Testing out the high ISO of the d500

[CarlosFrazao]

So last night my resident owls where having there 6:30pm fun again, which consists of dive bombing my neighbors pit bull lol..

So I decided to test out some higher ISO shots, the first shot was taken at ISO 6400 and the second one was under exposed at 900 ISO and shadows boosted to see what the noise would be like. What do you guys think is this a decent ISO quality or would a fullframe be much better at that ISO.. thanks for looking any cc welcome once again

 

[astroNikon]

IMHO 6400 and 900 really isn't pushing the ISO on the D500
I've found starting around 9,000 is when you start seeing the high ISO noise on the D500, dependent upon environment. But pixel peeping I can see the white spots in the photo.

I also notice that the ear thin feathers aren't sharp. So I'm wondering in the 1/500 shutter speed was a bit to low for the focal length, which would of course push you shutter speed up. And/or test your lens for the sharpest Focal Length. I know with my Tamron 150-600 that is at f/8 - I can clearly see sharpness differences of f/8 to f/7.1 on my lens.

If you were to 1 on 1 test a FF vs a crop camera I think the FF would be better at those ISOs.

I did a test of a D750 vs the D500 where the ISO was pushed much higher ==> D500 vs D750 Indoor Soccer Shootout

 

[ZombiesniperJr]

Nice set what type of are they/it? do you know?

 

[bulldurham]

I never even notice noise at ISO 1600 with mine...

 

[Derrel]

Ample noise and lack of detail and low color saturation in the first owl shot....but it got you to 1/500 second and f/7.1 at 600mm...so...a few years ago, an image like that would have been extremely difficult or impossible to capture at 20 MP on APS-C, so....I dunno...you got ample DOF, good lens performance, and a 1/500 second shutter speed, and a very usable image. I guess things are "relative" these days...what somebody considers good others might not like so much. ISO 6,400 on the D500 in Daylight looks better than most cameras at ISO 1,600 looked a decade ago.

The second owl shot is not the best type of image to look at for analysis.

 

[CarlosFrazao]

IMHO 6400 and 900 really isn't pushing the ISO on the D500
I've found starting around 9,000 is when you start seeing the high ISO noise on the D500, dependent upon environment. But pixel peeping I can see the white spots in the photo.

I also notice that the ear thin feathers aren't sharp. So I'm wondering in the 1/500 shutter speed was a bit to low for the focal length, which would of course push you shutter speed up. And/or test your lens for the sharpest Focal Length. I know with my Tamron 150-600 that is at f/8 - I can clearly see sharpness differences of f/8 to f/7.1 on my lens.

If you were to 1 on 1 test a FF vs a crop camera I think the FF would be better at those ISOs.

I did a test of a D750 vs the D500 where the ISO was pushed much higher ==> D500 vs D750 Indoor Soccer Shootout

I usually try and not go above ISO 3200 as I'm not sure what the best way would be to work on that noise as I'm not very good at post processing yet. I was actually just testing the lens as I got it back from sigma and they supposedly replaced the optical stabilization and the focus limiter as I never got decent shots and still it sucks starting to hate this lens, will be selling it for the nikon 200-500 soon..

Nice set what type of are they/it? do you know?

Hey man these are spotted eagle owls.

I never even notice noise at ISO 1600 with mine...

That is true

Ample noise and lack of detail and low color saturation in the first owl shot....but it got you to 1/500 second and f/7.1 at 600mm...so...a few years ago, an image like that would have been extremely difficult or impossible to capture at 20 MP on APS-C, so....I dunno...you got ample DOF, good lens performance, and a 1/500 second shutter speed, and a very usable image. I guess things are "relative" these days...what somebody considers good others might not like so much. ISO 6,400 on the D500 in Daylight looks better than most cameras at ISO 1,600 looked a decade ago.

The second owl shot is not the best type of image to look at for analysis.

Yeah I know not the best examples but was just trying the lens after it got repaired it was actually very dark that's why I had the slow shutter plus trying to test the stabilization don't even know if it's ever worth using as I don't notice it ever help me or the lens just sucks, like I said will replace it soon. I will have to get a better test going. But one thing I've noticed was it's a bit of a hit and miss on high ISO on the d500 sometimes clear as can be other times same settings it's a snow storm, but still learning the camera so hopefully I improve somewhat in time

 

[MSnowy]

IMHO 6400 and 900 really isn't pushing the ISO on the D500
I've found starting around 9,000 is when you start seeing the high ISO noise on the D500, dependent upon environment. But pixel peeping I can see the white spots in the photo.

I also notice that the ear thin feathers aren't sharp. So I'm wondering in the 1/500 shutter speed was a bit to low for the focal length, which would of course push you shutter speed up. And/or test your lens for the sharpest Focal Length. I know with my Tamron 150-600 that is at f/8 - I can clearly see sharpness differences of f/8 to f/7.1 on my lens.

If you were to 1 on 1 test a FF vs a crop camera I think the FF would be better at those ISOs.

I did a test of a D750 vs the D500 where the ISO was pushed much higher ==> D500 vs D750 Indoor Soccer Shootout

I haven't had one customer pixil peep yet. I've shot football with D500 at ISO 16,000 1000/sec that parents have thought looked amazing. Granted the fast focus and 10fps really made it possible

 

[Ysarex]

The D500 is equipped with Sony's new dual gain APS sensor. You should expect high ISO performance pretty comparable to last year's FF cameras. I have the same sensor in my Fuji X-T2 and high ISO results are bottom line a sensor tech function. Make sure you expose properly for the given ISO and you should have no problem with ISO values to at least 6400. Here's ISO 12800 with my Fuji -- you should expect the same result: ISO_12800.jpg

Joe