D7xxx(D7200) vs D500

Paperman

OK ... I thought you were pointing to a difference between the 2 cameras we forgot to talk about .

Ironheart

I did factor that in. I just didn't show my work. Turns out not to matter anyway, especially since the frame rate on the hypothetical camera is derived from the frame rate of the real one, the speed of data flow to the card is identical as well.

heartyfisher

:-) I just did my spreadsheet for 54 MP and 5FPS and the same buffer size of the D500 (which only can hold 11 frames for 54mp instead of 30 for 21MP).

I get 32 frames for a burst of 6.5 seconds before slowing down to about 3 FPS.
if we can increase the FPS to 7 instead if 5 we get 21 frames for a burst of 3 seconds then 3 FPS.

Not too bad for a 54mp camera !!

Pistnbroke

With all the fantastic programmes to make adjustments to JPEG perhaps it time to give up on RAW

Nik0n2011

i wanted to save on the d500 (i've had the d600), but price difference between d7200 and d500 made me say no no. i'm extremely happy with the d7200 ( i had the d7000 ) ergonomics and fps are no reason for me.
and own the 300 f4 PF + 1.4tc, i'm looking forward to a 400 f4 PF (canon's DO does exists and today they patented a 1000 5.6 DO )

manhattanboy

Nik0n2011 said:

i wanted to save on the d500 (i've had the d600), but price difference between d7200 and d500 made me say no no. i'm extremely happy with the d7200 ( i had the d7000 ) ergonomics and fps are no reason for me.
and own the 300 f4 PF + 1.4tc, i'm looking forward to a 400 f4 PF (canon's DO does exists and today they patented a 1000 5.6 DO )

Most of the features of the D500 do not add up to the extra thousand you have to spend for it, so you probably did the right thing. Canon's DO lenses are pretty big in comparison to the Nikon. I am looking forward to Nikon finally releasing the 70-300 PF zoom they patented previously. The only thing from Canon I am looking forward to is a mirrorless body with a silent shooting option that keeps the native mount... I am not holding my breath for that one though.

Nikoniser

I shoot birds in flight a lot - its "hobby" http://www.rspb.org.uk/discoverandenjoynature/discoverandlearn/birdguide/name/h/hobby/ season for me and I have been testing the D7100 vs the D810 on this bird as it catches dragonflies. Its about the size of a pigeon and moves at 100mph, so I do realise that this may not be representative for everyone, and to be fair I have found the D7100 is up to larger birds like Herons and with a suitable exotic prime can resolve more detail than the D810

My comments on the D7100 compared to my D810 are :

3D tracking is not as good as the D810 - lots of shots out of focus, won't track at all in similar backgrounds, keeps jumping all over the place.

It simply refuses to lock on fast moving birds against a similarly coloured background in single point mode.

Focus accuracy and tracking is not up to task many frames out of focus.

Buffer is ridiculous, its out in one second.

So for this usage......I am strongly considering the D500, the D7100 is no good for this task...however I am somewhat unconvinced that 20mp is going to be *that* much better than 16mp , 24mp is a good sized bump.... 20... not sure.

donaldejose

Nikoniser: Well the D500 has the same focus system as in the D5 so it is the best Nikon has to offer at this time. Look at the recent video by Steve Perry on the main NR blog at 4:50 into that video. Try group AF. One rule of thumb is that a 25% increase in megapixels is apparent so a jump from 16 to 20 should be visible.

manhattanboy

Nikoniser said:

I shoot birds in flight a lot - its "hobby" http://www.rspb.org.uk/discoverandenjoynature/discoverandlearn/birdguide/name/h/hobby/ season for me and I have been testing the D7100 vs the D810 on this bird as it catches dragonflies. Its about the size of a pigeon and moves at 100mph, so I do realise that this may not be representative for everyone, and to be fair I have found the D7100 is up to larger birds like Herons and with a suitable exotic prime can resolve more detail than the D810

My comments on the D7100 compared to my D810 are :

3D tracking is not as good as the D810 - lots of shots out of focus, won't track at all in similar backgrounds, keeps jumping all over the place.

It simply refuses to lock on fast moving birds against a similarly coloured background in single point mode.

Focus accuracy and tracking is not up to task many frames out of focus.

Buffer is ridiculous, its out in one second.

So for this usage......I am strongly considering the D500, the D7100 is no good for this task...however I am somewhat unconvinced that 20mp is going to be *that* much better than 16mp , 24mp is a good sized bump.... 20... not sure.

I have all 3 of those cameras. My preference for shooting is the 500 then the 810. For what its worth I have not touched the 7100 since I received the 500. The 500 is 20.8 or about 21MP so its not that different from 24MP and I do not miss the extra few MPs. If anything, it has allowed me to reduce the shutter speed a little compared to the 7100 as there is a tiny more slop allowed in focusing of the light beams. There is no rush for the 500 though as the software RAW algorithms are still not up to the 7100 level. I still think the 810 is the best all around camera, but if you are shooting distant action, the 500 currently is the reigning champ.

Ironheart

Perhaps adobe needs some tweaking, but CNX-D and DxO Optics Pro don't seem to have any problems with the D500 raw files. The AF in the D500 is somewhat magical. I spent 2hrs yesterday shooting honeybees with it, and my keeper rate was well above 50%, if you've ever tried to shoot bugs-in-flight you know this is fairly amazing. When my hummingbird buddies showed up, My keeper rate was above 90%. Again phenomenal. Oh, and this was handheld, with the "crappy" 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6. I was shooting AF-C, 25-points

Msmoto

My thoughts are consistent with Nikoniser in that my D800E is just not the camera for action stuff. I can only get a few shots before the buffer chokes, and thus i use it only when I am shooting single shots or at least nothing where I need more than one or possibly two FPS.

My recording is RAW 14 bit, lossless compressed, both with the D800E and the one I like for action, the D4.

My suspicion is either the D500 or D7200 will be better for action than my D800E.

retread

My version of optics pro (10) will not process D500 raw files. I think they said the camera module will be out this fall.

heartyfisher

"My suspicion is either the D500 or D7200 will be better for action than my D800E. " I dont think there is any doubt that the D500 is one of the best is not the best for action. My D7200 is pretty good too !!

manhattanboy

retread said:

My version of optics pro (10) will not process D500 raw files. I think they said the camera module will be out this fall.

@Ironheart How are you getting DXO to process D500 RAW files when others have not been able to do so?

Ironheart

I can tell you, if you really want to know...

I used a Exif/Hex editor to spoof the D5 which is supported. Works like a champ, granted the official D500 version will be slightly better optimized, but I figured the D5 was close enough.

donaldejose

DxOMark ratings just out. D7200 outscores D500. D7200 overall sensor score is 87 while the D500 overall sensor score is only 83. Low light ISO score is about the same with the D7200 just a few points higher. So if you don't need the new AF or the 10fps it seems the D7200 is the better camera. A used D7200 for about 500 to 600 dollars also had an overall sensor score of 83 so that is the best bang for the buck.

Paperman

Well, I do remember writing here a couple of times that anyone expecting +1 stop better ISO performance in D500 than D7200 would be disappointed

But it beats me how a newer and 20% less dense sensor can give worse ISO performance than the 24 Mp D7200

WestEndFoto

Paperman said:

Well, I do remember writing here a couple of times that anyone expecting +1 stop better ISO performance in D500 than D7200 would be disappointed

But it beats me how a newer and 20% less dense sensor can give worse ISO performance than the 24 Mp D7200

The D500 is optimized for lower light, just like the D5. This shouldn't come as a surprise.

BVS

Paperman said:

But it beats me how a newer and 20% less dense sensor can give worse ISO performance than the 24 Mp D7200

You may want to check out Bill Claff's measurements/charts as well. Many people feel his results are more accurate/representative.

photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

DXO charts are useful, but final scores can be misleading. Just look at DR for example. Yes, in an absolute sense at base ISO the D7200 has slightly better range (thus the higher score), but look at the DXO graphs and you'll see it doesn't tell the whole story.

Lens scores can be misleading as well. Take the sharpness score for example. For a prime lens, the number you see is the maximum possible sharpness you can get out of a lens at whatever happens to be the sharpest aperture. Every other aperture could be completely awful, but as long as one aperture is super sharp it'll get a high score. Zoom lenses fare far worse since their scores are averages from all the focal lengths. Further, lenses with super sharp centers score higher than lenses with lower but more even performance across the frame, since center performance is weighted higher (which may be one reason why the old 24-70 scores higher than the new one).

Paperman

I don't know - I am looking at Bill Claff's chart and still don't see what the D500 promised in sensor performance. The Dynamic range difference is miniscule ( the difference between the D500 and the D7200 is maybe 1/15th-1/20th of the difference between the D500 and the D5 ).

The 20% Mp compromise should have brought increased "everything" but all it seems to have brought is speed. If anyone is suggesting the D500's real performance may be at ultra-low light/ultra high ISOs, I might just say the D7200 does not go beyond ISO 25600 and who knows what results can be achieved if exposure is pushed at post process after underexposing a stop or two.

pictureted

I find the D500 files about the same as the D7100, just as DXO would rate them. On the other hand all that misses the major point. The D7100 had a remarkable sensor, the D90 and D7000 were pretty good, D7200 a bit better. But the D500 has an AF system that can increase your hit rate or get you shots not possible otherwise. If I want DR and MPs, the D810 is best. If you want frame rate, buffer capacity and AF performance, the D500 is best. (I don't personally want the larger body and weight of the D5). I have lenses that I didn't like with the D7100 (70-300VR) that have new life on the D500, fast focusing at f5.6 is also great with the new 200-500VR and noticeably better than the D810. I'll upgrade my D810 to the next model if it incorporates the new AF system even if the MPs and DR remain unchanged.

rmp

pictureted said "I'll upgrade my D810 to the next model if it incorporates the new AF system even if the MPs and DR remain unchanged." I agree.

retread

rmp said:

pictureted said "I'll upgrade my D810 to the next model if it incorporates the new AF system even if the MPs and DR remain unchanged." I agree.

That sounds like my plan although I will be slow doing it.

A D7200 with the focus system of the D500 would be tempting. Just put it in a D500 body. I could see trading the D5100 for it if the price is right.

Pistnbroke

I will buy a D810 upgrade if its 54mp

retread

Pistnbroke said:

I will buy a D810 upgrade if its 54mp

That with the new processor and focus speed will be my big bother to the D500. It will make me happy happy happy and broke broke broke !