[reh321]

I have yet to see a negative review of the D500.

At another Discussion Forum where I'm a regular. some Nikon users discourage use of it, or any APS camera, because of noise.

[Cannikin]

I can say that after some hands on experience with a D850 (which supposedly has the same AF system as the D5 and D500), Nikon's AF really is downright magical compared to my K-1 and K-3 (don't have experience with the II versions, but they are reportedly not dramatically better).

Dark gray target against a black background? No problem. Subject lit only by a nightlight? It can work with that. Speed is not dramatically faster than Pentax, but the key thing is when it says it has focus lock, it IS in focus 99% of the time in good light, and 95% in bad light (we're talking ISO 12800 bad). It did take some AF calibration for the lenses (Tamron SP lenses with the Tap-In console) but once I got it dialed in, it was amazingly consistent. This was with AF-S. I haven't had much chance to test AF-C against any meaningful target, but almost everyone seems to agree that Nikon DSLR tracking AF is state-of-the-art.

Pentax's AF system is too generous in confirming focus when it is in fact off. I can deal with it being relatively slow to lock, but am always wondering if it is really in focus when that AF point blinks. Most of the time I tap the AF several times to give the AF system more chances to double check itself. It's maybe an 80% hit rate in good light, but it rapidly falls to below 50% in lower light and low contrast subjects. It led me to develop a bad habit of immediately chimping every shot to make sure it is in focus, to give me time to try again before moving on.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

No one seems to have mentioned that the d500 has slightly lower mp than the k3. The d500 is a lower resolution camera at 20.9 mp vs 24.35mp (roughly 16.5% more than the d500) so the cropping you can do will be slightly lower

If we look at the math and what you gain with the additional MP count you would be able to crop the 24mp by an additional 1.1 crop factor to equal the mp count of the 20mp camera. What this works out to be for a 500mm lens you can crop to the FOV of a 550mm lens

[derekkite]

If we look at the math and what you gain with the additional MP count you would be able to crop the 24mp by an additional 1.1 crop factor to equal the mp count of the 20mp camera. What this works out to be for a 500mm lens you can crop to the FOV of a 550mm lens

I suspect the resolution advantage disappears as the light drops of though. The D500 is better in low light compared to the K3. I'm finding that the K1 in spite of having a lower resolution than the K3 can be cropped as much or more as the ISO increases.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I think, Ian, that you probably would have gotten to a K-1 with either a Sigma 500mm or DFA 150-450 and stuck with that.

Having the sigma 300mm 2.8 already and comparing it to its sister lens in Nikon along with the D300 at the time I quick came to the conclusion that I would not buy another screw drive AF prime lens over $1000. This really put me off on considering the sigma 500 /4.5, also when we start to get into this prices range I really would expect to see in lens stabilization.

There are several reason why I want lens VR one of the reasons is for tripod work, How I decide what level of stabilization ( tripod,SR,MLU and cable release ) all depend on how much time I have for the shot. For the best I like to use on a tripod a cable release along with MLU, if I don't have time for MLU I just use the cable release & VR this way I can isolate the tripping of the shutter away from the body of the camera while VR will help for mechanics of the camera during the shot.

If the subject with a tripod does not allow for cable release ( a lot movement in adjustment of the framing) I the rely on using VR, this can almost give you the results of using the MLU along with CR for those times. I also like to use the combo of VR and CR for slower shutter speeds and is mainly used for controlling movement if it was a windy day with VR and use the CR to isolate the tripping of the shutter. I have found with SR it is no where as reliable as VR for tripod work with longer lenses. When I start getting into the 500 4.5 300 2.8 and the 150-450 prices lens based stabilization is a must for me.

Clearly you've been able to deal with a little lower frame rate (actually not too different from that in the K-1) in order to get high quality photos.

This is one of the reasons why I am a strong proponent of needing better AF for wildlife photography, I can do with less FPS if I can rely on the AF for it to on focus on the image over the use of FPS, praying and sorting the best from a set.

Obviously you shoot with Nikon now, but your skill is such that I think you would actually get high quality images with a K-1 and DFA 150-450.

I have gotten very good images from the K5 and around 500-700 BIF with the setup but there was so much frustration that there was a breaking point that I had hit 1 day in the 2012. One of the largest contributing factors is the latency and how much distance it takes the subject to move and when the camera makes AF adjustments

in AF-C. Every camera that I have tested this latency is 2-3 times greater distance than AF-S. While having the K1mk2 this summer I didn't not test this with a rail, I did however test this while the camera was sitting on a tailgate of the truck both with the sigma 70-200 HSM 2.8 and the DFA 100 wr 2.8 the distance was more than I would like. With other gear in AF-C the lens never stops making micro adjustment even on static subjects like a wall while the camera is on a tripod.

I guess I'm saying that while the OP seems focused on the specs of the camera, you have not been focused on the same things as the OP at all, otherwise you would have looked more seriously at a D850 or for that matter a D500 and you didn't.

Trust me I was very focused on the specs of the D800 and what it was capable of doing when it was announced, just as the OP AF its was right up there in the forefront as was framerate, buffer, noise performance and size held my interest .

---------- Post added 09-20-2018 at 11:40 PM ----------

I suspect the resolution advantage disappears as the light drops of though. The D500 is better in low light compared to the K3. I'm finding that the K1 in spite of having a lower resolution than the K3 can be cropped as much or more as the ISO increases.

at around 400-600 iso is what I see with 16mp crop to 24mp crop they are about equal, with the D500 and DCG you do see it better at the iso it kicks in. One of the reason why I like FF for wildlife what little advantage we see of using 24mp over 16 is so small for a limited range of use, to me this does not out way the benefit of what 36mp FF can do. I will also add the high amount of cropping one would have to do to see the difference is not the IQ I am looking for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A 6mp crop from a 24mp camera or a 4mp crop for a 16mp camera is not what I am looking for.

---------- Post added 09-20-2018 at 11:56 PM ----------

I can say that after some hands on experience with a D850 (which supposedly has the same AF system as the D5 and D500),

From my understanding they use the same AF module but they are setup differently with different processors and how much processing power is provided to the AF chain so there is a difference is AF performance reported by users of the 3 different bodies.

[JML69]

I really appreciate this post. (NOT for confirmation of anything, sad to even have to make that disclaimer as some people commenting here think I have this 'down with Pentax, HOORAY Nikon' motive?)
Simply because you have both systems I'm trying to get a comparison of and actually have some grounds to make a comment on how both systems match up.

I wonder if the Sigma 150-600 Sport would give an edge on IQ over your current setup.

I've got a book full of notes from these past few days and will be reading them over next week once some announcements are made.
I don't expect much from the Ricoh booth, but fingers are crossed!!

I was able to try both the 200-500 and 150-600 Sport at a local shop and decided on the 200-500 for size, weight, value and sharpness (I understand there were quality variations on both, but I got lucky). Now that they just released the 500 PF 5.6 and rumored to be making a 600 PF, while neither are cheap, they certainly are much less in price, size and weight than the other options out there. Just something to consider in making your decision.

[UserAccessDenied]

I was able to try both the 200-500 and 150-600 Sport at a local shop and decided on the 200-500 for size, weight, value and sharpness (I understand there were quality variations on both, but I got lucky). Now that they just released the 500 PF 5.6 and rumored to be making a 600 PF, while neither are cheap, they certainly are much less in price, size and weight than the other options out there. Just something to consider in making your decision.

I'm excited to see reviews of the 500mm F5.6 when it's released. Likely to always be out of my price range, but still a nice lens in the offerings.
Maybe I'll treat myself in a few years for my 30th birthday...

[Theov39]

I'm excited to see reviews of the 500mm F5.6 when it's released. Likely to always be out of my price range, but still a nice lens in the offerings.
Maybe I'll treat myself in a few years for my 30th birthday...

Life is not a dress rehearsal so why not?

[Chris Mak]

I'm excited to see reviews of the 500mm F5.6 when it's released. Likely to always be out of my price range, but still a nice lens in the offerings.
Maybe I'll treat myself in a few years for my 30th birthday...

Here is a very positive review (and nice to watch).

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

It is getting very likely, that this will be my next lens after 4 years DA560. It's half as heavy, less than half as long, and only 60mm shorter. It appears to have very good IQ and very little degradation with the newest 1.4TCIII.

It is 3999,-, but the DA560 is 5499,- where I live, so although a lot of money for first purchase, I should be able to get it at an affordable price when trading in the DA560.

Of course, of course my main reason to do this is AF, but half the weight and half as long, means that this is a lens that I can easily take along on trips where I have to leave the DA560 at home.
These are exiting times, Nikon may release a mirrorless APSC king in future years, making it an even lighter and more compact combo. As it is, I will be getting it with the aging D500
Don't get me wrong, when first released, the DA560 was ideal for me as opposed to the 10.000,- Canikon 500mm alternatives (not counting the noisy Sigma 500mm screwdrive) and I've enjoyed it tremendously when not needing instant reliable AF.
The D500 + 500mm/f5.6 PF though, will be a very nice step up.

Chris

[UserAccessDenied]

Life is not a dress rehearsal so why not?

Love this; likely to use it again at some point if you don't mind! haha

I've been busting my butt for years.
Held a job through high school, 3 jobs in college and an internship. Landed a job the summer after graduation in my career path and have been with this employer for 5 years as of this week! I enjoy what I do; awesome people I work for and work with, and at the end of the day I think I'm pretty decent at what I do.

Unfortunately in doing so, I've accrued student loans that inhibit me from maximizing my photographic hobby
Regardless of the jobs held during that time.
(READ: College is expensive! Aside from tuition; food, RENT, books, utilities, extracurricular. It adds up quickly)

Back on track...
I think it's time I treat myself. I turn 28 in December.
I think reasonably I can save up for a proper wildlife lens by the 30th birthday?
Plus, who knows what will be available then! Maybe a 600mm F4 will be within budget reach?

[UserAccessDenied]

Here is a very positive review (and nice to watch).

It is getting very likely, that this will be my next lens after 4 years DA560. It's half as heavy, less than half as long, and only 60mm shorter. It appears to have very good IQ and very little degradation with the newest 1.4TCIII.

It is 3999,-, but the DA560 is 5499,- where I live, so although a lot of money for first purchase, I should be able to get it at an affordable price when trading in the DA560.

Of course, of course my main reason to do this is AF, but half the weight and half as long, means that this is a lens that I can easily take along on trips where I have to leave the DA560 at home.
These are exiting times, Nikon may release a mirrorless APSC king in future years, making it an even lighter and more compact combo. As it is, I will be getting it with the aging D500
Don't get me wrong, when first released, the DA560 was ideal for me as opposed to the 10.000,- Canikon 500mm alternatives (not counting the noisy Sigma 500mm screwdrive) and I've enjoyed it tremendously when not needing instant reliable AF.
The D500 + 500mm/f5.6 PF though, will be a very nice step up.

Chris

Almost assuredly!

I've been watching videos reviews all day haha.
I heard rumor they will be doing a 400PF and 600PF as well... That would be nice, though if the 500PF is out of my budget I'm sure the 600PF would be too!

[UncleVanya]

Those pf lenses look interesting except for the flare handling.

[gfurm]

I admit I didn't read all 17 pages.
My take on this: I was in the same boat, K3 II, 300/4 and 1.4TC. For perchad birds from hide I had no problems. Then I went to Farne islands in UK to photograph puffins. Out of over 1000 photos shot in 1 hour I binned 850 without even going to 100% view in lightroom due to missed focus. I was fighting with the camera all time I was on this island.
I had a choice: get 150-450 for 1200£ hoping lens will be faster and better at focusing, or switch to Nikon D7200 (D500 was out of my budget) and one of the 150-600 zooms breaking even and knowing it will be better.
I went for the latter and my next outing for BIF yielded 1500 photos with only about 200 discarded as obvious missed focus.
I also tried my kid running towards me and Nikon with 55-200 lens nailed every photo while I had problems with K3 II and tamron 70-200 (allegedly one of the fastest focusing screw drive lenses) in the same situation.
I still prefer Pentax menu and handling but for AF tracking performance for me Nikon is much better.

[BigMackCam]

Those pf lenses look interesting except for the flare handling.

I'd never heard of them until this thread, nor have I read much about them since except for quickly scanning one article. They look very interesting indeed. What's the issue with flare handling? Is that a general problem with the phase fresnel design, or these specific examples?

[UncleVanya]

I'd never heard of them until this thread, nor have I read much about them since except for quickly scanning one article. They look very interesting indeed. What's the issue with flare handling? Is that a general problem with the phase fresnel design, or these specific examples?

It appears to be related to the technology not the design of the lens per say. The diffraction characteristics of the PF lens supposedly cause this. If you look at the flickr photo and the comments only one of the lights in the shot seems to have the effect - the light needs to be strong to have the effect visible. In any case there are some corrections in the Nikon specific raw developer (can't recall the name). I can't find a lot of info that is recent on this phenomenon which leads me to think most photographers aren't finding it a huge problem. Nikon also claims the 500 PF has improved the element and has less flare than the previous PF lenses.

A Closer Look at Nikon's New Phase Fresnel (PF) Lens Technology
Nikon 300mm F/4 PF Bokeh Flare | Testing the Phase Fresnel e? | Flickr