D500

Quick update on the Tamron lens. I've not heard back from Tamron yet (not surprising as I doubt they'd have read my email yet) but I've retested the lens again this morning and get broadly the same results. However, I did discover another weird thing. If I gradually zoom the lens (ie 350mm, 400mm, 450mm etc) and focus as each FL then I can get past 520mm with all AF points working, although the none f8 ones do show obvious signs of struggling. However, when I hit 600mm only the f8 ones work. If I gradually zoom back out the f5.6 ones don't start working again until 500-520mm. Weird. It's the same whether AF-C or AF-S.

I've tested the D500 with my 24-70mm, 24-120mm and 70-200mm and all work as expected. It's clearly an issue in communication between the D500 and Tamron. Now whether this is across the board, just mine, or just the odd few I don't know.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Where does he say this? At roughly 6.38 he says the 24-70mm f2.8 on FF and Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 gather roughly the same amount of total light but not seen where he says f2.8 on both gathers the same?
Click to expand...
At 1.48 he says total light gathered. The poster behind him and his words say an F2.8 lens acts the same as a f4.2 lens. He has got this wrong by a mile. All this business about a canon 7d only having 7 percieved? megapixels when used with a full frame lens Then at 8.11 contradicts himself by saying use a crop sensor for "wildlife" (why only wildlife) to get sharper results. Crazy video he is normally very good but he is all over the place with this. He over complicates the sensor size issue completely. I use a 300mm f2.8 on a Nikon D500 and it becomes a 450mm f2.8 not f4.2 the eposure is exactley the same as if I used it on my Nikon D5 at 300mm f2.8. If I photograph the moon with my Nikon D7100 and a 600mm f4 it becomes a 900mm f4. If I use the Nikon D5 with the 600mm at f4 it has no where near the detail and resolouton of the D7100 and the 600mm f4. I don't understand what he is talking about at all !
 
shapeshifter said:
At 1.48 he says total light gathered. The poster behind him and his words say an F2.8 lens acts the same as a f4.2 lens. He has got this wrong by a mile. All this business about a canon 7d only having 7 percieved? megapixels when used with a full frame lens Then at 8.11 contradicts himself by saying use a crop sensor for "wildlife" (why only wildlife) to get sharper results. Crazy video he is normally very good but he is all over the place with this. He over complicates the sensor size issue completely. I use a 300mm f2.8 on a Nikon D500 and it becomes a 450mm f2.8 not f4.2 the eposure is exactley the same as if I used it on my Nikon D5 at 300mm f2.8. If I photograph the moon with my Nikon D7100 and a 600mm f4 it becomes a 900mm f4. If I use the Nikon D5 with the 600mm at f4 it has no where near the detail and resolouton of the D7100 and the 600mm f4. I don't understand what he is talking about at all !
Click to expand...
You're right, the way he words it is quite confusing misleading. He does say "total light gathered" it's f4.2 on crop, but that's not quite right. In terms of total light gathered it will be less on the crop sensor purely down to sensor area. In terms of exposure it is still f2.8 though. In terms of DOF he's right. DOF is related to subject distance (and actual FL of the lens) not sensor size. So the 24-70mm f2.8 on crop you would have to be further back from the subject to get the same frame.

Take the wide end at 24mm, it gives the same field of view as a 36mm on FX, so to stand in the same place with the same framing you would need 24mm on DX, 36mm on FX. However, you then have the variation in focal length and as we know, the longer the focal length the more shallow the DOF, therefore f2.8 36mm on FX will have more shallow DOF than 24mm f2.8 on DX. To match you'd either have to have f2 on DX and f2.8 on FX, or f2.8 o DX and f4 on FX. In reality it is just over a stop so it would be more like f4.2 on FX or just under f2 on DX.

The reason he says to use a crop sensor for sharper results with wildlife is only if you can't get close to the subject. You get more effective MP on a crop sensor shot than an FX cropped to DX size. However, this might not be true all the time and may be lens/camera dependant.

Take this for example, if you couldn't get close and had to use the 5D4 in DX mode (or whatever Canon's equivalent is) the 5D4 would only effectively have the approx sharpness of 10mp vs 12mp on the 7D.

Screen Shot 2017-03-30 at 11.37.25.png
 
Last edited:
Kaolin said:
I use the VR version, at the weekend it was mostly on. I purchased my D500 in Jan this year, I wonder if Nikon have been making minor modifications...
Click to expand...
Interesting thought ...
 
JJ! said:
So how you finding it so far? Tempting you away from FF yet?!
Click to expand...
Nope, I think the final results are still marginally better with the D750. I can see a compelling case for both though as the D500 would make a better sports camera in terms of AF spread and frame rate. I missed the critical moment of a polar bear splash jumping into water the other day on the D750 as the perfect shot was between frames, so with the D500 I'm sure I'd have got it. For the majority of time though the field of view is going to be an issue for me with my lenses though. For example I'm shooting the London marathon again this year and at times I think 105mm equivalent at the shot end of my 70-200mm lens may not be wide enough. Runners don't notice the cheer point until the last minute so they're pretty close before they start waving, smiling etc at the camera. It's a shame the FX sports cams are so bloody expensive. With the right glass though the D500 would be superb, I'm just not willing to start investing in DX glass, and I'm not sure there's anything that offers a similar FOV with the performance of the 70-200mm. What the Sigma 50-100mm will be like for sports I don't know.
 
snerkler said:
Nope, I think the final results are still marginally better with the D750. I can see a compelling case for both though as the D500 would make a better sports camera in terms of AF spread and frame rate. I missed the critical moment of a polar bear splash jumping into water the other day on the D750 as the perfect shot was between frames, so with the D500 I'm sure I'd have got it. For the majority of time though the field of view is going to be an issue for me with my lenses though. For example I'm shooting the London marathon again this year and at times I think 105mm equivalent at the shot end of my 70-200mm lens may not be wide enough. Runners don't notice the cheer point until the last minute so they're pretty close before they start waving, smiling etc at the camera. It's a shame the FX sports cams are so bloody expensive. With the right glass though the D500 would be superb, I'm just not willing to start investing in DX glass, and I'm not sure there's anything that offers a similar FOV with the performance of the 70-200mm. What the Sigma 50-100mm will be like for sports I don't know.
Click to expand...

Have you thought of a 24-120 f4, granted it's not quite up to 70-200 image quality but it is a very good lens.
 
gramps said:
Have you thought of a 24-120 f4, granted it's not quite up to 70-200 image quality but it is a very good lens.
Click to expand...
I have the 24-120mm f4, but as you say IQ is not up to standard, neither is AF performance. The marathon is very demanding on AF as I only have a split second to spot runners in the crowd before they disappear in the crowd again. It needs to be immediate.

The D500 was never meant to be a replacement or my primary body though.
 
snerkler said:
I have the 24-120mm f4, but as you say IQ is not up to standard, neither is AF performance. The marathon is very demanding on AF as I only have a split second to spot runners in the crowd before they disappear in the crowd again. It needs to be immediate.

The D500 was never meant to be a replacement or my primary body though.
Click to expand...
Have you tried the 24-120 on the D500, you might be surprised how much more perky it is.
 
gramps said:
Rough old tripod you've got there! :LOL:
Click to expand...
Lol, TBH I don't even know what they are, but they're all around the polar bear enclosure.

Talking of 'pods' I used my monopod yesterday as my arm's really bad at the moment and I'm struggling to hold the Tamron 150-600mm, what a PITA there are, they really restrict your freedom of movement, not great for quick changes in composition. I also find it harder to hold it steady than hand held. I'm sure I'll get used to it, but didn't find it easy for none-predictable wildlife :lol:
 
gramps said:
Have you tried the 24-120 on the D500, you might be surprised how much more perky it is.
Click to expand...
Yes ;) I can't say there's a significant difference. Sometimes I think it might be slightly more snappy, but that fact that I'm not sure tells me there can't be a lot in it.
 
minnnt said:
They're water sprinklers
Click to expand...
I thought that's what they looked like, but wasn't sure why they'd need them there as there's plenty of water around :lol:
 
snerkler said:
Yes ;) I can't say there's a significant difference. Sometimes I think it might be slightly more snappy, but that fact that I'm not sure tells me there can't be a lot in it.
Click to expand...

I dont know the IQ issues with the 24-120 but usually lenses tail off towards the edges, therefore with a smaller image circle requirement on a crop sensor, more of it will be in the lens sweet spot.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I dont know the IQ issues with the 24-120 but usually lenses tail off towards the edges, therefore with a smaller image circle requirement on a crop sensor, more of it will be in the lens sweet spot.
Click to expand...
It's not as sharp, doesn't render as nicely, doesn't have the same shallow DOF and AF isn't as snappy. It is a good lens, just not a top lens.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I dont know the IQ issues with the 24-120 but usually lenses tail off towards the edges, therefore with a smaller image circle requirement on a crop sensor, more of it will be in the lens sweet spot.
Click to expand...

snerkler said:
It's not as sharp, doesn't render as nicely, doesn't have the same shallow DOF and AF isn't as snappy. It is a good lens, just not a top lens.
Click to expand...
Another thing to note is that the lens only resolves 9mp on the D500 vs 14mp on the D750.
 
snerkler said:
You're right, the way he words it is quite confusing misleading. He does say "total light gathered" it's f4.2 on crop, but that's not quite right. In terms of total light gathered it will be less on the crop sensor purely down to sensor area. In terms of exposure it is still f2.8 though. In terms of DOF he's right. DOF is related to subject distance (and actual FL of the lens) not sensor size. So the 24-70mm f2.8 on crop you would have to be further back from the subject to get the same frame.
Click to expand...
None of it is relevant if you are comparing a crop sensor vs a cropped image using the same lens... i.e. for the same composition and "more reach" from the crop sensor.
He also states that the one records less resolution because it is getting less light, which is wrong. That could possibly be the effective result IF different exposures were used and ISO noise was obscuring detail, but it's not. And again, he is "wrong" in that using a crop sensor on a FF lens *IS* "sharper" in that it records the sharper/sharpest portion of the FOV. The differences he is noting is simply a matter of how many "dots" a particular lens is capable of focusing per area... and yes, as one would expect, in some cases a lens designed for smaller pixels/sensors has an advantage.

Re the focus points... AFAIK, Nikon does not "disable" focus points at smaller apertures. What happens is that the focus points start to become vignetted/blocked by the aperture blades and they cannot see the potion of the objective lens they are focused on, which makes them ineffective. Additionally "cross type" sensors are either a combination of a vertical and a horizontal sensor summed, or they are a diagonal sensor which is more common (i.e. neither vertical nor horizontal).
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Lol, TBH I don't even know what they are, but they're all around the polar bear enclosure.

Talking of 'pods' I used my monopod yesterday as my arm's really bad at the moment and I'm struggling to hold the Tamron 150-600mm, what a PITA there are, they really restrict your freedom of movement, not great for quick changes in composition. I also find it harder to hold it steady than hand held. I'm sure I'll get used to it, but didn't find it easy for none-predictable wildlife :LOL:
Click to expand...

@snerkler I bought a Gitzo monopod last week with the big foot along with the Sirui L20s head to go with it and initial impressions are good, so maybe an option for you with your FUBAR hands/arm. The head really makes a difference IMO, for my use, so may help you?
 
sk66 said:
Re the focus points... AFAIK, Nikon does not "disable" focus points at smaller apertures. What happens is that the focus points start to become vignetted/blocked by the aperture blades and they cannot see the potion of the objective lens they are focused on, which makes them ineffective. Additionally "cross type" sensors are either a combination of a vertical and a horizontal sensor summed, or they are a diagonal sensor which is more common (i.e. neither vertical nor horizontal).
Click to expand...
If that is the case why is it only past a particular focal length that the lens stops working rather than when the aperture stops down. I know that the longer the lens the more light is lost so could it be the case that there's enough light loss from 520mm to cause the sensors not to work but not enough to make a significant exposure difference? If that's true why would they work on the D750 and not the D500 as it's my understanding that the D500's AF points work at lower EV?
 
Swanseajack said:
@snerkler I bought a Gitzo monopod last week with the big foot along with the Sirui L20s head to go with it and initial impressions are good, so maybe an option for you with your FUBAR hands/arm. The head really makes a difference IMO, for my use, so may help you?
Click to expand...
I don't think having a foot at the bottom would help tbh as I'm forever pitching up, down, left and right depending on where I am in relation to the wildlife.
 
snerkler said:
I don't think having a foot at the bottom would help tbh as I'm forever pitching up, down, left and right depending on where I am in relation to the wildlife.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, bloody Picolax;):(.........It's the head which has made a big difference IMO as it's two way and has panning. I mentioned the big foot as I find them a bit more stable than the normal foot and I had it on my Benro pod which I lost, so wanted the same again. The Gitzo you can un-lock as one turn and they are very small turns to release/lock so seem quicker to operate compared to my old one.

http://www.gitzo.co.uk/product/0/GM2542/_/Monopod_Series_2_Carbon_4_sections

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1182201-REG/sirui_bsrl20s_l_20s_2_way_pan_tilt_head.html
 
Swanseajack said:
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, bloody Picolax;):(.........It's the head which has made a big difference IMO as it's two way and has panning. I mentioned the big foot as I find them a bit more stable than the normal foot and I had it on my Benro pod which I lost, so wanted the same again. The Gitzo you can un-lock as one turn and they are very small turns to release/lock so seem quicker to operate compared to my old one.

http://www.gitzo.co.uk/product/0/GM2542/_/Monopod_Series_2_Carbon_4_sections

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1182201-REG/sirui_bsrl20s_l_20s_2_way_pan_tilt_head.html
Click to expand...
Ahh right, I'll take a look. Thanks. One thing I can't get used to though is, if you want to shoot downwards ideally you could do with the monopod slightly lower than if you're shooting straight, and the opposite if you're shooting up. Not an issue when you've got time to adjust but if you're trying to follow a bird for example that's moving up/down, as well as across it's not easy. I'm sure it can be done as people use gimbal's on tripods so it's just practice. Certainly more awkward than hand held though ;)
 
snerkler said:
If that is the case why is it only past a particular focal length that the lens stops working rather than when the aperture stops down. I know that the longer the lens the more light is lost so could it be the case that there's enough light loss from 520mm to cause the sensors not to work but not enough to make a significant exposure difference? If that's true why would they work on the D750 and not the D500 as it's my understanding that the D500's AF points work at lower EV?
Click to expand...
The aperture is variable because the FL is variable, not because it's actual diameter is changing... it's not a matter of "light loss" but rather a physical barrier (aperture blades) blocking the AF points from seeing the portion(s) of the objective lens they need to see. What the lens reports as the effective aperture may not be entirely accurate... close enough for exposure, but adversely affecting AF. I.e. the lens *is* stopping down even though it's not reporting it.

Autofocus is kind of interesting... all points on an objective lens contains a complete image. I.e. it doesn't matter what the diameter of the objective lens is for a given FL, it will still cast the same FOV. The only thing the diameter does is limit the maximum aperture (unless otherwise limited). The autofocus module has an array of lenses/sensors that look back through the lens to focus separate images taken from separate portions of the objective lens... it is those separate images that it compares for differences/sharpness. The f/8 sensors have to be positioned/focused on portions of the objective element that are visible at f/8. I.e. when either the horizontal or vertical sensor is blocked, what was a cross type sensor becomes a line type sensor.

FWIW, the lenses of the AF module have their own aperture which is somewhere around f/7... the AF sensors do *not* get more light at wider apertures (again, it's not really about qtty of light). At wider apertures the AF system has "more images" to compare, and a more complete image overall.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Ahh right, I'll take a look. Thanks. One thing I can't get used to though is, if you want to shoot downwards ideally you could do with the monopod slightly lower than if you're shooting straight, and the opposite if you're shooting up. Not an issue when you've got time to adjust but if you're trying to follow a bird for example that's moving up/down, as well as across it's not easy. I'm sure it can be done as people use gimbal's on tripods so it's just practice. Certainly more awkward than hand held though ;)
Click to expand...

As the head is two way and panning it's using a similar/same motion as a Gimbal. I have found the tension excellent for my 150-600mm lens with no movement when pointed down etc........ It just makes life a lot easier and a necessity for me as I find the tripod too limiting/heavy. Just sling the PD strap over your head and just use the camera/lens as normal and if wanting to shot down/up just grab pod with one hand and use the camera to move direction of subject. Sling pod and camera/lens over your shoulder when walking around......Handholding is better and my preferred option, but my body now disagrees;)
 
Swanseajack said:
As the head is two way and panning it's using a similar/same motion as a Gimbal. I have found the tension excellent for my 150-600mm lens with no movement when pointed down etc........ It just makes life a lot easier and a necessity for me as I find the tripod too limiting/heavy. Just sling the PD strap over your head and just use the camera/lens as normal and if wanting to shot down/up just grab pod with one hand and use the camera to move direction of subject. Sling pod and camera/lens over your shoulder when walking around......Handholding is better and my preferred option, but my body now disagrees;)
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll certainly look into it as I can only see my arm getting worse.
 
sk66 said:
The aperture is variable because the FL is variable, not because it's actual diameter is changing... it's not a matter of "light loss" but rather a physical barrier (aperture blades) blocking the AF points from seeing the portion(s) of the objective lens they need to see. What the lens reports as the effective aperture may not be entirely accurate... close enough for exposure, but adversely affecting AF. I.e. the lens *is* stopping down even though it's not reporting it.

Autofocus is kind of interesting... all points on an objective lens contains a complete image. I.e. it doesn't matter what the diameter of the objective lens is for a given FL, it will still cast the same FOV. The only thing the diameter does is limit the maximum aperture (unless otherwise limited). The autofocus module has an array of lenses/sensors that look back through the lens to focus separate images taken from separate portions of the objective lens... it is those separate images that it compares for differences/sharpness. The f/8 sensors have to be positioned/focused on portions of the objective element that are visible at f/8. I.e. when either the horizontal or vertical sensor is blocked, what was a cross type sensor becomes a line type sensor.

FWIW, the lenses of the AF module have their own aperture which is somewhere around f/7... the AF sensors do *not* get more light at wider apertures (again, it's not really about qtty of light). At wider apertures the AF system has "more images" to compare, and a more complete image overall.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I still don't understand why the D500 is more affected than the D750 though :confused:
 
snerkler said:
Thanks, I'll certainly look into it as I can only see my arm getting worse.
Click to expand...
I would get the Sirui L-10 and save 25%... I don't find the panning function to be a benefit on a monopod. And the smaller panning mechanisms do not tend to lock particularly firmly... it becomes a problem when you want to tilt the head but the lens isn't aligned because it twisted/turned.
 
snerkler said:
Thanks. I still don't understand why the D500 is more affected than the D750 though :confused:
Click to expand...
Number of points, how tightly they had to be spaced, and where they are focused. The f/8 focus points are most likely a bit more centrally located/oriented on the D750...
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, bloody Picolax;):(.........It's the head which has made a big difference IMO as it's two way and has panning. I mentioned the big foot as I find them a bit more stable than the normal foot and I had it on my Benro pod which I lost, so wanted the same again. The Gitzo you can un-lock as one turn and they are very small turns to release/lock so seem quicker to operate compared to my old one.

http://www.gitzo.co.uk/product/0/GM2542/_/Monopod_Series_2_Carbon_4_sections

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1182201-REG/sirui_bsrl20s_l_20s_2_way_pan_tilt_head.html
Click to expand...
Lol, I thought when it was two way it'd tilt forwards and backwards and side to side but it looks as though it just tilts forwards and backwards?

sk66 said:
I would get the Sirui L-10 and save 25%... I don't find the panning function to be a benefit on a monopod. And the smaller panning mechanisms do not tend to lock particularly firmly... it becomes a problem when you want to tilt the head but the lens isn't aligned because it twisted/turned.
Click to expand...
I guess it's a benefit when using a foot on the monopod so can't swivel the pod itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top