Are You Better Off With DX (Page 4): The D500 is about 1 stop worse then the D750. For low light, stick with full frame. You can tell by my posts I'm a fan of the D500, but I also...

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

GraveyDave wrote:

Thanks for all the comparisons. Still makes me want to buy a D500. I will rent one 1st to make sure the high ISO's are at least a few stops better than my D750. I shoot at events that I swear the parents watching the games have to be using night vision glasses!

The D500 is about 1 stop worse then the D750. For low light, stick with full frame. You can tell by my posts I'm a fan of the D500, but I also think you need to use the right camera for the job.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Steve Perry wrote:

The D500 is about 1 stop worse then the D750. For low light, stick with full frame. You can tell by my posts I'm a fan of the D500, but I also think you need to use the right camera for the job.

Have to admit you have a balanced approach to the D500.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

blackest wrote:

Have to admit you have a balanced approach to the D500.

Thanks - I like to leverage the best tool for the job at hand :)

terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii

Though you like one camera better than the other you give a refreshing unbiased opinion. Thank you

Steve Perry wrote:

The D500 is about 1 stop worse then the D750. For low light, stick with full frame. You can tell by my posts I'm a fan of the D500, but I also think you need to use the right camera for the job.

Jim Bob

mas24 wrote:

The D500 is no slouch. There is an issue with afte... (show quote)

D7200 still has better image quality up to ISO 6400.

Jim Bob

Look. You don't need a crowd to convince you to do something dumb.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Sorry, but I think both pictures are of poor quality. Maybe UHH reduced the number of pixels when uploaded or something, But neither are sharp on my monitor.

joer wrote:

I've been wrestling with the decision to buy a D50... (show quote)

dennis1

mborn wrote:

I use my D500 for Wildlife and my D810 for landscapes and night sky photography and since they use the same batteries and lenses If I want to interchange it is easy to accomplish

Don't know if this was a fair test or not...put a 70/200 f2.8 lens on the D810 zoomed out on assign on a brick building {spot focused on the sign which was about 600ft. away put the lens on theD500 took same shot . Brought into PS side by side zoomed in to 400% I was surprised to see pixalating on the 810 was more than the 500
both raw and jpeg! How do you explain that? Now consider the crop factor of the 500 I would think the 500 would be the lessor quality zooming in to 400% ???

Sorry I am new to site and haven't got to learning to post photos yet

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Wow, four pages on this foolish topic. Glad I did not jump into it. Hope all of you found nirvana.

Tjohn Loc: Inverness, FL formerly Arivaca, AZ

It doesn't make sense to me to keep making DX lenses when an FX lens will serve both. Further, it doesn't make sense to me to keep making so many differing sensor sizes and loosing the economy of volume.
I prefer Nikon for SLRs as Canons have failed me. I also prefer Canon point and shoots.
Someone tell me why it makes sense to create a whole new line of lenses for mirrorless cameras and not design cameras to utilize existing lenses.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Tjohn wrote:

It doesn't make sense to me to keep making DX lenses when an FX lens will serve both. Further, it doesn't make sense to me to keep making so many differing sensor sizes and loosing the economy of volume.
I prefer Nikon for SLRs as Canons have failed me. I also prefer Canon point and shoots.
Someone tell me why it makes sense to create a whole new line of lenses for mirrorless cameras and not design cameras to utilize existing lenses.

I'm no expert but DX lenses are supposed to be smaller and less expensive to build. Not sure the savings get passed along to the consumer.

I agree with you on the DSLR and Point & Shoot cameras.

Cameras with flopping mirrors have more distance between the senor and mount to provide clearance for the mirror action. Mirrorless lenses mount closer. Have no idea why it has to be so.

blackest Loc: Ireland

joer wrote:

I'm no expert but DX lenses are supposed to be smaller and less expensive to build. Not sure the savings get passed along to the consumer.

I agree with you on the DSLR and Point & Shoot cameras.

Cameras with flopping mirrors have more distance between the senor and mount to provide clearance for the mirror action. Mirrorless lenses mount closer. Have no idea why it has to be so.

Technically mirrorless camera's don't need to mount closer but having a shorter registration distance means it is relatively simple to adapt a longer registration distance lens to a mirrorless body. I have one which can adjust aperture on Pentax DA lenses which do not have an aperture ring. I also read somewhere it is easier to design wide angle lenses with a short registration distance (don't take my word on it , check).

dickwilber Loc: Indiana (currently)

blackest wrote:

... I also read somewhere it is easier to design wide angle lenses with a short registration distance (don't take my word on it , check).

Yes, it requires a retrofocus, or inverted telephoto lens configuration, essentially adding elements to the lens design.

KWM

Steve Perry wrote:

For bird photography, the D500 is killer. I'm getting far more keepers with my D500 than I did my D810. Here are just a few from the D500, tons more to go through:

(Obviously click download for the better version)

Great pics Steve. Could you say more about "far more keepers"? Is it the AF? Higher ISO and shutter speed? Noise?

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

KWM wrote:

Great pics Steve. Could you say more about "far more keepers"? Is it the AF? Higher ISO and shutter speed? Noise?

It's a combination of things. Oddly enough, non of which are ISO :)

The faster frame rate grabs twice as many shots per burst, giving me more choice in wing / head pristine, expression, etc. The larger buffer allows me to keep shooting when I'm engaged with a long action sequence (doesn't happen often, but hey, sometimes the action just doesn't quit!). The AF system is also noticeably better then the D810 and is locking on and staying locked on better. Any one of the above would be a nice upgrade, but all three combined really make a noticeable difference in the quality and quantity of the keepers I get :)