DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

What was stated is true-you didn't say that you have one and I didn't make it very clear. :) :)

catalint Loc: oslo

to be honest , all opinions and experience helps a lot. But some samples would be good.
For me this D500 sounds like a barrier breaking, and it came just in time to make it harder for me to pick side. DX or FX.

What I would like to see is how well D500 does with f.ex ISO 6400 in low light/night compared to the FX bodies at same settings/conditions. There are too few photo samples out there, and way too small size to be considered. I never push my D7100 to/above ISO6400. I tried it, but too much grain for my taste. And that's what I would like to see from the D500.

this new DX body has pushed the price limit very high. In fact on the same level as a FX bodies. So one would expect that this DX body should perform at least as good as the FX bodies on that level.
Having in mind that the D500 will fit all my existing equipment, I should give it a thought. But for me the 10fps, touch/tilt screen, ISO 1 trillion, does not make justice to the price.For that price , I rather move on to FX, even if it will take me some time to get my desired lenses.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I stand corrected. All the order sites I looked at said "pre orders"

They must be few and rather thin on the ground at this point.

Oh, I use the other brand's APS-C action model the 7DII.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

They started trickling down and I was in the first wave shipped on 4/21 from B&H. Obviously there are more orders to be filled,so "pre-orders" are being accepted.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Examples won't help much. What you really want are carefully controlled measurements that give precise answers uninfluenced by anything other than the variable you want to know about. The data that Bill Claff has at the website cited previously can give you those answers.

Here is a list of Nikon cameras with Bill Claff's "Low Light ISO" measurements. This shows the ISO that provides a 6.5 fstop dynamic range. Keep in mind that doubling the ISO is 1 fstop, so the D800 at ISO 3852 is about 1 fstop less than the D5 at 6982 and about 1 fstop more than the D5500 at 1832. It is not too surprising that the flagship models meant for low light have the highest ISO numbers. Note that the D500 is lower than any of the FX cameras, but it is better than any other DX body.
The numbers in the "Comparison DR/ISO" column answer your specific question about how the other cameras compare to the D7100 at ISO 6400. At that ISO the D7100 has 4.89 fstops of dynamic range. Any attempt to pull up shadows will produce more noise. So the question is then at what ISO do the other cameras have 4.89 fstops of dynamic range. The data is not a continuous graph, so all we can get are the closest values to 4.89 fstops.

To summarize what the data shows, a D500 is insignificantly better than a D7100. You won't notice it at all. However you might well find that the noise with a D500 is a little easier to remove with a denoising program. But the same would be true for removing noise from the FX images, as all have newer sensor technology than the D7100. The D810 is about 2/3 fstop better while the D750 and D800 are just a hair less that a full fstop better than a D7100. These are all enough to be quite noticeable in practice.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

LoL, $3900?!?! :lol:
Do yourself a favor and get yourself a good but cheap old alloy tripod. It will cure your shakes in a hurry!! And not much noise at ISO 100!
You never mentioned action shooting once?!?! You must be really confused as to what a D500 is for. Good luck. ;-)
SS

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

What on God's green earth would you want to shot an ISO 1,638,000 of?????????
That's ridiculous. In Deep Sky Object imaging in the dark of night I only need ISO 800.
Craig

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Aren't you the lucky one! :roll: :roll:

avemal Loc: BALTIMORE

Here is a ISO 8000.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Are these sooc? If not, why even post them? Just saying. ;-)
SS

catalint Loc: oslo

I think I need to study that table and understand it. But thank you. You have given me some proper answers.

catalint Loc: oslo

I laugh as well. But you all heard about how expensive Norway is. And yes I have to pay more compared to you.

Maybe you did not read my post entirely. I said I dont care much about the 10fps , meaning sports/action. And yes I know this camera is very good for sports. But it's also supposed to be a top noch all-arounder.

catalint Loc: oslo

I never said I want to go that high.
I've been shooting a lot of night sky, and never user above ISO 2000.
For the sky I have produced some Ok shots. But I've seen what I could do if I could push a little more.

On the other hand, I was at a DJ party where I was asked by my friend to take som photos for him. Low light, color light flashing here and there, lots og darks and shades and it was very challenging for me to take some decent sharp pictures. And this is where I feel I could have benefit of ISO range 2000-6400. I did managed to make some decent shots, but I know how much better they could have been.

So for me is just that. I want to be able to get into that range, and not suffer for very grainy result. I've seen the D610, 750, 800, 810 results, and I like how the photos look.

catalint Loc: oslo

Hi Avemal,

I appreciate the effort, but could you for example attach the originals?

Just looking at them, as you posted, they look grate at ISO 8000. What i cannot tell is how dark was it? Seems to be taken in fairly good light.
If they were in pretty dark scene, then I can tell it's looking a whole lot better just from the small samples.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Yep, it is really interesting and very good information. The key point is that 1 fstop advantage the FX cameras have over the D500 in low light.