robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Office holders putting out hot air explaining how their policies and laws are not the reason the state is going to hell and how more of the same will fix it.

Or maybe just because we are further south and in climate zone that makes for hot dry summers etc!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I hope you were trying to be funny. . . The same reason the rich in the luxury cabins on the Titanic were so happy that their end of the boat wasn't sinking. . . Duh-uh! Local Weather ≠ Climate. But your comment is out of place on a photography thread - so get thee to the Attic at once!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I heard it makes you a latte in the morning too!

wetreed

It’s the absolute best DX camera ever made.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I have a funny suspicion the ham radio operator would agree that cell phones are a more reliable form of communication. They're by no stretch of the imagination as fun but definitely more reliable. The woodworkers response would probably be, if you want a cheaper table, you know where to get it, if you want a better table, I'm your man.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I couldn't even get mine to make me a simple cup of coffee.

broncomaniac Loc: Lynchburg, VA

I use a phone when an unexpected opportunity presents itself, a shot that would otherwise be missed. Wouldn't dream of using one for a planned shoot though, and no phone is going to serve as a master for my array of speedlights.

Jonesy11267204

With your interests, I think the suggestion on the D500, and the 7000 series,

Try capturing and Eagle catching a fish at 100 yards with a high quality cellphone.

Don’t get me wrong, but if nature or birds are your thing, or large prints shot in raw for optimum editing, stick with DSLR or the new Mirrorless.

I own a D500 with the AF-S 200-500mm, 5.6 and works great for birding.

Good Luck!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The OP hasn’t identified a single dissatisfaction with current Nikon equipment - no reason to purchase anything new - so smart phone with better camera makes as much sense as anything else.

BebuLamar

That is why asking such a question would have a lot of answers but none is useful.

neillaubenthal

There's something to be said for that…but there's also something to be said for new toys:-)

neillaubenthal

Ok…just to debate a little…why? Although I do not own one…I have read many, many reviews and comparisons of it and it's closest equivalent the D7500. Sensor…same. Ability to AF and AE in slightly lower light maybe for the D500. Arguably slightly better weatherproofing for the 500 but the 7500 is weatherproofed pretty decently

500 has no built in flash…which is fine for a pro…but for a non pro do you really want to carry a flash around all the time?

Lack of U1 and U2 modes to make switching configurations quickly on the 500.

Ken Rockwell…I think we can all admit he's a pretty smart guy…but even he says that unless you are a sports shooter that needs the 10 vs 8 frames per second the 7500 is just as good and cheaper.

So…while I'll admit that the D500 is probably a little better made…for a lot of users better is the enemy of good enough. My 7500 sees pretty well in the dark too.

neillaubenthal

Whole bunch of "a smart phone is a better camera than a DSLR" going on here. It's simply not so. Sure…Apple and Google do a lot with software to intelligently (at least their idea of intelligently) fix your photos…and they do a pretty good job.

However…physics is still physics…and very small sensors with typically less resolution than a DSLR sensor mean more noise, worse low light performance and all the other drawbacks of small sensors.

Similarly…optics is still optics…and it's simply not possible for the lens in a phone to be as high quality as a DSLR lens…again, physics is physics.

A camera with a decent phone is a great thing to have…and I've taken (and published on the blog) great phone shots…but it's not a DSLR and for any sort of wildlife farther than 20 yards from the camera it just can't compare. I've also got several of the third part camera apps on my iPhone…and you can change a lot of things exposure and focus wise with. them…but as I said above…physics is physics.

It's also the photographer that makes the photo…not the camera…but to some extent you have to have equipment that will let you realize your ideas. We were in Yellowstone recently and happened across a flock of mountain goats that were between 20 and 75 yards from the road. Could you get a photo of the flock with a phone? Sure…but they would mostly be white dots. Could you get a closeup of the two juvenile males jousting with each other 40 yards away? Sure…but again white dots and not the beautifully frozen in time close up a DSLR would get.

That doesn't make a phone a bad thing to have…they have their uses especially if you see something and don't have your DSLR with you. But they also have a lot of limitations that there just isn't any getting around. Pros who want to prove a point can take a phone into a studio with lights and work around the limitations…but not having to work around limitations is much better.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Nope.
Cell towers are designed to simultaneously serve a statistically calculated percentage of the users in and passing through the area. Once full, others cannot talk until someone disconnects. Stories abound of people not being able to access cellular service after an event.

When an event occurs interrupting the electrical power grid, most cell towers have limited backup power. Some still have none. No power, no phone service.

Amateur radio operators can operate on a wide variety of frequencies and regularly exercise the ability to operate independently of the commercial power grid for extended periods. More independently, we operate not depending on the survival of network switching centers.

And there are a myriad of other factors.

So no, amateur radio operators would absolutely not agree with your statement.

Larry
W5LEP

frank west Loc: los angeles, ca, usa

I am very new here (just now signed up), and you don't know me. So before you take any advice from me I'd suggest you be sure to check it out.

My understanding of Nikon is that right now it is in the throws of a reorganization of its camera line up. Recently, it was reported that Canon took a 55% hit to its profit last quarter. No doubt all the camera manufacturers are feeling the same pinch except Sony, maybe. There are lots of rumors going around. One rumor that I recently read in the photography press is that Nikon plans to drop the D500 and will not be producing a replacement camera for it. Same so for the D3000 line, as well. With all this sort of stuff flying around about the camera industry wouldn't it be better to just sit tight for now until the dust gets settled? Who knows when that will be. But, it may be better to just sit tight until rumors become fact or are clarified. When a camera line goes extinct, suddenly its value drops since there will be no more firmware updates or newer models. You don't want to pay a hefty 'new' price for a D500 only to learn a month or two later that its price and value has dropped substantially. Trade in values are important when moving up. And, you always want to anticipate that when buying an upgrade camera. For many, upgrade does not stop with just one upgrade. Upgrades are often paid for partly by the sale of the old camera on the used camera market. Good shooting.