Nikon D500 updates

The Nikon D500 got a gold award at dpreview (91%). Their conclusion:

"The D500 is the most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested, and among the very best. Every one of us who has picked it up, regardless of which brands we've most often shot, has been impressed by its autofocus system's wide coverage and ability to find and follow a subject. If you need this, the large viewfinder, solid build and the ability to just keep shooting, then the D500 is peerless. It's not cheap but it looks like pretty good value if you look at it as a huge chunk of the D5's capabilities for a fraction of the money.

If you don't need that cutting-edge high-speed performance, cameras such as the D7200 offer essentially the same image quality, and if you want to shoot video there are better choices, too. But as an APS-C sports and wildlife camera, the D500 is without rival, and that puts in on the top of our awards podium."

See also this new review of the Nikon D500 with a 300mm lens combo.

Nikon D500 battery use of EN El15 batteries chart
A reader did some measurements of the Nikon D500 battery use of EN El15 batteries. here are his findings (thanks Paul Digney):

The attached chart shows percentage of battery left on the vertical access and a number representing shots taken on the X-axis. (22 is about 1,000 shots but these are under highly artificial conditions so the actual number isn't all that meaningful).

There are two versions of EN EL15s. On is marked on the back with Li-ion01. That is the older version. The other is marked Li-ion20. On the chart The green and brown lines are version 2 batteries. The red and yellow lines are version 1 batteries.

The tests were done by shooting 50 shots in the D500 then measuring battery left % in both the D500 and a D810. For the version 1 battery which registered as empty in the D500 an addional 500 shots were taken in the D810 measuring every 50 shots.

As you can see the D500 treats the version 1 battery very differently than the version 2 battery. The readout for the D810 for both versions is close enough but the readout for the D500 is very different and when the D810 measures it as about half charged the D500 will no longer turn on. However, in the D810 it is not just measured as being more charged it actually is because the D810 can carry on for at least another 500 shots.

Nauticam NA-D500 underwater housing for Nikon D500 camera
Nauticam NA-D500 underwater housing for Nikon D500 camera 2
Nauticam announced new NA-D500 underwater housing for the Nikon D500 camera:

  • Depth Rating: 100m
  • Weight: 3.02 kg
  • Dimensions: 354mm x 188mm x 134mm (W x H x D)
  • Model Number: 17220
  • USA Retail Price: $3500

I assume many readers already know that, but I have to repeat it again because I still get questions on this topic: the Nikon SB-5000 flash will work wirelessly only with the D5 and D500 cameras. Here is the official response from Nikon support:

"Unfortunately the radio AWL system is currently compatible with D5 and D500 cameras only. It is possible that compatibility will be extended to other camera models in the future, however at the moment we cannot promise this. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. If you require any further information, feel free to contact us again."

The new Sony XQD/SD memory card reader is currently in stock.

The Nikon D500 camera is currently in stock at B&H and Adorama.

This entry was posted in Nikon D500 and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Eric Calabros

    in attempting to cripple third party batteries, they accidentally crippled their own too. However, if its going to force customers to buy more new Nikon branded packs, so they won’t call it a “function issue”, its a “financial feature”!

  • BayouBill

    How can DPReview talk about “the speed, ergonomics, and DEPENDABILITY of the D500” when the camera has not been out in the field long enough, in sufficient numbers, and in demonstrably difficult environments, to prove its DEPENDABILITY?

    • AlphaT

      They smoke good stuff up there in Washington.

    • Captain Megaton

      The mean reliability, as in auto-focus. Not MTBFs. Naturally.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Obviously MTBF data takes time to accrue. However, the D500 body has a solid pro feel and operation to it. Both the D600 and D7200, for instance, feel chintzy in comparison. The battery insertion construction is the only thing hokey that I have found, and D3 is my frame of reference.

  • While I can’t use this camera for it’s intended purpose, I’d love to get one just because it looks like such a great all-around camera. It’s not cheap for an APS-C camera. But it’s something you can keep for a long time and be really good at lots of things…

    It’s also a testament to how good the D7200 is if they are comparing it to that. I’d love to have it for a walk-around camera and for the price, it’s a great deal.

    Nikon really nailed it with this camera.

  • Captain Megaton

    So the “paying $2000 for an APSC dSLR, whaaa!? I could buy a D750 for that!” issue seems to have been a big no show.

    I can see why, but I wonder if Nikon over-invested in FX and underinvested in DX recently, imagining that people were done with DX as an enthusiast format.

    Or is the D500 an outlier, and are most people (people like me who never take their cameras off single drive except 1-2 times a year) still gravitating to FX?

  • I have covered little league baseball for 10+ years. I graduated through the: D100, D70, D200, D300, D7100, D7200 and now the D500. Paired with a 70-200 VR (I) the D300 consistently delivered the most keepers (focus) of this historical lot…until now. The D7100 was a big performance let-down and D7200 was no better, but they had that better sensor, especially for the late game where I needed 3200 ISO, so I lived with it and experienced many missed moments that required pressing delete, pining for the D300 performance.

    I always wanted to NOT believe that the higher resolution sensor on the D7xx were “exposing” my poor technique as Thom Hogan and others had professed, but I kinda bought into the reasoning and worked on improving my handling skills. Well the D500’s arrival has proven them wrong! I am now convinced that 51-point focus on D7xx does not perform as well as it does on the D300.

    The D300 will remain my backup…as for the D7200??? Sold! It was an easy decision 10 minutes into my first baseball shoot. A “For-Sale” sign was posted on CL that evening and it moved-out 2 days later. No regrets.

    Action shooters; the D500 smokes them all. I am loving 3D Tracking of action. This is an AMAZING camera. “Happy Days are Here Again!”

  • Ric of The LBC

    That’s it! I’m staying! 🙂

  • RRRoger

    I take issue with their “Not so good”.
    I bought my D500 primarily for poor/low light Video.
    It has surpassed my expectations,
    and has replaced my D5300 and A7s.

    • Word.Video quality is great.

    • iamlucky13

      They didn’t say it’s bad. Their review text said it doesn’t quite match some other DSLR’s for video capability, especially due to its crop when shooting 4K and somewhat limited manual controls. If you don’t need to shoot ultrawide, and don’t need to control every aspect of the video recording in precise detail, it sounds pretty good. They specifically said video quality is solid up to ISO 6400, which I gather is the maximum ISO it will shoot video at.

      DPReview always lists something in their “not-so-good” conclusion. Their video quibbles are pretty minor and basically amount to digging for little things to list as drawbacks, because they found nothing more significant to complain about.

  • Steve Perry

    No surprise there, the D500 is a fantastic camera. I have a D500 and recently a D5, and while the D5 is superior in many ways, I honestly don’t think there’s $4500 worth of superiority there. I won’t hesitate to choose the D500 over the D5 when I need a crop body.

    IMO, the D500 is by far the best bang-for-the-buck action camera I’ve ever used.

    • Captain Megaton

      “I won’t hesitate to choose the D500 over the D5 when I need a crop body.”

      Holy binary outcome, Batman!

      • Steve Perry

        LOL, I guess it is 🙂

  • Now, if they’d just get down to offering some better wide angle primes for DX, they’d really have something.

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      It’s Nikon, they’ll likely wait to see how many D500’s they sell before launcing new wide DX primes, because realistically most people who buy a D500 would also be the people who’d buy DX primes to go with it rather than (kit) zooms… Remeber that for every single post about ‘needing” wide DX primes, there are tens of thousands of ‘non-posts’ from the people who don’t need one or won’t buy one. I’d rather see an update of the 17-55/2.8 first

      • Well, I understand, but you could say that about a lot of lenses. The 17-55mm is big and heavy, almost one and three quarter pounds. I’d rather have the option of a 16mm f/2 that would probably weigh ten ounces at most. They need a 10mm or 12mm as well. Zooms are fine although I feel they lead to sloppy shooting, but primes must be popular as well…Nikon spent a lot of money and energy updating their FX primes and ended up with a really nice set of f/1.8 lenses. Don’t you think folks are buying those?

        • Allen_Wentz

          Just how wide do you want in DX? I have been using a DX Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 since the D2x.

          Personally as a general rule I do not _want_ new DX glass because I would rather buy FX and use it for both FX & DX. However I am an exception, maintaining both FX and DX kit. With DX-only buyers such a big percentage of Nikon’s DSLR sales it is a huge fail on Nikon’s part that they have not provided more good DX lens offerings like the 35mm f/1.8G.

          • Pat Mann

            A fisheye does not a rectilinear wide prime make. While the images can be converted, one loses a lot expanding the corner pixels into a rectlinear space. Architecture and interiors shooting demands across-the-frame resolution. While there are full-frame solutions better for that, DX shooters would really benefit from some extra speed in the 16-24mm range for night street and interior reportage and environmental portrait shooting, and a nice 10 or 12mm f/2.8 for tight urban spaces and interiors. My money has been waiting for these lenses ever since the D200.

            • Allen_Wentz

              I do not disagree with your comments at all but I will say the 12-24mm f/4 DX works well for interiors where lens speed and available shallow DOF are unimportant. I have even used it on FX.

            • TO-DOUG

              The Nikon 12-24 f/4 DX is 90mm long, weighs 465 grams and lists at US$1,150. The equivalent full-frame lens is the Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 which lists at US$750. It is 95mm long and weighs 385 grams. Both are AF-S, both are 2x zooms, neither has VR. So these two equivalent ultra-wide zooms are roughly the same size and weight (but the FF one is less expensive).
              This leads me to believe that DX equivalent versions of wide prime lenses would not be significantly smaller or lighter than the current Nikon FX offerings. And typically less versatile – as they would only work on DX.

            • Pat Mann

              While the 18-35 would work on DX, the DX lens that covers this focal length only costs about $150 and weighs 265 grams and uses a 52mm filter. In the wide range, each system really needs its own lenses.

            • TO-DOUG

              Pat, please re-read what I was saying. I was comparing the 12-24 DX to the 18-35 FX because they cover equivalent FOV for DX and FX cameras. In my comparison, I noted that the lenses are about the same length and weight. I used equivalent zooms in this comparison as there are no Nikon DX wide primes equivalent to their FF lenses. My point was simply that there is no guarantee that a DX wide or ultra-wide prime with a given FOV will be significantly smaller and lighter than a FF lens with the same FOV and f-stop.

            • KnightPhoto

              Agree with TO-Doug, the DX Wide Angle primes are not going to be small. So that means the recently updated FX WA primes from 20, 24, and 28 have those focal lengths covered adequately now. So we just need a 16mm DX and ~13mm DX to basically cover all the bases for WA primes for DX.

            • TO-DOUG

              Hi Knight, I appreciate your comments. But regarding a 16mm DX, one can buy a Samyang 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC CS Lens for Nikon from NYC stores right now. It is “for DSLRs with APS-C Sized Image Format”. It is manual focus and it isn’t Nikon, but it gives us an idea of how big a 16mm DX from Nikon might be, if they ever made one. This Samyang 16mm weighs 571 grams and is 87mm long, with a 77 mm filter. It has an 83 degree FOV. The FF lens with an equivalent FOV is the Nikon 24mm f/1.8 G ED. It weighs 355 grams and is 83 mm long, with a 72 mm filter thread — even though it has automatic diaphragm and focus.
              So this Samyang 16mm f/2 DX lens (even without an AF motor) is larger and heavier than the equivalent FOV Nikon 24mm f/1.8 FF lens.

              Should we consider a potential ~13mm dx lens? Well, one can buy Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Lens For Nikon with AE Chip for $380. It is promoted as compatible with FF cameras, but most reviewers contend that the corners/edges are soft, and it is best suited for DX cameras, where it provides a 94 degree FOV. This 14mm DX-suitable lens weighs 814 grams and is 94 mm long. The FF lens with comparable FOV is the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 D which weighs just 270 grams and is 43 mm long. So this DX-suitable Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is twice as long and three times heavier (!) than the equivalent FOV Nikon 20mm f/2.8 lens.

              To be clear, if I am looking for an ultra-wide prime lens with an 83 or 94 degree FOV in a Nikon F-mount, the lightest and smallest choice is the FULL-FRAME lens. I know this is counter-intuitive, but the stats don’t lie.

            • Pat Mann

              The 12-24 is a very good lens that I’ve owned since it was introduced and used it for architecture and interiors and general interior documentary shooting. It has less distortion than the full frame zooms in the same general range. But having it hasn’t prevented me from wishing I had a nice 24mm f/1.4 and 16mm f/2 when there are people in the picture.

            • TO-DOUG

              If you want extra speed on DX, what’s wrong with the Tokina 11-20 f/2.8? Just think of it as multiple primes! Cost is only US$600.

          • AlphaT

            I hate to admit it, but I use the 10.5 2.8 fisheye if I really need ultra-wide angle shots. Then use the Fisheye-Hemi plugin to fix the distortion.
            It’s not the sharpest, but it works.
            Other than that, the 16-80 f/2.8-4 for regular wides work for me.

        • TheInconvenientRuth

          The 1.8 FX primes ar selling well AFAIK (Thom..?) because they are good and great value for money. It is far more difficult to make a good wide prime than a good tele prime because of optical construction. Therefore, probably more expensive, too. Especially in mirrored DSLRS where the rear element can’t be too close to the sensor plane because of the mirror box. Because of the crop factor, a DX Prime Wide needs to be 1,5x ‘wider’ than the equivalent FX prime, making DX primes actually more difficult (and probably more expensive) to design/produce than FX wide primes. I’m sure that NIkon looked at making DX primes but I speculate that they concluded that making them wide enough and fast enough to appeal to potential DX-Prime buyers would end them up at a price point that would make them less desirable. I hope Nikon surprises us with a nice set of 1.8 DX primes, but I really don’t expect it. Then again, no one expected the D500…

      • whisky

        i now use my D500 for mid~long telephoto, and my Fx body for ultra-wide to 105mm. this combo covers most of what i shoot w/o any further need for Dx primes. the one exception, perhaps, is the 10.5mm fisheye on Dx — cuz i just like the way it looks.

        unless Nikon were to develop some exotic Dx prime with a unique perspective, i’m probably one of those tens of thousands who would never need another Dx prime. JMO.

    • Pat Mann

      It wouldn’t take much to be better, since now they have exactly 0 wide primes designed for DX (not including fisheyes, of course).

      • Allen_Wentz

        The 35mm f/1/8 lens is actually normal FOV in DX, but it is what Nikon should be making in wider prime DX versions.

    • TO-DOUG

      Nikon already offers many fast wide and ultra-wide primes for FX. However, they also work really well on DX, which is convenient and economical for those who shoot both DX and FX cameras. They are the Nikon 20mm, 24mm and 28mm lenses, all available in f/1.8. Those cost just US$700 to $800, so quite reasonable. I suspect that Nikon — and third-party lens manufacturers — don’t see the point in making another set of primes with a smaller image circle that would only work on DX.

      Why not more DX lenses like the 35mm DX? It is small and low cost mainly because it functions like a “nifty fifty”. Note that the 50mm f/1.8 is also relatively small and inexpensive as well.

      • Your last paragraph makes my point. The 35mm DX is small and light. The 35mm f/1.8 G is huge by comparison. Part of the point of the DX format is offering a compact and lighter alternative to FX. They created a line of lenses for the Nikon 1, so why not have a truly complementary line of serious lenses for DX?

        • TO-DOUG

          The 50mm 1.8 FX has the same field of view (FOV) as the 35mm 1.8 DX, so they are comparable in that respect. That’s why they are both light and compact. They also can use a simple lens design. You might think of that FOV as being the sweet spot.

          A DX lens with the same FOV as a 35mm FX would need to be a 24mm DX, and would therefore have to use a different lens design to achieve that FOV. I’m not a lens designer, but wide angle lenses for SLR cameras are achieved by using retrofocus lenses or inverted telephotos. That approach tends to increase the lens length as focal length decreases. So while the image circle would be smaller, the lens would not be proportionately smaller — and could well be about the same size. See my note below comparing the Nikon 12-24 DX with the Nikon 18-35 FF lens.

        • EnPassant

          The FX 35/1.8 is only 20mm longer and 105g heavier than the 200g DX lens.

          Using your type of comparance we just need to find a 16/2 FF lens to know how big a DX version would be!

          Unfortunately I don’t know of any 16/2 FF lens. The closest I can remind is the new Irix 15/2.4, Firefly version being the lightest with around 600g.

          Adding focus motor, gearings and bigger housing and last but not least bigger lens elements for the bigger aperture would propably add 100-150g to the weight.

          A DX lens with two thirds the weight would therefore be almost 500g or 16-18 ounces.

          A well corrected 16/2 APS-C prime cheap enough to build with a weight of only 10 ounces, or 300g is really only possible for mirrorless APS-C cameras.

          • Sawyerspadre

            The extra 20mm is like a third of the length and the 100g is half the weight.

            I honestly don’t think they need to duplicate the 20, 24 or 28. Between the G and D versions we are covered. I think a 16 and a 13ish to cover the 24 and 20 equivalents. If they were much smaller as f2.8 than f2, then so be it.

            Small, sharp, light at f2.8 beats fast but big at f2.

            • Pat Mann

              The appropriate comparisons are between lenses of the same angles of view on DX and FX, not the same focal lengths on both formats, since the same focal lengths require substantially different designs to cover the much wider image circle on FX. As the focal lengths get shorter, the differences in design become much more dramatic.
              We need to duplicate the 24, and provide a 16 mm (24mm equivalent) and a 12 mm (18mm equivalent) for DX. 24mm on DX has a field of view equivalent of a little more than 35mm focal length on full frame. The 35mm field of view is a long-time standard lens for reportage, particularly for night and available-light interior shooting, and is typically a very inexpensive lens, historically about 2x the price of a 50mm of the same speed (or say 3x for f/1.4). Those who say the prices of the FX lenses are reasonable as wides for DX forget that this means that the DX user is being asked to pay MORE than the FX user for a lens of the same field of view on the DX system – you are asking the DX user wanting a 35mm field of view to pay for a 24mm lens that is 140% of the price the FX user pays for the 35mm lens that has the same speed and field of view on the FX. That’s not reasonable for a lens that should be at least somewhat less expensive than the FX 35mm lens if designed for DX.
              And that more expensive lens is also significantly bulkier, when part of the purpose of DX is to have an overall system that’s smaller and lighter.
              The FX 24mm f/1.8 has a filter size of 72mm, a length of 83mm and 77.5mm maximum diameter. The comparable FX lens to a 24mm for DX, the 35mm f/1.8, has a 58mm filter thread (80.6% of the size of the 24mm), diameter of 72mm (93% of the size of the 24mm) and length of 71.5mm (86% of the size of the 24mm). When you put all these things together, the 24mm f/1.8 is much bulkier than the 35mm f/1.8, and none of that bulk is justified for DX. In addition, the hood is designed for the wider view angle of the 24mm on FX format, 74 degrees wide horizontally, rather than the 63 degrees or so of 24mm on DX, and leaves a substantial area of the field outside the image area of DX unprotected from stray light that would be protected with a hood designed for the DX field of view.

              If f/1.8 is chosen as the aperture, the 24mm designed for DX should be a bit smaller than the 35mm for FX, since it covers a smaller image circle with the same angle of view. For economy, it could use the same 58mm filter size and same hood as the 35mm f/1.8 FX lens.

              The Fujifilm 23mm f/1.4 lens for their APS-C mirrorless system is actually smaller and lighter than the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G FX wideangle lens.

    • Carleton Foxx

      And zooms! The 12-24 f/4 is about the size of a prime lens, but it could use improvement at the wide end.

      • Sorry, but I owned the 12-24mm. It’s just NOT the same size as a prime. The thing that’s being lost in this challenge to my initial statement is that using primes changes the way you do photography. I’ve been doing photography seriously since 1973. Back then primes are pretty much all you had. Now zooms are what many folks use. I fell into that as well. In the last year I’ve gone back to using primes most of the time. I can honestly say that my photography has improved. Anyway, I’m not too invested in the DX format any longer, so it doesn’t matter to me, I was just offering my two cents. Instead, I’m using a Df and a collection of 10 manual focus primes, all of them non-Ai. They work great, images are super sharp, and the lenses are compact. They are a bit heavy because they re all metal and glass construction. Zero plastic. Oh, and the best part…the entire collection cost me $1,375, including the shipping. They are all mint or close to it.

        • Carleton Foxx

          You are correct.

          • I’m always right (LOL). You could have argued, though, that carrying three or four primes instead of one zoom would have been less weight and size efficient! But alas, you weren’t thinking, Carleton. 🙂 And your observation about the greatest photos shot mostly with primes is correct. Another interesting thing is that if you look at a lot of them, they don’t measure up to the standard of sharpness that the pixel peepers champion here and other camera blogs.

  • Aldo

    “however at the moment we cannot promise this” LOL it’s okay nikon I got my YONGNUO 622N-TX and a couple 622n’s … I cannot promise either that I will be buying your newer flashes any time soon…

  • TheInconvenientRuth

    Nikon Execs will read this and be like: Nice: “Best all round camera. ” Sweet. That means we only have to pop out a D500s in 2017, and then around 2014 a D550. Job done. Workd for the D300.

  • PeterO

    The D500 is a great camera. I still haven’t examined all of its parameters but this I know: Using brand new (bought with the camera) Nikon Li-ion20 batteries, the battery reading on all of them (3) is 15% lower than on my other bodies. When I spoke with Nikon Canada Service, I was told that I was the first person to report this and that there’s nothing wrong. “It’s new technology and it’s the expeed (sic)”. I relayed this info to Thom for his statistics. Perhaps this is a simple firmware fix. Otherwise, I’m glad I bought more batteries.

  • AlphaT

    Yes, mostly likely just a firmware issue. Just like Thom said, it’s a bit rushed. It’s possible the codes were not fully reviewed and tested. Hopefully Nikon is listening to all these complaints no matter how minor they are.

  • forget dpreviews gold award. everyone else is giving it a platinum approval like digitalrev or photopixel . This camera is a must have for all nikon geeks. with the af fine tune added. wow!

  • Nikos Skartsilas

    This thread has so much positive energy that it seems to me that even the birds, squirrels and hunts are happy now with D500 🙂

    • AlphaT

      Well, the birds will now get better photos. 🙂
      Even if they blinked, the next frame (or prior) will surely show their eyes wide open.

  • AlphaT

    Funny that the D7100 is in Gold, and the D7200 in Silver.

    Since Phil Askey left, I stopped paying attention to the ratings.

    • AlphaT

      With all the review sites, I just look at the facts and take all opinions/editorials with a grain of salt. I draw my own conclusions. And totally disregard the rankings as they don’t mean much, they are just numbers to me.

      • Fly Moon


  • disqus_O3Ci86OQzh

    Well this article is bs. You day no to landscape photography with the camera where do you get off saying that? Because it’s aps c or not the 24 megapixel ? I have take exceptional landscape phots with a D3200 this whole so called professional series is a load of garbage. And you get people that own 2 D500s and 2 D5 gimmie a break.

    • Captain Megaton

      Buying a D500 for landscape is a waste of money since D7200 (or frankly D3300) will give you the same results, and you could get far better results for less money buy buying a D610 instead.

      That’s why it is not recommended for landscape. Not that you can’t, just that it is poor allocation of resources.

    • Carleton Foxx


    • I agree. I own a D800 for my landscapes and now I have aD500 for my wildlife to include BIF!!

    • Ineluki

      Oups! I have to tell my D4 that is it useless for landscape. Hope the D4 can stand this 😉

      • Ineluki

        No comment.

        • Ineluki

          Two landscspes with the D4.

          • Sebastien

            Congrats you are able to shoot a landscape with a D4. But if you spend over 5K ONLY for landscape, you are an idiot.

            • Ineluki

              The camera was 6K when I bought it. I am a NPS member and I need the D4 for many more things than landscape. Posted the examples for a certain reason and you are an idiot that you didn’t get this.

          • Steve Perry

            And here’s one with a D810. I could have shot it with my D4, but I left that camera behind since the D810 is the better camera for the job. More resolution, higher DR, etc.

            I’ve had a magazine nearly reject 24MP images because they were going to do a little crop on a full page spread but it wouldn’t be 300PPI after the crop. I for one am glad to have the extra MP the 810 gives. Now, if I’m doing action the D4 /D5 would get the call.

            Pick the right camera for the job 🙂

            • Ineluki

              That is a pretty cool photo. When publushed no one carea about what camera and lens you used. Talking about cameras and lenses is common on photography communities.

            • Steve Perry

              Thanks 🙂

              And nope, they don’t care at all – but they do care if there are enough pixels there. Most magazines want 300PPI and if they start cropping the image, the lower res cameras get into trouble.

            • Ineluki

              I forgot that van Goghs brushes are more famous than his pictures.

            • Steve Perry

              But if Van Gogh has been limited to a 4 inch canvas, would he have been as famous?

              All I know is my clients, both in print and publication, often need as many pixels as possible, so when it’s possible, I shoot the camera with the higher resolution. I used to shoot medium format in the film days for much the same reason. It’s not that I couldn’t get great images on 35mm, it’s that magazines and calendars purchased more of the bigger stuff.

            • Ineluki

              When I show my pictures in exhibitions I have never been asked what camera I use. When I post pictures in newspapers I have never been asked what camera I use.
              I am published in newspapers since 1981. I have exhibitions since 1998.

            • Steve Perry

              I agree that the clients never care what you use – I said so above. I also think that any photo is at least 80-90% the skill of the photographer.

              My only point is that a D810 is a better tool for landscapes. Not that they can’t be done with a D4, it’s just that the 810 does them better. I mean, I can pound nails with a wrench, but a hammer seems to be a better tool for the job.

              Besides, if the tool / camera didn’t matter, then why are you shooting a D4 at all – why not a D3300? So, the right tool must mean something to you.

              At any rate, you have a couple really great shots there, I just think you’d be even more happy with them if you have the extra MP the D810 offers. If the D4 gives you everything you need in a landscape shot, then by all means keep shooting it.

            • Allen_Wentz

              It is not about the camera it is about image resolution.

              Newspapers are such low rez they do not care about image ppi and in exhibitions you make your own print. Glossy publications like magazines however typically have a minimum image ppi that they want for submissions, most often 300 ppi.

              Reality is that how technically well-shot the image is has at least as much relevance as the pixel density in terms of what processes well through prepress. But like Steve said, for hard copy printing more pixels is always looked on as better.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Except when published here I think most folks do care about what lens, settings, PP, etc. were used to present a sweet pic like the one Steve posted; I certainly do.

          • Ineluki

            I gave up argueing witj you.

            • Ineluki

              People who say you don’t get can’t explain.
              Can you show me some pictures from you. I show two and you none. Till playing with silly words no one can follow.

            • Ineluki

              If you are able to take photogrsphs you don’t need to crop. And some of my prints are bigger than your brain. 9 MB is enough to get really big prints.

            • Ineluki

              You can swim if you can ;’)

            • ” 9 MB is enough to get really big prints.”

              Reminds me of someone who reviews camera equipment and has a large family that needs to be taken care of.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Anyone who says “I have take exceptional landscape phots [sic] with a D3200 this whole so called professional series is a load of garbage” so much fails to get it that I hardly know where to start. But it is entertaining so I will try:

      1) Pro bodies are intended to tolerate heavy daily usage and abusive conditions, whether that be rain/sun/dirt/sand or beating around in the back of a Land Rover in the dust.

      2) Pro bodies are intended to have pro ergonomics. Some pro bodies succeed better than others and a great deal of personal opinion is involved, but pick up a D600 and a D2/3/4/5 and even you can feel the difference.

      Note that neither of the two above characteristics affect IQ from a laboratory standpoint, but they have _huge_ impact on photogs’ ability to consistently and repeatably get the pic in a timely fashion under as-is conditions 24/7/365.

      3) That one may randomly capture a good landscape pic using a consumer grade DX body says nothing about what may or may not be the _best_ way to approach capturing landscape images. The fact is that “best” will vary depending upon the landscape and how much drek, including weather, the camera dealt with traveling to get in place to capture the pic.

      Note also that many of us will want to stitch some of our most important landscape captures, and that too will affect lens and body choices.

  • Carleton Foxx

    Who cares about the opinion of a bunch of over-caffeinated, over-coiffed gear worshipers in Seattle? The only reviewer who tests gear in a way that makes sense and has real-world validity is Thom. Everything else is just hot air and embarrassing self-promotion.

    • Fly Moon

      What a stup1d statement?

    • Don.Stevens

      Congratulations on the most narrow-minded comment of this thread.

    • Carleton Foxx

      Well, Popular Photography magazine is pretty great too. But who else does long-term tests and won’t publish results until he’s sure he’s looked into every possible nook and cranny of the camera?
      Let me put it this way, there is a negative correlation between the amount of attention the reviewer pays to the luxuriousness of his or her hair (that Fro guy in particular) and credibility as a reviewer.

      • AlphaT

        Ken agrees with you. 🙂

      • I would trust Fro to talk straight about a camera in a review, he’s certainly not a shill or anything.

        My ability to endure his rambling style in the first place, however, is near-zero so it’s a moot point. That guy just loves to hear himself talk, the only credit I can give him is that he doesn’t gloss over a problem or issue if he does have one.

  • Nikita

    So version 01 doesn’t come with any camera anymore? What cameras did version 01 come on? how long were they sold? Will you still find them sold separately?
    More questions than answers…

    • Allen_Wentz

      If one does not own a D500 the battery issue does not matter. If one does own a D500, one just uses only modern Nikon EN-EL15 Li-ion20 batteries. Easy enough to do, and have a few spares…

      The operation (or non-operation) of various different add-on battery grips/packs does remain thoroughly “technically obtuse” as you so succinctly put it.

  • Norman

    so nikon paid good money again to dpreviewers… should spend more money on quality control and support….

    i read already about battery issues, AF issues with some lenses and other stuff… it is a bad joke.

    • Michiel953

      You’re a bad joke

    • AlphaT

      DPreview directly or indirectly received money from all major brands. Nothing new. That’s how they survive.

      I suggest you read further more about those issues.

      But I agree, they should put more effort to QC/QA.

    • D700s

      What is this battery issue you speak of?

      • CERO

        D500 shuts down or throws errors because of battery power issues.
        Aka the D500 is incredibly delicate power wise. If it goes out of the specs, it hangs or shut downs (locks up).
        Also it doesn’t allow third party batteries anymore.

        • D700s

          I haven’t experienced anything like that. I’m using the new battery and old batteries that I’ve had for 4 years. Maybe it’s a very isolated incident. My experience is nothing but positive.

          • CERO

            not at all, check Tom Hogan’s report on the D500.

    • Fly Moon

      I guess Nikon should test all the Chinese batteries on eBay!! That how they can make sure all batteries work. Buy a f….. battery with your $2000 camera!!

  • catinhat

    How can I sum this up. I’m my camera. I have D500, D500 is amazing, ergo I’m amazing. D500 has a problem, ergo I have a problem, this is impossible, I don’t have a problem, I’m amazing, ergo D500 has no problem. I have D300 (substitute D700, D800, D-whatever), D300 is a piece of old cr*p, ergo I’m a piece of old cr*p, this is impossible, I’m amazing, I need D500.

    • Steve Perry

      The D500 is a fantastic camera, but I agree, no need to get your ego involved with it’s success or failure. Some of the comments are akin to watching a sports fan go nuts when his / her team wins.

  • Ric of The LBC

    Ny-con ROCKS!

  • Jeffry De Meyer

    More like not so good for video graphers dabbling in photography.
    It is more than good enough to dabble a bit in video

  • RodneyKilo

    “If you don’t need that cutting-edge high-speed performance, cameras such as the D7200 offer essentially the same image quality…”

    This is significant, because it means that also the D5500 has essentially the same image quality.

    The reason it’s significant is that what seems to be first time in some time, the most expensive current camera in the format from Nikon offers essentially the same image quality as a consumer grade camera.

    We saw this all the time in the film days, in which a Nikkormat FTn and a Nikon F2 were indistinguishable as far as image quality, and likewise an N80 and an F5.

    Image quality parity means that price is less and less a barrier in obtaining optimal final quality in a given format.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Nonsense. In real-world image capture the differences among different bodies is often HUGE. The D7200 and the D500 are so very different that statements like “cameras such as the D7200 offer essentially the same image quality…” are worse than silly.

      Image quality in the lab and repeatable, TIMELY image capture under field conditions are wholly different.

      • TO-DOUG

        Allen, please see my comments to Guy above. If you think that DPR is “silly” then fine, but your comment says more about you than anyone else.

        • D700s

          S what you’re saying is his rhetorical statement shouldn’t be dismissed because it’s, rhetorical? Why state what’s in the article above unless you are trying to dismiss the D500?

          • TO-DOUG

            I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

        • Allen_Wentz

          RodneyKilo _specifically_ treated the quote as a (removed from context) statement of fact, following the quote with his own statement “This is significant…”

          I do not know what the DPR context quoted from was, nor do I disrespect DPR or Ridney. However my point above stands: treating lab-measured IQ as all that a camera body is about is SILLY.

          _Actual_ IQ involves getting the shot, not simply what the sensor may be capable of. How the camera body goes about facilitating the photog to “get the shot” is IMO what differences among SLR camera bodies are all about.

    • TO-DOUG

      Guy, you seem to be purposely looking for areas of disagreement. First of all, Rodney was quoting someone who has used a D500, namely DPReview. And you took just part of what he quoted. The full quote from DPR as provided by Admin above, is: “If you don’t need that cutting-edge high-speed performance, cameras such as the D7200 offer essentially the same image quality, and if you want to shoot video there are better choices, too. But as an APS-C sports and wildlife camera, the D500 is without rival, and that puts in on the top of our awards podium.” And image quality is the quality of the image captured by the sensor — or by the film as he points out in the pre-digital era.

    • RodneyKilo

      said by someone who never used a D5500.

      I’m assuming you understand the meaning of quotation marks, the meaning of “image quality,” and read the original piece to recognize a quote from it when you read it.

  • Andy

    I love my D500 its a great compliment to my FX bodies (D810 in particular). HOWEVER – the current card error issue is a real significant concern — NIKON please sort it out ASAP and issue a firmware update or product recall.

    I was shooting with only Nikon lenses and accessories — latest generation Nikon 300mm and 400mm E FL f/2.8 and 70-200 VRII, a MB-17 with a fully charged EN-EL18a and a fully charged EN-EL15 and 2 LEXAR cards a Lexar 128 GB 2933X Professional XQD CompactFlash Card and a Professional 64 GB Class 10 UHS-II 2000x Speed (300 MB/s) SDXC Flash Memory Card – both cards work fine on my other gear.

    I took 1,560 images using the D500 of birds of prey in flight and static setting during the morning and in the final 1/3rd of the morning had a series 6-10 card err failures during the shoot. Most, but not all, of these occurred after I reviewed images (I do not delete in camera).

    I did not lose any image I had taken – they all saved to both cards, but I had to turn the camera off and back on again to resolve the issue. So I lost some shooting time. I understand that if a card write issue occurs the card’s file record could be damaged and I could lose the entire contents of the card. I don’t know how true this is, but I will be using many more cards during a shoot, than I am used to on my very stable D810s

    My storey appears to be common, rather than uncommon. See

    That said – it was a great day and the D500 worked great in all types of light from bright sunlight to dark shade deep in the woods.

  • jojo

    battery issues… nikon again!

  • Nikos Delhanidis

    Hope Nikon will sort the piling up bugs really soon. Most of those bugs are unacceptable even for lower segment cameras. And they appear to be all software induced or software fixable.

  • Nice to see so many people excited by the D500. Any thoughts on what competitors will do?

    • Nikos Delhanidis

      Maybe better QC / software sorting 😛

  • Back to top