Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-01-2016, 03:11 AM   #31
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,868
The D500 is fine. It isn't ground breaking. DXO Mark gives it a sports iso score of 1300 versus 1200 for the K3. I have a hard time thinking that that fraction of a difference in iso performance is going to make that much of a difference in most images. Yes, it does a little better at dynamic range in high iso situations than most APS-C cameras except for the D7200, but SNR is exactly the same as most current generation crop cameras.

Obviously people will buy this camera because of the other things it brings to the table besides sensor performance. Really high quality auto focus with great tracking, unlimited buffer make this a really good quality sports camera in a way that cameras like a K3 or D7200 aren't -- regardless of sensor performance. Landscape shooters just aren't looking for 10 or 15 fps, even if the base dynamic range is 14 EVs.

The other interesting thing on the DXO Mark graphs is that Nikon continues to inflate iso numbers. At iso 1600 on the D500, the measured iso was 1156 and at 6400 they measured it at 4700 -- that's a pretty big difference and does make the performance look a little better than it really is.

07-01-2016, 03:12 AM   #32
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,331
Original Poster
But they could make a D500s
07-01-2016, 05:47 AM   #33
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,676
IN the end, it's another camera a very ordinary camera with a very good shutter speed. Still not competing with the best FF but trying to claim the crown for APS-c.

But consider

10 fps x 20 mp = 200 MP
8.3 fps x 24 MP = 199.2 MP

The MP captures in a second are almost identical. Nikon increased eh frame rate by using a smaller sensor. The amount to data moved is almost

Speculatively if they took the camera back to 16 MP they could boost that frame rate even more.

There is not new technology here, in fact it would appear to be the same pipeline using a smaller sensor to achieve the frame rate. As such, it's a straight trade off. I certainly applaud Nikon for putting superior AF into an APs-c camera, but in the end, it's going the way of the D3s in all likelyhood. Once folks realize the trade offs they've accepted to get the advanced AF ( a lot of money) and the faster frame rate ( lower resolution image) they'll take a pass. People whined for low light performance in the D3s, but they wouldn't pay for it. or accept the limitations of a 16 MP sensor. Unless you're a professional sports photographer, you won't actually use this AF more than a few times a year. Most of the time when I miss a fast moving animal, it's because I can't get him in the viewfinder fast enough, the AF has nothing to do with it. I can think of maybe a handful of times when I had something in my viewfinder and couldn't AF. So maybe 6 with 3 instances where my K-3 couldn't focus but a D500 would have. If i was being paid, I would probably go for this camera, as missing even a couple of assignments because of slower AF would be unacceptable. But I'm just a guy taking pictures that make me happy, and having $1200 in my bank account and shooting a K-70 or the next flagship Pentax will make me happier than shooting with a D500. Better images 95% of the time, and missed images a few times a year.
07-01-2016, 06:59 AM   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,868
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
IN the end, it's another camera a very ordinary camera with a very good shutter speed. Still not competing with the best FF but trying to claim the crown for APS-c.

But consider

10 fps x 20 mp = 200 MP
8.3 fps x 24 MP = 199.2 MP

The MP captures in a second are almost identical. Nikon increased eh frame rate by using a smaller sensor. The amount to data moved is almost

Speculatively if they took the camera back to 16 MP they could boost that frame rate even more.

There is not new technology here, in fact it would appear to be the same pipeline using a smaller sensor to achieve the frame rate. As such, it's a straight trade off. I certainly applaud Nikon for putting superior AF into an APs-c camera, but in the end, it's going the way of the D3s in all likelyhood. Once folks realize the trade offs they've accepted to get the advanced AF ( a lot of money) and the faster frame rate ( lower resolution image) they'll take a pass. People whined for low light performance in the D3s, but they wouldn't pay for it. or accept the limitations of a 16 MP sensor. Unless you're a professional sports photographer, you won't actually use this AF more than a few times a year. Most of the time when I miss a fast moving animal, it's because I can't get him in the viewfinder fast enough, the AF has nothing to do with it. I can think of maybe a handful of times when I had something in my viewfinder and couldn't AF. So maybe 6 with 3 instances where my K-3 couldn't focus but a D500 would have. If i was being paid, I would probably go for this camera, as missing even a couple of assignments because of slower AF would be unacceptable. But I'm just a guy taking pictures that make me happy, and having $1200 in my bank account and shooting a K-70 or the next flagship Pentax will make me happier than shooting with a D500. Better images 95% of the time, and missed images a few times a year.
I think sports photographers and wildlife photographers are used to spending a bundle on gear. My impression is that if they somehow make it to the end of year with money left over from their gear budget, they just make a big bonfire with the cash and roast marshmallows on it with their friends.

People had complained for ages that there wasn't a D400. This is what they were asking for -- top end auto focus and a really deep buffer. And the sensor is really good quality. I just think most of the specs of this camera would be wasted on a photographer like me who is fine with Pentax auto focus and a buffer five or six images would be plenty.

07-01-2016, 07:31 AM   #35
Emperor and Senpai
Loyal Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,081
I'm pretty happy with my camera bodies. I don't see needing too much more than what I have. The only way I'd upgrade is some insane breakthrough.
07-01-2016, 07:54 AM   #36
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,676
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
I'm pretty happy with my camera bodies. I don't see needing too much more than what I have. The only way I'd upgrade is some insane breakthrough.
I like my K-3 AF. What it was doing tracking Terns was amazing, even if it's not up to Nikon standards. I like it's images, even without pixel shift, I'm looking for 2 more stops of high ISO performance, so clean images at 3200 ISO in an APS-c body. That is really important for freezing small birds on flight. If you look at the 6400 ISO images on a K-1, that's good enough, so it should be technically possible to get 3200 ISO clean on APS-c, so I'm not asking for something that's impossible. But everything else suits me. To me, I could live with the the K-70 frame rate, if the high ISO is as good as they claim it will be, and if shooting with tracking on doesn't slow it down a lot. My K-3 with tracking on shots about 4 FPS, so if the K-70 shoots 6 FPS with tracking on that would be an improvement.
07-01-2016, 09:08 AM   #37
Emperor and Senpai
Loyal Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,081
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I like my K-3 AF. What it was doing tracking Terns was amazing, even if it's not up to Nikon standards. I like it's images, even without pixel shift, I'm looking for 2 more stops of high ISO performance, so clean images at 3200 ISO in an APS-c body. That is really important for freezing small birds on flight. If you look at the 6400 ISO images on a K-1, that's good enough, so it should be technically possible to get 3200 ISO clean on APS-c, so I'm not asking for something that's impossible. But everything else suits me. To me, I could live with the the K-70 frame rate, if the high ISO is as good as they claim it will be, and if shooting with tracking on doesn't slow it down a lot. My K-3 with tracking on shots about 4 FPS, so if the K-70 shoots 6 FPS with tracking on that would be an improvement.
If you could live with K5 resolution the K1 would do it in crop mode!

I am not so sure about the K70 AF performance due to the older processor and fewer AF points. I'd almost wait for the next flagship APSC if you're staying with that sensor size.
07-02-2016, 10:30 AM   #38
Veteran Member
Clicker's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,241
QuoteOriginally posted by Venom3300 Quote
Wow. Canon finally got out of 2008 with that sensor. Its a shame you can only get it in an 80d but not a 7dii.

Its funny you mentioned that, i use to get so much crap over at POTN about the 7D in low light action scenarios, Pentax had nothing at that time so i jumped to FF with 1Dx and 7D users gave me more flak lol, the 7D2 wasnt any better...if i didnt want fps i woyld have jumped back to the K3II.

08-23-2016, 04:10 AM   #39
Veteran Member
dcBear78's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Gladstone, QLD
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 823
I am now a D500 owner and WOW!!! This thing is damn impressive. Makes me wonder how a D5 can be better?

High ISO smacks my D810 silly. And when I went from K3 to D810 I couldn't believe the increased focus performance. But the D500 is another leap forward again.

I don't know if I could live with it as my only camera. Not for what I primarily shoot anyway. But for me the D810/D500 combo is formidable as each has different strengths and I think they compliment each other perfectly.
08-23-2016, 04:16 AM   #40
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,331
Original Poster
nonsense the D810 has more than double the high iso score the d500 has.
08-23-2016, 04:20 AM   #41
Veteran Member
dcBear78's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Gladstone, QLD
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 823
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
nonsense the D810 has more than double the high iso score the d500 has.


Ok... I don't actually own both and have real life experience with them if you say so...
08-23-2016, 04:23 AM   #42
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,331
Original Poster
you didn't actually scientifically measure it.
08-23-2016, 06:04 AM   #43
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,569
The D500 is all about AF performance. The sensor is fine.... just like every other modern camera. I would love to see Ricoh develop the same level of AF performance as the D500/D5. You guys worry too much about a few fractions of a stop. All modern cameras have amazing sensors in them. Its the technology that supports that sensor that is important. AF, Pixel Shift, dual pixel AF.... Canon is behind everyone in sensor performance and still sell more cameras than anyone.
08-23-2016, 08:10 AM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,913
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
All modern cameras have amazing sensors in them. Its the technology that supports that sensor that is important. AF, Pixel Shift, dual pixel AF....
Indeed.

An interesting development has been the rise of the high pixel count metering sensor in most high-horsepower new DSLR's, and their role in making the cameras perform better (eg better AF tracking based on colour information, PDAF face detection, backlight correction, stadium flickering light correction, complex flash metering, general WB refinement etc etc).

Up until quite recently the metering sensors in many DSLR's were pretty crude - eg Canon 5D3 and 7D with mere 63 zone meters in a 7x9 matrix, the D700 with mere 1k pixel RGB metering, D610/D7200 with mere 2k pixel RGB meters. Simple chips doing basic exposure and colour assessment work.

But then metering chips began to step up in complexity and power - eg the 91k RGB metering sensor in D4s/D800/810/D750, now a 180k pixel RGB sensor in D5/D500. Similarly 100k pixel RGB sensor in the 1Dx, 150k pixel RGB sensor in 7D2, now 360k pixel RGB sensor in 1DxII. Canon even devotes a separate Digic coprocessor chip just to drive the metering sensor in the 1DxII. And most of these high MP metering sensors now meter down to -3 EV or thereabouts too.

Of course the complex 86k pixel RGB metering sensor of the K-3/645Z/K-1 was a big upgrade to the old 77 segment meter in K-7/K-5, and it has been asked to do more than the K-5 meter was ever asked to do too - scene recognition, subject colour tracking, AF assist etc, not just correctly meter the scene.

A new element of the camera arms race. 1 MP+ RGB metering sensors will probably be common soon.
08-23-2016, 08:43 AM   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,868
QuoteOriginally posted by dcBear78 Quote
I am now a D500 owner and WOW!!! This thing is damn impressive. Makes me wonder how a D5 can be better?

High ISO smacks my D810 silly. And when I went from K3 to D810 I couldn't believe the increased focus performance. But the D500 is another leap forward again.

I don't know if I could live with it as my only camera. Not for what I primarily shoot anyway. But for me the D810/D500 combo is formidable as each has different strengths and I think they compliment each other perfectly.
I just wonder if you are either shooting out of camera jpegs or, comparing images on a pixel level. If you are comparing D810 resized images, shot RAW with D500 images shot the same way, the D810 should show a stop advantage in SNR. The D500 is good for APS-C, just not at full frame level.

But as I mentioned above, folks are going to get a D500 for other reasons than just high iso ability.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
d500, k-5, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Customer vs. Nikon (D500 issue) - taking it to the next level beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 2 06-16-2016 01:19 AM
How does the Nikon D500 affect the K-1? jatrax Pentax Full Frame 36 01-15-2016 02:28 PM
Torrential rainfall tested the limits of the weather sealing on my K-3 II bwDraco Pentax K-3 17 01-09-2016 12:39 PM
DXO: Best lens ever tested Clavius Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 27 02-13-2014 09:42 AM
DxO has added the DA 12-24 for K10D Canada_Rockies Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 5 01-01-2009 11:33 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:51 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top