• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon D5 and D500 (1 Viewer)

Try 25,600

that is high...
larger pixel sizes will still have an advantage at very high ISO/low light.
D800E looks pretty crappy at 25600 also,

do you use "comp" setting (for image size) in the studio scene,
means scaled down to smallest image size, of cameras selected,
I think that is most fair

for 3 times the price, the D5 should be better.
 
Last edited:
It's high but it's only to compare colour noise between jpg and RAW photos.

The D5 is better even in DX but for birding it's less than 10MP, half that of the D500 resolution.
 
The real world ISO performance for the D500 appears to be only slightly better or the same as the D7200, and very similar for dynamic range too. That's okay with me; I didn't expect dramatic improvements. In the DPReview studio image comparison tool, I do think I can see a clear improvement in noise for the D500 vs. the D7200, and I think perhaps this is contributing to a perception of slightly more "clarity of detail" in the D500. I imagine the upper limit of ISO for me might be 1600/3200 to get a really good photo under challenging lighting; at those values, the RAW images for the D500 look consistently better in the shadows, more similar to the cleanness of D750. The full frame D750 still looks best to me out of D500/7DII/D7200/D750, but the D500 is pretty close...

Thom Hogan is starting to post his early thoughts on the D500 in a special D5/D500 blog.

Dave
 
Last edited:
No matter when I order a camera Micloi beats me to it !
Just received mine and quick test with 300mm pf and 200-500 shows af is very good
Raining off and on but pigeon sat still long enough .(320 iso )
flower at 3200 iso, some sharpening but no NR
 

Attachments

  • L16_0014.jpg
    L16_0014.jpg
    132.1 KB · Views: 193
  • L16_0010.jpg
    L16_0010.jpg
    439.9 KB · Views: 198
I got mine last night (pre-ordered on day 1). This is a big year for me and new gear, with a new Olympus 300mm lens, a new small 80mm astronomy telescope and now a new Nikon camera body. I won't be able to try any real bird photography with the D500 until the weekend. I'm going to try to do the AF fine tune thing first.

I often find Brad Hill's reviews and comments thoughtful, practical and insightful. His latest entry is kind of amusing about using the supposedly "easy" new automatic AF fine tune feature on the D5/D500. I totally agree with him regarding all the possible variables that could play into fine tuning AF, and his suggestions/guidelines make a lot of sense to me.

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html

Dave
 
Last edited:
Just got my D500 today. I can see myself using this at 12800 all day long. Yes there is grain, but the colors are beautiful even at that high iso. Cleans up easily in post!

My limit with the d7200 was 3200. 6400 sometimes but it was hard to clean up.

All in all the D500 feels awesome. First time I can say that I can see myself having this camera a long time... that says alot coming from me :D
 
The full D500 review from DPR is up; http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500

A very high score of 91% but there's a few problems shown in the review.

One thing I've noticed is a 'gritty' appearance even in the low ISO photos.

I'd be interested on how well a still image can be taken from 4k video, as this is a crop of a crop, it might be useful for web use here on birdforum.net, with the D500 not needing a teleconverter for reach.
 
Can anyone with the D500 tell me what the maximum aperture for AF is please? ie. The new Tamron Gen 2 150-600 with its purpose designed 1.4xTC will supposedly (according to Tamron) report it's f9.5 as f8 and AF with cameras supporting f8 AF.

Will various combo's of Nikon lenses and TC's, for instance the 200-500/5.6 with 1.7xTC for 340-850/9.5 AF ? Is it possible to stack other TC's with the big fast glass (400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4) to also end up at various lengths and f9.5 and have this AF?

Which points give AF under these circumstances, and what is the AF performance like? Thanks for any info ....:cat:


Chosun :gh:
 
Chosun,

I have only used the 1.4X teleconverter and I've never tried it with the lenses you mentioned.

Here is some official information from Nikon:

http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d500_tips/af/focus_points/
https://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/EN_Comp_chart.html

Of course Nikon will only go on the record for their own equipment, and I think they are conservative. For example, Nikon states the latest super lightweight 300 f/4E PF will only accept the 1.7X or 2X teleconverters "with AF limitations," but I remember reading more than 1 user said the lens works ok with the 1.7X with almost no limitations, and the 2X also was still functional in decent light.

You might try the dpreview Nikon lenses forum; it has a lot more activity and you would probably more easily find people who actually own certain lens(es) and have tried various teleconverters. I found this thread but it doesn't seem to have many replies.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Can anyone with the D500 tell me what the maximum aperture for AF is please? ie. The new Tamron Gen 2 150-600 with its purpose designed 1.4xTC will supposedly (according to Tamron) report it's f9.5 as f8 and AF with cameras supporting f8 AF.
Chosun :gh:

f/8 generally seems to be the limit for the central focus points with the D500, so I would say the new Tamron with it's custom designed 1.4X teleconverter would be borderline... i.e., I wouldn't expect perfect functionality. I'm sure you read this in the link you provided, but even Tamron's official announcement said the 1.4X TC "functions normally on any camera that offers F/8 autofocusing" BUT "Subjects with low contrast and/or luminosity values can sometimes result in out-of-focus images." I would assume BIF would be a no-go at the long end, but frankly, with a 600mm f/6.3 lens, for BIF, I would probably choose to just go without any TC anyway to more easily track with the birds, and to keep that extra stop of speed and better image quality.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Thanks Dave, I read through the TC compatability chart you linked, and Nikon says that f5.6 lenses ..... 80-400, 200-500, and the 800 will not AF with a 1.7xTC (for f9.5) -- does anyone have any experience contrary to this and has managed successful AF of any sort @f9.5 ?

I found the Tamron announcement about AF (even given the caveats) with the 1.4xTC on their new G2 150-600f6.3 for f9.5 quite surprising. It must be some sort of reporting trickery ....

I'm not contemplating using it, (or even getting it at all) for BIF as the bare 6.3 can sometimes struggle a little bit as the light drops. I'm trying to work out how to get beyond, by an order of magnitude, my current 1150mm (35mm eq using the 1.3x in-camera crop mode) for shooting a nest site across an inaccessible escarpment.

I'm interested if the effect can be mimicked by stacking TC's, but have read somewhere on one of the Nikon sites that you can't stack their TC's? and that it may be necessary to use an extension tube in-between. I could get to 2340mm eq with a 600mm f4 and 2xTC for f8 and using the 1.3x in-camera crop for Centre points AF, but I'm wondering if beyond that is possible? ie. AF With the 400mm f2.8 and 1.7xTC, and stacked with a 2xTC for f9.5 and 2650mm eq using the 1.3x in-camera crop.

Also, on the D500, video is a 1.5x crop (giving 2.25x, eq over 35mm) ..... will this AF @f8, as in the 600/4+2×TC ? ..... I expect f9.5 would be too much to ask there!? :eek!:

Many thanks for any answers or comments Anyone has. I suspect you might be right about bigger audiences at dpr :t:


Chosun :gh:
 
Chosun,
You seem to be seeking fully functioning AF with a teleconverter at apertures smaller than f/8. I think that might be very tough to find.

Lately I've started to feel like AF is overrated. Yes of course it is the only way to get certain kinds of action or BIF shots, and those are some of the most compelling bird images we can get, so I'm not giving up on AF and I will always have at least one camera/lens for that.

However for a static target at a great distance like a "nest site across an inaccessible escarpment," if it is so far that you really need significantly more than your current 1150mm equivalent "reach," I would be inclined to go with a digiscoping approach, or my new preference to digiscoping, which is using a small telescope or just the objective end of a spotting scope without the eyepiece.

In my experience, teleconverters work better at close and medium distances. But no matter what the distance, they really complicate and challenge the optical system and the AF, inevitably degrading image quality to some extent. I try to avoid them entirely if I can. And "stacking" more than 1 TC would be a recipe for poor performance, IMHO.

I've tried traditional digiscoping, but I feel similarly about that approach, with both an eyepiece and a camera lens trying to work in concert. Even if you pay lots of money for a system like Swarovski's TLS-APO lens which was designed specifically to work with the eyepiece, you are usually starting out at a fairly slow aperture of ~f/8, with the aperture getting smaller and diffraction degrading your image more and more as you zoom in.

For my highest magnification bird photography, I currently like the "less is more" approach: Use a high resolution astronomical telescope with very little or nothing between the objective elements and the sensor. Get rid of eyepieces and drastically reduce the number elements in the optical train. No more AF to worry about. You'll get more accuracy focusing manually anyway. Get rid of the mirror slap and the shutter vibration. Mirrorless cameras with an electronic shutter and focus peaking work best. A very good tripod goes without saying, but I also usually turn off the in-body image stabilization (Olympus E-M1). Check out the "Photography using Astro telescopes" forum if you want to give it a try. That would be my approach for something like an eagle or heron nest at a distance. You still have to contend with the stability of the air (always a factor at distance/high magnification), but the image quality would be less compromised by the optics. As an added bonus, you might save money on such a "reach machine," compared to a prime telephoto lens with AF. And you get a great little telescope to pursue astronomy, if you want.

Just my two cents.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top