Nikon living on borrowed time?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 22:03:36 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/4/2017 8:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 03:08:39 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 4 August 2017 02:22:14 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 3, 2017, Davoud wrote
(in article ):

PeterN:
Actually I was thinking about going FF for quite a while, because I like
to do wide angle work. When the D800 came out, it suited my needs.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2l094jjday...0dawn_6423.jpg ?dl=0

Yes, very nice, but what is that gray blurry bit in the middle of the
bridge?

Yeah! What is that gray blurry bit in the middle of the bridge?

It seems like a strange place to find any sort of East River mist/fog.


looks like a bit of crap or spot of water on the front element of the lens or the filter on that lens I've noticed this on some of my photos.

I think it's probably a work platform under the bridge and the 'gray
blurry' is a cloud of dust from sand blasting or similar.


Nope. It was my FU.

But there is something that looks like a platform under the bridge. Do
you know what that is? When I first saw it, I thought it was a sign
that two photos had been stitched together, but that's not the case,
obviously. I had to look up other photos of the bridge to see that
it's in all of them.

On 8/4/2017 10:15 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 22:03:36 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/4/2017 8:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 03:08:39 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 4 August 2017 02:22:14 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 3, 2017, Davoud wrote
(in article ):

PeterN:
Actually I was thinking about going FF for quite a while, because I like
to do wide angle work. When the D800 came out, it suited my needs.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2l094jjday...0dawn_6423.jpg ?dl=0

Yes, very nice, but what is that gray blurry bit in the middle of the
bridge?

Yeah! What is that gray blurry bit in the middle of the bridge?

It seems like a strange place to find any sort of East River mist/fog.


looks like a bit of crap or spot of water on the front element of the lens or the filter on that lens I've noticed this on some of my photos.

I think it's probably a work platform under the bridge and the 'gray
blurry' is a cloud of dust from sand blasting or similar.


Nope. It was my FU.

But there is something that looks like a platform under the bridge. Do
you know what that is? When I first saw it, I thought it was a sign
that two photos had been stitched together, but that's not the case,
obviously. I had to look up other photos of the bridge to see that
it's in all of them.


This was just after dawn. There were no workers then. I may have other
images where that spot did not appear, but I am too tired and lazy.



--
PeterN

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 22:41:56 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/4/2017 10:15 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 22:03:36 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/4/2017 8:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 03:08:39 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 4 August 2017 02:22:14 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 3, 2017, Davoud wrote
(in article ):

PeterN:
Actually I was thinking about going FF for quite a while, because I like
to do wide angle work. When the D800 came out, it suited my needs.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2l094jjday...0dawn_6423.jpg ?dl=0

Yes, very nice, but what is that gray blurry bit in the middle of the
bridge?

Yeah! What is that gray blurry bit in the middle of the bridge?

It seems like a strange place to find any sort of East River mist/fog.


looks like a bit of crap or spot of water on the front element of the lens or the filter on that lens I've noticed this on some of my photos.

I think it's probably a work platform under the bridge and the 'gray
blurry' is a cloud of dust from sand blasting or similar.


Nope. It was my FU.

But there is something that looks like a platform under the bridge. Do
you know what that is? When I first saw it, I thought it was a sign
that two photos had been stitched together, but that's not the case,
obviously. I had to look up other photos of the bridge to see that
it's in all of them.


This was just after dawn. There were no workers then. I may have other
images where that spot did not appear, but I am too tired and lazy.

I didn't mean the spot at all. I was talking about the area under the
bridge starting at that spot and going to the left of the photo. The
part that Eric mentioned as a possible work platform.

On Aug 4, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 22:41:56 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/4/2017 10:15 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 22:03:36 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/4/2017 8:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 03:08:39 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 4 August 2017 02:22:14 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 3, 2017, Davoud wrote
(in article ):

PeterN:
Actually I was thinking about going FF for quite a while, because I
like
to do wide angle work. When the D800 came out, it suited my needs.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2l094jjday...%20at%20dawn_6
423.jpg ?dl=0

Yes, very nice, but what is that gray blurry bit in the middle of the
bridge?

Yeah! What is that gray blurry bit in the middle of the bridge?

It seems like a strange place to find any sort of East River mist/fog.

looks like a bit of crap or spot of water on the front element of the
lens or the filter on that lens I've noticed this on some of my photos.

I think it's probably a work platform under the bridge and the 'gray
blurry' is a cloud of dust from sand blasting or similar.

Nope. It was my FU.

But there is something that looks like a platform under the bridge. Do
you know what that is? When I first saw it, I thought it was a sign
that two photos had been stitched together, but that's not the case,
obviously. I had to look up other photos of the bridge to see that
it's in all of them.

This was just after dawn. There were no workers then. I may have other
images where that spot did not appear, but I am too tired and lazy.

I didn't mean the spot at all. I was talking about the area under the
bridge starting at that spot and going to the left of the photo. The
part that Eric mentioned as a possible work platform.

I guess they are doing some work on a bridge which is about 130 years old. If
you zoom in and move to the right end of the bridge you will see an
under-deck rig and to the right of that is another section of what appears to
be an under-deck platform. That appears to be the mirror image of the
platform which seems to end where the blotch blurs the detail.

However, there seems to be an over-budget rehabilitation project that is
never ending.
http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/brooklyn-bridge-repairs-expected-to-cost-811m/

http://www.downtownexpress.com/2016/...-2022-work-on-
brooklyn-bridge-begun-in-2010-will-continue-until-2022/
http://tinyurl.com/gmdjql8

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo.../img/httpImage
/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/152899871.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/yb2x3alg

http://static1.businessinsider.com/i...5b8b7d4b-1200-
800/img_3640.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/yd53j9vf
--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 05-Aug-17 5:34 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 4, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 22:41:56 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/4/2017 10:15 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 22:03:36 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/4/2017 8:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 03:08:39 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 4 August 2017 02:22:14 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 3, 2017, Davoud wrote
(in article ):

PeterN:
Actually I was thinking about going FF for quite a while, because I
like
to do wide angle work. When the D800 came out, it suited my needs.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2l094jjday...%20at%20dawn_6
423.jpg ?dl=0

Yes, very nice, but what is that gray blurry bit in the middle of the
bridge?

Yeah! What is that gray blurry bit in the middle of the bridge?

It seems like a strange place to find any sort of East River mist/fog.

looks like a bit of crap or spot of water on the front element of the
lens or the filter on that lens I've noticed this on some of my photos.

I think it's probably a work platform under the bridge and the 'gray
blurry' is a cloud of dust from sand blasting or similar.

Nope. It was my FU.

But there is something that looks like a platform under the bridge. Do
you know what that is? When I first saw it, I thought it was a sign
that two photos had been stitched together, but that's not the case,
obviously. I had to look up other photos of the bridge to see that
it's in all of them.

This was just after dawn. There were no workers then. I may have other
images where that spot did not appear, but I am too tired and lazy.

I didn't mean the spot at all. I was talking about the area under the
bridge starting at that spot and going to the left of the photo. The
part that Eric mentioned as a possible work platform.

I guess they are doing some work on a bridge which is about 130 years old. If
you zoom in and move to the right end of the bridge you will see an
under-deck rig and to the right of that is another section of what appears to
be an under-deck platform. That appears to be the mirror image of the
platform which seems to end where the blotch blurs the detail.

However, there seems to be an over-budget rehabilitation project that is
never ending.
http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/brooklyn-bridge-repairs-expected-to-cost-811m/

http://www.downtownexpress.com/2016/...-2022-work-on-
brooklyn-bridge-begun-in-2010-will-continue-until-2022/
http://tinyurl.com/gmdjql8

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo.../img/httpImage
/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/152899871.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/yb2x3alg

http://static1.businessinsider.com/i...5b8b7d4b-1200-
800/img_3640.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/yd53j9vf

I enjoy these insights about what goes on in the USA!

Thanks for sharing. :-)

--
David

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 21:34:33 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Aug 4, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 22:41:56 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/4/2017 10:15 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 22:03:36 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/4/2017 8:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 03:08:39 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 4 August 2017 02:22:14 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 3, 2017, Davoud wrote
(in article ):

PeterN:
Actually I was thinking about going FF for quite a while, because I
like
to do wide angle work. When the D800 came out, it suited my needs.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2l094jjday...%20at%20dawn_6
423.jpg ?dl=0

Yes, very nice, but what is that gray blurry bit in the middle of the
bridge?

Yeah! What is that gray blurry bit in the middle of the bridge?

It seems like a strange place to find any sort of East River mist/fog.

looks like a bit of crap or spot of water on the front element of the
lens or the filter on that lens I've noticed this on some of my photos.

I think it's probably a work platform under the bridge and the 'gray
blurry' is a cloud of dust from sand blasting or similar.

Nope. It was my FU.

But there is something that looks like a platform under the bridge. Do
you know what that is? When I first saw it, I thought it was a sign
that two photos had been stitched together, but that's not the case,
obviously. I had to look up other photos of the bridge to see that
it's in all of them.

This was just after dawn. There were no workers then. I may have other
images where that spot did not appear, but I am too tired and lazy.

I didn't mean the spot at all. I was talking about the area under the
bridge starting at that spot and going to the left of the photo. The
part that Eric mentioned as a possible work platform.

I guess they are doing some work on a bridge which is about 130 years old. If
you zoom in and move to the right end of the bridge you will see an
under-deck rig and to the right of that is another section of what appears to
be an under-deck platform. That appears to be the mirror image of the
platform which seems to end where the blotch blurs the detail.

However, there seems to be an over-budget rehabilitation project that is
never ending.
http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/brooklyn-bridge-repairs-expected-to-cost-811m/

http://www.downtownexpress.com/2016/...-2022-work-on-
brooklyn-bridge-begun-in-2010-will-continue-until-2022/
http://tinyurl.com/gmdjql8

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo.../img/httpImage
/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/152899871.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/yb2x3alg

http://static1.businessinsider.com/i...5b8b7d4b-1200-
800/img_3640.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/yd53j9vf

I see... I had thought that maybe it was just a permanent
reinforcement of that section, but it's really just another source of
NY comedy. Can you imagine having to live with that every night for
*years*? I wonder how many of those nearby residents are shopping for
sniper gear.

On 3/08/2017 12:15 @wiz, David Taylor wrote:
[] Ah well, once again it's proven that companies who stuff up their long
time customers, get dumped big time.
Nothing new there, they just still hadn't seen it applied to them.
Good luck to Nikon and the poor sods who bought their products, me
included.

Has your camera equipment stopped working? Are the accessories no
longer available? Repairs not possible? I just checked out a D60 I
bought many years back and it's working fine.

My D80 and my D200 are still going strong. Akshally to be totally
honest, they haven't been touched by me in well over 2 years. My
daughter uses the D80 quite often, and the D200 every now and then.

The F6, FM3, F4, F2AS and FE2 get used, but that's because I'm a film
nut. Not relevant for this.

However, I'd love to see ANY of the above cameras (film and digital) use
ANY Of the new Nikon E and AF-P lenses. From what I hear, not possible.
And to get a Nikon camera that can use those newer lenses AND the
older lenses (of which I have heaps) I have to spend a small fortune on
a Df. So, no go for Nikon.

Except for the Nikkon mount lenses, of course: heavily used in my Oly
EM5MII, thank the adapter Gods!


On the other hand, as I was unable to buy a Nikon MFT camera when I
wanted to downsize I was unable to buy Nikon, so my subsequent purchases
have produced income for Panasonic and Olympus. It was with slight
regret that I changed brand, but I've been delighted with the outcome!

Same here. And I'm finding some of the newer MFT lenses from Sigma and
Olympus are very good indeed and worth using. So even that aspect
(reusing older Nikkors in MFT) is changing...

Ah well, one's got to move with the times and Nikon's is definitely
gone, for me...

On 8/4/2017 10:00 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/4/2017 1:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 4, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/3/2017 9:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 3, 2017, PeterN wrote

snip

Actually I was thinking about going FF for quite a while, because I
like
to do wide angle work. When the D800 came out, it suited my needs.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2l094jjday...20dawn_6423.jp

g

Nice!
That is one of the best shots I have seen from you. Good work.

Thank you.

That 16mm (35mm) is a focal length I like. I get close to that with my
Tokina 11-16mm (16.5-24mm 35mm equivalent) f/2.8 on my D300S, and I
have used it on
my X-T2 in full manual with an adaptor. Currently my widest Fujinon
lens is
the XF14mm f/2.8, and I have my eye on the Zeiss Touit 12mm or the
Fujinon
10-24mm.

With the X-T2 I have developed a fondness for primes so that Zeiss
Touit
12mm
is tempting, and I am also considering a Samyang, or Rokinon wide
prime.
https://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/...roducts/touit-
lenses/touit-2812.html


https://www.samyanglensglobal.com/product/detail.do?SQ=15
Manual focus is no problem with the great Fujifilm manual focus
peaking.
That makes this a great value.

MF is usually not an issue with WA for scapes. I have been thinking
about getting a 14, but I am not sure how much I will use it, and
filters are a problem.

MF is a minor inconvenience for those who live by AF, and if you are
going to
use long exposure with heavy ND filters there is only MF anyway.I know
what
sort of concern you have with some of the WA lenses, many of which are
built
with a fat, protruding dome that precludes any screw-on filters. When I
bought my D70 I was limited in what I could afford so I bought the Sigma
14-24. A BIG mistake. It had the fat dome, and would only take internal
filters cut from gel sheets. Of the Samyang APS-C lenses I have looked
at,
the 10mm f/2.8 is without any filter thread, while the 12mm f/2 will take
67mm filters.

The Samyang FF 14mm is of the *dome* type and without a filter thread,
but at
$319, a bargain. Their other FF lens you might find interesting is the
12mm
f/2.8 @ $379, or for your D500 the 10mm f/2.8 @ $499. No filter
thread, but
they should be interesting. It seems that none of the Nikon mount Samyang
ultra-WA lenses are filter capable.

I can highly recommend the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for your D500, it has
a 77mm
filter thread. Mine has been one of the best lenses I have used on my
D300S,
now I am using it as a MF lens on my X-T2, and I have no doubt that it
will
perform well on your D500. $429.95 at B&H.
http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/products/atxpro/atx116prodxii/

...and now they have their new 11-20mm f/2.8 w/82mm filter thread $639:
http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/products/atxpro/atx1120f28prodx/

Which filters do you use?
I know you have at least one variable ND. Those are convenient, but
are not
the best option.

I use a circular polarizes
Variable ND
4 stop ND

I am probably going to add a graduated ND
And possibly an IR, in addition to converting my D300


I would consider the Lee Filter, Formatt HiTech, or VU system:
http://www.leefilters.com
http://www.formatt-hitechusa.com
http://www.vufilters.com


Then there is always the 10-24 Fujinon, about the same price as the
Zeiss.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf10_24mmf4_r_ois/




Here is the D500 @ ISO 5000

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e39lykuqn2aoxgt/20170729_2867.jpg?dl=0

Here is an NEF SOOC, taken with the D500. I probably could push it even
higher, without significant loss of IQ.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3st63pvvb1v65s2/20170729_3252.NEF?dl=0

--
PeterN

On 8/5/2017 7:20 AM, Noons wrote:
On 3/08/2017 12:15 @wiz, David Taylor wrote:
[] Ah well, once again it's proven that companies who stuff up their
long
time customers, get dumped big time.
Nothing new there, they just still hadn't seen it applied to them.
Good luck to Nikon and the poor sods who bought their products, me
included.

Has your camera equipment stopped working? Are the accessories no
longer available? Repairs not possible? I just checked out a D60 I
bought many years back and it's working fine.

My D80 and my D200 are still going strong. Akshally to be totally
honest, they haven't been touched by me in well over 2 years. My
daughter uses the D80 quite often, and the D200 every now and then.

The F6, FM3, F4, F2AS and FE2 get used, but that's because I'm a film
nut. Not relevant for this.

However, I'd love to see ANY of the above cameras (film and digital) use
ANY Of the new Nikon E and AF-P lenses. From what I hear, not possible.
And to get a Nikon camera that can use those newer lenses AND the
older lenses (of which I have heaps) I have to spend a small fortune on
a Df. So, no go for Nikon.


Both my D200 & D300 Worked fine with my old Nikon lenses that I got for
my original Nikormat. I converted them to AI when I got my F3. Of course
none were AF, but the exposure and MF were fine. Since I will soon be
reaching my 80th B'day, I am not overly concerned about what will happen
20 years down the road.

Except for the Nikkon mount lenses, of course: heavily used in my Oly
EM5MII, thank the adapter Gods!


On the other hand, as I was unable to buy a Nikon MFT camera when I
wanted to downsize I was unable to buy Nikon, so my subsequent purchases
have produced income for Panasonic and Olympus. It was with slight
regret that I changed brand, but I've been delighted with the outcome!

Same here. And I'm finding some of the newer MFT lenses from Sigma and
Olympus are very good indeed and worth using. So even that aspect
(reusing older Nikkors in MFT) is changing...

Ah well, one's got to move with the times and Nikon's is definitely
gone, for me...



--
PeterN

On Aug 5, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/4/2017 10:00 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/4/2017 1:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 4, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/3/2017 9:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 3, 2017, PeterN wrote

snip

Actually I was thinking about going FF for quite a while, because I
like
to do wide angle work. When the D800 came out, it suited my needs.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2l094jjday...at%20dawn_6423
.jp

g

Nice!
That is one of the best shots I have seen from you. Good work.

Thank you.

That 16mm (35mm) is a focal length I like. I get close to that with my
Tokina 11-16mm (16.5-24mm 35mm equivalent) f/2.8 on my D300S, and I
have used it on
my X-T2 in full manual with an adaptor. Currently my widest Fujinon
lens is
the XF14mm f/2.8, and I have my eye on the Zeiss Touit 12mm or the
Fujinon
10-24mm.

With the X-T2 I have developed a fondness for primes so that Zeiss
Touit
12mm
is tempting, and I am also considering a Samyang, or Rokinon wide
prime.
https://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/...roducts/touit-
lenses/touit-2812.html


https://www.samyanglensglobal.com/product/detail.do?SQ=15
Manual focus is no problem with the great Fujifilm manual focus
peaking.
That makes this a great value.

MF is usually not an issue with WA for scapes. I have been thinking
about getting a 14, but I am not sure how much I will use it, and
filters are a problem.

MF is a minor inconvenience for those who live by AF, and if you are
going to
use long exposure with heavy ND filters there is only MF anyway.I know
what
sort of concern you have with some of the WA lenses, many of which are
built
with a fat, protruding dome that precludes any screw-on filters. When I
bought my D70 I was limited in what I could afford so I bought the Sigma
14-24. A BIG mistake. It had the fat dome, and would only take internal
filters cut from gel sheets. Of the Samyang APS-C lenses I have looked
at,
the 10mm f/2.8 is without any filter thread, while the 12mm f/2 will take
67mm filters.

The Samyang FF 14mm is of the *dome* type and without a filter thread,
but at
$319, a bargain. Their other FF lens you might find interesting is the
12mm
f/2.8 @ $379, or for your D500 the 10mm f/2.8 @ $499. No filter
thread, but
they should be interesting. It seems that none of the Nikon mount Samyang
ultra-WA lenses are filter capable.

I can highly recommend the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for your D500, it has
a 77mm
filter thread. Mine has been one of the best lenses I have used on my
D300S,
now I am using it as a MF lens on my X-T2, and I have no doubt that it
will
perform well on your D500. $429.95 at B&H.
http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/products/atxpro/atx116prodxii/

...and now they have their new 11-20mm f/2.8 w/82mm filter thread $639:
http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/products/atxpro/atx1120f28prodx/

Which filters do you use?
I know you have at least one variable ND. Those are convenient, but
are not
the best option.
I use a circular polarizes
Variable ND
4 stop ND

I am probably going to add a graduated ND
And possibly an IR, in addition to converting my D300


I would consider the Lee Filter, Formatt HiTech, or VU system:
http://www.leefilters.com
http://www.formatt-hitechusa.com
http://www.vufilters.com


Then there is always the 10-24 Fujinon, about the same price as the
Zeiss.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/dig..._lens_xf10_24m
mf4_r_ois/


Here is the D500 @ ISO 5000

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e39lykuqn2aoxgt/20170729_2867.jpg?dl=0
Here is an NEF SOOC, taken with the D500. I probably could push it even
higher, without significant loss of IQ.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3st63pvvb1v65s2/20170729_3252.NEF?dl=0

I will start by saying, what a great opportunity to make great captures,
wasted. Everything is OoF!
There is no focus point, and I suspect that you never achieved focus lock.
The loss of IQ was significant, but with the equipment in use, that image
should have been leaps and bounds better. That is where the D500 + 70-200
f/2.8 should be superb.

If you were trying to capture motion, of the horses a reasonable shutter
speed (1/120-1/180, I might have pushed it as fast as 1/300) using shutter
priority, not aperture priority, with a well executed pan, would have done
that for you. Provided you had got a focus lock on at least one of the
horses, and then relied on tracking to hold the lock through your panning
motion. The background would have been a horizontal streak, motion blur, and
perhaps at least one of the horses would have been in focus.

Were you trying to pan?
If so did you have VR on or off?

When panning, check that VR is off. The subjects are in motion, camera shake,
or vibration is irrelevant, VR can create problems if used when panning
regardless of what Nikon might say.

Were you shooting AF-S, or AF-C?
Were you using AF-C tracking?
Was the shutter release set to *Release* or *Focus*?

Did you ever establish a focus lock?

Why such a slow shutter speed, you had fast glass, and good lighting on the
track?
ISO at 5000 for the D500 is OK, and f/8 (opened up a tad could have been
better) should have resulted in better IQ.

--

Regards,
Savageduck