D7xxx(D7200) vs D500

heartyfisher

Hiker said:

$2,300??? WTF? Does Nikon have a lack of oxygen in corporate?!

Hmmm has the price dropped .. wasn't it 2800?

Hiker

heartyfisher said:

Hiker said:

$2,300??? WTF? Does Nikon have a lack of oxygen in corporate?!

Hmmm has the price dropped .. wasn't it 2800?

That's what I saw on B & H. $2300. But!! $2800.???!!! LOL! Ok, here's the wtf comment again. I'm sure Nikon makes nice glass. But for triple the price of Sigma, etc.??!!

PB_PM

You have to remember that the AF-S 80-400VR has been around for a while now (early 2013 release). When it came out there was no 200-500mm Nikkor (mid 2015), no 150-600 Sport/Contemporary (mid 2014), no Tamron 150-600 (G1late 2013, or G2 2016).

The were no modern competitors in March 2013 when the AF=S 80-400mm VR came out, at least optically speaking. For Nikon, the old non-AF-S version was nothing to write home about, and the next best thing was the AF-S 300mm F4 (which is still better than the modern AF-S zooms). Canon had the old 100-400L version 1 (version II was late 2014). The other zooms in that range, the Sigma 100-300 F4 (no OS), 150-500 OS and the Tamron 200-500 LD, were not exactly optical marvels. In fact I remember many a member on this form praising the AF-S 80-400mm VR when it came out, for that very reason.

spraynpray

I don't think I've seen many people slating the optical quality of the 80-400, it is only slated for the weight and cost.

Ton14

Well, due to weight, bought the Nikon D7200, perfect for my kind of photography. Sold my 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII and bought the 70-200mm f/4 VRIII. Have this combo for 3 weeks now and ...... no regrets.

spraynpray

That's a sweet lens. I use mine whenever I can.

autofocus

I bought the 80-400mm when it was released. As stated above there was nothing at that time to compare in the Nikon lineup for cost, weight, and performance. I bought it to shoot Motocross and found that it focused as fast or faster than my 70-200 2.8G and IQ also rivaled the 70-200 other than oof (bokeh). It's not light but it isn't heavy and I can carry it all day at the track. For my intended purpose the lens performed extremely well. I still think it's a great lens. I did think about trying the 200-500 but worried losing the wider end could leave me wanting in some situations. Mind you, most of my photos were at the longer end but on occasion, as a bike approached I could zoom out enough to still catch the shot. VR works well, better than the 70-200G so all in all it's been a great lens for me. On the D500 it performs extremely well with the new AF and gives me 600mm equiv. Still a relevant lens in my bag. I understand it may not be for everyone.

manhattanboy

After a couple shoots with the 810, I recently shot the 500 with the 300PF. I was surprised again by how good the images were. I think you need to stop the lens down a little to 4.5, but that combo is hard to beat and I imagine that the 820 will have a decent upgrade in IQ.

DaveyJ

Problem is and Autofocus's post shows it well....

Many of us NEED zoom, primes are WORTHLESS where I photograph. I spent years with medium and large format, titled our stuff Pro-Action Photo, and zooms blow the doors off the fixed lensrigs. All the pros I ever see in this setting use zooms, but the Nikon 80-400 VR , the new one is more money and less lens than I can accept. First, they need a new lens, and then take a close look at 200-500 and get a roughly 100-400 VR variable with a price point at $1,500 or forget it. The newly announced 70-300 might be very close to a lens which will sell....depends on how it tests and reviews! It should be about the size of the current 100-400 VR, but $2,300 NO WAY!

manhattanboy

DaveyJ said:

Problem is and Autofocus's post shows it well....

Many of us NEED zoom, primes are WORTHLESS where I photograph. I spent years with medium and large format, titled our stuff Pro-Action Photo

Not sure I agree with you here. Most of the time I would just use a two camera set up with say something like the 70-200f4 on an 810 and the 300pf on the d500. I would use the 500 for most shots at a distance, and then drop it to my side and shoot the 810 with zoom as I needed close up. The main problem I have found with the cheaper zooms is AF acquisition which is slow for distant subjects shot wide open. For video I could see that zooms would be useful, but then I would probably be using a parfocal lens like one of the Canons or Sonys instead of a Nikon

DaveyJ

Manhattanboy. You are using two great cameras. So you have it dialed in! And I am sure these rigs focus fast! I find a D500 works great at distance and use that a lot and the D7200.
Recently
I got a 200-500 Nikon for long shots and have found it good enough to do a lot of my future work with it. I did check it against few prime lens I still own.

I shoot nothing wide open, never did with medium format, or large format. Having been a member of f64 etc., I am certain I am not the only one. I usually shoot from f8-f11. In work I do, depth of field is required! Not shallow depth of field. Very few buyers of Ag work want shallow depth of field ever! If you know the distance before hand if a subject a fixed lens is a good answer. In large and medium format that is all I had, with 35mm Digital, and being in environments where I might need 10 ft one minute and 850 ft the second minute, either you use zooms or juggle lens. The D810 and 70-300 f2.8 is the equivalent of what I used in the film era. And I would certainly use the300 f4 over a 2.8!

heartyfisher

Nice review of the d7500 vs 500 & 7200

Photobug

@Heartyfish - I just went to post the review by Steve. 30 mins late. Anyway, nice review of the D7500 and how it compares to the D7200 and D500.

heartyfisher

He does really good work...

spraynpray

Good review.

Hiker

I have to say I am super impressed with the D7200! My histograms are spot on, unlike my D3300, which were not nearly so. Strange. I shot a wedding a couple of weeks ago as a favor for friends and I was quite impressed with the results. And I've had limited use with the D7200. Soon I will be going to Joshua Tree National Park and trying out several locals. Only going there for a day and a half. Taking my 3 lenses, Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 and Nikkor 70-300mm G lens. Not sure if I will be shooting the night sky. But who knows.

Ton14

Bought the D7200 with the 70-200mm f/4, because the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II became too heavy for me. Well .... no regret at all. The lens works super on the D7200 and my D600. I also have 300mm with the D7200, even 400mm (1.3) and still have a 4800 x 3200 px photo, more then enough for an A3 print. I'am ready for my kind of photography.

The combination is on my belt and not on my neck, clipped on the spider black widow and my pants are now not on my heels (due to the weight), as safety I have it connect to a "peak design" strap.

Hiker

I'm looking into a slide strap to use with the D7200 to walk around with. But, I do have an Opteka camera vest that I use for hiking, etc. Leaves me hands free if I need to use a hiking pole, and helps when I need a drink of water or get a snack. And save my neck from any camera weight!

Photobug

Hiker said:

I'm looking into a slide strap to use with the D7200 to walk around with. But, I do have an Opteka camera vest that I use for hiking, etc. Leaves me hands free if I need to use a hiking pole, and helps when I need a drink of water or get a snack. And save my neck from any camera weight!

Take a good look at the Boss Strap, a less expensive option than Black Rapids sling. I like the Boss strap since is attached to the neck-strap lug instead of the tripod socket.

Photobug

heartyfisher said:

He does really good work...

I have subscribed to his web site for over a year and +1 on your comment. His recent eBook on Nikon AF his good and there are excellent tips for beginners to pro photographer.

DaveyJ

The Steve Perry D7500 review is excellent and rates the D500 best essentially and offers good comments on all of it. I use the D7200 most of all of the,, but the D500 has the most respect here. May get a D7500 and try it myself. Always seem to,need a new camera body.

Photobug

DaveyJ said:

The Steve Perry D7500 review is excellent and rates the D500 best essentially and offers good comments on all of it. I use the D7200 most of all of the,, but the D500 has the most respect here. May get a D7500 and try it myself. Always seem to,need a new camera body.

You have a problem DaveyJ...think it's called NAS!

DaveyJ

I would rather buy Nikon gear than pay for health care! Actually I have been able to avoid serious medical conditions by buying a very few things that I think will make me happy. My recently acquired Nikkor 200-500 has already won my total respect, now to find out how Iam going to carry it on longer hikes! The results at every major focal length are awesome. It sure focuses fast and accurate. My D7200 is all I have used it on. Still don't know if the D7500 will happen soon enough to get a plane ticket to Yellowstone, but it is possible. I did recently get a B&W high end Circular Polarizer, and I can't say that with our usual strato nimbus or cumulus clouds which are pretty much an every day feature here, Icould see any difference with the 16-80 Nikkor.

Capt_Spaulding

Davey, Why not just go full monty and pick up a 500?

On the polarizer front, my experience is their utility is limited with a wide angle lens. The effect of a polarizer is related to the angle of the sun to object(s) in the image. In a wide field of view, sunlight will be striking objects at varying angles. As you "tune" (rotate) the filter on a wide angle lens its effect will be noticeable but only in narrow parts of the frame.

DaveyJ

We have a D500, it is awesome, the best DSLR I have ever used. problem is there are two of us using some gear. My son as the principal effort in our farm work. Gets first choice. Invariably he gets the D500. I just bought a great 200-500 Nikon and can't go $2,000 but $1,246 is possible. A second D7200 is also possible, but as I feel those two, D7500 and D7200 are very close,

I will.get the D7500 which means I will have bought every DX with exception of the entry level 3000 series and the 5000 series of,which I only have the D3200.
Under some conditions on the 16-80 I can see the polarizer effect but it does seem less marked. In the film era I used a LOT of high end wide angles and it seemed the impact of rotating the circular polarizer was more marked. However it was far more apparent in some lightings and it surely does depend on how big the sky is as some vistas have a lot of Sky, some only a small area of sky can be seen.