OK so I've watched this properly now, and I take this review with an even bigger pinch of salt than I did before. I'm still not convinced by the D500 side to side tracking. If I can get 99% with my D750 I'm sure you can with the D500. Next thing is he's comparing high ISO but with jpeg. Tells me very little about the noise performance, all it tells me is that Fuji applies far more NR as can be seen by the softening and artefacts. Next thing is the images comparing sharpness at different ISO on the models and how he shows the Fuji is sharper. No s*** sherlock as he's missed focus on the D500 IMO (In fact initially I thought it looked like he'd added blur in PS for the 3200 ISO test
![Wink ;) ;)]()
). Maybe he needs to calibrate the AF fine tune (One of the big downfalls of DSLR).
Now I'm not disputing that they are both stunning cameras, and every review you see show how great the XT2 is, especially the AF system. All I'm trying to point out is that we have to be careful when looking at reviews etc online. I'm sure there will be people that make their choices based purely on reviews like this
![Eek! :eek: :eek:]()
However, neither am I saying that my comments are right, or right for everyone. I just think that it's important to question the integrity of reviews
What is interesting is that of the 13 pictures I preferred, 9 were from the XT2 and 4 from the D500. Of course, I've questioned the integrity of the other tests so I'd have to question this too, but certainly interesting.