Field Review: Nikon D500

by adamhanlon Wednesday, October 26th, 2016

Wetpixel Field Review: Nikon D500

Alex Mustard on the D500:

I made the mistake of coming to the D500 from the D5, so initially I was a little underwhelmed. But after a couple of dives I really started to gel with the camera and began to notice where it outperforms any DX (1.5x crop) sensor Nikon SLR and almost all FX (full frame) Nikons.

A close up portrait of a large female orange painted frogfish (Antennarius pictus). Nikon D500, Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR, Saga Trio +5, 1/250@f18, ISO160

The most obvious character trait is that the D500 feels fast, ready to focus in an instant, ready to fire off a batch of photos (Adam gave it to me on Continuous Low!) almost as soon as you brain thinks shoot and seemingly before your finger has responded and pulled back on the shutter! This gives it a pro feel, ready to do that most important thing for any camera – which is to get the shot.

I am a big fan of crop sensor SLRs, arguing that they are the best all-rounders as underwater cameras. Camera manufacturers make far more money from selling a full frame SLR, than a crop sensor, so it is no surprise that their marketing departments are motivated to make us all want the full frame variants.

A veined octopus (Amphioctopus marginatus) rears up for a better view as it returns to its den in a broken green beer bottle, half buried in the sandy seabed. d500, Nikon 60mm f2.8, 1/40@f8, ISO400

But if we consider the on paper advantages of full frame: better high ISO performance, less depth of field when the lens is open, more resolution, better image quality - most are insignificant in the field. High ISO is only relevant for wide angle and here full frame cameras give away more than a stop of their advantage because of the need to stop the lens down further than a crop sensor camera, to achieve the same corner sharpness behind a dome port. The narrow depth of field possible with a full frame camera is also not relevant underwater because so few underwater images are taken with fully open apertures. Resolution and image quality are also pretty moot, because few of us exploit these to the full with the ways we use our images. It is one of the reasons why Nikon have dropped from 24MP to 20MP from the D7200 to D500. In short, when these factors are taken away, it is the advantages of the smaller sensor, smaller lenses, lenses better suited to underwater shooting, smaller, cheaper cameras and housings, that actually make DX more attractive than FX for Nikon users.

A portrait of a estuarine stonefish (Synanceia horrida) taken at night, illuminated with a single strobe. D500, Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR, 1/250@f14, ISO400

Compare the D500 and D810 for underwater shooting and the D500 outperforms the D810 in AF performance and in action – in other words getting the shot. And while the D810 has better image quality in theory, this and its other advantages are rarely realized underwater.

One factor I did not have time to look during my day with the D500 in Lembeh was diffraction. When Nikon increased the resolution of their DX sensors to 24MP with the D7100, diffraction finally became significant to underwater images, particularly in the realm of super macro shooting. With the D7100 (24MP) the effect of diffraction is visible from f/16 and starts to limit the resolution significantly above f/22. The slightly lower resolution of the D500 should mean that we won’t notice diffraction as early, but I didn’t make the tests to find out.

D500, Nikon 60mm f2.8, prototype Saga trio lens, 1/250@f9, ISO100

Conclusion

To cut to the chase, the D500 is, in my opinion, the best camera that Nikon currently make for underwater use. To be sure, there are some specific things that it does not do as well as some of the other models in Nikon’s product range, but if you had to select one camera to do it all, the D500 will not disappoint.

I should qualify this by mentioning that I have not used the D5 underwater. I have no doubt that it performs amazingly well. For most though it is perhaps a prohibitively expensive option.

D500, Tokina AT-X 107 AF DX 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5, Zen 170mm dome, 1/100@f8, ISO800

It is perhaps unfair to compare the two in terms of pure image quality, but if I was planning to solely shoot large wide angle reef scenes, the D810 combined with big powerful strobes like the Seacam Seaflash 150s or Ikelite DS161 would still be my tool of choice. Saying that, it needs to be paired with expensive lenses and large (and also expensive) ports to deliver its potential. It will be both simpler and significantly cheaper to get very good results with the D500. In absolute terms, the very high resolution cameras are unlikely to deliver their full potential due to water clarity, technique issues and lens/port optical compatibility.

D500, Tokina AT-X 107 AF DX 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5, Zen 170mm dome, 1/200@f11, ISO800

For macro use, the D800/D810 allows for more cropping while retaining acceptable resolution. For shy or skittish subjects, this can be a boon. However, the D500 offers a 1.5 times crop factor, which gives macro lenses more reach by “definition”. The D500’s amazing AF performance will do a better job of keeping those subjects in focus too!

D500, Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR, 1/250@f18, ISO100

For those already shooting the D7200, the D500 offers significantly better AF, improved low light performance, a more rugged build quality and faster shooting. The offset is the expense of the camera and housing.

If you are still shooting a D300 or D300s, this is the time to upgrade. The performance enhancements will allow you to capture images that your existing set up will not. The ability to properly use ISO as an aid to exposure, the improved image quality, the AF performance and its speed all add up to being persuasive arguments for a new camera.

The Nikon D500 is available via your local specialist retailer (please check with Wetpixel advertisers whenever possible). It’s suggested selling price is US$1999.95.

References

(1) Hogan, Thom, D500 Guide pp 61.
(2) Nikon USA Support site, D800%20/%20D800E%20Technical%20Guides, “3. Improving Optical Performance pp 26.
(3) Hogan, Thom, D500 Guide pp 529.
(4) Ibid pp 530.
(5) Ibid pp 720.

FTTC Disclosure

The camera and lens were purchased from Reef Photo and Video by the reviewer. The NA-D500 housing was loaned by Nauticam free of charge for this review.

I wonder how the D500 compares to its predecessor the D7200? I guess the shooting speed and buffer must be the major improvement. A reason to make the switch to new camera and housing?

Posted by Albert Kok on 2017-04-15 11:41:12

Hi Jose,

I have not used the OM-D E-M1 Mark II, so cannot really comment a great deal. My understanding is that it is a very good camera, but in common with all mirrorless cameras, does not perform quite as well as new SLR models.

Posted by Adam Hanlon on 2017-04-09 05:24:39

Hello Adam, thanks for the review.
What would be your opinion now vs the one em1 mark2?

Kind regards,
Jise

Posted by José Alonso Luna on 2017-04-08 09:37:46

Regarding battery life on the D500 I found that turning off wifi by turning flight mode on the camera is a great benefit in getting more battery life out of the D500

Posted by Mark Gray on 2016-11-05 20:29:37

(1) Must use a 2933x XQD 2.0 (or faster). (Note Lexar Pro XQD 2.0 cards are also available in a slower 1400x speed)

(2) If the Qual is 14-bit uncompressed RAW or TIFF, the max continuous shot count will be less than 200. All other RAW and jpg modes will give 200 with the fast XQD card.

Posted by Dogs Of Marymoor Park on 2016-10-31 13:36:21

So in short the Nikon D500 when used in conjunction with Lexar Pro XQD 2.0 cards can take 200 continuous RAW images at top speed of 10fps and the number 200 has nothing to do with the "Buffer"

Posted by Mark Gray on 2016-10-31 13:23:19

The cameras buffer is a fixed amount of high speed memory which “buffers” the transfer of data from the imaging hardware to the storage card. Just as your computers RAM is a fixed amount, the buffer is a fixed amount. The top LCD shows the free space remaining in the buffer at any given time in terms of the number of shots of the current sized images.

Using a fast XQD card, such as the Lexar 2933x XQD 2.0, allows the camera to transfer fast enough that there is no back log of image data in the buffer. The 200 shot continuous limit is imposed by the firmware to keep the cameras internals from overheating. The number 200 has nothing to do with the “buffer”.

In short, by using and writing only to a fast XQD card, the D500 can shoot 200 continuous images (other than 14-bit uncompressed RAW) without pausing. Using a slower card, or writing to an SD card will drop that number significantly as the buffer size and need to "buffer" the data will come into play.

Again, the number 200 has nothing to do with the “buffer”.

Posted by Dogs Of Marymoor Park on 2016-10-31 09:59:46

Using a fast XQD 2.0 card and only shooting RAW in CH @ 10fps you get 29 shots displayed in the buffer. But when your shooting in CH the buffer drops down only to 20 shots left and stays there for the whole 200 shots. So if you want the 200 shot buffer you need to run Lexar pro ZQD 2.0 cards.

Regards Mark

Posted by Mark Gray on 2016-10-31 06:51:13

Brian going by your post the only major reason to jump from your current Nikon Dx setup to 4/3's Olympus is due to the fact that the housings are approximately $1500 cheaper than a housing for the D500. Since you already have a Nikon D7100 the most practable and affordable choice that I see is that you stick with Nikon as you already have a collection of lens, ports, domes, extension which go straight on a D500 housing. On the other hand if you went 4/3's you have to purchase a whole new set of lenses, ports, domes, extensions and some of those Zuiko lenses are not cheap. I believe that the Oly 7-14mm f2.8 is $1800 and the Oly 8mm f1.8 is $1000. All of a sudden the total cost of the 4/3 Olympus OMD EM1 mk2 with lenses, ports, domes, and extension doesnt make the most practical move, but only you can decided.

Regards Mark

Posted by Mark Gray on 2016-10-31 06:20:54

One note on the D500's buffer. It's only 29 shots (as reported on the top LCD) and not 200 as a lot of people incorrectly report. When shooting on CH with a fast SD UHS-I card, you may get only around 39 continuous shots before the camera starts to stutter as the buffer fills. But using a fast XQD card, the XQD can be written pretty much as fast the camera can shoot. After 200 frames the firmware will cause the camera to pause to prevent overheating. So in terms of our previous cameras, using a fast XQD card, the camera acts like it has a 200 frame buffer. But when using a slower XQD card or an SD card (or writing to both) you won't get the 200 continuous shots.

Posted by Dogs Of Marymoor Park on 2016-10-30 19:01:31

Hi Brian,

In my opinion that are a few holes in your argument!

1. The D500 is not "4th line". It is a pro camera which shares many features with the D5. It is just a DX version rather than an FX one. It will outperform the D800/810 or Df in almost all circumstances underwater.
2. The AF system is a long way in front of what is available on any mirrorless camera to date. For macro/supermacro, there is bluntly no comparison. Phase detect is simply better and faster than contrast.
3. For all wide-angle photography, higher ISO performance is a bonus. That said, we don't know how the new Olympus will compare yet.

Adam

Posted by Adam Hanlon on 2016-10-29 03:37:36

Thank you Adam (and Alex) for the first field review of the D500 that I’ve seen out there.

However, this has my head spinning. I hope one (or both) of you can spare a few minutes in the coming days to respond to my questions. I’m sure many others will also find it helpful. I apologize in advance that my thoughts are a bit scattered!

This all seems like an awesome camera for UW. I’m probably the “typical” type of person to want this. I’ve used the D7100 for a few hundred dives and have dabbled with some full frame on land (D750, Leica Q). Although I don’t need to upgrade, I could always use a boost in AF and tracking ability and can’t help but peer 6 months into the future to see my potential options.

Here’s what gives me pause. The D500 now seems to be priced exactly where the new Olympus OMD EM1 MarkII will be priced when it’s released very soon. Why should I consider staying with the Nikon line and their D500 vs jumping ship to the M43 world with Olympus’ flagship camera? The D500 is Nikon’s 4th-highest line?? D5, D8xx, df, d500….thats’s the order they price them, right? Is Nikon technology that much further ahead of what Olympus has that they’d be willing to give away their best tech on something that doesn’t retail for $3500-6500?

My diving consists of mainly macro/supermacro and some shark action. Probably 80/20 split. I don’t envision myself doing much free diving (or other situations where I wouldn't be using strobes). Is the increased high ISO ability of the D500 (I assume it's better) worth anything to me underwater (when compared to what I’ll have to work with when shooting that OMD-EM1 mark ii. The total size of the setup isn’t that important to me. I’ll have big strobes, wet lens, focus light, etc...so there’s no getting around that. I do see lenses that seem to be well reviewed for what I would find useful (Oly 8mm FE f1.8 PRO, Oly 60mm Zuiko f2.8 Macro, and possibly something like the Oly 7-14mm f2.8 PRO for some skittish sharks is the 8mm is too wide).

If nothing else, the huge discount that the UW housing manufacturers are giving to M43 users vs DSLR users is worth talking about. Nauticam has the D500 housing at $3500 while they seem to have the M43 housings sub-$2000.

Thank you in advance!
Brian

Posted by brian on 2016-10-28 13:00:50