Nikon users - HELP! (Page 7): Once again you didn't read the thread. The D500 was typo.

BebuLamar

chrisg-optical wrote:

Why would he want to jump to a lower model? D500 is the dream for Nikon DX.

Once again you didn't read the thread. The D500 was typo.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The day-2 contributors are always the most useful UHH community members when they only get as far as page 1 of 7 ....

(Or in the case of this D500 typo, not even through the posts on page 1.)

Race Raccoon Loc: Yankton, South Dakota

John N wrote:

I've had a query from an old colleague at work who... (show quote)

Is your friend thinking of replacing a D500 w/a D7500 or augmenting his D500 w/a D7500 as a second body?

I consider the D500 to be superior & more desirable than the D7500, even though the D7500 is a newer release. I would not trade the D500 for any other Nikon DX body.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Race Raccoon wrote:

Is your friend thinking of replacing a D500 w/a D7500 or augmenting his D500 w/a D7500 as a second body?

I consider the D500 to be superior & more desirable than the D7500, even though the D7500 is a newer release. I would not trade the D500 for any other Nikon DX body.

THE D500 WAS A MISTAKE!
He corrected it a few posts later.
“John N wrote:
Apologies hoggers. It seems my colleague had a mistype.

He is looking to upgrade from a D5100 to the D7500. Just hope you read this before answering the OP.”

READ ALL THE TREADS!
You miss some very good info if you just read the first post.
I see this over and over here.

And as said above, by the 7th page, the question has been answered already.

Attached file:
(Download)

sr71 Loc: In Col. Juan Seguin Land

CHG_CANON wrote:

Why settle for the ordinary when you can go full frame?

Full frame WHAT? 35mm is NOT the holy grail of sensor sizes they are all useful in their own way....

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A pound of luck isn't worth half as much as a full-frame camera.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

sr71 wrote:

Full frame WHAT? 35mm is NOT the holy grail of sensor sizes they are all useful in their own way....

He's one of those who believe that their decision is infallible.

I bought into the NIKON system decades ago because it was the technical equal, or better, to CONTAX and LEICA for a fraction of the money. Today I'm too invested to change.

That being said, I know people using CANON and SONY who love them and get excellent results.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Your mental health is just as important as your physical health and the brand of camera you shoot.

Drala2k Loc: Vermont

John N wrote:

I've had a query from an old colleague at work who... (show quote)

John, let me through my 2 cents in, which BTW is not worth much on the open market.

I have the D7100 and recently acquired the D7500 kit from Costco. The D7500 over my D7100 is lighter and faster focus. I do not find the mirror size reduction to 20 MP over the 24 MP of the D7100 to be restrictive. I fits my needs and being lighter, now in 70's, it is a pleasure to work with. I have found one little issue that I do not like. The D7100 had the infrared shutter release on the front and back of the body, and the d7500 only has it on the front or attach a cable release. This means that I cannot put it on a tripod to shoot flowers and remotely trigger it from behind. This knocks it down in my mind in terms of usefulness.

If I were to reinvest in equipment, which I cannot afford, I would take a good long look the Fuji line up such as the T3. Fuji lenses are out standing.

Good luck with your research.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

CHG_CANON wrote:

The day-2 contributors are always the most useful UHH community members when they only get as far as page 1 of 7 ....

(Or in the case of this D500 typo, not even through the posts on page 1.)

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

CO wrote:

The D7500 is not all plastic. It's carbon fiber.

Not to pick nits, but carbon fiber has to be embedded in some polymer matrix so it's plastic. However a carbon fiber reinforced plastic is a tremendous engineering material. It's used in the tubs of exotic sports cars so I'd not worry about durability of a CFR material at all. And, yes, it's lighter.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Here’s a suggested guideline for posting in a foru... (show quote)

Good one! Wow, thanks for setting me straight Superfly but sometimes i don't have time to go through 5 or 6 pages to make sure my comment is absolutely valid. That's why i usually don't like reading a thread with that many pages. But if i want to make a comment, even though something similar might have been made 3 pages ago...i'll make it, i mean if that's ok with you.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Ched49 wrote:

Good one! Wow, thanks for setting me straight Superfly but sometimes i don't have time to go through 5 or 6 pages to make sure my comment is absolutely valid. That's why i usually don't like reading a thread with that many pages. But if i want to make a comment, even though something similar might have been made 3 pages ago...i'll make it, i mean if that's ok with you.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Ched49 wrote:

Good one! Wow, thanks for setting me straight Superfly but sometimes i don't have time to go through 5 or 6 pages to make sure my comment is absolutely valid. That's why i usually don't like reading a thread with that many pages. But if i want to make a comment, even though something similar might have been made 3 pages ago...i'll make it, i mean if that's ok with you.

If you want to make a comment that makes you look foolish then go right ahead.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

SuperflyTNT wrote:

If you want to make a comment that makes you look foolish then go right ahead.

Oh WOW, another good one Superfly, your really on the ball! I think it's because i don't spend most of my waking hours sitting in front of a computer.