Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

The D500 has a deeper buffer and 1 FPS faster frame rate vs a gripped D850, 3 FPS faster vs a non-gripped D850. The "crop factor" of the D500 is a wash - put the D850 in DX crop mode (or crop back home on your computer) and you have essentially the same file size, so don't get the D500 for "reach". The only way I'd get the D500 is if you need the faster frame rate or the deeper buffer. I was using a D500 extensively until I got the D850 - the D850 and D5 come on trips with me now, the D500 sits home on the self - it's mostly redundant with the D850 in the bag.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

I would never consider it a waste of money, just another enjoyable adventure. The D500 is built a little more for speed while the D850, with it's higher pixel count, is great for landscape photography but that's not to say you can't use the D850 for fast action. Either way, their both enjoyable cameras to use.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Opps! Didn't mean to repeat what Steve Perry wrote, I wrote my response on page #1.

Red Sky At Night

Thank you EVERYONE for your helpful input.

Bill P

But remember, within a few months, a year at most, there will be a D875 or 900, and a D550. Then you'll be back with the same question in a different key.

tdozier3 Loc: Northern Illinois

You wouldn't need new glass. All F mount lenses are interchangeable, just figure in the 1.5 crop factor for focal range. For instance, a 50mm FX lens will be equivalent to a 75mm on a DX camera.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

I don't understand. You don't have any extra reach with the D500, it is essentially already a cropped version of what you'd get from the D850.

Rawaits Loc: Canton, GA

Do you mean with my 400mm lens on a D500 the image it captures would be as the image in the cropped mode on the D850 (except for pixel count)? I have thought it would look as if capture by 600mm (1.5x).

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If I have a bird at 50 yards, and use my D850 and d500 with the same focal length lens, I will put more EFFECTIVE MEGIPIXELS on it with the d500 than the d850. If I crop to fill the frame with the D850 at the same distance, I end up with less megipixels on the bird than with using the D500. TRUTH.

Bill_de Loc: US

I can't be by much. The difference between the D500 and D850 in DX mode is relatively very minor.

--

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

You put 20.9 on the bird with the D500, 19.4 with the D850 - although the D500 has more, the results are virtually indistinguishable at any output size. However, with the D850, you also have the option for putting more MP on the target than the D500 if you're closer, which is actually a huge advantage. The D850 is like having a top tier DX camera and FX camera all at the same time. If you're close, you get to use the entire frame, if not, you still get comparable results to the D500. Just some food for thought. :)

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I just set my D850 to an image size of "DX" and snapped an image. Display information says it is 5408 x 3600. That multiplies out to 19.5 MP, against 20.9 MP for the D500 per Nikon's website. So a couple of things...

1) The D850 forms the image with about 6.8% fewer pixels. Probably not a significant difference.
2) The pixels are about the same size in both cameras.

To me, the advantage if I am shooting DX images for some reason is that unless I turn the viewfinder mask on, I can see some of the area around my image (still marked with perimeter lines) on the D850. That can help when shooting moving subjects (railroads, in my case, where I could get a little warning if my subject is approaching an obstruction).

Now...viewfinder magnification is 1.0x with a 50mm lens on the D500, while it is 0.75x with the same lens on the D850. This means that the "image circle" of both viewfinders is about the same size. That helps manage how much we have to scan around when looking through the viewfinder to see all parts of our frame. And it can provide a bit of a framing and composing advantage for the D500 for those of us whose eyes are getting older, but it has no effect on the image which is ultimately captured.

Bill_de Loc: US

If you are not in DX mode you would still see the area around your intended image. It would be part of the image. The advantage there, particularly with moving subjects, is that if the subject doesn't wind up exactly where you want in the frame you can crop to the dx size, with the same number of pixels on the subject, and have a chance to put the subject closer to where you want it in the frame. The only downside is the larger file size.

--

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

You are correct. And I do not usually shoot in DX mode anyway because I also have DX bodies. But I have the option (if I ever wanted to) to mount a DX lens to the D850, set for DX image size, leave the image mask off, and still see the area around my shooting area. There would be some vignetting in the corners and perhaps the sides, of course, but not in the captured area. I have experimented already with my 18-200 mm DX zoom this way, in case there were situations where I wanted to use a lighter wide range zoom for some reason or wanted to avoid the weight of, for instance, a 70-200 mm lens. If using my dedicated DX body, I would not have the option of the peripheral view.

And by the way, both of my DX lenses will do great 1:1 aspect ratio images at 24mm x 24mm, which is another interesting option yielding a 30.2 MP square image. (The 18-200 does vignette a tiny bit in the corners at wide angle focal lengths, but nothing that cannot be fixed easily. The 17-55 does not vignette in this case, but yields a completely usable sharp image.) I'm planning an outing taking just the 18-200 both to exercise composing square images and to test the image quality of what I end up with.

This is probably way more esoteric a discussion than most people would care to entertain. But for me, these are some interesting and possibly useful options that I'll continue to pursue.

Bill_de Loc: US

Not being most people I found your post both entertaining and informative!

--