To All - An observation and comment(s), in the above post a guy was asking about possibly buying a camera at Walmart and has warranty concerns - this is an answer he got for asking a simple question - "Perhaps you should ask Wal-Mart. Nah. That makes too much sense. Ask UHH instead". Several weeks ago I posted a "Thinking out loud" type post about buying a D500 when I already have a D7200, I had several post saying that they are the same camera (which they aren't!!!) and "why the hell" would I do that kind of responses. The worst was this one -"Part of being human is engaging in stupid conduct. Wise people learn from these mistakes. Idiots never do. Hopefully, you are in the former group"??? In a post below the Walmart question was this post - "Rough crowd, as a new member I am scratching my head. Seems most, if not all posts are challenged" -- OMG he is right. There are other "why the hell did you do that or say that" reply type post other than the ones I have copied - my question is WHY. Why do valid/sound/I want to know - etc. etc, type question get answered with sarcasm and "your an idiot for posting that" responses??? What is the purpose of UHH, is it not for both professionals and newbies to ask questions -- any question. I personally was made to feel like an "Idiot" (and other things) for what I posted, I am wandering how the guy that posted the question about buying a camera at Walmart feels? Even if the "why the hell are you asking us" post did not bother him, why say something like that? This is a forum for guys and gals that like photography, like to share ideas, like to get input on many subjects. I am of the belief that there is no dumb post, there is no stupid question, no comment or question that should be dismissed, and when someone post a comment or question --- to them it is something that they want input on, they want advice/opinions from people that have a lot of knowledge about photography. As for the Walmart question, DAMM RIGHT HE SHOULD POST THAT QUESTION HERE! And for the SOB's that post comments like the above mentioned -- have you tried Nikonions.
Cool, that is what I thought you meant but wasn't sure. There are several pictures that I have taken through the years that I would love to convert it to a "painting", but I don't have time nor desire to learn the program nor want to spend the money on the program. If you have time and would want to I would pay a reasonable fee to have a couple pictures converted -
Thanks
Operating on the premise that there are no dumb questions - what is "photo painting software"
Thanks
Kmgw9v wrote:
A water filter for a refrigerator.
Hey - I just got one of those
mcveed wrote:
I don't know either of these two books. The best Nikon guides I have ever used were written by Thom Hogan.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/books/bythom-complete-guides-/nikon-d500-guide.html
I agree, I had one for a D200 and a D7200, the thing I don't like with Thom Hogan's "books" is the fact that they are e-books, which I could just order a "real book". I know, you can always print it.
mas24 wrote:
Black Friday is now over, and Cyber Monday Deals are closing by this upcoming weekend. One of the best deals was the Nikon D500, body only, selling brand new for $1796. That price was very tempting, but I have 2 lenses I am wanting first. and I can't afford them all. I think the D500 DSLR camera is the best affordable today. There are some good ones that can compete, such as Canon's 7D Mark 2, Sony's a77II, a6500, and Nikon's D7200. Anyone know of a better, affordable, crop sensor DSLR camera that is better?
Black Friday is now over, and Cyber Monday Deals a... (
show quote)
I just bought the D500 and I also have a D7200, several on this site told me that they are the same camera and that I was "Stupid" for buying a D500 when I already have a D7200, I shoot sports so that is why I wanted the D500. I have shot a couple high school basketball games since I bought the camera and there is a difference between the two cameras, obviously it is a great camera. B&H is not only giving 200 bucks off bit they are with the purchase of the D500 including a battery pack, 64 MB card and a packpack, a $481.39 value plus the 200 bucks off = $681.00, kind of a no brainier.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon+d500&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps&typedValue=d500
policelion wrote:
Hi everyone not a beginner sort of in the middle, I purchased a D-70 years ago shot well with it, considering upgrade to a D-750 but I hear the Cannon line is better I like Nikon for a non professional does it really make a difference. But I really like to know which one is better.
My business partner has a Ford truck, I have a Chevy - we are always giving each other crap over which truck is better, there is no difference as far as which truck is better, there are a lot of differences in them, but does not have a thing to do if one truck is better or not, boils down to personal preference. I am in no way qualified to even be in this conversation, I am an amateur with a Nikon, but I would guess the choice of which camera to use follows the sames lines as the trucks.
Fotoartist wrote:
Cameras have all kinds of capabilities that some do better than others such as frames per second, etc.
But all specs are based on the image as it comes out of the camera. If that's all you can live with, fine.
But if you can do this (below) with Photoshop, (identical bird shot started in raw and processed with Adobe Camera Raw except a background from an angle outside of the frame is inserted by Photoshop in one), what's to prevent you, as long as you're in there already, from boosting the shadow detail or lowering the highlight anywhere you like and blowing the DxO specs out of the water (making it better than)?
All I'm saying is that in the end how you present it can trump DxO specs. I've learned to spend more time in post when needed, less time worrying about whether I got the absolute best specs available for the price at the time. I shoot a D4s.
Cameras have all kinds of capabilities that some d... (
show quote)
That all makes perfect sense, your pic looks great, and I know what you can do with a good post processing program. But for me taking pics is a hobby, I am actually pretty good and comfortable in manual, S or A modes, not having a flash on the D500 does not bother me - i.e. I don't take pics in Auto. Having said that I hate to say it but I am one of those that -- for now, takes the pics as they come out of the camera. I "play" around with Photoshop 14 (the dummies version), I bought Light Room several years ago and played with it but never really learned how to work productively in it. Let me see, I have owned my own biz for years and it keeps me really busy, when I have extra time I would rather ride my Harley, my family takes up a lot of time --- I could come up with more "reasons" why I have not learned to post process - bottom line is I just have not made time. I was in a bar many years ago sitting next to the guy playing a piano, when he got done with his set I got to talking to him, I told him that I wish I could play the piano, he said "No you don't, if you really wanted to play you would take lessons and learn how to play", that was a direct quote. He was right, I have told myself for many years that I was going to learn how to "really" post process -- has not happened.
So for those of us that take pics as they come out of the camera, I am hoping the D500 will do the trick.
Thanks
NikonCharlie wrote:
I am in a southern burb of Wichita, 15 miles from downtown.
Bummer, thought if you lived in the Kansas City area we could get together and talk cameras -
Thanks
NikonCharlie wrote:
The D500 has the best auto focus of any camera I have used, and I own several. The 7200 simply is not what some are wanting you to believe. Your 500 is a cut-down version of the ultimate, D5. Your D500 has many pro features the 7200 does not; Round Eyepiece, 10 frames a second on hi, shocking track focusing and swift (best ever) low light focus. I am amazed at the auto white balance, I actually shoot jpg with the D500. It feels and handles like a pro body. It's the best DX camera available, Nikon or otherwise. Dont bail out on it. Only feature that a D7200 trumps the d500-pop up flash.
I trackd a this critter with a 500 f4 af-s + TC17, the 500 held focus through tree leaves (hope this works, my first attachment)
The D500 has the best auto focus of any camera I h... (
show quote)
Great Pics! I bought the D500 for the same reason you list above, after reading all of the reviews (and I know you need to understand who is writing the review and why they are saying what they are saying) I felt like it would be a step up from the 7200, again - for shooting basketball in low light high school gyms. Granted, if I bought the D500 to shoot my family eating turkey in a couple days - OK, that would be stupid. Thanks for your input. On another note, and I hope I am not breaking a rule here, but I see you are from Kansas, what part? I am in a western burb of Kansas City
whitewolfowner wrote:
It really comes down to what you are looking for. The D500 shoots 10 frames a second; if that's what's important to you and you want the extra reach of the crop sensor; then, yes it is the best Nikon camera to use. If the least amount of noise is important and money isd not a factor; the D5. It all comes down to what is it that you are looking for in your shots.
Of course your right, and I miss-spoke when I said "Everything that I have read about the D500 says that it is better than any of the other Nikon's for low light sports" of course the D7200/D500 aren't as good as a D5, not being a pro spending $6500.00 for a D5 is not something I want to do.
Thanks
NikonCharlie wrote:
Contact that you will return the camera for credit, then re-buy at the new deal. Likely they will make it right without returning. Meantime, shoot the D500 a few hundred frames, just to learn and enjoy it.
Thanks, I will give B&H a call, I am hoping that I will not have to send it back and re-buy. And thanks for telling me to just go shoot the camera and have some fun, since I posted my first post about having a bit of buyers remorse seems like a number of the individuals on this site have been more interested in telling me how stupid I am for buying a D500 when I have a D7200 than offering some positive feed back.
Fotoartist wrote:
When you are talking about quality differences in upper tier cameras such as D7200, D810, D750, D4s, and D5 of the Nikon line which are so minute that it takes test data to determine the differences rather than what you actually see in real world usage then I would suggest we are victims of the technology pundits and marketers who fuel GAS.
I teach Photoshop and routinely see students who have destroyed pixels in their high-end images with the way they processed their images. What difference does a DxO rating matter at that point? In fact those specs only matter if you use the image raw as it came straight from the camera. Who does that? I would suggest spending a little more time and energy on post-processing to get the biggest bang for your buck.
When you are talking about quality differences in ... (
show quote)
Well, that is frustrating! So you are saying that the D500 is basically the same camera as the D7200 and that I will see NO difference in my low light high school basketball shots. I realize that when you are comparing computers, stereo equipment - etc. one should not waste time trying to pin down the best spec's. Years ago I had a friend that bought a new high end stereo system, he spent several weeks pouring over all of the spec's from different brands, in the end he bought what he thought was the best system -- I could not here any difference from his system and my comparable system. But with cameras one would think the differences in these two cameras would be noticeable - so am I wrong?
Thanks