TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

No I’m not. The discussion was about low noise high ISO performance, which is the data I posted (from the tables below the DR chart - note the headings for each column) If you want to compare the actual measured DR, just look at the charts for each body above the table. The available ISO which you posted on each camera has nothing to do with the actual dynamic range. Just because you can set the ISO on a particular camera to a particular value has nothing to do with how it actually performs.

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

As you say, the discussion was about low-noise at high iso. At very low light levels, The D500 at high ISO has the edge.

Dynamic range and low noise at high ISO are two different things.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Stan, I am well aware that they are two different things, but I think we’re not on the same wavelength. Look again at the data I posted. The TESTED low noise high ISO number for the D500 is about 2500, and the same figure for the D750 is over 5000 (higher is better).Then note that the number of stops of the D500 is a full stop lower than the D750 (again higher is better). If you’re having difficulty interpreting these numbers, pick two cameras at opposite ends of the spectrum, say something like a D300 and a D5, and it will become clear. If not, come back, and we can discuss DR, low noise ISO and this data further.

Cheers.

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

That ISO is NOT the max for a low-light photo. it was the ISO used when measuring the dynamic range.

Low light photo's rarely need the the full dynamic range - so with the D500 with a higher max ISO can take low-light lower noise photo's.

there are a lot of D500 D750 comparisons on the internet. at normal light levels, the D500 is close to the D750 - but the problem with most is that they do not use the same lens and this can give differences in sharpness plus the image size due to the crop is different.

Let me give an example - here is one of a night barbecue that I took hand-held at 1/8th second ( nowhere to put a tripod) at ISO-10,000. Apart from the lights around the garden, it was a pitch black night.

Yes, pixel peep and you can see noise: It does not have the full dynamic range as you can see that the garden lights are blown.

At this low-light level and ISO - what would the noise be like with the D750?

I am in my 80's and a FF camera and lens is too heavy to take with me to the park or walking photo-shoot. That is why I have the D500. As the D850 - operating in Crop mode has about the same Meg sensor - and as the D850 body is close to that of the D500 - I could put my DX lens on it for my walks - and also an FX lens ( e.g. the Nikon 105 mm macro). For me, is the difference in performance significant enough to get a D850? Personally I don't think so. ( the D750 is right out of it here as the sensor MHZ is not high enough)

(Download)

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Wow yes this is extreme...with a FF it would be a tad less perhaps but still noticeably noisy. There are practical limits with either sensor size. Weddings inside churches would be a more practical example... other D500 posters here have said that lighting situation works well with it.

Daylight photography anyone? :)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Stan,

First off, no one is denigrating the D500, disagreeing that is an excellent crop camera or with your choice. It is an excellent camera, and I’m sure you’re happy with it. Having said that, you have some basic misperceptions concerning low light high ISO performance, dynamic range and how it is measured. As you become more acquainted with the concepts, you will find that:

Almost everyone (especially pros) understands that all else being equal, full frame sensors, because of their larger pixels and spacing have an advantage at high ISOs. In the cameras compared, that is roughly one stop. (crop cameras have their advantages also)

If you read carefully the testing methodology and definition of the columns that I posted, you will note that low light ISO and EV mean exactly that. I suggested that you look at a much older and limited performance previous Nikon, the D300 and compare that to Nikon’s premier D5 and note that the numbers of the D5 are markedly better. Have you done that? If so, the takeaway should be that higher numbers in both categories mean better high light low ISO performance, which is also what I contrasted with the figures I published on the D500 and D750.

The available ISOs on your camera are not the same as the actual dynamic range (which is bounded on the low end by noise). Just because the D500 allows you to select and ISO above 50,000 does not mean a shot at that ISO would be usable. It also does not mean that just because you can SET a higher ISO on the D500 than the D750, that it will produce better DR or lower noise at ISO 10,000 than the D750. It won’t and every pro who shoots FF (and those that don’t) knows that. To convince yourself of that, plug in the D750 and D500 into the DR chart I referenced, and look at the respective curves. You’ll notice that the D750 curve is higher, showing better dynamic range. If you still doubt it, take a look at a professional sporting event where professionals are paid to bring home the shot. You’ll find that the vast majority are shooting full frame Canons or Nikons - there is a reason for that. You’ll find the same is true for photojournalists for major newspapers and publications and the majority of paid professional wedding photographers, and there’s a reason for that as well.

Finally, compare the specs on the weight of the D750 and the D500 and you will see that the are almost exactly identical. I will grant you that DX lenses are typically lighter than FX, BUT I also note (and you should also) that the high performance lenses are almost always FX, so if you want to shoot with Nikon’s highest performance lenses, the weight will be the same, whether mounted on a D500 or a D750.

Stan, what I am NOT saying is that you and perhaps most other amateurs who do not need the extra high ISO, low noise performance of a FF shouldn’t choose an excellent crop body like the D500. It is less expensive in the long run than a FF, and I’m sure it will serve you well. What I am respectfully suggesting is to stop trying to defend your choice or defend the indefensible. You made an excellent choice, quit second guessing and enjoy your excellent camera and post some more photos for us to enjoy.

Best wishes,
Chris

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

Hi (Again :-)

Ok - here is a daylight example of why I like the D500. This was taken 'hand-held' using the 16-80 mm lens that came with it. It was taken at ISO 400 so I can use a shutter speed of 1/1600 sec.
Below it is a crop taken from the end of the park path. ( using the raw to avoid JPG artifacts)
As you can see, it is reasonably sharp for hand-held.

Stan

(Download)


(Download)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Wedding inside churches or reception venues, like night sporting events, are one of those corner cases where a FF can be a real advantage. At my son’s recent wedding reception, at night in a very well lit large venue, both the hired pro (shooting a pair of D750s) and I (5D3) were shooting FF. I was using an 85 f1.8 prime, typically at f2-2.8 (to get a little DOF), 1/250-1/300 and ISOs between 8,000 and 10,000. If I had been shooting a body with worse high ISO performance, even by 1 stop, I would have had to either lower the ISO and shutter speed (to 1/125), risking blur or shoot at the same ISO and deal with substantial noise. That’s a case where a FF and fast glass is worth the price.

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

Hi,

For wedding photography I fully agree with you. The D750 ( and D850 :-) is far better - for several reasons, the better full dynamic range and the higher Meg sensor so that when hand-held, one can frame a bit larger and crop to the needed size. ( and, for some shots - depth of field).

To me, it takes a special kind of person to be a good wedding photographer. As well as knowing how to use the camera, there is the choreographing of the bride before, the couple during and after the I-DO, the group photographs etc. ALL without intruding into the wedding itself. Then there is the time in post-processing.

While I know how to use the camera - doing a wedding or posing portraits - is "right out".

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

A lot of purchasers of the "latest"/"best" believe their photography will suddenly improve. Surprisingly, it does not.

john515

Hi - Thanks to everyone that responded - I purchased a used 5d mk iii on ebay --- waiting for it to arrive
john

john515

Thanks everyone for your help
john

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Congrats - excellent choice 😎.