D750 vs D500

[hamlet]

I'll wait until about this time next year. By then something else will be coming out and the D500 will be about a third less. Or maybe I'll wait until the year after that and they will be under $1000. Until then I'm getting the results I want from the bodies I have so I'll probably stick with them.

Then it will be out of date, wait for the D500mk2

I agree, the camera makers always one-up each other from what i've seen. The technology behind the d500 is just the harvest of recent technological advances, we'll see a d500 killer sooner than later, which is nothing but good news for everyone on this forum and beyond.

Not good news for me I wouldn't buy one

I would but i cant xD

 

[Solarflare]

[...] The D7200 is the first Nikon that dPreview would consider almost totally ISO invariant; [...]

In my understanding "ISO invariant" means that a picture taken at, say, ISO 1600 is identical to a picture taken at ISO 100, both under the same conditions (same light, same subject, same lens, same angle, same focal length, same aperture, same shutter speed, etc), assuming the ISO 1600 didnt overexpose and the RAW converter compensates for the 4 stops of less light.

So basically you can keep the sensor at ISO 100 at all times and just compensate for the lack of exposure in your raw converter afterwards.

I utterly fail to see how thats a desireable property ? Quite on the contrary I would want my camera to fully exploit the fact that I've told it there wont be much light, so I can get best signal to noise at any ISO. And the cameras really good at high ISO, like the Sony A7s, are far from ISO invariant.

Agreed, taking the FF sensor out of the equation the D500 kills the D750 on paper,

... the heck ?!?!?!?!?

Of course it does.

Why did you expect anything else ?

A full frame sensor is still quite expensive. If you have an APS-C sensor instead, naturally you can spend a lot of money on other issues instead.

 

[hamlet]

Anyone seen the in camera VR of the d500?

 

[goodguy]

Anyone seen the in camera VR of the d500?

Its "kind of" VR, its an electronic VR, not as effective as Sony's mechanical VR, how effective it is we will know once the D500 is reviewed.

 

[hamlet]

I wonder how it'll function in combination with the VR in the lens.

 

[coastalconn]

I wonder how it'll function in combination with the VR in the lens.

From what I read it is only for video and It apparently works with VR lenses I believe

 

[Derrel]

So basically you can keep the sensor at ISO 100 at all times and just compensate for the lack of exposure in your raw converter afterwards.

I utterly fail to see how thats a desireable property ? Quite on the contrary I would want my camera to fully exploit the fact that I've told it there wont be much light, so I can get best signal to noise at any ISO. And the cameras really good at high ISO, like the Sony A7s, are far from ISO invariant.

You are seriously missing the point of what can make a camera ISO invariant. Maybe spend a bit of time looking into the term, and how it is used, and what exactly it can show us, what it can demonstrate about a sensor, and what it can demonstrate to us, as far as revealing how much noise the camera's electronics and imaging pipeline affect the sensor data.

I'll give you a little bit of a hint though, okay? The D7200's sensor, and the new 28-megapixel sensor Samsung used in its new top camera...those two are the very best APS-C sensors yet tested far as APS-C sensors that are ISO invariant, according to dPreview's testing.

The D7100's sensor reveal a slight banding issue, but chroma noise is largely absent. Can you see the issues the EOS 7D Mark II suffers from? It is a camera that is NOT very ISO-invariant. Can you see the EOS 5D Mark III and the HUGE firestorm of chroma noise it has? It too is NOT ISO invariant.

A couple articles that will no doubt change your mind. You are caught thinking in a now behind the times way regarding how low-light and or High ISO images must be made...


ISO Invariance: What it is, and which cameras are ISO-less

LOOK at what it really means…


Sony A7RII ISO Invariance - Luminous Landscape

 

[Derrel]

Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study

Let me summarize the advantage of using a sensor that has a high degree of ISO invariance, when you keep the camera's ISO dial set to a LOW ISO value, like 100, and then "pushing" the exposure later, in software, and brightening the image selectively, using modern software, as summarized by the dPreview author:

"We're not saying there's no cost to keeping your ISO low and brightening in post.** We're saying that the cost of a 6 EV push of an ISO 100 shot (vs ISO 6400) is only a mere half a stop or thereabouts in shadows, with almost no visible cost in midtones.*** Meanwhile, you give yourself no less than 6 EV highlight headroom by decreasing your ISO to 100."

 

[Solarflare]

Hmm.

If I understand those articles correctly, calling a camera "ISO-less" is really just a creative way to state a camera has good dynamic range ?

Plus it has no issues like banding or especially ugly color noise.

 

[errol]

Just take photos instead of being obsessed with technical stuff.
Its boring.

 

[Peeb]

Just take photos instead of being obsessed with technical stuff.
Its boring.

I strongly support your right to go do just that.

Many of us, on the other hand, will sweat the tech issues BEFORE we go shoot, to enhance to possibility that we will collect the images we thought we wanted.

Measure twice, cut once, as an old carpenter told me.

Now go off and have your fun while the rest of us carefully plan our next shoot.

 

[errol]

You're all chasing the perfect camera/lens.
Which of course doesn't exist.
Stop worrying about your tech...its YOU that takes the picture.
Your camera is just an electronic device.
I've seen some truly superb images produced from very cheap equiptment.
Just a good eye and a basic understanding of the art of photography is all thats required in my humble opinion.

 

[jsecordphoto]

You're all chasing the perfect camera/lens.
Which of course doesn't exist.
Stop worrying about your tech...its YOU that takes the picture.
Your camera is just an electronic device.
I've seen some truly superb images produced from very cheap equiptment.
Just a good eye and a basic understanding of the art of photography is all thats required in my humble opinion.

Maybe that's your reality. That's fine if you're happy with basic equipment and get images that you like, but some of us need new technology and better equipment to take the photos that we like. Compare an astro image taken with an entry level crop body and kit lens to an image with an a7s and tell me new camera technology doesn't matter

 

[Peeb]

You're all chasing the perfect camera/lens.
Which of course doesn't exist.
Stop worrying about your tech...its YOU that takes the picture.
Your camera is just an electronic device.
I've seen some truly superb images produced from very cheap equiptment.
Just a good eye and a basic understanding of the art of photography is all thats required in my humble opinion.

If you are trolling then I supposed you have succeeded in baiting one more response from me:

Your premise has merit in some contexts, but is so overly broad that it becomes useless for the purposes of this thread. If you resurrect Ansel Adams and hand him an iPhone 5, and hand me a Nikon D500 with a 200-500 lens and direct us each to take a detailed picture of the moon, I pretty sure I could own the guy.

Ansel's understanding of the art and photographic eye: legendary. Too bad he didn't have the right tool for the job.

This thread is not about how to 'see' like an artist- it's about the technical nuts/bolts of capturing images. Hows abouts you just move on to a thread that catches your fancy, eh?

 

[errol]

You cant compare an iphone to a dslr.
You're full of s##t.
Have a nice day.