D7500 backward step ?:

Pistnbroke

Lets look at the royal wedding group photo and ignore all the basic errors the non wedding photographer made ..he took it with a D5...wrong camera ... say we want a crop of a couple of kids ...not going to happen ..not enough MP ..POI and all that

PB_PM

Pistnbroke said:

Why would you want to buy a 24 mp D750 when there are cameras with more MP available?

I have a D810 and a D750, and both cameras fit different needs. We’ve been over this megapixel obsession of yours a million times, so I won’t waste more going over it again. Not everyone shoots the way you do, get over it.

mhedges

Capt_Spaulding said:

mhedges said:

Along those lines I need an intervention because I am sorely tempted by all the incentives on the D750

I know whereof you speak. I've looked longingly at the 750 as the deals on it have become more and more tantalizing. My intervention is the D610 sitting on my desk. It takes incredibly good images and I simply do not think a D750 would make me a more skilled photographer. But, man o man are the deals on the D750 mouthwatering.

spraynpray said:

I can't agree with the last point you made there Pistnbroke. The D750 I had was a soooperb camera. In fact, for landscape/portrait type (undemanding subject) type photography it is all 99% of photographers need. D850 has not changed my mind. In fact, for really low light, it is better that the D850. The supposed BSI sensor just hasn't lived up to the hype in my experience. IMHO of course.

You folks aren't helping!

Honestly I can't say I expect I will get that much better image quality with the 750 than I get with my 5500 , all things being equal. What I'm hoping to get is better AF, especially in low light. I do lose a fair amount of shots to poor focus. Of course that may be more my fault than the cameras.

sport

You will be surprised at the difference between the d5500 and d750. Try one see what you think. One thing that I did have to get used when I went from a d5200 was how narrow DOF got. For all of the knocking on the d750, there are some of us owners that really like it. It's been a great camera for me and has been a great stepping stone to full frame.

As far as higher resolution is concerned, there is a place for it. But keep in mind there are two things you have to be aware of. More resolution means larger file size which means more CPU needed to edit images. Second, your photo technique skills have to be spot on. Where lower resolution cameras are forgiving, higher resolution cameras are not.

Photobug

spraynpray said:

I can't agree with the last point you made there Pistnbroke. The D750 I had was a soooperb camera. In fact, for landscape/portrait type (undemanding subject) type photography it is all 99% of photographers need. D850 has not changed my mind. In fact, for really low light, it is better that the D850. The supposed BSI sensor just hasn't lived up to the hype in my experience. IMHO of course.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing spraynpray.

NSXTypeR

PB_PM said:

We were talking about auto ISO, not U1/U2, which I use those types of settings for already.

Just a quick side note, can you override Auto ISO and set a desired ISO or is it "locked" to auto? Just a quick question for someone with a D7000 and no experience with newer bodies/feature sets.

tc88

NSXTypeR said:

Just a quick side note, can you override Auto ISO and set a desired ISO or is it "locked" to auto? Just a quick question for someone with a D7000 and no experience with newer bodies/feature sets.

You can still set the ISO which I believe will then serve as the minimum ISO in the auto ISO mode.

Capt_Spaulding

NSX: If you're using auto ISO you set a base and a max ISO the camera can use. The camera will attempt to maintain the lowest ISO possible consistent with the other points of the exposure triangle.

Then you can select a minimum shutter speed. You can set it manually or you can ask the camera to do that for you as well. If you choose "Auto" the camera seems to default to the traditional 1/focal length=shutter speed rule of thumb.

You can, however, ask the camera to alter that "al gore rhythm" by right pressing on the control wheel while the auto mode is highlighted. That will take you to another menu which contains a slider with an index mark in the center and two hash marks on the left marked "slower" and two on the right marked "faster." Move the index to the right one notch and (on my D610 at least) it will increase the selected shutter speed 1 stop over the baseline speed generated by the 1/FL formula. Selecting the rightmost "hash" on the scale raises it 2 stops.

For example, on my D610 with a 200-500 f5.6 attached and extended to 500, it sets the shutter speed to 1/500. If I select the first hash mark on the "faster" side the shutter jumps to 1/1000. If I set it to the second "faster" hash, the shutter speed jumps to 1/2000.

Pistnbroke

Special techniques for high MP..? I just point it ,zoom,focus and push the button ...never had any problems or fuzzy pics. The pixel density on a DX 71/200 is higher than even a D850 so whats all the fuss about ? As for depth of field I thought I would notice but as I always shoot at f8 its a problem forgotten .
Useful post above Capt...I will have a look at that auto function.
PB-PM..if I was obsessed with MP I would have a D850 by now..its just I need sufficient to crop and 24 MP is not it.
Now you all have a nice day and let your photography make you happy.

NSXTypeR

Thanks tc88 and Capt_Spaulding for clarifying that point.

WestEndFoto

Pistnbroke, if you shooting at f/8.0 indoors sometimes without a flash, you will be generating a lot of noise. Why would you care about megapixels?

Pistnbroke

I always use the flash indoors as I have a flash flipper and get no side shadows...the iso automatically goes to 800 as I use a base iso of 200 so I have nice mix of ambient and flash.( except for windowlight shots) .If you insist on getting married in a 13th century church lit by 5w low energy bulbs and an a$$ hole priest that's your choice. Unlike Polish princes I know what I am doing !! At my next wedding the vicar knows me as I photographed her wedding to her wife and she is doing the service for her daughter. dad who is giving her away is the vicar at the church a very restrictive individual but on this occasion all rules are out as his ex wife is the boss ...confused so am I !!

spraynpray

Noise is so dependant on light level, that it is hard to compare performance. One persons idea of low light is anothers normal conditions IME. The whole perception of noise and light is open to 'marketting speak' too I find.

Pistnbroke

Re the varying shutter speed . What would be useful is a setting that kept the aperture on a zoom lens one stop down from the max as you zoom so a 2.8-5.6 zoom would go from 4 to 8 as you zoom …

spraynpray

For what reason? As I understand it (or not), it is only the 2.8 that is less good at wide angles, as you zoom and the lens loses light, the IQ improves?

Pistnbroke

The lens I use most is the 28-300 which is I think f 3.5-5.6 . To keep the quality up at 300mm I set it at f8. this means its at f8 at all apertures. Its not a problem but if I could have it at 3.5+ 1stop rising to 5.6 +1stop I would get lower iso/faster shutter at wider settings which could be an advantage in dark churches. Yes I could play with the wheels but that's a disaster waiting to happen.

spraynpray

Gotcha, right.

DaveyJ

D7500 camera is still my most used camera. The 16-80 and 200-500 f5.6 most used lens, but the new 70-300 AF-P DX VR is small and quite good. I have a whole fleet of various FF 70-300 lens....

DaveyJ

I always try to shoot at f8 to f11. I need Depth of field. I am now using the Z50;and the two kit lens, and the D7500, with occasional use of the D500. My D7200 sits on a tripod fir the few times I use the big 200-500 f5.6 lens. Stopped using the D7200;with the 16-80 as I need quick handling. The D7500 is a very reliable camera. I now own two of them. Also two 16-80s. One though has some skid marks and gets far less use. I do hope for a d500 upgrade! The D7500 is the end of the line only because it has one card slot. and is not selling all that well. Is it a great camera? Thom Hogan rates it better than the D7200 and spraynpray rates the D7200 better fir macro. Obviously he has macro dialed in. I have the D7500 dialed in. To me, still the best bang for the buck!

Photobug

Good comments on the D7200 and D7500. Although I am not a D7500 owner it had a great target market when it was released. I am going slightly off target on what I believe will be Nikon's future cameras....at least until spraynpray pulls us back on topic. I am avoiding the new Z cameras and the professional D5/D6 and D850 since they will continue to be refined for their respective markets.

My predictions: I expect that Nikon will upgrade the D3600 until the entry level mirrorless camera takes hold then the D3600/D3700 will be discontinued as they push size and convenience to the "normal" amateur photographer.

Going against many comments in several NR threads...I predict that the D500 will see one more upgrade. If this does not happen, watch the used market prices increase for this excellent DX body.

And of course, the full frame D780 will continue to be the entry level camera for full frame although it's much more than an entry level FX DSLR. The 600 series served it purpose and will not be replaced pushing users to a used D750 or the D780. It will be fun to watch used D750 prices on eBay to see them appreciate. Lots of advanced amateurs won't pay for the D780 which if that happens, this will be the last of a grat camera.

I expect that the D5600 and D7500 will not be upgraded in the future but dealers and eBay will be the source of many used sales for years to come. DavejJ hit the reasons why it will be the last of the D7XXX DX line.

Anyway just my thoughts on the future of DSLR.

NSXTypeR

Not to poop on the D7500, but I didn't realize it's already a 3 year old camera. I look at the phones I've gotten and around 3 years ago I had a Nexus 5x, and now I have a Pixel 3 which is light years ahead in terms of imaging quality. I really do hope there's another update to the D7500, as I think there's a fair bit they could potentially improve, including the USB-C connectivity that I thought was very useful. I really liked charging my RX100 off of micro USB when my DSLR battery was running low as it's the same way I charge my phone.

spraynpray

We're not really off topic @Photobug, the topic is wether the D7500 is a backward step.

I would say that they should have stayed with 24mp and two slots and just improved the AF and electronics. I don't get the relentless pace of new sensors when the old one is very good. I say that because the main contributor to improvements in high ISO performance is processing it seems.

It seems almost like the clothing fashion market to me, change for changes sake. Every new model has new body and pretty much everything - why? Look at the side-by-side sporting shotgun - the design hasn't changed for a hundred plus years - when something is right, it's right so put the buttons in the right place for once and for all. Almost seems like these companies have a death wish, the way they throw money at new stuff.

Photobug

spraynpray said:

We're not really off topic @Photobug, the topic is wether the D7500 is a backward step.

I would say that they should have stayed with 24mp and two slots and just improved the AF and electronics. I don't get the relentless pace of new sensors when the old one is very good. I say that because the main contributor to improvements in high ISO performance is processing it seems.

Excellent on the first paragraph. I honestly looked at the D7500 to replace my D7100 body and felt there I was giving up things. Now it appears that the IQ is better than the D7100 or D7200.

Totally agree with your next paragraph. We don't need change when improvements are "tweaks"....I only want to see change when there are really improvements.

NSXTypeR

Photobug said:

Excellent on the first paragraph. I honestly looked at the D7500 to replace my D7100 body and felt there I was giving up things. Now it appears that the IQ is better than the D7100 or D7200.

Totally agree with your next paragraph. We don't need change when improvements are "tweaks"....I only want to see change when there are really improvements.

I think for the most part, they're mostly net positives. If you want that ultra pro build and grip, get the D500. The 2nd card slot I never used on the D7000. The AI indexing tab I used once or twice on the D7000. The sensor is vastly improved, frame rate improved, and high ISO improved. The slight drop in MP doesn't bother me, 20 is still more than enough. You still keep the built in flash and it's slightly lighter too.

DaveyJ

Well I own almost every DSLR DX Camera and find the D7500 my single overall favorite. Frankly even my son and grandson who are full time photo pros have been in trouble on some shoots because the D500 did not have a built in flash. But these two DX Nikon’s are superb. I just think the D7500 has lots of detractors who have never owned the camera. I have two. Also two 16-80s. So to me is the D7500 as step backwards? Absolutely NOT! Also many times I contemplated buying a second D500 I just could not spring for the extra cash when the D7500 is that practical and considering the price differential.

Would I buy a refurbished D7500, NO! Too much variability, terrible warranty period. I’d need the new camera! Now I have the Z50 and two kit lens. Right now I use that more than the D7500. Is it better? NO! But it is wonderfully compact and I find it way easier to carry the Z50 and two kit lens than a D7500 and the 16-80 and the 70-300 AFP-DX VR lens. But if I needed real speed and it was an important photo mission, I’d try to take both the D7500 and those two lens, and the Z50 and those two kit lens. My conclusion is the D7500 was a decent step forward. I have a D7200 Camera here and it almost always is attached to the BIG 200-200 5.6.