Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review

The pop up flash is also useful for out door fill.

What do you mean by "better"? More megapixels? Faster AF? Higher ISO? Higher IQ?
Have a look here for a start, and we are talking FF vs APS-C
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Nikon%20D500

I call BS on, "iwannabedated". It's an oversimplification. Not true logic. Not the whole picture (pun). A half-truth is a whole lie. Nothing personal; because he might really believe it. Sure there are perks to the high end; but let's not summarily forgot the cons. That's before we talk price and why it's really not OK for some things to cost 100 times more; just for 10% (overall) better. Why? Because you're still being taken; even if you don't care. What's worse; is that makes things worse for all buyers in total. Imbalanced in the manufactures favor.

As to weighted on AF. Just because new AF technology is reviewed more; that does not mean they are inappropriately pushed. Reviewing is difficult. However, I do agree in the whole and total photographers camera. At least where we have (in part) already succeeded.

Too much emphasis on AF? The camera is made for AF performance, and people buy it for its AF performance.

You do realize that the d7200 is a great camera but can not handle being used as a professional sports camera. While the d500 can, it's not only the more points of focus, the faster autofocus but the more correctly locked onto a target and continuing to track that target. Plus the quickier frame rate combined with the larger buffer in a more durable camera body. Like the d5 I don't think Nikon expected the d500 to be as popular among hobyist but to be more of a professional tool for wildlife and sports.

I agree with dpreview score. In my opinión, nikons (or Sony) sensor are not an issue. Fx cameras have similar scores in IQ with their different models and with Dx cameras is almost the same IQ (d500,d7200,d5500). This tell me that now dpreview is getting more into testing Af performance, in the field shooting, handling, etc things that will affect the scoring and not just the IQ. If you compare the the handling, the lowlight Af, the fps, of the d500 and d7200 they seem to be quite different acording to users, so maybe that why the high score.

You all sound like you're betting on horses. Because basically you are. It's an addiction. GAS. The point being, not which is the least bad; but totally diverting you from the fact none are as comprehensive as even possible. Much less then adding to that some new benefits that is truly better. ...and what's the point of a new great thing if it is layered over a poor foundation negating it; in most shots or usability issues???

MANUFACTURERS: MAKE A BETTER CAMERA. Else WAIT them out. No you don't have to choose one of the very poor choices today. If you can shoot then you can hold out. They will get the hint. PRICE included!

You should find a Mamiya review and tell the author that too much weight is given to detail reproduction.

This camera is made for the great AF. Everything else is a welcome addition. At this point no camera in Nikon DX world is even close.

The NX1 is dead.

Maybe you should read the review instead of remembering some numbers.

Because it's a better camera, specs don't tell the whole story. It's not like it was even a big gap, the NX1 was highly praised, it's just not quite as good as this camera. And that is a compliment not a criticism.

The nx1, with fw 1.4 (NEVER tested by dpr) is a much faster camera than it was with previous fw versions.

Its af is very precise and fast, if you know how to work with it (very different way from a typical dslr).

Its video is at least 2 hears ahead of d500 (and this make it about 3.5 years ahead, considering it was released 1.5 years ago) and the built quality is arguably better as well.

But...big BUT, it is only a samsung.

And you'll hear a lot of silly replies stating that it's dead. As if this could have impacts on the score.

Simply, nx1 with fw 1.4 should have scored at least 9x%, where x > 2.

The NX1 is a very fine camera. But it has two significant disadvantages over a DSLR that impact its professional usage, namely 1) battery life and 2) an electronic viewfinder, no matter how good, lags in low light. As someone with both a DSLR and a mirrorless, I can also safely say that shooting for long periods with an EVF is a huge strain on your eye.

Don't get me wrong, the NX1 can be used professionally for certain types of shoots, However, the D500 and other flagships, was designed as a pro grade workhorse aimed primarily at photojournalists who might have to shoot for days without being able to recharge batteries in the field, and having to spend a lot of time looking through a viewfinder waiting for the right moment.

Thermidor;

I shoot action and sports with an A77ii that has an EVF and I find the viewfinder of no hindrance at all. I used SLRs/DSLRs for 45 years so I know the difference. The biggest problem with the NX1 is it isn't made any more. You may have problems with EVFs but I do not, at least good ones.

As tbclass said,evf in some new mirrorless cams is gorgeous. Actually I would not shoot with an ovf anymore, not even under torture ;-) after trying the one in nx1.

As to battery life. 500+ shots per battery and the capability to charge via usb while working -> powerbanks -> unlimited life.

The NX1 with battery grip has good battery life. Not in the 1000+ photos though that some pro cameras can do. Good enough for me. The NX1 is far from "dead", as long as the cameras and lenses work and are operational. Third party batteries are plentiful and can also use a USB power pack for video shoots.

try the xpro 2 with metabones speedbooster and some nikon legacy glass
like the 100mm ais nikkor 2.5 with 1.6 f stop light transmission and 100mm fov .... the x pro sensor resolves way above its 24 mp due to non bayer array...this direct control of ss and aperture puts it ahead of other modern cameras

its mindblowing and you get fuji magic with nikon glass ....youll never go back

King of traditional dslr's
They have the best dslr options at nearly all price points for the last couple of years.

The D810 is not a sports cam. This is. The pro sports cams start at $6000.00.

Thats why.

first of all, the D500 has 2x the frame rate of the D810. Not many sports shooters would want 5fps when they could have 10. second, the only FF model with comparable AF is the D5, which costs $4500 more. An 810 is more of a landscape/portrait camera and will be less capable at wildlife and action.

This is a great question and one I wish we could answer better by showing you via side-by-side tests.

Basically, aside from the while 10 fps thing, the D500 can continuously focus with subject (3D) tracking during bursts far better than a D810, or even D750 for that matter. We're fairly certain from our experiences shooting sports that a D5 can do even better.

While a lot of people are going to say 'well duh' to that, I never found it immediately obvious from a technology standpoint. For example, a D4 with EXPEED 3 will also subject track during bursts better than a D750 with EXPEED 4. So it comes down to things other than just stated processors/technologies.

And you just have to test to figure out which one's better.

My guess is that:

1. D810 has to devote more processing power to reading out more pixels during bursts, affecting AF performance.

2. D750 has fewer pixels to read out so can perform better.

3. Mirror is down for a cumulatively longer period on a 12 fps D5 with very short blackout, so AF/metering sensor readings work better.

4. D4/D5/D500 have other un-stated processors dedicated to AF/scene analysis. D5 actually is advertised as having the first dedicated AF processor, though teardowns in the last have shown dedicated processors already in previous models.

In a nutshell, it's complicated. :) And not, since a little bit of side by side testing does show the D5 > D500 > D750 > D810 for AF subject tracking during bursts. So for those who need it, it's worth it.

Rishi how much better is the d5 in comparison with the d500 regarding AF... that would be an interesting test comparison.

@PVCdroid
I know that even DPR staff stopped replying to comments/posts like yours, but do you actually think Nikon paid DPR money to give them high scores? Seriously?

'It's in their DSLR preferred blood.'

Weird, given the number of times I've been accused of being a die-hard a7R II fanboy.

Interesting. So the Canon 7D Mark II wasn't revolutionary enough for you back in 2014, or how managed to get "only" 84%? Sure the Nikon D500 is better, but the Canon had most its specs 2 years ago, is only behind in iso and maybe af capabilities.
Another interesting fact: the Canon 7D Mark II has 44 review samples, the 6D only 35, the D500 came out a few weeks ago and already has 109 sample images.
Nikon cameras get the highest ratings on this site, only the Canon 1 D Mark IV seems good enough for you ppl.
So don't be surprised if many readers would consider you favoring Nikon over Canon.

How can you give such a glowing review (and purposely downplay issues) when it's becoming more and more clear that Nikon is rushing products to market with inadequate QC in-house testing? At this point, people are hesitant, and for the right reasons - lack of confidence. Seems Nikon is content to have the public beta test their cameras, and reviewers downplay - well most of them. Seems DPR is not very objective when it comes to different manufacturers. Just saying...Thom Hogan is a Nikon guy, and seems (to be perfectly honest) a lot more careful in his analysis than
DPR...

Rishi, I am sorry to have invoked your wrath. If I were to buy a car where the battery I owned didn't work, I would be slightly unhappy. I have 2 version 20 and 1 version 01. So if I were to go to the D500 and get rid of my D7100 & D7200, I have one battery I would have to throw away. Additionally, I have 4 Lexar 1000X cards that I have used in those cameras.Wow. Get rid of those.
I like Thom Hogan because he is more believable. Right now I can't see any reason to upgrade. There is a lot to like about Nikon. Too bad they had to release a Beta version of a camera which was to succeed the D300s (had one of those). For its time it was a more complete camera. I wish I could say otherwise, but for my tastes you seem to write with a bias.
I know multiple people with Canon cameras and they seem to get along fine. Their photographs are great. Where did they go wrong?
It will take me some time to wear out my D7100 & D7200. By that time there will be a D500s with 12 fps.

Lets see, I have never kept the battery of an old car when I bought a new one. A bit weird. You sell the extra battery with the cameras, the 20 are updated for an updated camera. I guess you should have bought Sandisk cards, there is a reason they are number 1, and they work perfectly in the 500, whats with that, I guess Nikon forgot to tell them how to make them fail. You don't want to upgrade? fine, but don't come in here trash talking DPR about being "believable".

That latest bug doesn't even affect functionality. If we were to sit here and list out every bug on a Sony camera... We'd have a book.

Thom is doing a good service: hopefully Nikon is reading and will make fixes. We'd also like to have a place where we collate all such information for manufacturers and users alike to benefit.

But suggesting that somehow these small teething issues, that largely affect all electronics today (trust me I'm not a fan of them either) should outweigh our objective assessments of camera attributes like image quality, AF, subject tracking, ergonomics, etc., is questionable at best. Yes when it's so bad it literally affects usability (Surface Pro 4 crashes & battery life come to mind, or smart home tech teething issues that prohibit them from functioning as advertised), it should weigh in further. But that's just not the case with the D500, as far as we can tell thus far.

That last link to Thom's latest issue is just grappling at straws...

And for the person that said 'but I hear Canons shoot just fine' -- of course they do. Many of the world's best images are made with Canons. And Nikons. And Sony. And Hasselblad.

Which has nothing to do with our objective tests, reviews and scores.

But the fact that I have a battery with the correct number and it doesn't work in a camera in which states in the literature the required battery is EN-EL15. Where does it state in the literature the battery version has to be Li-ion-20 rather than Li-ion-01. Don't you have spare batteries for any of your camera gear? I think the that most of the Nikon DSLR use that battery. When you sell your camera, do you give them all of your spare batteries with that if you have other Nikon cameras that also use that battery. I have also read that battery life for the D500 (CIPA) is in some instances not what it is rated.
Are not Lexar 1000x UHS-2 cards approved by Nikon for use for the d500 in their literature? So why would I not have a reasonable expectation they would work in the D500.
I have Nikon equipment. I am happy with them. But the D500 is an unfinished camera. There are numerous issues with the D500 as there are with all cameras. And it isn't the first time with Nikon recently.

Well said, Rishi

Well said, Sandy B.

@rz350
Go f...ing buy a new battery or return the camera. gees!!

Give it up, ghostwind. The camera is awesome. Everyone knows it. No one wants to hear your whining about a camera you will never own.

If anyone's going to fix something, I'd bet on Nikon, of late. Just look at their recent track record with the D750 flare and shutter issues. They did the right thing in both those cases.

And more importantly, you're probably not going to experience any issues to begin with. We barely had any issues, and the majority of folk don't either.

That's not to say there aren't issues; I encounter frustrations with my a7R II daily. But it also gets me shots with ease I had far more trouble getting with other systems. And the same will hold true for the D500.

Rishi, I wouldn't worry about it. It's just some few Canon folks who must have Nikon envy or something. Canon might eventually release something new and those who live vicariously via their camera brand will feel better. Here, I'll go ahead and give the 7D MkII a "Guidenet Gold Award" to keep them happy in the mean time so they can move forward with their photography.

As far as the "Loose Ends" are concerned, Richard prefaced it with not at all being sure they were all bugs and much more testing would have to be done to see. Why bother when they are fairly small and will be corrected the same as any new camera does during the first update or so. It does give the whiners something to point at, though. ;-)

People forget the filter bubbles in some of the first T6i and T6s models. Now that's a QA issue. Or, how about the white orbs on the Fuji X-10 white orb issue? They get fixed, but it's the same with all the brands and new releases. This D500 seems pretty clean in comparison.

@rz350 Don't be a silly goose. We have enough whiners whenever a new model of anything hits the market. I seems to me if your only complaints over this particular camera is batteries and a brand of SD cards, there's not much to worry about.

As far as Thom Hogan goes, he's in it for the same reason as the likes of Ken Rockwell, to get hits on his site. One way to do that is to spark and fan the fire of controversy. Then the sheeple come flocking about, each with their 2 cents mimicking the blogger. Why? I suppose it makes them "kewl." It happens like clockwork with every new release. Next we'll get the forum buyers, reviewers then returners, each with some negatives. The rest of us are photographers and out making photographs.

Wat a great photo, well done. How do you find the Sigma? Been looking at that and the Tamron for 600mm reach for my 7dii. 😃

Or Nikon, Tamron or Tokina...

Still got the Nikon 17-55mm and it still takes stunning images

Nikon 16-80 2.8-4, Nikon 35 1.8, Sigma 30 Art 1.4, Sigma 18-35 1.8, Sigma 50-100 1.8 and many others. An "old" 70-200 2.8 is nearly perfect on such DX camera. ;)

Depends on what you're shooting - I have both an a6000 and a D7100 because I use teh a6000 for family, toddler, normal stuff, and the D7100 for the long stuff (E-mount glass doesn't get longer than a $1200 70-300).

If you dump the Nikon gear, please do it slowly! I've seen too many people jump into mirrorless only to realize what-you-see-is-what-you-get is nice, but the lens selection sucks, or the IQ isn't what they're used to.

If you actually use all $20k of that gear, I'm going to guess any mirrorless system you move to will not have proper replacements for it all, either in performance or existence.

Man, changing from Nikon to Sony. I would never do it but that's me. I've been a serious photographer for over 35 years and have an engineering background. I have Nikons going back to F3, FM, FG, D40x, D300 and now D7200 and I love the superior quality and reliability of Nikon. I've taken over 300k shots with Nikon's - film and digital. I love Sony video and audio, but the wealth of professional user input that Nikon has means, to me, that my Nikon product will be exactly what I expect - precise and reliable. Canon comes close to that aspect. Sony, Panasonic, Samsung are far too new to have that kind of extensive engineering prowess, reliability and customer data. Fuji, Pentax, and Olympus are good as well, but they don't have the professional legacy and experience that I need to invest in their products for serious use. When more news and other professionals start using their products (and not just for an ad campaign - a freebee), I might consider it.

My 2 cents.

"thinking is it worth replacing 20k worth of Nikon gear?"

With a bag of Sony bodies? How long and how extensively have you "tested" your a6300?

But that would only boost the "features" sub-score!

Anyone from DPR on this? I don't expect these rating numbers to be an exact science but this one got me puzzled.

Mike: the difference is....in everyone's head. :)

p.s.: NX1 has way better exposure recovery from dark areas, btw. Not to mention the 7.5MP more. A huge difference.

And in video, the NX1 kills the D500. Of course in many other areas as well.

But, unfortunately, it was just a Samsung.

BTW samsung made a washing machine with WIFI years ago. How can WIFI be worth writing about in a camera review 2016. It was 5 years ago Samsung started the WIFI trend.

hard to get excited about the NX1 or any Samsung NX these days, since they've been discontinued.

i have no idea why the NX1 didnt get 95%. have they ever ranked any camera that high? But, if you look at the NX1 review from 2014, it got dinged for limited lens selection, and inconsistent AF in low-light. Given that the D500 has class-leading AF -- an important factor for a sports/action body -- that alone may have warranted the extra 4 points in scoring. And obviously, there are more available lenses as well.

No camera has ever gotten a 95%. And there's no way the NX1, of all cameras, would: it absolutely does not have the continuous AF performance in bursts of a D500 (or D5). Great camera though. A downright model for the ergonomics we should expect from mirrorless cameras.

""""Apple basically churns out the same phone"""""?
You're so troll

Troll or no troll, point well made. Apple is currently existing on its past laurels and memories. The result is what happened to its stock from its high.
But @Brorjace is missing the point. If everyone followed the commentators about Apple, the company would no longer exist. Apple fans are following like sheep on brand name.
The iconic video that came out for the early Mac to try to draw people away from the PC and Microsoft has been turned upside down. Apple is the new Microsoft

Agreed! I hear all these people talking about buying a camera then returning it immediately for something "better" I've purchased at least 10 camera bodies in the last 30 years and have never, ever, returned one. Or saying that they are going to sell all their thousands of dollars worth of equipment from brand X to switch to brand Y. I believe little of that. I and other pro's I know will get far better results by practicing and learning about what we have than we'd ever get chasing a 1% sharper sensor. Great pictures are made by learning your craft and educating yourself, not with specs, but with techniques and by stretching your aesthetic boundaries. The camera is a tool to capture that artistic sense. Not a tool like a hammer, but a tool like a palette of paint, some brushes and a canvas.

True points on past laurels, and they may no longer have the newest features, but they still make a quality product that lasts. I've never had another brand PC or phone with comparable durability or battery life. My 4 yr old work provided MacBook Pro (used daily M-F) still gets about 4 to 6 hrs on a single charge. I've never had a Windows laptop (personal or work) with that kind of battery life. Same experience with my iPhones.

@Peiasdf: Oldest first has been re-added (right-most tab).

the usual apple problems then

I'm sure it will sell well to those looking for a wildlife/sports camera as it looks like a great package however there are a lot of us ex D300 users who have moved on. I cant imagine carrying around this big a system ever again though.

Totally agree ET2.

And ogl, what are you viewing the images on? The computer monitor? Camera lcd? Phone screen? Print?...

So many variables come into play when viewing digital images captured with a digital sensor.

Regardless of the camera an image is taken with, if one wants "closest to life" color representation then they're going to have to make sure everything is professionally calibrated and consistent throughout their system. Don't even get into the effort it takes to physically print an image with accurate color - extremely expensive equipment and expertise is required. And the results still won't duplicate reality, just approximate it.

Another thing, in reality light is being reflected off objects in three-dimensional space. No way this can be duplicated by pixels or dots of ink on a flat plane.

So which company /camera sensor /processor captures the "most true-to-life" color and how can this be measured?

Colour filters for sensor are different for each camera of different manufacturer. It's fact. It couldn't be fixed by software at 100%. Yes...You can change a lot of settings in RAW converter, but you can't change colour filters. It's forever. My eyes don't like D500's pictures colours. The bleached colours. It looks like somebody is grudge to add blue, green and red...

Ok. Can you please link me to info about the color filter arrays being different for "all different manufacturers"? From what I understand they are not.

Nikon uses sensors designed by Sony and the color filter array is already built in. The Sony color filter array differs from a normal bayer sensor in that they add the fourth color, emerald, to rgb. It's my understanding that the different processing methods of the information being received by the sensors is what determines the varied and different results between manufacturers.

I would just like some more unbiased information regarding this topic. I see a lot of people making blanket statements (crappy color) about the color results from different cameras without any facts backing this up.

Most of the sensors are made by the same few companies and are VERY similar. The camera software can make any camera's image look essentially the same as any other. It's like saying that you like the sound from stereo A over stereo B without adjusting the bass, treble and mid range. For simple point-and-shoot cameras, with no control over this, your point is valid, but with theese kind of complex and adjustable cameras, you can get any color saturation or hue preference you want - both in and outside the camera.

Highly unlikely. This is a site full of nonsense directed to Canon, especially via a majority of users that never tested more than 1 camera system, or a professional camera, either C or N. And reviewers here are in love with Sony, mostly, or everything that is non-Canon, in general.
But: my advice / opinion is to read multiple reviews (US & EU), not just DPR, and also to go and test a certain camera model yourself. The best way is to borrow it before you buy it, so you can test it on your specific type of photography / needs. Then you can determine if, for instance, Canon's AF is as poor as DPR claims, or Nikon gets 10 out of 10 clear shots (can be, but not always). You see, in real life many things can happen, so it might be that the field test can produce different results vs a review. I have seen wonders worked with both Nikon and Canon, some really unexpected, considering the field conditions.
P. S.: my most frequently used camera is a Leica. I will buy either the D5 or the 1DX II (not decided yet, Canon optics have a slight edge), because any of these two will be formidable.

@karlkik - Agreed. But this site is not about objective blind tests. That would be too logical, because people could only go to Consumer Reports test and pick one of the top cameras and save themselves a lot of time and effort.

The D70 was a 6.1MP camera...

One of the most incorrect comments posted to DPR of late. The D500 is at least more than 2 stops ahead of the old CCD tech in the D70 in terms of high ISO noise performance, and some 4 stops ahead in terms of base ISO dynamic range.

If that's not progress, I don't know what is.

No manufacturer has yet implemented IBIS in an APS-C body, so it's not as if Nikon is lagging behind the competition. IBIS is only in micro-4/3ds and full frame bodies for now. (Also, unless I'm mistaken, there is still no DSLR of any type with IBIS.) Nikon has plenty of optically stabilized lenses, so it's not as if this is a major issue.

"No manufacturer has yet implemented IBIS in an APS-C body, .."

That happened over 12 years ago!

Minolta did it first when it came out with the 7D in 2004 and Sony carried it on with the A100 - my first d-slr which I bought specifically because it had IBIS over a Nikon D90. My A77 has it today.

I came to appreciate IBIS based on my first digital camera which was a Minolta A1.

Pentax has also had it in aps-c d-slrs for a while.

The technology is mature. It's been around for over 12 years in APS-C d-slr photography and a bit like tilting rear screens I am baffled why it's nots on every digital camera. Nikon's aversion to it seems very strange to me.

As it it being inferior to optical stabilization well obviously your lens has to have it first , many Nikon primes do not and optical stabilization can introduce optical anomalies in the image anyway.

As IBIS advances and you buy new bodies you get upgraded IBIS but you are stuck with the OIS that came with the lens.

Pentax have had ibis sence 2007 i think, in all dslr released, and in their full frame dslr.

IBIS does not work as well as in lens systems. Also, any new lens you get has the latest stabilization system in it, which, in may cases, is a full stop or more better than that of it's predecessor. In this way, you get the best, and most up-to-date stabilization system with every new lens. Not to mention, that the in lens system is optimized for that lens rather than IBIS, which is an attempt to work for all lenses, even those not even designed yet. In addition, IBIS is not very effective with telephoto lenses, which is one of the main reasons you need it. Lastly, do you really want your 24 megapixel sensor and its attachment wiring getting moved around hundreds of times per second for each IS picture?

Norseman, i change camera while my lenses stays forever. And the investment in lenses far exceeds camera investments, and the need to change lenses to get the newest os would cost a small fortune.

Dave Oddie...

What's a pentax?? ;-)