D7xxx(D7200) vs D500

heartyfisher

That D7xxx class of cameras are no joke.. The D7200 is really quite awesome! .. could well be the best bang for buck option for the advanced amateur !

But most advanced amateurs will surely look at the D500 and say "OMG I WANT! ".

However, The D7200 is no slouch if you dont need the 10FPS. It even gives the Nikon FX a good challenge.. and in some parameters of IQ trounces the non nikon Full frames. Can hardly imagine what amazing specs the D7300 could have !!

So the question is. Why upgrade to D500? or Why Stay at the D7xxx level?

One thought I have had is this, Nikon could duplicate the D810/D4 synergy with the D7300/D500..
ie the D7300 could be a 36MP high DR DX camera !! would anyone like that? I am not sure myself... I kind of like the jack of all trades D7200. Maybe the D9000 will finally arrive(high MP DX) ?

spraynpray

I actually spent some time handling the D810 at the Photoshow recently and it did snuff out a growing temptation within me. Everybody rates the ergonomics of the pro bodies, but for me it was a little awkward to use and I also found it slow and clunky.

So for me, 24 mp is still the sweet spot and I hanker more for the D500's AF and Live view like the 7D2's than I do for silly Mp.

heartyfisher

I guess we are all different in terms of ergonomics :-) I am quite used to my D7000 and really like my D7200. But when I first switched from my D200(clone) to the D7000. I really really disliked it. I even went for weeks and months of not using the D7000 because it was so inconvenient. But I am used to it now. (Going from D70 to D200 was so easy ! )

I switch between the D7200/D7000 and my D200 clone automatically now with no thought .. I guess its a bit like driving Manual and Automatic cars... You just get going and reach the goal. So I have no qualms now about the ergonomic of the D810( if I get one) or D500 or stay with D610 and D7200.

Its a good point though.. the D500 ergonomics vs the D7200 may be an issue worth considering if you are used to the D7xxx/D610/D750 style of cameras.

retread

For now the D500 looks good for a low light action camera I would like for sports and wildlife. I am waiting for some reviews.

We have the D5/D500 cameras for action and high ISO will we get a D900/D9000 for high MP cameras? You can name them what you want but the exspeed 5 processor in a D7200 and a D810 with what it brought to the D5/D500 pair would be exciting.

A D7200 with the exspeed 5 processor and a D500 will make an assume pair in DX as will a D810 with exspeed 5 and a D5 for FX.

Different tools for different jobs but which would be the primary camera and which would be the backup? With the right glass for your job this looks like a very complete tool kit.

DaveyJ

I own two D7200s and each of the previous D7000 series.....We pre-ordered the D500 but do not have it yet obviously.......I expect we are comparing all wonderful cameras! The D4s I have used though seemed too big....etc. D5s I am sure are going to be awesome.....but not where I am going!

BabaGanoush

I started out with the D7000, upgraded to the D800 (the best camera I ever owned), and am now back to the D7200 while waiting for Nikon to come out with a mirrorless camera. Every once in awhile I'm almost overcome with D810 envy, but I remain resolute: there will be no upgrading to a FF body in my future until Nikon goes mirrorless. In the meantime, I will enjoy the excellent gear that I have.

manhattanboy

I always wonder about the d500 versus 7200 myself. Is it worth double the price!
I do not know, and like Baba above I really want a great mirror less camera but for me it has to have a silent shooting capability.
I have been tossing around the idea of using the 810 alongside a micro 4/3rds instead of a DX for reach. It gives me many of the things I really want in a Nikon but am not sure about the IQ and AF speed.

heartyfisher

"I have been tossing around the idea of using the 810 alongside a micro 4/3rds instead of a DX for reach"

Its a good thought that I have implemented from time to time. I have used my D610 with my N1V1+FT1. A V4 with proper compatibility with the nikon system (full AF and CLS) is what I have been waiting for.. Holding on to my V1 until that happens.

BabaGanoush

manhattanboy said:

I have been tossing around the idea of using the 810 alongside a micro 4/3rds instead of a DX for reach. It gives me many of the things I really want in a Nikon but am not sure about the IQ and AF speed.

I currently own the Panasonic GX8 MFT camera. Over the years I've built up a respectable collection of quite decent MFT lenses. I regard this camera as a better choice than my Nikon gear when I travel for two reasons: (1) Mirrorless cameras are less likely to be the targets of thieves, but if the gear is stolen I won't be as heartbroken as I'd be if my Nikon gear were taken; (2) While I'm traveling I can relax and be more carefree about possibly damaging or even losing my MFT gear than my Nikon gear (frequent water landings in a zodiac can be hazardous to the health and well-being of your camera equipment). As for "reach" with MFT, tomorrow I will be placing an order for the new Panasonic 100-400mm MFT lens. This appears to be pretty decent lens, but doesn't alter the fact that even the best MFT sensor cannot match the DX or FX sensors in IQ.

heartyfisher

heartyfisher said:

"I have been tossing around the idea of using the 810 alongside a micro 4/3rds instead of a DX for reach"

Its a good thought that I have implemented from time to time. I have used my D610 with my N1V1+FT1. A V4 with proper compatibility with the nikon system (full AF and CLS) is what I have been waiting for.. Holding on to my V1 until that happens.

One more thing.. the D7200 has the 1.3 crop which results in the MFT 2.0 x crop.

KnockKnock

I use a Sony RX-100 for those travel situations - a couple steps down from DX for me. I used to really crave FX, but am pretty happy with DX at the moment and hesitate to start piling up on FX lenses if Nikon goes with a new mount for mirrorless. Not that I need to stick with Nikon at that point. The Sony a6300 is pretty close, but I would value it at around $950 and would suffer the UI. The ergonomics on the RX-100 are bad enough.

nukuEX2

I love my D7200 and along with my Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 it's a dream.

BabaGanoush

KnockKnock said:

I use a Sony RX-100 for those travel situations - a couple steps down from DX for me. I used to really crave FX, but am pretty happy with DX at the moment and hesitate to start piling up on FX lenses if Nikon goes with a new mount for mirrorless. Not that I need to stick with Nikon at that point. The Sony a6300 is pretty close, but I would value it at around $950 and would suffer the UI. The ergonomics on the RX-100 are bad enough.

I own an RX-100 Mk 3, which accompanies me on many trips these days. I use it primarily as an underwater camera along with a nicely compact Nauticam case that I bought for it. On a recent trip my wife and I took, we made a very rough landing on Pitcairn Island. As our zodiac plowed through the heavy surf, I had the RX-100 out the entire way from ship to shore in order to capture a video of our exciting "adventure." I had one hand holding the camera, the other hand tightly gripped on the safety rope on the pontoon of the zodiac. It was wild.

retread

I have always wanted a D7200 but never spent the money. Friday I really bit the bullet and preordered a D500.

Comparing the two of them today I thought why not put the D7200 sensor in a D500 body make the necessary tweaks and call it a D9000. Taking that thought a little farther morph the D810 into the D5 body.

Nikon if you are listening you could make a lot of happy campers in the Nikon camp.

rmp

I already have the D810 and it is a little too big for me to consider it a travel camera. Yet I like it so much, it is my travel camera. I gripe a lot, but still take it. I look forward to a D500 as being smaller and lighter. I must be really stupid because I keep thinking about a pair: D810 with 24-70, and a D500 with a 70-200. Then I would not need to switch lenses, but, of course, I could if needed. Why does my "travel" camera seem to get bigger all the time? :-)

spraynpray

Bob, You have bad case of gas!

manhattanboy

I still am keeping my preorder. Shot the 7100 this weekend and was pushing right up against my comfort level for ISOs. Should have brought my 810, but needed the reach so its hard to have your cake and eat it too.

rmp

I guess you are correct spraynpray. My wife said it is a bad case of stupid.

Ironheart

For me it isn't D7200 vs. D500 it will (soon) be D7200 & D500. I can see a need for both, and a backup, and they use the same battery, etc...

DaveyJ

Still don't have the D500 yet.....my D7200s need company!!!

daveznspace

Looks like the d500 is turning out to be an ass kicker! I swore I wouldn't buy another dx body again but I think that's going to change.

hearty fisher... I've put close to 350,000 shot's through 2 d7000's and love that camera but even my d700 absolutely wipes the floor with it. Dx is one thing, fx is another, fx has "a look" that dx never will. I bought into that whole "no such thing as fx advantage anymore" until I got one, now my d7000 would be just collecting spider webs if new tripod wouldn't have f**ked up my d700

The d7100/d7200/d500 are all killers but shoot a d750 or even an old d700 for a week and your mind will probably change, it's hard to explain but you just have much more confidence with a full frame and even cranking iso's up you know it'll be ok. The weird thing is too that it seems like fx noise is much easier to clean up and retains much more detail. My d7000 has more mp than my d700 but my d700 gets way better details and colors.

I know with say my d7000 and a nikkor 70-300mm vr taking pix of bif, I'd be lucky to get 50-60% in focus, slap that 70-300 on my d700 and not only do they look better but I've gone out days and shot well over 1000 shots in not great conditions and maybe 10-15 were outta focus and those were usually my fault... absolutely blew my mind the first few times. Although I know the d7100 and d7200 have better af than d7000... I'd take the d700 any day over those.

Then there's the noise factor. On my d7000 i'm afraid to go over iso 400, on d700 iso 1600 looks like my d7000 at is 200 and no issue even setting auto iso up to 3200 and it's a dinosaur... I kick myself all the time for not going to fx sooner, if I would have known how good it is.... uggggg lol

The other thing on d500 is the body style, that "pro" style is so great and effortless to just shoot. even though I've taken most of my photos on d7000 body I still fumble with it after using the pro body. Right now since effin new tripod broke my gear I'm thinking d750 or d810, I really want d750 but in an d810 body. The other thing to remember though on the pro bodies is that the whole metal construction means no wireless control built in, well unless this snap bridge can do it but I don't think you can use an actual wireless remote like I can on d7000... drives me nuts and my wired one broke due to that same elfin new tripod! ugggg

That d500 is a killer though! I've noticed the canon community has been trying to pile on the d5 but haven't said squat about the d500 yet lol. But then again the 7dm2 is so much "better" that they are having to give it away with all those freebie just to sell them.. apparently the 80d already too. While cheaper and a great printer and a blow up doll or w/e else they are giving away for nothing would be nice, I'd rather have a camera that doesn't need an excuse to have to do that to sell

As far as build and weather sealing... I put my d7000's thru hell! I shoot in torrentual rain a lot for lightning to where both me and camera and are soaked and I can open up d7000 and water pours out, i have dropped them, you name it and never an issue. I never really had my d700 in heavy rain and never dropped it until effin new tripod decided to randomly let cameras fly off it and d700 took a few hard hits including concrete and have really wounded it. I actually think the d7000 wouldn't have gotten as damaged because of it's lighter weight. I'm pretty sure a d700 could take down an elephant if you threw it hard enough but all that weight dropping 4ft or whatever off tripod straight to concrete surely wasn't ideal.

The d7200 is a monster but I would absolutely sell it and get a d500... wouldn't think twice about it, unless the iq or dr comes back horrible but if the noise is that good! My biggest ugggg moments come when I shoot a hummer or some cool bird and the dx noise kills the details. Just seems everywhere I move my birds are always in the shade and while the "other" brand shooters say you don't need to pull shadows.. well when you shooting hummers in the shade at twilight it sure is a nice thing to have.

heartyfisher

LOL reminds me of the peanuts Kite eating tree :-)

I have a D200 clone and a D70 and D7000 and D7200 and D610.
I agree partly with what you have said.
1) Pro controls are the bees knees. Really disliked the D70/7000/7200/610 controls for several years till it got into muscle memory.. now its second nature. the D7200 and D610 slightly tweaked controls also makes it much much better.

2) Yes the D7000 AF is quite temperamental at times. Its still good though.. but not as good as the D610 which has the same system but very polished. Of course the D7200 and D750 really shows them up in low light. You really cant look at the D7000 AF and class all DX with it. I had a look at the D5500 and the AF on that is sweet, at least as good as the D610 maybe better!

3) FX vs DX.. yeah the colours and noise are better on Nikon's FX vs DX, the D500 looks like it may be the exception, but we will know more soon. I really do love the IQ from my D610 !! FX also makes lenses seem sharper. But the camera I reach for is the D7200. The AF is really outstanding on the D7200. I really don't shoot much high ISO. Why ? maybe I am old school.. when the lights level goes down, I just use a tripod and keep it at 100 ISO. At 100 ISO the D7200 beats the D5 in DR by a handy 2+ stops (i think. And the canon FX by 3 stops LOL). There is really not much difference in IQ between the D7200 and the D810 at high ISO. In fact it beats the D810 in crop mode. Actually it probably beats all FX cameras in crop mode. You are right when you say the D7200 is a monster!

Still the D500 seems to be an awesome beast! .. I dont think I will be paying the new kit premium price so it may be a while before I get one :-( ... unless a nice deal comes along. Gos I have been waiting for 8 odd years since my D200 clone needed updating.. :-) I can wait a few more months !!

Oh talking about FX IQ.. have a good look at the Pentax K1 !! it is some serious IQ Godzilla !! I would seriously consider jumping ship if I needed that Image quality !

daveznspace

I've a a few nikons myself starting with the d200
I'm definitely not comparing "all" dx ad's with the d7000 as it's supposed to be better on the d7100/d7200 but if it's like you say and is good as the d610 then that's not much better as the d610's af is terrible IMO and the only reason I wouldn't buy one. The sensor is wonderful though.

I thought I had the d7000 muscle memory too but I lose it after using d700.

The old af on d700 can see in the dark, just crazy good... well not now as that's one if its issues after tripod failures sent into into tile floors and concrete grrrrr

Hey if i still had my d90 I'd probably grab it.. loved that camera lol

Well you can't grab your tripod and d7200 and set it to iso 100 and expect to get the milky way When I just shot dx I always did whatever i could to stay at lowest iso but i just don't have those concerns now with fx. I shoot too many things and a tripod on iso 100 is rarely gunna happen, especially after this friggin tripod fiasco i'm in now.

While the d500 will be great, it'll never be comparable to an fx camera, i'm pretty sure physics don't allow it but it'll frog stomp the crap outta the 7dm2 and it's d300 era iq lol but at least it won't get flickering lights.

Yeah d7200 will have more dr than d5 but the d5 will run circles around it and you just can't compare it to a d810..

Theres a few good dx camera no doubt and good for that they should be doing but that 60% bigger sensor in fx will always keep dx behind and at bay. There's always that old saying "use the right tool for the job", unfortunately that means buying different cameras these days.

Personally, I think the d500 is a bargain, unless i needed crazy high iso's, it'd be better than a d5 in most cases.

Yeah the pentax is nice, I like the astro stuff but it's horribly laid out and looking and very limited options and the IQ is negligible... The IQ difference between nikons and canons is very noticeable but this wouldn't be. Specs are only that, hell my d700 still does great, blows me away that it's 8 years old and it's a "real" camera, one that will take amazing pix if you know how... it's not like todays cameras that basically take the pix for you.

WestEndFoto

You shouldn't give up on the tripod. You probably went cheap. Wrap you head around $2,000. My basic RRS cost $4,000 with all the accessories. But even though I have a D800 and a stack of pro grade lenses, expressed as $/unit of IQ improvement" it is still the cheapest kit in my bag and my son will give it to his son.

heartyfisher

The D7200 is not that bad at highish ISO .. I don't usually use it at high ISO but I forgot my tripod that day .. rather i didnt think I would be out the whole day and night, shooting :-) .. ( sometimes time slips by when you are having fun!) This was taken hand held with my D7200 + 12-24 F4 at F4, ISO 3200, 1/25 sec.




The new Tokina 14-20 F2 would be easier to use for Night Street :-) (sigh .. we never have enough .. )

Still the IQ of the DX (D7200) is so good now a days that I hardly consider what ISO I am at unless I am expecting/needing to get the best DR.. Thats why the D7200 is my primary camera now even though I have an FX.

BTW the D610 is no slouch in AF !! in reasonable light .. :-) Still the reviews of the D500 so far are saying its at a whole new level !.. like the best camera period!

Capt_Spaulding

Very, very nice HF.