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

Sorry about that, B&H lists it as Expeed. My typo. My fingers get in the way sometimes.

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

The discussion was teleconverters.

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

I have been using all three here in Florida. I do exclussively wildlife photography. Of the three, my first choice would be the D850 following very closely by the D500. I have not used the D5 much because of it's limited megapixel count compared to the D850 but the processing engine on the D5 is super, especially in low light. I know that it does not SCORE that high on TESTS. But in the real world where I do all of my photography the D5 is really great in low light.
I will probably be selling my D5 at the end of the season when we go back North for 6 months. It costs too much to have it sit around. It has a very low shutter count and will make someone a great camera. Please do not private message me. I will put it on this site about mid May. So, if anyone is interested, stay tuned.

CO

Almost correct. It's Expeed.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I'm not caught in the mega pixel wars as much as I am trying to understand what cameras have the sensors they do. I have a couple of 16mp FF (Df) camera and a 24mp crop (D5300). I am learning how each has different strengths and also why more recent cameras in some cases have lower MP counts that others. The 850 has 45+/- and the D500 has 21. Why has Nikon chosen this approach. I want to learn because I want to use my camera to their best advantage. I buy cameras the way I buy cars - performance first. But understanding performance is the most important part of the process. Long answer, sorry.

CO

The D850 and D500 have almost identical pixel density. The D500 has a 4.22 micron pixel pitch. The D850 has a 4.35 micron pixel pitch. The D850's sensor has just over twice the surface area of the D500's sensor.

I purchased a D750 just recently to complement my D500 and D7000. It's easier to get a shallow depth of field with the full frame camera.

BebuLamar

Don't you hear they said "Less is more" ? Take the much more expensive D5 and compare it to the D7200. The D5 has also 20MP, no built in flash, no scene modes.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

I was looking for a backup body to my D7200 and ended up with a nice deal on a used, low shutter count, pristine D500. Because of the AF capability, 10fps continuous shooting speed, and higher ISO range, I moved to the D500 for wildlife / birding and sports (grand kids soccer games), but use the D7200 for everything else. The D7200 sensor provides for a little bit better IQ including resolution, but the D500 has, arguably, the best AF system in the business. DxOMark rates the D7200 sensor at 87 and the D500 at 83. In fact, if you just look at the APS-C camera sensors DxOMark has tested, the D7200 is still at the top of the list and the D500 is 9th. I have never been disappointed by either camera.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Shortest answer: Physics & Money.


Long answer:
First and foremost, they do not want to make the low cost models have too much capabilities that people will no longer want the high end (stupidly) priced ones. They just try to maintain enough advantage over the competitors who are playing the same game. Inevitably, they killed the models after the 7200 as it will become direct competitors of their own products. The D500 should be the D7300 but doing that would prevent them from bumping up the price.

For the same sensor area, high MP means smaller pixel size. They have better resolution provide they are matched with a capable lens. They also produce more bits to process. More bits means low FPS and buffer. Giving them high performance computer will not really increase price too much but will pull down the buyers of higher end models.
Since very few consumer of these low priced high MP cameras buy the appropriate lenses, practically speaking, No one fully benefited from it.

Going for the smaller MP means a bigger pixel size. These have better low light performance and less bits to process to get more FPS (Frames per second) even if there is no change in the cameras electronics. Battery performance may also improve with less computation to do. Consumers do not lose perceived resolution (explained above) so it will look like everything has been improved.
Slap a few more direct control buttons, the professional profile body and boom! we now have a better product than the last.

I hope you find this with a lot of sarcasm :-)

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

For a while, I was puzzled by those who couldn't seem to see the difference between the D500 and, say, a D7200. Then in one of these discussions (there are several going on right now), someone revealed the answer. Turns out they were making the comparison using an 11:1, or even a 16:1 variable aperture zoom.

There are multiple threads on this site stating and restating that getting the best from cameras like the D850 requires using the best lenses. Certainly that is also true for any premium camera, including the D500, but for some strange reason, it is never mentioned for any crop sensor camera.

The lens used does make a difference in a situation like this. Last weekend, I used my D500 to photograph a high school robotics meet. Logistics required that I use a single lens, so I pulled out my old 18-200mm zoom and the D500. My results were ok, but certainly not up to the level that I could have gotten if I'd been able to use my better lenses.

So the best results are going to require your best all the way around. If you aren't willing or able to use the best lenses, it matters much less which camera you choose.

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

Falsehood, the D850 improves any lens you put on it. You do not have to put expensive lenses on the D850 to get the best results. I have a very old 60mm D macro and a 50D1.8 and the photo's are outstanding. And they are not the best Nikon lenses produced, they are production lenses, neither is a gold ring lens.
So the argument that you have to put a premium lens on an 850 to get great results is just not true. And I should know because I own a 850 and have put non-gold circle lenses on it and have gotten excellent results. Like I said, the D850 actually improves any lens you put on it, it does not have to be the best to get the best images. Tack sharp is tack sharp regardless of the quality of the NIKON glass you put on it.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I agree with what you are saying and have proved it to myself. But there are countless posts here that make the statement that "the D850 requires the best lenses available," or "will show every shortcoming in a lesser lens." I have never seen that stated for any DX camera. And I have also experienced that a lesser lens does limit the performance of the D500.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I hope you find this with a lot of sarcasm :-)[/quote]

Laying it on a little thick ... But I did find good information in your answer. Thank you.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

If you aren't willing or able to use the best lenses, it matters much less which camera you choose.[/quote]

So, one point I gather from the previous discussions is that one (of several) premise of buying a D500 in order to use DX glass is questionable unless the user already has very good DX glass.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

So, one point I gather from the previous discussions is that one (of several) premise of buying a D500 in order to use DX glass is questionable unless the user already has very good DX glass.[/quote]

The D500 will do fine with lesser lenses. It does great with the best lenses. And I have no problem with buying the camera and gradually getting better lenses. Its how I started. Just know going in that it does make a difference.