# DXO review of the D500 -- priceless



## ahsanford (Jun 16, 2016)

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D500-sensor-review-Performance-redefined

4 points lower score than last year's D7200. 

Worse low light performance than their Rebel equivalent D5500. 

_*Verdict: "Performance redefined."*_

#dxo #fairandbalanced

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2016)

Lolz. :


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 16, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D500-sensor-review-Performance-redefined
> 
> 4 points lower score than last year's D7200.
> 
> ...


Dxo and dpr competing each other with love fest titles for Nikon reviews.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2016)

Well, now...we should grant DxO the fairness which they eschew. 'Performance redefined' makes perfect sense. We generally expect a new model to perform better than its predecessors, in this case performance has been redefined as 'worse than older, lower end models from the same manufacturer'.


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Worse low light performance than their Rebel equivalent D5500.



Worse high ISO score yes, but actually better high ISO performance asides from colour sensitivity- dxo for ya, don't take the scores at face value

edit: added high ISO


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 17, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> dxo for ya, don't take the scores at face as value



fixed


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 17, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > dxo for ya, don't take the scores at face as value
> ...



Thank you, and yes you are correct


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The dynamic range graph is interesting. From ISO 800 through to ISO 102400, the graph looks "correct". But at ISO 100-400, the graph is doing something a bit strange.




I imagine they're using something like Aptina's DRPIX at around 640 (switching out to a separate set of amplifiers, effectively resetting to a higher "base" gain) and that the chart doesn't have sufficient resolution to show it right. 

Here's a plot of A7R2 DR vs ISO, it's even more prone to reversals - http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11135


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 17, 2016)

d7200 and d500, have almost similar DR, SNR and ISO sensitivity graph. But there is a big jump in d500 tonal range graph. What does it indicate? 
Between SNR and DR, which one is important and what is the real world usage significance? Most of the current crop cameras have same SNR graph.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 17, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> but perhaps they are doing the same, IE less base performance but better amplified performance. Makes sense to me btw.



Can you explain that? Why are they mutually exclusive? Would not better base amplification performance yield better high amplification performance?


----------



## d (Jun 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D500-sensor-review-Performance-redefined
> ...



Given that the article linked to is titled a "sensor review", and thus its scope - like every every other DXO camera sensor review - pertains to the output from the sensor (with subsequent camera processing of course); the assigned DXO camera score being derived from measured performance characteristics of the sensor (however bizarrely weighted they may be) without consideration of the camera's handling, AF capabilities, build quality etc etc; and given that you know this already...why bother posting the above? In the context of a discussion about comparative DXO sensor scores, AF isn't a consideration. Who's the one trolling?

d.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 17, 2016)

anyone else getting a really bizarre looking SNR graph?
latest Flash but still funky hooked graph with 3 different browsers.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D500-sensor-review-Performance-redefined
> ...


When I google internet troll:
"_In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement._"

Adam does not hide who he is, so he puts his reputation on the line when he makes comments or other posts. He started this thread so he's not derailing any conversation and is sharing what has been published. How is that troll-like at all?


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 18, 2016)

d500 tone range measurement could be another dxo chuckler.


----------



## d (Jun 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Given the history of this site, this thread looks like it was deliberately started (to me) to provoke readers into an emotional response and that it is inflammatory in nature (i.e [1]). There are other ways the thread could have been started - especially better quote used.



Oh please. Using sarcasm to point out the contradictory nature of some of DXO's conclusions doesn't even approach "inflammatory" - you're the one trying to be provocative, Dilbert.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


If I were to justify the DXO article I would go about it like this...

Lets start by defining a performance camera as one that shoots at >8fps and has a very good phase detect AF system and >3s deep buffer etc...

When APS-C performance cameras are considered then one camera jumps out as the class leader: The 7D Mark-II. Released in 2014 the Canon 7D-II was the first APS-C DSLR to offer speed and AF performance previously only available in top-end professional cameras... The D500 matches almost all the specifications of the 7D Mark-II however it's new sensor provides measurable improvements over the Canon in terms of image quality. When you consider that the D500 brings x,y,z benefits without any obvious drawbacks then it is clear that this camera is performance redefined. It is the new class leader in a class of two. Nikon sports and wildlife shooters finally have a modern, high-performance, APS-C option.

So in conclusion, if you want to have a civilized discussion then think and make sound arguments. No need to accuse people of trolling.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D500-sensor-review-Performance-redefined
> ...



3,000+ posts here and this is a first: apparently I am a troll.

Let's unpack the thread opener. Every time I drop a message with #dxo #fairandbalanced, it is to highlight how absurd one of these things is:

[list type=decimal]
[*]DXO's opinion of a lens being 'stellar' or 'disappointing' based on how many megapixels are sitting behind it.
[*]The complete opacity of their scoring system.
[*]The decision to publish an overall score metric, and how it seems to not be strictly tied to its three main sub-scores.
[*]Often, their praise of a product is nonsensical or runs completely against the grain of _their own scores they just reported_. This is often the cherry on top when one considers a company-specific bias at DXO.

[/list] 

In this case, #3 and #4 are the culprits here. I was just pointing that out. I wasn't throwing a hand grenade at Nikon nearly so much as mocking a company that rates a camera solely based on non-published testing methods and then promptly disregarded them in the write up.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 20, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Lets start by defining a performance camera as one that shoots at >8fps and has a very good phase detect AF system and >3s deep buffer etc...
> 
> When APS-C performance cameras are considered then one camera jumps out as the class leader: The 7D Mark-II. Released in 2014 the Canon 7D-II was the first APS-C DSLR to offer speed and AF performance previously only available in top-end professional cameras... The D500 matches almost all the specifications of the 7D Mark-II however it's new sensor provides measurable improvements over the Canon in terms of image quality. When you consider that the D500 brings x,y,z benefits without any obvious drawbacks then it is clear that this camera is performance redefined. It is the new class leader in a class of two. Nikon sports and wildlife shooters finally have a modern, high-performance, APS-C option.
> 
> So in conclusion, if you want to have a civilized discussion then think and make sound arguments. No need to accuse people of trolling.



+1. In the very specific segment of 'top-end performance crop SLR sensors': there are only really two on the market. The 7D2 and the D500 -- Pentax doesn't have a same class rig, do they? (I thought they were more in the 80D / D7200 space). In that very small segment, the D500 is clearly the best. 

The D500 is a fine rig. I await the 7D3 and see how it stacks up.

Again, I have no crusade against the D500 save for its published ISO limits. Extending them to 1.6M implied it was much much better than their prior crop products, when any glance at the testing would imply it's very close to prior generation performance that simply has added the ability to the turn the ISO dial further to the right. That, in particular, is a parlour trick of marketing, and I find the decision to offer it and tout it in release materials to be terribly misleading.

- A


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, now...we should grant DxO the fairness which they eschew. 'Performance redefined' makes perfect sense. We generally expect a new model to perform better than its predecessors, in this case performance has been redefined as 'worse than older, lower end models from the same manufacturer'.



They didn't define the definition.

Sort of like "depends on what your definition of "is" is? 

Sek


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I got none of that?

Sek


----------

