D500

https://photographylife.com/dx-or-fx-for-sports-and-wildlife-photography


found it

he uses the word Myth

11) Summary
In summary, FX is better than DX for shooting wildlife and sports for the above reasons. The only reason why anyone should be shooting with DX is lower cost. If you can afford high-end FX, there is very little reason to stick with DX. Don’t listen to photographers that say that their D300s or D7100 is better than the D4, because it gives them better “reach”
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Ok, at what ISO does noise become an issue for you (800 for me)? And at what aperture does the sensor become diffraction limited (above f/5.6).

Compare that to my ISO limit of 3200 and diffraction limiting above f/11 for the D4.
Click to expand...

I'm rarely if ever above f11 and mostly f4 to f6.3 with my 500 f4 or 300 f4 PF so diffraction isn't an issue for my use ... I am regularly at ISO1600, often at 3200 and sometimes at 6400, both with the D810 & D7200.
 
sk66 said:
In both of those scenarios, the bird will appear larger on the D7200... but this is the hard part... that doesn't matter one bit.

What does matter is the "enlargement" of the actual sensor area (not pixels). That's why smaller sensors have a more demanding COC (sharpness) and wider minimum aperture requirements. If you could make a contact print of both, the bird would be the same size. It's the actual enlargement that determines overall IQ and that's why MF/LF will always win.

If I take an image w/ a D7000 and compare it to a DX crop from a D800, the images and the results will be essentially identical.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter for the IQ reasons you've stated, but it does 'matter' in terms of the whole illusion/extra reach argument :p
 
BillN_33 said:
In summary, FX is better than DX for shooting wildlife and sports for the above reasons.
Click to expand...

This is clearly why the D500 is going to be such a success, especially with wildlife and sports photographers and why Nikon had to delay its release to cope with the unexpectedly high number of advance orders ;)
 
gramps said:
This is clearly why the D500 is going to be such a success, especially with wildlife and sports photographers and why Nikon had to delay its release to cope with the unexpectedly high number of advance orders ;)
Click to expand...

I need a D4S
 
BillN_33 said:
Chris - I only know what I see, (and process), in all this and that is what I have said - (for me if the D500 (sensor) can improve the noise situation over the D7200, I'll give one a go, maybe next year)

I do not understand this technical stuff, (I'll leave that to Steven who knows his stuff), but I think photographylife.com did an article of this ............. but I cannot find it
Click to expand...

Yep that's no problem, if you're happy with the d750 as I said, all good. But whether or not this is a myth or whatever is irrelevant. If I stand next to you woth your d750 and me with my d7200 and we use the same lens at 400 ISO, my bird will have more detail than yours. It will be made up of more pixels and therefore will look bigger and have more resolution.
 
htid said:
Sure, and nobody would deny that at the same size a d750 image would look better which is why fx bodies cost more than DX :) But I'm not sure that's what Bill meant and it's not the reality of the situation. In your example, cropping both to 2500x1500 would make the bird smaller in the frame on the d750 image. In a real life situation that would mean you'd have to walk whatever metres closer to the bird to get your example to work (I wonder what the real distance is...how much cloeer would you have to walk to make the distance between 300mm and 450mm the same...interesting)
Click to expand...

I just used the 2500 x 1500 as a "whatever example".

Another way to look at it..............If it was all about filling the frame we would all be shooting bridge cameras like the Nikon P900 which has a focal length of 24-2000mm. To me, FF will allow cropping of photos better, although there's still excellent photos from a DX body. Larger sensors usually work better than smaller ones.

Been an interesting discussion so far and look forward to your findings of the D500, if it's as good as some of the hype says it going to be a game changer IMO.
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear, I own/use the D810 because of it's resolution. And for wildlife, when I can use it optimally (and it is fast enough) it is the camera I choose first (for "cropability"). But it is important to understand (IMO) that having the resolution available does not necessarily mean you will benefit from it.

For example, in my case I can put a 2x TC on my 400/2.8 and stop down on the D4 and get equal/better quality as I can from the D810 400/2.8 w/o TC. What I usually do is use the D810 w/ the 400/2.8 w/ the 2x and stop down to f/8. And I know the TC is sacrificing some IQ (I cannot regain any more by stopping down to f/11). But once ISO gets to 1600 I either quit or switch to the D4 because the results will be better. Somewhere in that mix of tradeoffs is a point at which the results will be equal... I don't know exactly where that is.

If I had the option of getting closer with the D4, that would be my choice... but "options" aren't what we usually get... we get "tradeoffs" instead.
 
Last edited:
Nikon J5 - 21MPs on a 1" sensor, (2.7 crop factor) - you will get lots of pixels on your image Chris
 
htid said:
It will be made up of more pixels and therefore will look bigger and have more resolution.
Click to expand...
yes, and yes, and not necessarily...

Another factor most do not realize is that smaller pixels are much more demanding on technique/SS. When DX went above 12MP I had to start increasing my minimum SS requirements. I suspect that number is around 20-24MP for FX (I need more on the D810 than I do on the D4). And that means using a wider aperture (which is usually less sharp or not enough DOF) or a higher ISO (which produces a noisier image).
 
sk66 said:
If I had the option of getting closer with the D4, that would be my choice
Click to expand...

But that's at the crux of it isn't it, unless you happen to live in the Florida Everglades and have birds tripping over themselves to be photographed, you don't have that luxury ... the DX enables you to get an image in the frame when you can't get so close. Personally I can't imagine using a D4 + 400 f2.8 + TC2.0 when you can go D810 + bare 400 f2.8 but I get the point that you reach an ISO scenario where the D4 will out-perform but IMO it will be pretty high.
 
gramps said:
But that's at the crux of it isn't it, unless you happen to live in the Florida Everglades and have birds tripping over themselves to be photographed, you don't have that luxury ... the DX enables you to get an image in the frame when you can't get so close. Personally I can't imagine using a D4 + 400 f2.8 + TC2.0 when you can go D810 + bare 400 f2.8 but I get the point that you reach an ISO scenario where the D4 will out-perform but IMO it will be pretty high.
Click to expand...
What would be interesting would be to see test images stood in the same spot. I understand and agree with what sk66 says about resolution and IQ of FX vs DX but I'd still like to see a 24mp D7200 image vs a D750 image cropped to match the same frame as the D7200 (so 10mp) and see how they compare with my own eyes.

The other problem with the latter 10mp image is that my monitor is over 15mp so the latter image wouldn't fill my screen so the DX image would have an advantage in this regard.
 
snerkler said:
What would be interesting would be to see test images stood in the same spot. I understand and agree with what sk66 says about resolution and IQ of FX vs DX but I'd still like to see a 24mp D7200 image vs a D750 image cropped to match the same frame as the D7200 (so 10mp) and see how they compare with my own eyes.

The other problem with the latter 10mp image is that my monitor is over 15mp so the latter image wouldn't fill my screen so the DX image would have an advantage in this regard.
Click to expand...

I have done this - i.e. compared images in such shooting situations

I am also doing the same now with the D810 v D750

I have also compared the V1 - D7100 and D700

it's what I do "b****r" about
 
gramps said:
But that's at the crux of it isn't it, unless you happen to live in the Florida Everglades and have birds tripping over themselves to be photographed, you don't have that luxury ... the DX enables you to get an image in the frame when you can't get so close. Personally I can't imagine using a D4 + 400 f2.8 + TC2.0 when you can go D810 + bare 400 f2.8 but I get the point that you reach an ISO scenario where the D4 will out-perform but IMO it will be pretty high.
Click to expand...
IME, there is a small range of application where the D810 can beat the D4, and there is an equally small range at the other end where the D4 can beat the D810. And there is a huge range in-between where the D810 just uses more pixels to record larger file sizes for no real benefit.

A more apt comparison might be a D800(16MP DX crop)/D7000(16MP)/D4(16MP)... at one point I owned all three. I got rid of the D7000 because it was nothing more than a DX crop from the D800 and I didn't like the camera (handling/options) as much. For that use I just put the D800 into DX mode.

In that link I posted earlier I compared/tested the D4(16MP FF) to the D800(36MPFF/16MP, 1.5x DX crop) and the Nikon1 V2 (14MP 1", 2.7x crop) in the same less than ideal situation using the same lens combination. I tried to balance the considerations of diffraction/SS/ISO noise the best I could and the results were nearly interchangeable.
 
Here are two images of a RTHU. Taken in relatively same situation/distance, one w/ the D4 (400mm no TC) and one w/ the D810 (400mm w/TC, less crop/larger file)... viewed at the same size, can you tell which is which?

_SGK5492-Edit.jpg by Steven Kersting, on Flickr

SGK_4057-Edit.jpg by Steven Kersting, on Flickr


Did you guess right?
 
Last edited:
Yes, but they really aren't a comparable set IMO.
 
sk66 said:
Here are two images of a RTHU. Taken nearly identically, one w/ the D4 and one w/ the D810... viewed at the same size (bird, not image overall), can you tell which is which?

_SGK5492-Edit.jpg by Steven Kersting, on Flickr

SGK_4057-Edit.jpg by Steven Kersting, on Flickr


Did you guess right?
Click to expand...

There is less DOF in one - so it is the camera that needs the wider fvalue when shooting in the exact same conditions
I think that the top one is the D810 - unless you have thrown a V2 in to confuse
 
Last edited:
I, me, we are going a bit Off topic guys

the thread is supposed to be discussing how marvellous the D500 is and how Nikon are selling it at a not to be missed price and that all the world wants one and that's why they are not supplying any, (on time)
 
An interesting point was made earlier re shutter speeds needing to be raised to 'cope' with higher resolution and it got me to thinking what the cut off resolution was for the average person where you need to use faster shutters than 1/effective focal length? Also at what point did sensor resolution surpass 'resolution' of the average 35mm film? I know this latter point is kind of hypothetical as you're comparing pixels with lines, but it'd be interesting nonetheless ;)
 
snerkler said:
An interesting point was made earlier re shutter speeds needing to be raised to 'cope' with higher resolution and it got me to thinking what the cut off resolution was for the average person where you need to use faster shutters than 1/effective focal length? Also at what point did sensor resolution surpass 'resolution' of the average 35mm film? I know this latter point is kind of hypothetical as you're comparing pixels with lines, but it'd be interesting nonetheless ;)
Click to expand...

Also - many bird photographers are shooting at higher and higher ISO values more and more
 
BillN_33 said:
There is less DOF in one - so it is the camera that needs the wider fvalue when shooting in the exact same conditions
I think that the top one is the D810 - unless you have thrown a V2 in to confuse
Click to expand...
Top one is D4 shot at f/2.8 w/o flash. The bottom one is D810 at f/8 with flash.
 
sk66 said:
About as close as I can get from images I have... they are different tools and I seldom use them "interchangeably."
Click to expand...

Fair enough but they are not a fair comparison, different lighting, different 'crop', different ISO etc ... needs to be like-for-like to prove a point :)
 
sk66 said:
About as close as I can get from images I have... they are different tools and I seldom use them "interchangeably."
Click to expand...

One from a D4S at ISO400 and another from a D7200 at ISO2800 ... I'm sure you can guess which is which but hopefully it will demonstrate that for the 'typical' wildlife photography engaged in by members of this forum, the difference between a £4500 FX camera and a £700 DX camera needn't be so substantial as one might initially assume.

Chaffie1.jpg


Chaffie2.jpg
 
BillN_33 said:
https://photographylife.com/dx-or-fx-for-sports-and-wildlife-photography


found it

he uses the word Myth

11) Summary
In summary, FX is better than DX for shooting wildlife and sports for the above reasons. The only reason why anyone should be shooting with DX is lower cost. If you can afford high-end FX, there is very little reason to stick with DX. Don’t listen to photographers that say that their D300s or D7100 is better than the D4, because it gives them better “reach”
Click to expand...
He is wrong simple as that.
 
If it were all about image quality, and didn't take into account cost, size and weight, then there would be no crop sensor options, and so much less choice in lenses. Everyone would have FF cameras (for distant subjects) large lenses and possibly TCs. Thankfully there are options at different price, size and weight options. You pays your money etc.

I would rather have the option of a 300mm lens on a DX camera as opposed to 400-500mm lens on a FF camera. It may not be real 'reach', but it works for me. :)

Add in that the DX camera has 10fps, (possibly) best AF, and the same pixels count of a camera 3+times the price, and the D500 looks like a bargain. ;) For some they will not need the higher fps, better AF, (presumably) better high ISO performance than other DX cameras, that is why Nikon has other cameras to choose from. Others may think that the DX option will not be good enough, and for those there are FX options. Choices again. ;)

I want a DX camera to do everything, like use my D300S for, and the D500 (after a very long wait :rolleyes:) looks like it could be it. Hopefully I will have mine at the end of the month. :D
 
redhed17 said:
If it were all about image quality, and didn't take into account cost, size and weight, then there would be no crop sensor options, and so much less choice in lenses. Everyone would have FF cameras...
Click to expand...
No, if it were all about image quality, surely everyone would have medium format cameras.

Hang on a sec. If it were all about image quality, everyone would have 5x4 cameras.

No, wait. If it were all about image quality, everyone would have 10x8 cameras.

Err... What was your point again?
 
S 1 30 DSC_0223.JPG S 1 30 7CC_4441.JPG D4s starts to break up when trying to obtain comparable size (reach).600mm x2 converter.It would be interesting to see what a D810 would look like.
 
Ok, just for same/same.
Same type of bird, same branch, same distance, same settings, same minimal processing, same everything. Slightly different pose/focus. One is D4 and the other is D810.

_SGK7280.jpg by Steven Kersting, on Flickr

SGK_5602.jpg by Steven Kersting, on Flickr

There really isn't any difference at the same size... it's all about "matching dots." A lens projects dots, a sensor records dots (pixels), and it's displayed in dots (ink/pixels). When they all match you get maximum resolution. If you take a D8xx image and display it smaller you smash dots together. It's not really until you use them differently, to do different things, that it really makes much difference. In this case, the D810 image will not present larger/better because of the ISO/color noise at 1600 (neither image was adjusted).
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
An interesting point was made earlier re shutter speeds needing to be raised to 'cope' with higher resolution and it got me to thinking what the cut off resolution was for the average person where you need to use faster shutters than 1/effective focal length? Also at what point did sensor resolution surpass 'resolution' of the average 35mm film? I know this latter point is kind of hypothetical as you're comparing pixels with lines, but it'd be interesting nonetheless ;)
Click to expand...
I can tell you that for me it was when DX went above 12MP and FF went above 16MP... exactly where I can't say.
I don't know about film vs digital, but that's kind of irrelevant if the eye is limited to ~ 14MP.
 
BillN_33 said:
I, me, we are going a bit Off topic guys

the thread is supposed to be discussing how marvellous the D500 is and how Nikon are selling it at a not to be missed price and that all the world wants one and that's why they are not supplying any, (on time)
Click to expand...
I'm considering the D500 if the AF is better than the D810...
 
BillN_33 said:
most of the time i use single cell - sometimes small group
Click to expand...

i have only had my D810 a week - sold the D700 and D7200

my D750 is easier to use and all in all it seems to have the right balance for what I shoot and at the distance I normally shoot birds at

In some situations I have the D810 with the 600mm f4 + 1.4TC on a tripod and the D750 hand held with the 300PF + 1,7, (now)

previous to that it was the D7200 + 1,4 hand held

I think that I will grab another x 1,4TC for the D750 + 300PF as I feel very comfortable with that set up hand held

I only use the 1,2 TC with the 300mm f2.8 VR

my comments in previous postings relate to consistency, as well as the other points mentioned

(if I feel that the D810, is too much pixel density wise I will probably look for a D4S) - for my type of needs

I prefer optical reach to digital cropping
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top