for us to add a D500…. If only for video upgrade……does this look like a real step forward for us using JPEG?
            I sure believe so! What do you think???

            • Thom Hogan

              Unknown. I don’t have a camera to test yet. Given the D5, Nikon has clearly made some advances in JPEG processing. I’d expect them to carry over to the D500. Still, trying to assess exactly where the D500 sits versus other Nikon bodies requires a camera to test.

            • DaveyJ

              Nikon Rumors has proven to be easily one of the best websites ever! For sure we need a camera to test. On the other hand when we buy ours, we are paying our money and taking our chances as they say. I do wonder for ones like me who have practically abandoned RAW as it just is not practical, I wonder what we will get say over a D7200? That is in terms of JPEG. When a D7300 comes out I may get one of those too…..but there are three of these here using these cameras. I use the D7100 and D7200 everyday it seems. That is what I take to the job site or on some occasions just my leisure time…..We have close to 30 Nikons. Always here my guys chose from Sony video, Nikon AW1, DSLR Nikons, Black Magic, Red Epic, or Go Pros.

              When Thom gets one we will know a lot we do not know now. But we do think it will be worth the wait. Early announcements before the ship dates do allow us to get our ducks in order! Nikon Rumors people make a huge difference in our buying comfort. The collective wisdom for so many experts helps us tremendously. Having suffered thru buying WAY to much gear in my high earnings earlier life……it is very important to have the best Intel available. Sure can’t get this direct from Nikon. NR provides a free and available resource that is very valuable to Nikon and we consumers. Thank you all, and Thom for keeping us posted!!!

  • Piooof

    There’s something about physics I don’t get here. A number of respected people have argued that the DX SLRs like the D7200 were rather close to the theoretical noise limit… in short, that to get a higher signal to noise you’d have to move to FX. Now I see this. It’s not only improvement in JPEG engines, the dpreview stuff is converted raw, but looks way better than what you get with previous DX cameras. Where’s the miracle? In my eyes?

    • HF

      Unless the very same scene is shot with a D7200, too (ruling out that the raw converter will likely interpret the file differently and exposure differences are non-existent), I would not judge by looking at the samples of one camera only.

    • Mike

      Don’t forget that the D500 has 4 million less pixels than the D7200. So the pixels, as marginal as they are, are technically bigger….. more signal. Plus with 2 years newer tech…. it should far exceed the D7200

      • Not to forget algorithms which give more stress on higher ISO low light performance(if it is calibrated like D5 which is likely considering it is companion to D5).

      • HF

        Why that? The difference in pixel size between 20 and 24MP is marginal, imo (7% increase), but performance for equal output size is what matters, in my opinion, not per pixel noise. I am sure the D500 is better in _some_ aspects than the D7200, but what is meant with “far exceed”, in what respect? The newest sensor is probably the A6300 sensor, used by the xpro2, too and still only similar in performance to the D7200. Measurements of B. Claff show the D7200 to be 0.3ev away from ideal DX (limited by shot noise only). So 0.3ev is all you can hope for.

        • Thom Hogan

          Let’s note that Bill’s models are Bill’s models. His calculation of photographic DR and optimal DR aren’t something that every researcher would agree on. It’s his theory, basically, not a fact.

          That’s not to be negative about Bill’s research; his data comes closer to my calculations than anyone else’s, certainly far closer than DxOMark’s. But I’m unsure about his “optimal” calculations. I get something a bit different than him, so I wonder if there’s an assumption in there I don’t know about.

          But you are correct about several things. First, you really have to compare output-to-output, and those outputs have to be standardized to be the same. And “far exceed” is so subjective as to be meaningless in this context. Right now we should all be happy every time we have a real and measurable “exceed”. Improvements are improvements, and the D500 doesn’t just have improvements at the sensor.

          Couple of comments, though: no, we can’t assume that the difference in light collection area is 7%, especially since there are signs that the D500 could be BSI. All bets are off on light collection area if we flop sides.

          Second, I don’t think this is the A6300 sensor. In fact, it’s easy to say that it isn’t. As far as we can tell from what little external examination we can do at the moment, it’s an entirely new sensor.

          • HF

            I didn’t mean it to be an A6300, I just gave it as an example for one of the more recent sensor with dual gain, which performs quite well according to measurements (still, seems to trail D7200 in some aspects). If the D500 were BSI, this would be good news, at least with me. Nevertheless, I am curious as to how your and his data differs.

      • Allen_Wentz

        If you are counting it is 3.3 MP less, not 4. Or rounding off it would be 3 MP less.

      • DaveyJ

        My thought too…..good post, time will tell…..and hope we all good great individual cameras to pair with exceptional lenses!

    • Aldo

      a theoretical model of how the eyes see the world before brain processing. It’s a miracle right?

      • When I look really closely in very dark conditions, I can see noise in my vision, which blows me away.

        • Aldo

          I havent seen noise.. but believe I have seen moire.

          • catinhat

            You should try to lift shadows next time.

            • Aldo

              I havent found the slider for that yet

            • Aldo

              I do experience a weird phenomenon where my peripheral vision picks up dimmed light in the dark… but when I focus on the spot it vanishes. The light is there though because I track the source.

            • PhilK

              Sounds like your anti-reflection baffling needs service. 😉

            • Aldo

              Yeah… but if people are ok with a nikon having a canon sensor…. I should be able to manage with what I got.

            • Kikou Yamata

              That’s perfectly normal = In the center of the retina, you have a lot of cone cells that are good at color detection but poor at low light. In the periphery, you have a lot of rod cells, that can’t see color well but are good at low light detection. Then, the center of the eye, helped by axial optics is good at identification, whereas the sides are blurred because of poor optics but good at detecting movement. This is what we inherited from our predator origins. And it explains why we see more shooting starts in the sky when we do not look at them.

            • Aldo

              Very interesting. Thanks for the unexpected and enlightening insight.

            • TheInfinityPoint

              I use the same technique to observe very faint objects through telescopes. It’s called averted vision, in case you want to look into it more (pun intended).

            • DaveyJ

              That is a very good point that did need repeating here as many of us who had heard that before need hearing it agin and it helps greatly right here, right now! Many thanks!!

            • Thom Hogan

              Differences in rods and cones, probably. Our eyes aren’t laid out in a perfect collection grid, they’re optimized for central collection with peripheral data being supplied to that.

          • PhilK

            Oh, I’ve definitely seen optical noise. Moire… now that’s weird. I didn’t think human photoreceptors were completely geometrically symmetrical the way that human-made digital image sensors are. 😛

            Unless…. you’re the human fly… 😀

            • Aldo

              Lol… maybe not the color pattern… but the waves within patterns… like a a window screen.

            • PhilK

              I hear Timothy Leary described scenarios like that too. 😀

            • Aldo

              Lol

            • Thom Hogan

              There’s interesting new research on LSD and how it impacts the brain. Basically it equalizes our processing across the brain. Any input is handled across the full brain. So where a visual cue would generally only trigger the visual processing, under LSD it is triggering the aural and other processing centers simultaneously.

            • Spy Black

              Subconscious perception also appears to be brought to a conscious level, at least, to some degree. That’s where I believe stuff like moving walls comes from, you’re simply conscious of you’re eyes constantly refocusing as it scans across your environment. Crazy sounds too, you’re conscious of harmonics and other environmental sounds you’d normally tune out. Speculation on my part, that’s what I deducted from my own personal experiences. 😉

            • ZoetMB

              Oh, so that’s what’s wrong with you.

        • silmasan

          I’ve noticed some sort of aliasing effect when I watch e.g. a hair strand very closely and then move it very slowly.

          • Aldo

            It maybe what I see too… but I didnt want to call it aliasing cuz there werent sharp edges… just curvy lines like you get in moire… without the color effect… I feel like the brain just cant render the patterns at a distance.

            • silmasan

              Trying to replicate what I wrote above at this moment just makes me dizzy :p … Anyways a quick search “aliasing human vision” yields some interesting results, apparently the phenomenon has been observed by others (scientists).

              Look at the first one from Google search results: “Aliasing In Human Foveal Vision” by DR Williams. The abstract mentions both aliasing and moire. 🙂

        • akkual

          Noise is a law of nature, not added by technology. There’s background noise even in the vacuum of space.

          • Sure, but my point is that our highly processed vision does not smooth it away.

        • Thom Hogan

          Well, you should. Photons are random. And in extremely low light, you’ll absolutely have cells in your eyes that aren’t getting a signal at any given moment. It’s one of the reason why we have rods and cones and our brains are hard wired to detect motion.

          Something moving at night is going to trigger adjacency differences, even if sometimes you’re not getting a signal. We key off those adjacency issues, and will turn our head to put our best visual processing directly on the motion.

        • VanHoff

          You mean your NOSE?

    • catinhat

      If it looks too good to be true, it probably is. Not too long ago, based on the early samples, this forum was guessing whether D5 was a 2 or 3 stops improvement over D4S, — remember that? It turns out the difference is more like 1/2 stop and it shows mainly at the crazy ISO most don’t use routinely anyway. Expect from the D500 perhaps a 1/2 stop improvement over D7200. So, D500 will be in the FX territory circa 2007-2008. For a DX it is very impressive, and if I had a spare 2 grand I would be tempted. But I think I would rather go on vacation.

      • Don’t forget D4s Vs D5 is flagships comparison, no holds barred whereas D7200 was crippled heavily and Dx in general neglected in sensor tech so there is every chance that D500 will be considerably better than D7200.

      • Doing both 😛

      • Allen_Wentz

        Nonsense. I own “FX territory circa 2007-2008” D3, and it took only a few minutes at a road show pixel-peeping shots I made handheld through 200-500mm into both dark and light areas to know that other than the superior large D3 body, there is _nothing_ that my D3 can do that the D500 cannot do better.

        FX does of course excel at wide angle over DX, but from D2x days I already own 10.5mm and 12-24mm Nikkor glass for DX that works pretty well. Plus DX bodies love FX wide angle, with a FOV penalty that is more than made up for by the DX bonus at the more expensive tele end.

        • catinhat

          Chances are this is wishful thinking, I bet D500 will not get “sport/low light” score on DxO even as high as the D3/D700, let alone the newer FX models. Keep in mind that the samples are heavily NR’d, and not really what I would call low light, they are decent light photos forced into high ISO. So are most of the other samples we’ve seen so far, while those which weren’t tended to be of a size which would prevent any detailed viewing. You of course are welcome to believe whatever you wish to believe.

          • Thom Hogan

            Of course, you’d have to believe first that the DxOMark sport/low light score represents a real metric that’s useful first. ;~)

            • catinhat

              IIRC, they have an explanation for this metric and where they draw the cutoff line. As such it must be representative of something somewhat useful 😉
              The only truly arbitrary number that comes from DxO seems to be the overall score.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Perhaps not arbitrary, but still not useful. A very critical part of “sport/low light” image capture is obtaining fast accurate focus.
              A) Accurate focus allows usage of shallower DOF hence more open apertures, i.e. more light.
              B) Fast accurate focus allows “getting the shot,” which may even include burst shots to get the one with ideal look.
              C) Only in the laboratory can manual focus be very carefully dialed in for test purposes.

              Small differences in some laboratory-measured parameter that take none of the above into consideration mean next to nothing. Prioritizing DxO differences distracts from what really matters in image capture.

            • catinhat

              I think you’re changing the topic. I’ve made no claims about D500 AF, I assume it is very good. I don’t think DxO makes any claims about AF. That said, all upper tier Nikons from the D3 generation on had very good AF. The D300 had very good AF, the D700 had very good AF, etc. I shot a large number of athletic events in less than ideal light with the D700, and while I wasn’t always thrilled by the noise performance, the AF hardly ever let me down. I assume the AF sensitivity in low light is better now, and the greater AF point spread might be very useful, but how much of a practical difference this makes for this or that particular application is moot at this point.

            • Allen_Wentz

              My intent was not to change topic, but to diss the inclusion of DxO detail in the discussion.

              Agreed the D3 AF (although far exceeded by the D500) is good, and noise is where D3 IQ falls down as light gets lower and ISO rises. But (for instance) imagine that the D500’s superior AF allows me to instead of “f/8 and wait,” wait set to f/5.6 with its shallower DOF. That means the camera’s auto-ISO will set to a stop lower – lots more relevant than tiny DxO variations, and definitely not moot.

              My point is that the simplest of real-world tests include all the components of capturing an image. And I (briefly) performed those simple tests with unequivocal results. Small differences in DxO details have little real-world meaning.

            • Just getting something cleared up. When you say D500’s AF allows to set 5.6 instead of f/8- and wait , is it because you could set it wider because of better high iso performance and hence being able to set auto ISO one stop higher?
              Isn’t the light level required for AF a function of absolute light level? I.e. EV value? which would be the combination of shutter, aperture, and ISO?
              Also as shutter always is open at the time of AF, isn’t the aperture set by us irrelevant?

            • Allen_Wentz

              Para 1: One could preset aperture wider in the expectation that the better AF allows in-focus capture at shallower DOF. Particularly in low light situations, the latest D5/D500 AF bests older already-good Nikon AF.
              Para 2: AF is a function of Nikon wizardry, and is to me amazing in the D5/D500.
              Para 3: No. My point is that better AF allows us to set shallower DOF = wider aperture and let the pic be taken with relatively more light than if we had used a less-good AF that necessitated having a wider DOF to make sure the pic was in focus.

              I do not suggest that the issue is super-important, just that it is potentially relevant, a plus for the new bodies.

            • Ok. Got it . Especially when I reread your earlier comment.

            • catinhat

              I agree with your last point that capturing an image involves any number of variables, I don’t think it is debatable. We started however with the claims that the D500 low light performance exceeds that of the D3. While this is possible, in the sense that anything is possible, I’m not convinced that it is likely, and judging by the few samples we’ve seen so far, or the rear LCD peeping, is IMO premature. Even if I’m wrong, the next question will be how much real world difference this will actually make, and whether the cost is worth the benefit. In a word, I’m yet to be convinced.

            • Allen_Wentz

              What I said was “…there is _nothing_ that my D3 can do that the D500 cannot do better.” My context of course was real-world, not the laboratory.

              I did not bring the D3 body to the road show so I did not get a true A-B comparison, and am basing solely on my D3 experience. IMO rear-LCD peeping can be if anything overly rigorous, so I will wager that more comprehensive reviews by competent Nikon users will agree that for JPEG capture D500 cameras beat D3 in every real-world category (except perhaps superwide angle using best FX glass).

              None of us have worked D500 NEF files yet so I make no comment on RAW.

          • Allen_Wentz

            What Thom said below. Plus it is not what I “believe” like some magical prophet-belief I maybe was indoctrinated into as a child. It is empirical, what I _see_ after decades of experience learning how to look, and many thousands of D3 captures.

            In my photo world it is all about first visualizing then “getting the shot.” Even you could perform the simple test of real world capturing (or attempting to capture in the D3 case) the same low-light image with D3 and also with D500. If you do that real-world (not DxO) test and still disagree with me, then that we certainly can discuss.

            • catinhat

              OK, let’s hope you’re right. I’ve shot D700 for many years, and i know that depending on the light you can get a highly usable ISO 12800 shot or a very poor ISO 6400 shot. Then you throw some undefined amount of NR cleanup into it. What we’re looking at is not conclusive at all. Remember the Oh-Ah ISO 100K from the D5 is awesome. Then the raw files came in and not everyone was sure it was much better than D4S until ISO 25K or so. Nikon will always put its best foot forward, then the reality will set in. That’s all.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Perhaps what _you_ are “…looking at is not conclusive at all.” But I pixel-peeped my own handheld shots on the excellent new D500 display and IQ was there.

              Of course the display JPEGs are heavily processed, including NR. That is what digital capture is. The relevant thing is that I was able to easily, hand-held at f5.6 on a 500 mm zoom, capture low-light imagery that I could not capture using my D3. And I am unfortunately not one of those photogs who has tripod hands, so I was shooting a high shutter speed and high ISO.

            • Max

              I always think about that when websites post photos about “virtually noise free” iso-whatever. Shoot that iso12800 again at dusk or at night, and it looks like cr%p.

          • silmasan

            The newer FX models, certainly not, but since you mentioned D3/D700, it’s actually very plausible that D500 will outperform them. I’ve come to term that they were far from being at FX’ full potential (they’re Nikon’s first gen FX, mind you). Secondly, from what I
            see, even D7200 has already equaled them. But of course, “you are welcome to believe whatever you wish to believe”.

            We’ll see it in about a week.

    • Wilson Wong

      perhaps time to think that the so called theoretical noise limit is a self imposed limit? think about it..if the Fuji APS-C can do so much more than some full frame sensor, it is not just the sensor itself these days but also the processor and the noise reduction algorithm coming into play.

      So the days to say only FX can deliver is practically over for most uses.

  • doge

    I like that camera. I wish I needed one.

    • Wishing makes it so. I need one!

  • Aldo

    If nikon wants to sell their cameras based on their jpeg performance… I sure hope they fix their horrible auto/preset white balance. The d500 seems promising too in this regard.

    • Bingo.

    • fanboy fagz

      I havent used auto white balance for the longest time, just because of that. I never knew how to adjust kelvin, but going to any place with an incandescent bulb and its completely yellow.

      So I go adjust it to 3200º or even 2500º and boom, a different picture.

      btw, something many didnt notice but white balance changes when you use a flash. it seems to be warmer.

      • It’s worse than that as the image always has green tinge added to it which is very difficult to neutralize because of very clumsy and large stop changes in green-magenta slider

  • donaldejose

    Looks really good. In fact, good enough to cut into sales of D5 bodies?

    • Mike

      It was going to anyway. It’s $2700 (CAD). The D5 is $8500 CAD. S

    • Allen_Wentz

      Some D5 cannibalizing of course, but my expectation is that the D500 will more than make up for that by getting photogs like me to buy one. Spoiled by D2x/D3 (DX/FX), I do not much like any of the other Nikon bodies and could not justify US$6k for a D4s upgrade, so I have been sitting with D2x/D3. When I handled the D5/D500 at a road show I preordered a D500 on the spot.

      Even though my initial plan had been to handle the D500 then wait to handle the D8xx upgrade and pick _one_ new body, the plan now is to maybe buy _two_ new bodies if the D8xx upgrade rocks like it should.

  • JoeFunny30

    Does this look better than d750?

    • Aldo

      oh yeah… DX>FF

      • Allen_Wentz

        AF and Expeed are much improved on the D500.
        Pixel density is much higher on DX; that has pros and cons.
        FOV is much tighter on DX; that has pros and cons.
        D500 build appears substantially better than the D750.
        Sometimes FX is better but not always.

        • Hmm it seems like there are pros and cons lol

        • PhilK

          Now we need a real D700 replacement, what the D750 should have been: an FX version of the D500. 😀

          I’d be willing to forego 10FPS too, if necessary.

          • Wade Marks

            You have an FX version of the D500: the D5. What you really want is a D5 at half or even a third of the price. And that ain’t gonna happen.

            • PhilK

              No foundation for that opinion: that was precisely what the D700 was when it was introduced: a lower-speed, smaller, slightly less rugged version of the D3 with exactly the same sensor and image performance – for close to 1/2 the price. 😉

            • Allen_Wentz

              The D7xx is not simply “slightly less rugged.” The ergonomics are very different. Unacceptable to some photogs including me.

              But I see no reason that Nikon cannot replicate the D500 close to exactly in an FX D7xx and D8xx at the appropriate higher price points. If they do it with D8xx I will likely buy one.

            • PhilK

              I consider the D700 to be part of the “prosumer” or “semi-pro” series that began with the D200, through D300, D300s, D500, and in FX D700, D800, D810. Not Flagship “single letter” series, but neither is it the “consumer” or advanced consumer” series like the D40/60/70/80/90/3xxx/5xxx/7xxx series.

              I loosely distinguish that series by the following: large top LCD, weather-sealing, dedicated setting buttons for eg ISO/quality/ WB/AF etc, more robust and larger body than the consumer series (with a mostly alloy superstructure), no “easy picture modes” or “green full auto” mode, professional storage media support such as CF or XQD, professional-style remote interface (eg 10-pin cable, rather than IR-only), relatively large viewfinder that takes circular screw-on accessories eg magnifiers or diopter lenses, etc.

              Now if you personally can only tolerate the single-letter series (eg because you want voice annotation, secondary rear always-on LCD, faster speed,etc) that’s perfectly fine. But don’t dismiss the value of a moderate step-down like a D700 which became an undisputed modern classic because it provided exactly the same image quality and most of the key benefits of the flagship model, but more practical for many people due to the reduction in size/weight (But not to “consumer territory”) and lower cost.

              These are the same kinds of distinguishing features which I believe will make the D500 another “modern classic” for DX. I’m simply suggesting doing the same for FX, for those of us who don’t care about or want 36MP, and perhaps may not want 10FPS or video features either.

              (Maybe that’s what Nikon is planning for a “DF2” – but I never liked their design choices on that camera, and outside of a few hipsters who like anything retro’ish, I doubt they sold many of them. I already had FM2s and FE2s, thankyouverymuch, don’t really wanna go back to that in the year 2016.)

            • Sandy Bartlett

              The D500 has mostly the same build as the D810. Including poly carb chassis. As does the D500. Google it.

            • PhilK

              No need to websearch anything, it’s basically what I’ve been saying.

            • Allen_Wentz

              It felt to me like “the D500 is housed within a durable magnesium alloy chassis that is both
              dust- and weather-sealed for working in inclement conditions and harsh
              environments.” Which is the way Nikon describes the D500.

            • Allen_Wentz

              I fully agree the D700 and D750 are excellent cameras, just not for me. I do think the D500 build is more pro (we will have to see what the tear-down experts opine) and the ergonomics do better suit me personally.

              If Nikon’s field testing is telling them the D500 is the great body I think it is, maybe we can yet get operationally similar D7xx and D8xx FX versions of a very very similar body.

            • silmasan

              We’ll have to establish the facts here:

              D-singledigit flagships (made in Japan): full magnesium alloy body, including both grips — no question here

              D700 (made in Japan): “full” magnesium alloy body, including grip/battery compartment (see note below) — please google search image for “Nikon D700 skeleton”

              D800/E (made in Japan): almost “full” magnesium alloy body, except the front half of the grip/battery compartment

              D300/s (made in Thailand): seems to be similar to D700

              D810 (made in Thailand), I haven’t found its frame/skeleton or tear down pictures so I wouldn’t assume anything yet.

              D750 (made in Thailand): magnesium alloy frame top and back, carbon fibre reinforced plastic (monocoque) on the front

              D500 (made in Thailand) seems to be similar to D750 from what I’ve seen (it’s for sure a non-metal front)

              I _might_ even put D700 above the D800 because d700’s grip/battery compartment seems to be made thoroughly from metal (in teardown pictures however, you can see it’s painted black), while D800/E battery compartment looks to be metal only in the rear half.

              Yet, even if I’m wrong about that, in other words _if_ this grip/battery compartment part isn’t really metal on these bodies (D300/s, D700, D800/E), they still do have metal FRONT frame, as the flagships do.

              I know you’re excited about the D500 and all, but if you still think D500 is of “more pro” build than D700 (or D300/D300s for that matter) you will have to back that up with a convincing argument and proof. As for ergonomics, it’s a matter of preference indeed.

            • PhilK

              I just realized you may have left out a digit when you used “D7xx”. Did you actually mean “D7xxx”??

            • silmasan

              I understand PhilK’s frustration at your “D7xx” reference here. D700 and D750 are based on different base layouts, OK. So you can’t really put them together like that without confusing people (like Nikon did), and perhaps yourself.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Correct, I too was confused.

            • Wade Marks

              Yes, the D700 was in essence a mini D3 at half the price…but that ain’t gonna happen again.

              The market has evolved and now there are more models with more differentiation. You now have 4 FX bodies well below the D5 price, all of which are superior to the D700. When Nikon updates those models then you will have an even better selection from which to choose. And all surely will be better than the d700.

            • PhilK

              Some of us don’t think “better” includes 36MP that we won’t use and just slows things down, video features we have no interest in and which take up button real-estate, 10FPS that we won’t use, etc.

              On the other hand, super low-light performance would be just fab.

            • Andrew

              Nikon will not make that mistake (1/2 the price) again 😉

          • Max

            You are asking for too many camera models. There are already too many models when the camera business is struggling. They should cutting lines, not adding new ones. The worst example is perhaps D3xxx and D5xxx, with the D5xxx only having slightly more features.

            • PhilK

              No I’m not. As far as I’m concerned, they could just dump the paltry-selling Df and replace that with a true successor to the D700. (A camera they sold tons of, by the way, and created some extremely devoted fans with)

              D700 form-factor with the D5 (or D4s, if people seem to think that’s better) sensor, no video, no need for 10 FPS, but really nice image quality and low-light sensitivity. Wildcard ideas: focus peaking/EVF option, articulating display, electronic second-curtain, etc. Instead of making it a fuddy-duddy hipster retro nonsense that doesn’t sell, how about making it a center for innovation, that will eventually filter up into the flagship?

          • arachnophilia

            i’d like this too; a mini-D5, like the D700 was a mini D3.

            though i’m starting to think that this D500 is good enough on the speed front that a D500/D810 system would make sense for me.

            • Allen_Wentz

              “…starting to think that this D500 is good enough on the speed front that a D500/D810 system would make sense for me.”

              Me too. I can’t wait to see the next D8xx upgrade or upgrades (perhaps 2 different pixel counts). The D810 at its existing price point could easily be put into a close approximation of the D500 body.

            • Max

              Nikon should make a camera with two sensors, a 16mp and a 42mp. You can change between the two and when you do, the one sensor slides away and the other one slides in place behind the lens. then you have a low light and landscape camera in one.

        • Sawyerspadre

          What does better mean? I think that is up to the user.

    • The ISO quality and AF is everything! 🙂

      • JoeFunny30

        That’s what I’m looking at, mainly if there’s a significant improvement in ISO over the d750. AF seems to be improved and I prefer the pro style layout after using a d300 for 6 years. I’ll be on the lookout for same size MP comparisons.

        • HF

          Dream on. Similarly to what happened with the D5 vs. D4s initial samples, people look at jpgs and immediately claim or hope for a “significant” improvement of a DX over an FX camera. If it has off sensor ADC its low ISO DR will be Canon like (which will cause people to scream) and high ISO DR improved by 1/3 to 1/2 stop. In case it would be an ideal theoretical DX sensor (limited by shot noise only), Bill Claffs measurements show that it would barely reach the D750, so no significant improvment. But how likely is that?

          • JoeFunny30

            I can dream, especially on a rumor forum 😉

            • HF

              Thats is fine of course 😉

    • chip

      Not better than D750 but pretty close

      • JoeFunny30

        If it’s on par for low light noise then I’m switching and keeping this one for a while. Prefer dedicated iso and quality buttons, can’t get into the d750 layout, which is a pity because it’s a great camera.

        • PhilK

          I agree on the ergonomics. One of the things I like most about the better Nikon DSLRs are the direct function buttons.

        • Captain Megaton

          Anything based off the D7000 layout (D7100,7200,600,610,750) is a PITA. Nice, functional cameras, but something about the button placement – it never grows intuitive, no matter how long you bang away at it.

          • PhilK

            I never liked those series either, ergonomically.

          • JoeFunny30

            Yes, it’s odd like that.

        • Aldo

          You are switching “a great camera” because of button layout? Ok

          • Allen_Wentz

            “You are switching “a great camera” because of button layout?”

            Hell yes. Using a pro tool both the ergonomics and (for those of us who photo in tough environments) the body durability can and should be deal breakers.

            • Aldo

              Sounds good… I think user 1 and 2 settings are much stronger than the ‘pro’ layout. I think they should have 4 user settings and get rid of some things in that wheel though.

            • HF

              Ergonomics is user dependent and NOT generalizable to all others, too. My D750 takes a lot of beating, but does just fine. I find the ergonomics much better than my “pro” D810, for example.

            • +1000

          • chip

            D750 while nice is NO pro layout, Nikon crippled it, still some pros wedding photographers live with the defect as to many amateurs too

            • Aldo

              I disagree the d750 being crippled in any way… the ‘pro’ layout argument is almost like switching to canon and complaining the buttons are not where you were used to have them on your nikon body.

            • HF

              No. What works for you does not mean it doesn’t work for others. “Pro layout” is not defined anywhere, but something people like you define and take true for all others, too. I don’t see it as a defect and it doesn’t limit me a bit during weddings.

          • Captain Megaton

            It’s not “pro vs not pro”, it’s specific to the D7000-series- it feels like 12 buttons were placed on the camera first and then Nikon went and mapped 24 features to them in rough order of importance.

            It never stops feeling ass-backwards, is what I’m trying to say.

    • Captain Megaton

      Similar size, similar price. Very different ends.

      It’s really interesting now, with dSLRs starting to differentiate on end use rather than just “good-better-best”.

      • jarmatic

        That’s how it was in the film days. I think it’s a good thing.

        • Kyle Medina

          Are you referring that the only difference was the film you used, because body didn’t matter. All the bodies were able to use the same film.

          • jarmatic

            Hello Kyle, yes, that is exactly what I mean. One bought the body and lenses needed to meet needs because all 35mm cameras used the same films.

      • Allen_Wentz

        What is interesting to me is that Nikon finally brought a fully pro body to DX; the first time since the D2x era. None of the previous DX bodies or the FX D750 and below cut it for me.

        I had no intention of preordering when I went to the D5/D500 road show but the D500 body sold me immediately. Of course the unbelievable hand held low light autofocus using a 200-500mm helped too. Coming from D3, both of the latest pro Nikons fully wowed me.

        • PhilK

          I honestly don’t understand you referring to the D500 as “fully pro”, while also saying above that the D700 was an “unacceptable ergonomic compromise” compared to the flagship model at the time. Especially when the D500 body is basically part of the same general series as the D700/D800/D810, ergonomically.

          • PhilK

            Or the D200/300/300s, for that matter.

          • Allen_Wentz

            Not to my hands it is not. Things like the AF-On button and Mode dial make the D7xx series hella different to me than the D8xx and especially the D500.

            Plus my perception is that the D7xx is clearly lesser build quality.

            Although I have field-used/abused none of these specific cameras, I have beaten up on Nikons for decades, more than once to the point of camera failure. The D500 _seems_ fully pro body build/ergonomics to me.

            All of course just my 0.02 and based on very brief hands-on experience as regards the D500.

        • catinhat

          I wish it were fully pro, but it isn’t even as “pro” as the D300 used to be. The D300 had mag alloy on all sides and a metal mirror box into which the mount was screwed, just like the D3. The D500 only has metal on top and back and a plastic mirror box, so look forward to all those pics of torn lens mounts yet to come. The only Nikons to retain all metal construction are the Dx series. Nothing else qualifies as fully “pro” construction wise.

          • It is not the use of full metal that matters. What matters is the result of final combination of used materials. If final product is equally good, it is pro quality.
            No onboard flash itself more than justifies this body a pro title.

            • catinhat

              Well, I happen to believe there is a good reason why D2/3/4/5 have been constructed differently from D500. I’m curious to see what happens when folks start hanging 7 pound telephotos off of the D500 mounts. I expect some unpleasant surprises here and there, but the proof as usual will be in the pudding.

            • Jonathan

              Since many wildlife photographers will be using the D500 the weaker mount is certainly a concern. No doubt people will be sticking 400, 600, 800mm teles on to this.

            • silmasan

              Well, you’re not going to let the body hold the weight of the entire setup with those teles, are you? I mean, people have done that with Nikon 1 series bodies.

            • Jonathan

              Well no. That is certainly true. I do with my 50-150, but no heavier.

            • AlphaT

              As long as the mount can support the weight of the body, it should be fine.
              These exotic lenses supports the body (even D5’s), not the other way around.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Exactly. Once you get over 3 pounds or so (70-200mm f/2.8 VR and above) the lens becomes the support mechanism. The camera mount is stressed to about 2 pounds by a D500, 3 pounds by a D5.

            • porsupah

              Is that genuinely a concern? I’ve wielded the Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 and Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 on my D7100 to good effect, with no noticeable deformation.

          • Jonathan

            I think this is the one and only thing that bugs me about this camera. Nikon begrudgingly made this camera and its like they said lets give them 95% of what they want and leave out the 5% because we can. But of course raise the price…

          • AlphaT

            Not sure what you meant by “pro”.
            There are professional photographers that has the D7100/D7200 in their bags.

            • catinhat

              Oh, no, it has nothing to do with whether a professional photographer can make great images with it. When the term “pro” is thrown around here, it usually means as good as it gets build quality. I would add as good as it gets ergonomics too, but then it becomes more subjective. With build quality it seems fairly straightforward though: best materials, best workmanship, etc.

            • AlphaT

              Due to aging, I support the move to the use of lighter materials as an alternative to alloys. The use of composites like carbon fibers, if done right, I think can be beneficial. It’s rigid enough and comparable to metals. It has it’s pros (no pun intended) and cons, but hoping that they design it right.

            • Richard Costin

              7200 in my bag. Quality great and gives wonderfully reach on the 600/800 lenses. Soon to be replaced by the 500. Will keep as a backup though.

          • Allen_Wentz

            I do not know where you fabricate your ideas of lesser D500 build from, but you are wrong. See Nikon’s verbiage quoted elsewhere in this thread.

            • catinhat

              I’m sorry, I don’t fabricate anything here, D500 is not built like D5. The D5 is metal all over, D500 has carbon fiber reinforced front, including the all-important mirror box into which lens mount is screwed. It’s been shown many times (search dpreview threads) that those screws tend to get ripped out of the mirror box if significant stress is applied to the mount. This doesn’t happen to cameras with the metal mirror box such as D300, D700, and all TOL cameras. A large heavy lens such as 300/2.8 or larger may over time make the screws get loosened, or, in the worst case, be completely torn out. This assumes of course that someone would handle a camera by the body with such a lens attached. I would argue that unless extreme precautions are taken, this will occur once in a while at least, either taking camera with the lens attached out of the bag, or setting it up on a monopod/tripod, or moving through awkward places, etc. With my D300, D700 , or D3S, I don’t have to worry about this even though I still try to avoid picking up a camera with a large lens attached by the body.

            • I am not sure why you see metal as unquestionably better than a composite material. The D800 is all metal and it can suffer a problem where the frame breaks and becomes repairable. The D810 was designed to resolve this issue and utilized composite material.

              Everything from baseball bats and tennis rackets to bicycles and race cars are made from composite material. If properly designed and manufactured, composite materials can result in a stronger, stiffer, lighter and less costly product.

            • catinhat

              This is what I’m talking about in e.g. D810:
              http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55207734

              or D750:
              http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57552701

              D800 did have a problem but IIRC it had to do with how the back of the frame was designed which made it prone to cracking. I don’t believe it is the same issue.

            • Allen_Wentz

              The damage from a serious drop as at the DPR D810 link is not necessarily an indictment of lens/camera connection engineering.

            • Allen_Wentz

              No one said it was “built like D5” but to my inspection it felt fully pro, and Nikon says “The durable body is a monocoque structure composed of
              magnesium alloy for the top and rear, while the front is reinforced with
              lightweight carbon fiber.”

              Obviously engineering mistakes can always be made, but carbon fiber tech is well proven today so there is no rational reason to diss such construction when put into Nikon’s best DX body unless and until we see multiple failures. Tripods and bicycles in particular have proven carbon fiber very useful.

              As to damage caused by stupid handling of big lenses, thanks to wider FOV FX cameras require a correspondingly bigger and heavier tele than any DX camera does.

            • catinhat

              Carbon fiber tech might be proven, but what you quoted says ‘reinforced’ with carbon fiber not ‘made of’. The exact chemical composition and strength of the material is anyone’s guess actually. If you look at the links I posted below in response to Mitchell Cipriano, you’ll see for yourself that Nikon engineers might not have done it quite right. The camera/lens connection is the weakest point and most prone to stress damage, so it would make sense to make it as strong as possible. Clearly Nikon hasn’t done it in D750 or D810. So, why do you think D500 will be any better/stronger? As for your point about not using heavy lenses on DX, given that most of those interested in this camera will target sports or wildlife, heavy lens use is practically guaranteed. Anyway, it is all the matter of opinion to some extent, but I’m not particularly comfortable with this Nikon design choice. YMMV.

            • Allen_Wentz

              I don’t need the camera/lens connection to be stronger than D750/D810. I subject my DSLRs, to serious abuse, but not the camera/lens connection per se. My concern is for extreme humidity, high/low temps, sand, dust, salt, chemicals, rain, snow and general knockabout.

  • Mike

    I’m actually more excited about the D500 than the D5. And I prefer FX.

    • Aldo

      same here… well not really buying one… but I’m more excited from an admiration perspective. you are basically getting a d5 with a sensor cut in half for 1/3 the price. I hope it sells well.

    • same here, I was also a big fan of the D300s back in the days 🙂

    • Ditto here. Already have a D500 on pre-order, skipped on the D5

    • fanboy fagz

      Im seriously considering the D500. in every aspect it has it all except..the look of the fx sensor. thought to couple the camera with the sigma 18-35 art lens. but my 85mm+ perspective is fucked. 70-200vr is now way too long for my needs and unusable because of space I need to move back.

      I hope they dont have QC issues because it would be disastrous.

      • DaveR43

        Maybe the recently-announced Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 Art would resolve your 85mm/70-200mm issues…

        No reviews as yet, but if anything like the 18-35mm seems likely to be pretty stunning.

        • Mike

          That would be a nice shopping trip; D500, 18-35 1.8 & 50-100 1.8. 🙂

          • DaveR43

            And possibly Tokina 14-24 f/2 to cover the wide end…

            Had a pretty good review on Lenstip.

            • Jonathan

              or the 11-20

        • If only it would have had VR!

        • fanboy fagz

          nice! forgot about it

      • Mike

        Agreed. As I transitioned to FX I was using two bodies, 1 FF, 1 APS-C. After 2 years (upgrading FF lenses along the way) I had enough of the mental gymnastics thinking of FL equivalency. It was nice when 35 was 35 on both bodies. 50 was 50 on both bodies and 85 was no longer 127 on one body. Had the Sigma 1.8 zooms existed then, I may have stayed in that configuration. And yes, the only “knock” I see about the D500 is that you lose the look of full frame. 18mm 1.8 still doesn’t “look” like 27 2.8. Just like 80 2.8 on medium format has a different look than 85 1.4 on FF.

        • Allen_Wentz

          I prefer to have both DX and FX in my kit. The mental gymnastics are not usually that bad. I find that after looking through the viewfinder a few times my brain just adjusts to what that camera is presenting. The mental gymnastics do come into play when changing lenses, however.

    • outkasted

      You hit the nail on the head with that comment Brother! I see a 400mm | 2.8 FL ED coupled with a D500 before getting anything else to replace my D3/D700

  • Riley Escobar

    Very nice, quite an improvement from the D300/s.

  • Wade Marks

    The D500 doesn’t necessarily use the same sensor tech as the D5; in fact, early speculation is that it uses a far more advanced stacked sensor, most likely from Sony. That would mean no loss of low ISO DR.

    In many ways the D500 will be more advanced than the D5: snapbridge, articulating screen, longer recording time for 4K video, etc. It won’t of course be FF and it’s AF not quite as fast, but in many regards the D500 will be Nikon’s most cutting edge DSLR, at least for a short period of time.

    • PhilK

      I hope they sell like crazy. Nikon could really use a winner like that.

    • Matt

      D500 has same AF, so.. should be just as fast.

      • Hanudiyan

        Same AF sensor. But AF motor..?

        • Jonathan P Soffa

          only matters if your lens is a screw drive though

        • PhilK

          The AF motor in the camera body is of no consequence if using AF-S lenses. And the AF motor in the D500 is probably an upgrade from what is in the lighter-weight DX bodies anyway – at least the ones that actually have a focus motor. (Eg, D90, D7xxx series..)

          • Not true.300mm 2.8 VR I was used by a friend of mine with D7000 and later with D4s.He says its much quicker and better AF with the D4s.

            • CSIROC

              I think you missed the point…

              The D7000 has a VERY different autofocus module than the D4s. The D500 has the same module as the D5. The difference being argued is the motor for screw drive lenses which doesn’t affect AF-S lenses…

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes, but the D4s has far different processing power than the D7000, which is a consumer camera. Moreover, it has different inputs into the focus system itself and an older EXPEED.

              The difference now is that the D5/D500 share an autofocus module that has its own CPU. They share a metering sensor that provides more information to the primary focus system CPU. They share EXPEED generation. So I wouldn’t expect the D500 to focus much, if at all, differently than a D5.

      • chip

        Really you think because they say so they will put same capability from the 6500 top line camera in their 2000 budget, think not.

        Even same spec D3/D700 didnt’ focus the same, highly doubt the D500 will match the D5. Take mirror blackout, larger batter, better power deliver, likley screen the fastest expeed for the top line and the slow junk in the D500

        • Allen_Wentz

          Nikon clearly did not build “slow junk” into the D500 body build and I doubt if we will see “junk” in the electronics either.

  • AlphaT

    OT.
    As the D500 most probably are being made in Thailand, hopefully the recent quake in Japan won’t cause any delays in it’s manufacture.

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      The 2 Nikon factories in Japan, Sendai and Tochigiare nowhere near the earthquake zone.They likely didn’t even feel it.

      • chip

        Typical America lack of any geographical knowledge, LOL

        • silmasan

          He’s Arcturian actually.

        • Scott

          Asinine generalization, LOL.

          • Thom Hogan

            And moreover the primary factor would be chip plants, not manufacturing plants. At least one Sony fab shut down after the quake.

  • Poul

    Time to upgrade from the d5100!! This thing is a beast!

    • M. Sauvage

      It will be a giant step!

      • Aldo

        like landing on the moon… to landing on mars

    • Mike

      I’d say so! Lol. My new toaster oven is an upgrade over the D5100. ;-D

      • Poul

        Haha true. It’s long overdue, just been waiting and this might be it, no, this not might, this is it!

    • Allen_Wentz

      Beware though. Once usage of a fully pro body like D5/D500 gets ingrained into your being, moving to lesser bodies can be very disappointing, no matter how technically good their capture capabilities may be.

      • Poul

        Hopefully it will not be changed till we take the step into a big ff body.

        • Allen_Wentz

          Coming from D2x/D3 the D500 felt great to me – and no other Nikon except D4/D5 has.

  • Horshack

    The dpreview samples look good but are missing EXIF info so it’s hard to tell what model they came from. The clubsnap images are heavily NR and missing fine detail.

    • Shutterbug

      You know Exif info is *extremely* easy to edit, right? It is no more reliable than no exif at all.

      • Horshack

        Easy to edit, hard to edit convincingly, at least to anyone with technical expertise who has worked extensively with EXIF info from various cameras. You can see evidence of this from previous failed EXIF spoof attempts. For purposes of deception it’s a lot easier to simply strip the EXIF info than to spoof it.

  • br0xibear

    First shot I’ve seen of the D5 with dual CF slots…

    http://assets.hardwarezone.com/img/2016/04/d5-4.jpg

    • Used one the other day that ad dual CF over XQD. Didn’t take a photo though 😛

  • Kyle Medina

    Looks like 32,000 is the limit for proper color retention.

    • Proper

    • Aldo

      If that is true. It would be amazing. I doubt it though.

      • Kyle Medina

        Well if you look at the samples. You can see the color loss when you go from 32,000 to 50k

        • Aldo

          I hear yah. Cant really judge color retention from those samples though… my d750 falls apart as early as 1600 iso.

          • Kyle Medina

            I agree having them in the hand would make for a better assumption. Really 1600 thats crazy.

            • Aldo

              Yeah I get heavy red or green casts at that point… under poor light… not the usual iso high iso tests people do where you have high iso but good light.

  • Teodorico Morell

    With low noise at very high ISO and 10 fps, it is a good candidate for low budget sport gear.

    • HappySoul In

      It’s going to cost more than the full frame cameras – D750 & D610

      • John

        Neither one of those really fit a ‘sports gear’ // The D500 is the cheeper alternative to the D5.

      • Mike

        The D500 is positioned as a DX D5. It’s very powerful yes, probably more powerful than the D610/750, but DX.

      • Allen_Wentz

        Yeah they are FX, but both are decidedly lesser bodies than the D500. The D6xx in particular is lower end, and the D750 when released cost more than the D500, even though now it is about the same as the D500.

        FX is not per se better, just different. This coming from someone who has always had both FX and DX in my kit.

  • D700s

    D500 on a 500mm prime…. I’m thinking that’s a nice combo for many things. Hmmmmmmm…….

    • outkasted

      Yeah I’m interested on seeing it coupled with 400 mm |2.8 FL

      • Allen_Wentz

        Me too, but unfortunately the best my budget will allow is 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Hence my strong interest in high ISO performance…

        • D700s

          I also have the 80-400 Allen and it’s actually a great lens. At least I can hand hold that all day shooting and the image quality is fantastic.

          • Allen_Wentz

            Thanks for that comment, it helps me decide. I have been debating between the great-value 200-500 and the more versatile 80-400 to take advantage of the D500. The ability to change composition in-lens down to 120mm DX FOV has me pretty much settled on the 80-400.

            Plus the 200-500mm weighs 50% more, an issue for those of us who have beaten up our rotator cuffs. D3 with 200-500mm weighs about 10 pounds and reaches 500mm FOV while D500 with 200-400mm reaches 600mm DX FOV at just over 5 pounds. For me the weight is a big real-world difference.

        • outkasted

          Yeah its not in my budget either but I know how I am when it comes to certain things like lenses. Simply put I have never regretted a purchase especially after testing and mulling over said purchase. I am a huge quality fanboy and so after looking at the 400 mm| 2.8FL the sharpness and reach really impresses me even with the TC 1.4x attached. With a D500 I won’t have to worry about a TC too much as the APC provides me the added reach. Having the ability to switch between Full frame D3 and APC D500 along with optional 1.4 TC really leaves me smiling. Maybe when D5s is introduced i may purchase…but for now i will be content with D500 ” 400mm |2.8 FL

  • Ritvar Krum

    Too much jpeg noise reduction in this test (yes – in camera noise reduction is getting stronger and stronger – every manufacturer wants their pictures to look as clean as possible, even with everything turned “OFF” – some noise reduction is still ON) – there fore in this test details are pretty much gone even at iso 400…, but if we still judge from what we have now – this test, then conclusions could be – high isos are stellar, DX > FF (D500 >D750) like stellar… But if that iso 400 really is so bad – that Nikon can shove it in their…. They again sacrificed the low iso IQ to shine in high ISO….whlie fanbois love those of the chart high iso – most photographers will never want acceptable iso 51000 over perfect iso 200

    • Eric Calabros

      They do

    • nwcs

      Normally I would talk you off the cliff but you love drama. All sensors have a lot of post processing done before we see anything that looks like a raw image. Most of the gains made in recent years are more attributable to the imaging chain than the sensor itself.

      As for what most photographers want… Who knows? I don’t and neither do you. But it does seem that many people are asking for ever higher ISO goodness and live there. Maybe it’s about picking the right tool for the job than complaining that one particular camera isn’t aimed at what you specifically want.

      • Ritvar Krum

        are you saying that this iso 400 looks good for you? and you could be happy with detail and IQ and maybe give quality like this to your clients? “…that one particular camera…” – geuss what – if this camera will be a success – then Nikon will adopt this “washed out low iso, but stellar high isos with millions of useless iso boost to look good on PR slides” technology.

        • nwcs

          I wouldn’t have any issues at all. But remember, the vast majority of photographers are not being paid professionally and aren’t obsessing about minutia. You know what, though? Maybe Nikon realizes that there are several different audiences and builds tools with different profiles to serve those needs?

          Or maybe it is the end of civilization and we should all leave Nikon now and start our own camera company that makes everyone happy all the time.

          • silmasan

            How can you be sure you’re not replying to a bot… of some kind? :p (I mean that’s “p” for philosophical question *cough cough*)

            • nwcs

              I worked with some people who act like bots…

          • Horshack

            If it weren’t for those minutia-obsessed prosumers buying these cameras then they wouldn’t be economically viable for Nikon to design and manufacture for those few “enlightened” pros who don’t obsess.

            • nwcs

              I doubt it. Far far more cameras are sold to the general public. They’re the ones subsidizing the obsessed lot.

    • Allen_Wentz

      You are simply wrong. Your statement “most photographers will never want acceptable iso 51000 over perfect iso 200” is just not true for pretty much everything not shot in a studio or something studio-like like landscape. And most Nikon pros are using an FX D8xx for those usages if not MF or larger.

      Slightly-less-than-perfect ISO 200 is pretty darn good in these new Nikons, while the benefits of higher real-world ISO are a big deal in all those locations where light is not always sunny 16. Pix previously too soft because of camera or subject movement can now be usable. That is HUGE in real world get-the-shot terms.

      As to your comment “that iso 400 really is so bad,” I would ask what ISO400-JPEG-direct-from-camera imagery is it that you deliver that the client would find that “so bad?” Seriously? Any usage I can think of that requires better would be coming from a post-processed NEF.

  • Andoz Invicktograda Randoz

    looks this ones definitely gonna be in my bag in a few weeks 🙂

  • Eno

    Finally D500 samples, thank you Admin!

  • Dino Brusco

    No way for me to access that clubsnap forum. I tried from three different browsers ( explorer, firefox, safari ) of two different computers ( iMac and PC) and all end up with a “403 forbidden” white page crash – on a side note I can’t even access the “Clubsnap” website.

    • Works for me – you are blocked for some reason.

    • AlphaT

      Where are you accessing it from?
      At home, I can view it. At work, I can’t as it’s blocked by our admin.

      • Dino Brusco

        I can’t even access it at home ! What the heck ?

        • AlphaT

          I’m out of idea. It could be your computer’s security settings.

  • BrainBeat

    These jpegs look good to me and potentially usable. I know you guys want to see the RAW files and I would too but most of my current work it jpg strait out of the camera and these could be fine in most situations. As I have said before they still look similar to my D750 and so I could easy see this as a back up/ alternate body to replace my reasonably worn 7100. If nothing else at least in my case it would easy beat what I have in the D7100 which in JPG it gets barely usable at 6400.

  • nicolaie

    ISO25000 shot looks soft from noise reduction.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Oh darn, I better cancel my preorder.
      /s

    • chip

      I’ll second “Oh Darn” do you realize that is 25000 ISO!!!

    • yepits me

      DH

    • AlphaT

      I got a good laugh on this one. Thank you. I got my fix for this hour.

  • Richard Haw

    those look like ISO3200 on my D90

  • slimysnot

    that’s amazing! the 51200 iso is my d90 at 400! 😉

  • CERO

    Its not even out and my wallet is already screaming.

  • Captain Insane-O

    All those d500 fanboys who think its going to equal fx performance. Go over to photons to photos and check out the pdr chart. The d5’s sensor in dx more doesn’t come close to current fx cameras. And the d5’s sensor is heavily optimized for high iso performance.

    Unless nikon secretly doesn’t care about their mire expensive cameras and kept out barracks technology, then there is no reason to believe this was Christ’s dslr. We all know he used a a7rii anyways.

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      Wow, I can’t even imagine how desperately insecure you must feel about the equipment you have in your camera bag (or pants…) to feel the need to come here and troll, just to make your miserably gloom existence a tiny shade brighter for a few minutes.. here, have a hug and a cookie:
      (づ。◕‿‿◕。)づ @

    • Allen_Wentz

      What an inane comment. Perhaps too many chemicals on board.

      • Captain Insane-O

        Some people just don’t like reality checks.

        You’re welcome

        • Allen_Wentz

          “Reality check?”
          Anyone who thinks that all of professional photography is only about PDR charts (or anything else solely measured in a laboratory) needs a reality check.

          Different cameras have different usages, duh. All pro DSLR work started out DX. Personally I have always shot both DX and FX/film, and this latest DX iteration D500 looks hella useful.

  • Jerry Friedman

    “…disappointed in the implementation of the touch input though, as this is limited largely to playback and setting your AF point…”
    I think this is not correct – There is no focus point adjustment by touch input. Only playback operations (swipe, pinch, scrub, twirl).

    So this “first hands on review” is pretty suspect.

    • Yes, you can select where to AF via touch screen in Liveview.

      • Jerry Friedman

        So you can – As well as input text…

      • Jerry Friedman

        So you can.
        Wow, four things.

        • Buy a tablet and touch it all day.

  • Kiboko

    I am really confused about this camera? It is more expensive than D750. It has the round ocular (eyepiece). And (finally) Nikon did not give it a pop-up flash. Yet it seems like this is not considered a PRO-body (NPS/NPU), but the D750 is (In Sweden)? How come?

    • Allen_Wentz

      Ask NPS why they create weird policies. The camera is not confusing.

      The body is pro, just handle one. And per Nikon: “The durable body is a monocoque structure composed of magnesium alloy for the top and rear, while the front is reinforced with lightweight carbon fiber.”

      • outkasted

        Like I saidCarbon Fibre will be the next big thing for camera and lenses. Don’t believe me …just watch

  • Paul Bardotz

    So what will teh D750 and D 810 replacements have when they come out? I am holding out until a D810 replacement is out before I go to that step. Thanks for all the interesting information. A D600 and D 750 user.

  • Andy Tindor

    If anyone can tell me. I have a Nikon D300s and I can not get the flash synch changed from x250 in my view finder, tried everything I know. I hit reset button couple times, went into shooting menu and changed speed there, no change. My camera does not allow me to change my shutter speed for regular shooting.

  • Back to top