D500

Sorry if this has been covered already (I haven't trawled through the entire thread) but has anyone had any luck with third party batteries with the D500, or is it just Nikon batteries that can be used? Thanks.
 
Lee O'D said:
Sorry if this has been covered already (I haven't trawled through the entire thread) but has anyone had any luck with third party batteries with the D500, or is it just Nikon batteries that can be used? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard of any so far. :( I messaged two sellers on eBay as to whether their compatible batteries had been tested with the D500 and it sounded like neither had heard of the problem, and said I could buy, and if the batteries didn't work they would refund. I may give it a try when I get paid as I made need some extra batteries at the end of next month.

The good news is that I went out last week and took about 1100 pics and still had 25% power left, so my battery performance has improved a lot. :)
 
redhed17 said:
I haven't heard of any so far. :( I messaged two sellers on eBay as to whether their compatible batteries had been tested with the D500 and it sounded like neither had heard of the problem, and said I could buy, and if the batteries didn't work they would refund. I may give it a try when I get paid as I made need some extra batteries at the end of next month.

The good news is that I went out last week and took about 1100 pics and still had 25% power left, so my battery performance has improved a lot. :)
Click to expand...

I tried an Expro battery as I've used them for several other cameras, but it doesn't work.
 
So I thought I'd made my mind up on getting a D750 as an upgrade to one of my two D700s.

However I'm wondering if I might be better off spending a touch more on a D500? I mainly shoot concerts and events, so am looking for something which performs even better in low light.

This would obviously mean having one DX one FX. Which could be good for variation, but lacks consistency and disrupts the 24-70, 70-200 range.

On the face of it the D500 offers better technology and a more 'pro' feel...

Thoughts? :)
 
benners said:
So I thought I'd made my mind up on getting a D750 as an upgrade to one of my two D700s.

However I'm wondering if I might be better off spending a touch more on a D500? I mainly shoot concerts and events, so am looking for something which performs even better in low light.

This would obviously mean having one DX one FX. Which could be good for variation, but lacks consistency and disrupts the 24-70, 70-200 range.

On the face of it the D500 offers better technology and a more 'pro' feel...

Thoughts? :)
Click to expand...
D750. D500 is for reach and or frame rate.
 
shapeshifter said:
D750. D500 is for reach and or frame rate.
Click to expand...

I've seen that the d500 native ISO reaches much further, and it has the same guts as a D5? Which would make it a superior performer to the d750?
 
Last edited:
benners said:
So I thought I'd made my mind up on getting a D750 as an upgrade to one of my two D700s.

However I'm wondering if I might be better off spending a touch more on a D500? I mainly shoot concerts and events, so am looking for something which performs even better in low light.

This would obviously mean having one DX one FX. Which could be good for variation, but lacks consistency and disrupts the 24-70, 70-200 range.

On the face of it the D500 offers better technology and a more 'pro' feel...

Thoughts? :)
Click to expand...

benners said:
I've seen that the d500 native iOS reaches much further, and it has the same guts as a D5? Which would make it a superior performer to the d750?
Click to expand...

Just because the ISO goes higher it doesn't mean that it will be better/less noisy. The D750 is 1-2 stops better for noise than the D7200 and the initial reports suggest that the D500 is a fraction worse than the D7200 in terms of noise. The D750 will be better in low light in terms of noise period.

You're right in that the D500 has similar internals to the D5, and in theory autofocus should be better than the D750. However, the D750 has a truly superb AF system, very accurate and very reliable and I would not choose the D500 over the D750 based on this alone. The D500 has a much wider AF spread which could be useful for certain types of shooting, especially sports imo. AF spread on the D750 is more than ample for concerts though.

I've not held the D500 yet but reports are saying that it definitely feels more solid than the D750 which is always nice, but then I've never thought that my D750 feels cheap.

For what you're wanting I would most certainly choose the D750 for the better ISO/noise performance alone, but obviously you must do what's right for you.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...Nikon-D7200-versus-Nikon-D750___1061_1020_975

Edit: Just found this, I would disagree with DXO's findings based on this as the D500 looks cleaner than the D7200 to my eyes, but of course this is before downsampling the D7200 to match the resolution of the D500

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...x=-0.009137347184755683&y=0.01428145243777689

.
 
Last edited:
thanks so much @snerkler :) the D750 was my gut reaction for an upgrade, and not having the seamless 24-200 range on FX is something i think would bug me.
back to looking for a D750 then I think :)
 
snerkler said:
Just because the ISO goes higher it doesn't mean that it will be better/less noisy. The D750 is 1-2 stops better for noise than the D7200 and the initial reports suggest that the D500 is a fraction worse than the D7200 in terms of noise. The D750 will be better in low light in terms of noise period.

You're right in that the D500 has similar internals to the D5, and in theory autofocus should be better than the D750. However, the D750 has a truly superb AF system, very accurate and very reliable and I would not choose the D500 over the D750 based on this alone. The D500 has a much wider AF spread which could be useful for certain types of shooting, especially sports imo. AF spread on the D750 is more than ample for concerts though.

I've not held the D500 yet but reports are saying that it definitely feels more solid than the D750 which is always nice, but then I've never thought that my D750 feels cheap.

For what you're wanting I would most certainly choose the D750 for the better ISO/noise performance alone, but obviously you must do what's right for you.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...Nikon-D7200-versus-Nikon-D750___1061_1020_975

Edit: Just found this, I would disagree with DXO's findings based on this as the D500 looks cleaner than the D7200 to my eyes, but of course this is before downsampling the D7200 to match the resolution of the D500

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...x=-0.009137347184755683&y=0.01428145243777689

.
Click to expand...
Out of interest I downloaded the 12800 RAW files from dpreview and downscaled the D750 and D7200 to the same resolution as the D500. The D750 is obviously the cleanest of the lot, but to my eyes the D500 is better than the D7200. I would say there's possibly more noise but it's finer and less 'obtrusive'/ugly imo. YMMV.
 
Bummer..£1572 at Panamoz now. A week ago £1460
 
A few from the weekend, D500 Sigma 150-600 C, aim of the day was fill the frame and some wheelies....

https://flic.kr/s/aHskzgqTuD

Couldn't work out how to insert the album properly without spamming you all LOL...Image gallery enclosed for full sharpness, as i don't feel this image does them justice.... or the camera, Does TP compress it a lot ?Whats best way to Insert them for full sharpness and quality ?

20160702-DSC_2009.jpg
 
Last edited:
There was a couple of people at Bempton cliffs yesterday with one and wow did it fire off bursts! One lady had a D500 with 200-500 VR and looked a great combo
 
I don't normally take pics of Birds, but have been doing it to get used to the D500 AF. I went to Martin Mere Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust a couple of weeks ago and rattled off 38Gb's. :eek: I have about 4Gb of OK pics from that.

I had more problems with the AF than I had in my local park which I haven't had a chance to get to the bottom of that yet.

Anyway mot many images here, so here are some pics of two Birds (a Moorhen and I don't know what) having a bit of a fight. The AF, the high ISO and FPS working together. :)

#1
15793-1467662233-666726ce82c5ee665fa5839c01e11428.jpg


#2
15794-1467662234-2519c8a9734d3300f17ef8356dc4d79e.jpg


#3
15795-1467662235-d9dae1617261f59afc41cc9f9da48423.jpg


#4
15796-1467662236-7ffd243215b56738bb146c3bb4c0225e.jpg


#5
15797-1467662236-34edcc76a8f064999cfb90160a0d7bdc.jpg


More to follow. ;)
 
Both Moorhens, No. 9 is a standout
 
Is the video abilities of the D500 much better than Nikons previous cameras ?
 
F/1.4 said:
Is the video abilities of the D500 much better than Nikons previous cameras ?
Click to expand...
I watched DigitalREV last night as they do a comparison against the 7Dii and he said that the Video on the D500 was their best yet, it still has some issues like the image stabs feature is a bit jerky but overall yes it is...
 
littleted said:
I watched DigitalREV last night as they do a comparison against the 7Dii and he said that the Video on the D500 was their best yet, it still has some issues like the image stabs feature is a bit jerky but overall yes it is...
Click to expand...
It is also 4k, which no other Nikon DSLR has apart from the D5.

It is done using a heavily cropped portion of the sensor, so wide angles could be problematic. :thinking: :rolleyes: I have no interest in video. I think I tried it 2-3 times on my D300S, and haven't used it yet on the D500. There are better options for video, but no better crop DSLR camera imho. If video is the main objective, unless you need 4k in a Nikon camera, there are cheaper Nikon camera with 1080 video, and better 4k cameras from other manufacturers.

If photography is the main objective, of fast moving things and / or low light subjects and the video is for occasional use, then the D500 could fit the bill. :)
 
yeah i must admit i use my A7Rii or Lumix TZ100 for when i need video...
 
Had the camera for a few weeks and had a couple of outings with it.

All I can say is WOW - I love my D810 but this little thing just blows it away for focusing, framerate and configurability. Not bought a XQD card yet - so things can only improve with the framerate.

Not had a chance to use it is good light yet but the images I am getting at ISO 1250 to 1600 clean up well.

Auto WB is a bit flakey but I have been using it in tricky conditions / light. Easy enough to resolve in PP.

For wildlife and action it is utterly superb.
 
Last edited:
Yeah must admit I've not gone xqd yet either my cards are fast enough for at least 20 25 shots which is enough for what I do....
 
I would like to hear more hands on experiences of the AF improvement over other cameras.
The D500 was touted as having 'killer' AF ... but does it, there is little evidence to suggest that it does and some to suggest that it isn't better than the D7200 under certain circumstances.
Anyone used both or can comment on 'killer' AF... not ISO or fps, actual real AF improvement?
 
I was photographing Long Eared Owls in poor light last night. I took my D810 with me in case the light was poor and the full frame would help.

The d500 was locking on and tracking without a problem. The ISO was high so I switched to the D810. It was poor in comparison.

Shot both in group focus and gave up on the D810 when I managed a hit rate of 1 in 5 shots - the d500 was hitting 90%+.

Same lens on same tripod in same light using same focus groups, same user using same technique - the d500 shat all over the d810 and left it crying in the bag

I was also photographing swallows for fun - tried that with the d810 before and it was not a fun experience.

I love my d810 and have used it for 2 years - I had the d7100 and d7200 in the same period as backup and they never got a look in.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Also - as we packed up the other tog I was with (@drooke ) asked to feel the weight of my 500mm lens as he is looking at lens options - he is a Canon shooter though.

I took the camera / lens off the tripod and gave it to him. He hasn't used a Nikon or 500mm lens before but he still tracked and got 25 in focus shots of the owl as it flew by in fading light.

I checked the shots on the computer - stupidly high iso (i use auto iso) but the shots are in focus.

I could not have done that with the D810 and I have had it 2 years and use it regularly.
 
Last edited:
Dave Semmens said:
Not bought a XQD card yet - so things can only improve with the framerate.
Click to expand...

An XQD card will not improve the framerate, 10fps with any card. It will increase the number of shots in a burst, and depending on the speed of the card, up to 200 shots. I got the Lexar 32 GB 2933X XQD card and the Lexar 32 GB UHS-II 2000x SDHC and I doubt I will ever get anywhere near to pushing either of these cards to their maximum. I think I could have saved on the XQD a bit (because all XQD cards are pretty expensive) but more on slower SD cards, and not noticed the difference. I don't think I have done 10fps for more than 2-3 seconds, and I think some 90Mbs (ish) cards could easily handle that from what I have read. Everyone's needs are is different though.

Nice to have the fastest cards though, ;) :D even if it does cost a bit more. :( :rolleyes:
 
I am not rushing into buying XQD as my current SD covers what I have needed so far. The longer I wait - the cheaper they should become (hopefully :) )

I normally shoot in short bursts - so that should help.

I can see the benefit of having the option to shoot 200 shots though - it may only come up once every few years but it could be the shot of a lifetime ;)
 
Dave Semmens said:
I am not rushing into buying XQD as my current SD covers what I have needed so far. The longer I wait - the cheaper they should become (hopefully :) )

I normally shoot in short bursts - so that should help.

I can see the benefit of having the option to shoot 200 shots though - it may only come up once every few years but it could be the shot of a lifetime ;)
Click to expand...

As the £ drops in value the cards should increase in cost, £ V Yen

chart.png

£ V $

chart 2.png
 
Dave Semmens said:
Also - as we packed up the other tog I was with (@drooke ) asked to feel the weight of my 500mm lens as he is looking at lens options - he is a Canon shooter though.

I took the camera / lens off the tripod and gave it to him. He hasn't used a Nikon or 500mm lens before but he still tracked and got 25 in focus shots of the owl as it flew by in fading light.

I checked the shots on the computer - stupidly high iso (i use auto iso) but the shots are in focus.

I could not have done that with the D810 and I have had it 2 years and use it regularly.
Click to expand...
Thanks Dave that's the sort of info I'm after :)
 
gramps said:
Thanks Dave that's the sort of info I'm after :)
Click to expand...
Left the D810 at home tonight Gramps - I am now convinced that this little beauty can replace the D810 for most of my wildlife photography.

I had both with me when taking shots of a little owl last week - I ended up using both to compare - the owl was perched so not really a challenge.

I ended up using the D810 photos as the owls pose was better - apart from that it could easily have been the D500 shots.
 
Dave Semmens said:
Left the D810 at home tonight Gramps - I am now convinced that this little beauty can replace the D810 for most of my wildlife photography.
Click to expand...

Very interesting reading your opinions on the D500. I currently shoot FF (d610) for wildlife as I often find myself shooting in poor light and so moved away from DX to get better noise handeling. At what ISO would you say the D500 starts to be shown up by your D810? Or is that not the case?

Impressive LEO picture by the way.

Thanks.
 
WWA - posting the LEO image below in case people didn't see it in the Bird section.

My settings for the image where far from perfect as I was trying to reduce the ISO as much as possible. I am not fully sure of the D500's capabilities yet - so wanted as low as possible.

For the image I ended up at 1/640th (would have liked to have been 1250+), F4 (would have liked F5.6) and auto ISO gave me ISO 1250.

I have shots at ISO 1600 that have cleaned up fine as well.

The problem with comparing ISO is that what people are happy with varies from person to person - I am very picky - others may not be.

Also - if the subject is close then you can push the ISO further as detail is still retained.

I only have a few photos that I kept from using my D810 that are ISO 3200 or higher - again - I am picky :)

The D500 is not as good as the D810 for ISO and is at least a stop behind would be my guess. If I was in a situation where I could fill the frame with a stationary subject then I would rather have my D810 than my D500.

If the subject is a bird in flight (or similar) then I would prefer the D500.

If I had to go out with only one camera for wildlife then it would be the D500 as it ticks more boxes for me.

Here is the LEO shot WWA refers to:
Hunting LEO by Dave Semmens, on Flickr

Dave.
 
Last edited:
That's a great shot Dave! I'm very jealous! I'm finding that the noise on the d500 is quite prominant but I've still not had time to compare it to my d7200. To be fair I've had in camera NR turned off completely...do you know if you have NR on or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top