Upgrading from a Nikon D90 to a Nikon D500 makes a difference.

[M00ndancer]

Sold some old gear (including my D90) and got me a Nikon D500.
This baby will last me at least 20 years.

What's better? Everything...
AF points 11 vs 153
ISO performance, usable in my case from 800 to at least 6400 (4 stops)
Burst rate 4.5 vs 10
Buffer 9 vs 37 on a SDXC card
Shot per battery +200 (1300-ish)
Megapixels 12 vs 20
Image quality in general, improved...

And only 45000 on the shutter. (The shutter is rated for minimum 200k)
One of the two first images:

Image quality in general, improved...

And only 45000 on the shutter. (The shutter is rated for minimum 200k)
Two first images, high ISO!:

 

[Tks]

Anyone know what's up with the hue's like red/magenta when JPEG's are concerned and posted online? Seems like they crunch everything to pieces in terms of fidelity. So much damn compression.

Congratz on the new camera btw. I'd be scared buying a DSLR in the modern day :-| seems companies are dumping them left and right in favor of mirrorless.

 

[StevenEleven]

Anyone know what's up with the hue's like red/magenta when JPEG's are concerned and posted online? Seems like they crunch everything to pieces in terms of fidelity. So much damn compression.

Congratz on the new camera btw. I'd be scared buying a DSLR in the modern day :-| seems companies are dumping them left and right in favor of mirrorless.

I believe the picture should be output in SRGB (rather than in a wider color gamut) if it is to be viewed on the web and the viewer should use a color-corrected browser (e.g., Firefox, IIRC) or on a monitor calibrated for SRGB in an operating system environment where everything is accommodated to be viewed in SRGB.

Red and magenta are super-sensitive in terms of the color calibration of the system. Don’t know why.

Ipads are usually really good for viewing with accurate color fidelity, I think, FWIW.

One of the many hard lessons for the strugglong amateur purported photographer!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/46257101@N07/ (me)

 

[StevenEleven]

Sold some old gear (including my D90) and got me a Nikon D500.
This baby will last me at least 20 years.

What's better? Everything...
AF points 11 vs 153
ISO performance, usable in my case from 800 to at least 6400 (4 stops)
Burst rate 4.5 vs 10
Buffer 9 vs 37 on a SDXC card
Shot per battery +200 (1300-ish)
Megapixels 12 vs 20
Image quality in general, improved...

And only 45000 on the shutter. (The shutter is rated for minimum 200k)
One of the two first images:

Image quality in general, improved...

And only 45000 on the shutter. (The shutter is rated for minimum 200k)
Two first images, high ISO!:
View attachment 108011



View attachment 108012

Awesomeness!! Things have accelerated drastically on the software side too! Topaz DeNoise or DXO Photolab 4 might buy you yet another f-stop or a little more in terms of image quality. : )

 

[M00ndancer]

I believe the picture should be output in SRGB (rather than in a wider color gamut) if it is to be viewed on the web and the viewer should use a color-corrected browser (e.g., Firefox, IIRC) or on a monitor calibrated for SRGB in an operating system environment where everything is accommodated to be viewed in SRGB.

Always use sRGB for webb images and calibrated screens. But the sRGB is the most important.

 

[M00ndancer]

Congratz on the new camera btw.

Thanks.

I'd be scared buying a DSLR in the modern day :-| seems companies are dumping them left and right in favor of mirrorless.

I have no worries. This is not a consumer body. It's the baby brother of the D5. A "Full frame" mirrorless is better with video.
But with compromises on ergonomics. And only the really high end mirrorless is better (arguably) than the D500.
When taking photos, the D500 does CIPA 1350 shots before the battery dies, regardless of temperature.
The Canon R5 for example does 340.

For video I use a proper video camera and for stills I use a stills camera.

In most cases you'll have to reinvest in new lenses, making the shift to mirrorless even more expensive.