D500

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 wildlife is your thing then the D500 is a great choice. I was out with it testing the Nikon 200-500 yesterday and the C-AF really impressed me with birds at the local lake. It was a really dull day and upto ISO 8000 was reasonable.

I'll be writing up an article in the D500 + 200-500, Fuji XT2 + 100-400 and Olympus EM1 II + Pana Leica 100-400mm once I've tested them all more.

I'd say the D750 is still 1 stop better than the D500 but the D500 is an improvement over the D7200. White balance is somewhere between the D750 being a little warm and the D500 being a little cool for that scene.
 
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...
I personally prefer the WB of the D750 in those but you can tweak the WB to your heart's content on these cameras anyway so you can get it looking how you want.

For wildlife bias I'd choose the D500 for the extra reach in the viewfinder and wider AF spread. As an alrounder I'd personally still choose the D750. Either are superb though (y)
 
Last edited:
What I can say it each to our own.. I have learnt this myself lol

The D750 is a fantastic camera so is the D500 it what works for you that counts...
 
snerkler said:
I personally prefer the WB of the D750 in those but you can tweak the WB to your heart's content on these cameras anyway so you can get it looking how you want.

For wildlife bias I'd choose the D500 for the extra reach in the viewfinder and wider AF spread. As an alrounder I'd personally still choose the D750. Either are superb though (y)
Click to expand...
Would a cropped 750 image to give a similar view be better than a standard 500 image in terms of noise etc? Not talking about the 750 in crop mode.
Most of the shots I take with my 7000 are cropped anyway.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Would a cropped 750 image to give a similar view be better than a standard 500 image in terms of noise etc? Not talking about the 750 in crop mode.
Most of the shots I take with my 7000 are cropped anyway.
Click to expand...

You have a point there
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Would a cropped 750 image to give a similar view be better than a standard 500 image in terms of noise etc? Not talking about the 750 in crop mode.
Most of the shots I take with my 7000 are cropped anyway.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't like to say without running tests tbh. When I tested the D750 against the D7200 and cropped the D750 in post to match the framing of the D7200 the D750 was still better in terms of noise to my eyes, but I'd imagine it's a close call with the D500. Maybe rookies will loan me his D500 so I can run tests ;) :p
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Would a cropped 750 image to give a similar view be better than a standard 500 image in terms of noise etc? Not talking about the 750 in crop mode.
Most of the shots I take with my 7000 are cropped anyway.
Click to expand...
Just get the d500 then consider what full frame takes your fancy as you play with your takes of an evening...in your house coat, cravat, night cap and leather slips, yep just like me...lol
 
Hey guys....
Whats the big deal with XQD cards ?
I currently have a single 32gb 80mb Sandisk SD and have no issues at all ?

I need to increase my storage but XQD prices are scary!
 
Hertsman said:
Hey guys....
Whats the big deal with XQD cards ?
I currently have a single 32gb 80mb Sandisk SD and have no issues at all ?

I need to increase my storage but XQD prices are scary!
Click to expand...
I think unless you need the extra write speed to shoot continually for ever, or need have a back up for critical stuff like weddings etc etc, id stick with the sd's that work. They are miles cheaper and do the job. When/if Xqd get to £1-£2 per gb sort of price, might consider it. but unlikely for a few years yet,
 
idigitize said:
I think unless you need the extra write speed to shoot continually for ever, or need have a back up for critical stuff like weddings etc etc, id stick with the sd's that work. They are miles cheaper and do the job. When/if Xqd get to £1-£2 per gb sort of price, might consider it. but unlikely for a few years yet,
Click to expand...

Same here, no need to use one and on my D7100 always used it for overflow for the kind of stuff I shoot and never got to that stage where I couldn't swap cards if the need arises
 
snerkler said:
Really nice image, although it looks a little on the dark side overall imo.
Click to expand...
I seem to prefer under exposed and shadowy images, must be my eyes but what is correctly exposed to most seems too bright to me...?
In fact that image is very bright compared to my usual uploads.
 
Last edited:
Hertsman said:
Hey guys....
Whats the big deal with XQD cards ?
I currently have a single 32gb 80mb Sandisk SD and have no issues at all ?

I need to increase my storage but XQD prices are scary!
Click to expand...

SD 95MB/s cards are fine but so are the 1440x XQD cards, you don't need the faster cards unless you really plan on gunning it!
 
tom24 said:
In fact that image is very bright compared to my usual uploads.
Click to expand...
Eh? I'd say it's dark compared to your usual uploads.
It's not under exposed to me, but the nature of the lighting is causing darker shadows.
 
Last edited:
tom24 said:
I seem to prefer under exposed and shadowy images, must be my eyes but what is correctly exposed to most seems too bright to me...?
In fact that image is very bright compared to my usual uploads.
Click to expand...
Yep, always down to preference (y). I generally prefer the darker image too.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Eh? I'd say it's dark compared to your usual uploads.
It's not under exposed to me, but the nature of the lighting is causing darker shadows.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're probably right. The body is exposed well, but the face/head is a bit dark/in the shadows which may give the 'illusion' that the image is underexposed. I may have tried brushing in exposure to the head, but that's just me ;)
 
Bit dead in here these days. Guess we all
Happy users nothing to moan about [emoji106][emoji106]
 
That sigma Macro seem to be a good lens to have.. I have had the Nikon version before and didn't quite like it as if I set Aperture to 2.8 it didn't always stay like that depending on distance I think it was but was told that how Macro lens suppose to work but it didn't happen when I had the Canon Version when I was a canon boy.. How does this Sigma work?
 
rookies said:
That sigma Macro seem to be a good lens to have.. I have had the Nikon version before and didn't quite like it as if I set Aperture to 2.8 it didn't always stay like that depending on distance I think it was but was told that how Macro lens suppose to work but it didn't happen when I had the Canon Version when I was a canon boy.. How does this Sigma work?
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware all macros are like this, surprised the canon isn't.
 
snerkler said:
As far as I'm aware all macros are like this, surprised the canon isn't.
Click to expand...

Well the canon 100mm 2.8 IS L Lens I had didn't alter Aperture at all... So this is how macro lens suppose to work then.. Reading about the Sigma is nearly on par with the nick on and nearly half the price..
 
rookies said:
Well the canon 100mm 2.8 IS L Lens I had didn't alter Aperture at all... So this is how macro lens suppose to work then.. Reading about the Sigma is nearly on par with the nick on and nearly half the price..
Click to expand...
Just done a bit of reading up on it. For some reason Canon doesn't show the effective altered f-stop in the settings even though the lens behaves in the same way. In order for Macros to focus close the lens has to move farther from the sensor and effectively increases the focal length of the lens. And if you know how f-stops are calculated they are a measure of the focal length and physical lens aperture, so as FL increases so does f-stop (assuming the physical aperture doesn't alter). Why Canon chose not to show this in the settings I don't know.
 
snerkler said:
Just done a bit of reading up on it. For some reason Canon doesn't show the effective altered f-stop in the settings even though the lens behaves in the same way. In order for Macros to focus close the lens has to move farther from the sensor and effectively increases the focal length of the lens. And if you know how f-stops are calculated they are a measure of the focal length and physical lens aperture, so as FL increases so does f-stop (assuming the physical aperture doesn't alter). Why Canon chose not to show this in the settings I don't know.
Click to expand...

That all make sense pal. thank you for sharing this. this now clears things up..
 
Well think it going to be a sigma Macro I do love taking close images and Macro in summer of Plants and things so need to get one at some point.. How much do the sigma go used?
 
rookies said:
Well think it going to be a sigma Macro I do love taking close images and Macro in summer of Plants and things so need to get one at some point.. How much do the sigma go used?
Click to expand...
mpb had a good one at 244 an excellent one at 279. I paid 250 for a mint one, came like new.
 
rookies said:
Well think it going to be a sigma Macro I do love taking close images and Macro in summer of Plants and things so need to get one at some point.. How much do the sigma go used?
Click to expand...
Not sure mate.
 
I had the sigma macro, and the aperture did change, although I wasn't sure why.
It was a good lens, but I decided macro wasn't my thing, so moved it on.
 
rookies said:
Well a few from me just to keep the thread alive too.. Just manage to get round processing a few been a very hectic week or 2 due to Mrs being ill and going to A&E and being transferred to another Hospital etc..

This one here is a ISO 12800 i was trying out...


DSC_0068-2-Edit.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr

Other 2 are just randoms..


DSC_0090-2-Edit.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr


DSC_0101-Edit-Edit.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Nice quality pics but can't help but think the top 2 a bit too cropped. Chin of the dog could do with some more space below and the 2nd one I think you need more below her head, so you get in all her hair and a bit more neck.

(IMO of course)
 
JJ! said:
Nice quality pics but can't help but think the top 2 a bit too cropped. Chin of the dog could do with some more space below and the 2nd one I think you need more below her head, so you get in all her hair and a bit more neck.

(IMO of course)
Click to expand...

Thank you for your comment it nice to know what people think. This how we learn and Become better photographers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJ!
We just picked up the Sigma 18-35 from Currys of all places, can't wait to get out and take some shots with it that aren't the dogs nose at 1.8 :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top