D500

Hertsman said:
Hi guys n gals...

What do you consider the highest cleanest ISO you would use on the 500 ?
Im talking daylight, but maybe needing a higher ISO to get a better shutter speed.

I didnt really know how hard to push it at the weekend.
Click to expand...

Push it as far as your happy with. Different people take noise differently.

How far did you push
 
I was seriously impressed up to 8000 just how easy any noise vanished with a little noise reduction, seems really fine noise to deal with, so I wouldn't think twice up to there.
 
idigitize said:
I was seriously impressed up to 8000 just how easy any noise vanished with a little noise reduction, seems really fine noise to deal with, so I wouldn't think twice up to there.
Click to expand...

Yup your right.. What NR do you use pal. as some work better than others but like you say the files the D500 produce are easy to clean up and work with imo
 
rookies said:
Push it as far as your happy with. Different people take noise differently.

How far did you push
Click to expand...

I didnt have to on this occasion, but as its a new body, I dont know where the limits are yet. Id rather you lot that have owned the body longer gave me some ideas, than fouund out whwn I get home that my pics were crap due to noise...... ;)
 
Hertsman said:
I didnt have to on this occasion, but as its a new body, I dont know where the limits are yet. Id rather you lot that have owned the body longer gave me some ideas, than fouund out whwn I get home that my pics were crap due to noise...... ;)
Click to expand...

Know what you mean.. Well as stated up to 8000 can be pretty good.. Ive shot higher and been able to clean them nicely. But as we all say try and shoot as low as you can to get the very best IQ
 
Was any NR done to that?
 
rookies said:
Yup your right.. What NR do you use pal. as some work better than others but like you say the files the D500 produce are easy to clean up and work with imo
Click to expand...

To be honest 99% of the time just the little simple Lightroom noise and sharpen tools are more than enough. If I was printing large I'd probably use topaz, but for everyday stuff, LR does it's stuff fine.
 
photogwannabe said:
All I can say is wow! No noise reduction? That's crazy. Way, way cleaner than ISO 4000 photos from a D750 that I was contemplating. Was this from RAW or in camera JPEG?
Click to expand...
Different conditions, the D750 has better low light/noise handling.
 
Not sure I understand, Toby. I would think that low light is low light no matter where. ISO 8000 in one's living room (lounge(?) in England?) is certainly comparable to ISO 4000 under fluorescent lighting in a shop. Could you explain what you mean by 'different conditions?'
 
Sorry but haven't had a chance to do a little write up re the Nikon 200-500mm. Been very busy with work last couple of days. Will try and write something up from my notes tomorrow.
 
photogwannabe said:
Not sure I understand, Toby. I would think that low light is low light no matter where. ISO 8000 in one's living room (lounge(?) in England?) is certainly comparable to ISO 4000 under fluorescent lighting in a shop. Could you explain what you mean by 'different conditions?'
Click to expand...
Exactly as you say, living room vs shop, natural light vs fluorescent light. It's not just the quantity of light but also the quality of light. Also, getting the exposure right makes a difference as to noise levels. All things considered equal there'll be less noise with the D750. For me the grain is finer and more pleasant with the D750, but I've heard some say the opposite. At the end of the day both are superb in this department and I'd be happy to use either at high ISO.
 
I shoot the local non-league side under their floodlights of an evening and am using between 8000 and 12,000 ISO on the D500.

Must say, that the noise irritates me. But, then again, I went from FF to the D500 so I've probably been spoilt.
 
wezza13 said:
I shoot the local non-league side under their floodlights of an evening and am using between 8000 and 12,000 ISO on the D500.

Must say, that the noise irritates me. But, then again, I went from FF to the D500 so I've probably been spoilt.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we do get spoilt. I recently went back to MFT as a second system and I now find the noise really bad whereas previously it'd not been an issue. That being said I'll still shoot at 3200 ISO in extreme situations which was dream territory not so long ago ;)
 
Like everyone says.. ISO Noise can differ depending on lighting and what images your taking..

I have found the Noise from the D500 are the easiest to clean than any other camera Ive had. Ok some time it a bit more noise than a D750 at some occasion but they were cleanable easily.

I have learnt and you all will know haha there no such thing as perfect camera..
 
photogwannabe said:
All I can say is wow! No noise reduction? That's crazy. Way, way cleaner than ISO 4000 photos from a D750 that I was contemplating. Was this from RAW or in camera JPEG?
Click to expand...

Raw my friend.. Yes tbh I have had more better chance of higher iso on the D500 than the D750 but then again sometime on the D750 they been better. It all down to what your taking a image of and what the lighting is like. Saying that the D500 files are lovely to work with
 
Just a bit of fun.:)

I have been surprised with the D500 how well it handles ISO and NR..........Here's two Coal Tit photos, I know not exactly the same for distance, composition etc....... but one is from the D750 and 300mm f4 prime and one the D500 and a 150-600mm zoom. The D750 has been cropped more as expected. Both taken around this time of year, winter.

One is at ISO 1250 and one is ISO 3200

Which you prefer without looking at Flickr for the exif.?

Coal Tit by Swansea Jack, on Flickr


Coal Tit. by Swansea Jack, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
Just a bit of fun.:)

I have been surprised with the D500 how well it handles ISO and NR..........Here's two Coal Tit photos, I know not exactly the same for distance, composition etc....... but one is from the D750 and 300mm f4 prime and one the D500 and a 150-600mm zoom. The D750 has been cropped more as expected. Both taken around this time of year, winter.

One is at ISO 1250 and one is ISO 3200

Which you prefer without looking at Flickr for the exif.?

Coal Tit by Swansea Jack, on Flickr


Coal Tit. by Swansea Jack, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Well as you asked I prefer the colours and feather detail of the first (of the bit that's sharp), but you've missed focus :p I can see more noise in the second but I'd expect that due to the darker background.
 
But the bird itself is much sharper on the second ?? Is to me
 
rookies said:
But the bird itself is much sharper on the second ?? Is to me
Click to expand...
Yes, because he's missed focus on the first so the majority of the bird is soft/OOF. However, there is a small area on it's back/nearest wing which is sharp and here the detail is better than any of the second pic.
 
snerkler said:
Yes, because he's missed focus on the first so the majority of the bird is soft/OOF. However, there is a small area on it's back/nearest wing which is sharp and here the detail is better than any of the second pic.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that expected as ISO is 1250 on that
 
rookies said:
Yeah but that expected as ISO is 1250 on that
Click to expand...
I didn't look wasn't the point of the exercise ;) TBH it's pointless comparing cameras/lenses with shots like this. Different light, different crops, different lenses etc etc. But as we've discussed before, as long as you're happy with your gear it doesn't matter what other gear can do. Plus there'll always be something better around the corner ;)
 
snerkler said:
I didn't look wasn't the point of the exercise ;) TBH it's pointless comparing cameras/lenses with shots like this. Different light, different crops, different lenses etc etc. But as we've discussed before, as long as you're happy with your gear it doesn't matter what other gear can do. Plus there'll always be something better around the corner ;)
Click to expand...

Yup I agree my friend like I said earlier in thread no such thing as perfect camera.

As you say no point comparing. As need to factor everything.
 
I'll take a noisy shot over no shot at all.

Back in 2012 at the Autosport show I took the following shot, best I could achieve with my D300 was f/2.8 1/160 iso3200. It's not the sharpest but I'm glad I took it and a few others. Many around with consumer bodies and kit lenses tried initially and gave up.

AutoSport Show by Scott, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
Well as you asked I prefer the colours and feather detail of the first (of the bit that's sharp), but you've missed focus :p I can see more noise in the second but I'd expect that due to the darker background.
Click to expand...

If I had the D500 then, the focus would have been smack on.;) And I thought it was all down to FF, DOF and a fast F4 prime:p My excuse I had only just had the lens and trying to hand hold with my dodgy shoulders, elbow, neck,etc.........:)


Seriously though, I have been fortunate to own a D750, currently a D810 and D500 and I must say I'm impressed with the D500 ISO and how it cleans up compared to my last DX camera, D7100. If anyone is considering one and wildlife yours primary subject then go for it as I don't think you'll be disappointment. When the weather clears up, I have just bought a Sigma 17-70mm lens and I will report back how it's for land & sea scapes etc......
 
Swanseajack said:
If I had the D500 then, the focus would have been smack on.;) And I thought it was all down to FF, DOF and a fast F4 prime:p My excuse I had only just had the lens and trying to hand hold with my dodgy shoulders, elbow, neck,etc.........:)


Seriously though, I have been fortunate to own a D750, currently a D810 and D500 and I must say I'm impressed with the D500 ISO and how it cleans up compared to my last DX camera, D7100. If anyone is considering one and wildlife yours primary subject then go for it as I don't think you'll be disappointment. When the weather clears up, I have just bought a Sigma 17-70mm lens and I will report back how it's for land & sea scapes etc......
Click to expand...
Good job I"m here to teach you otherwise then lol ;) :p
 
Hoping to get out and get some photos this weekend folks... Just need this bloody weather to shift...
 
davidfleetphoto said:
I did a few quick tests with the D750 vs the D500 in controlled light to see if the D500 was as good as the D750 at high ISO. Here is the link . High res images are available on my Flickr too.
Click to expand...

And what did you think

Ignore
 
Last edited:
davidfleetphoto said:
I did a few quick tests with the D750 vs the D500 in controlled light to see if the D500 was as good as the D750 at high ISO. Here is the link . High res images are available on my Flickr too.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. The 750 has the edge on noise, but for me the 500 has more pleasing white balance, although I haven't seen the original items in the flesh.
I've been pondering an upgrade to my D7000, and been considering a 500 or 750, or even a 700 and 7200. I take mainly wildlife so the crop sensor appeals, although I do enjoy landscape/portraiture as well. I think the 500 would tick all my boxes. Just need to start saving.
Thanks for doing that. :)
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
Very interesting. The 750 has the edge on noise, but for me the 500 has more pleasing white balance, although I haven't seen the original items in the flesh.
I've been pondering an upgrade to my D7000, and been considering a 500 or 750, or even a 700 and 7200. I take mainly wildlife so the crop sensor appeals, although I do enjoy landscape/portraiture as well. I think the 500 would tick all my boxes. Just need to start saving.
Thanks for doing that. :)
Click to expand...
If you mainly take wildlife then id say its a no brainer to get the d500 for the af
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Very interesting. The 750 has the edge on noise, but for me the 500 has more pleasing white balance, although I haven't seen the original items in the flesh.
I've been pondering an upgrade to my D7000, and been considering a 500 or 750, or even a 700 and 7200. I take mainly wildlife so the crop sensor appeals, although I do enjoy landscape/portraiture as well. I think the 500 would tick all my boxes. Just need to start saving.
Thanks for doing that. :)
Click to expand...

Yes I agree I have had both and yes the D500 does have a better WB and produce a nice image SOOC.. The test on that link is a bit unfair to me as the the D500 having a brighter and whiter white balance it shows the noise a bit more than the Yellow WB on the D750..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top