saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee, WA

I have owned both a D500 and a D810 for several years now. I have used each extensively and really enjoy owning both cameras. However, when I go out to photograph birds I always pick up my D500 attached to my Tamron 150x600MM G2 lens. I have shot wildlife with my D810 on several occasions but concluded pretty early on that my results are simply better with the D500. Now that's just me. Other knowledgeable members obviously feel differently. I've written this before and I still feel the same; if I had to give up one camera, I think it would be the D810. Here's two examples of how I use each camera - one from my D500 and the other from my D810. I think I could have taken the cityscape shot with my D500 but I'm not sure if I would have gotten the flying duck with my D810. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-631479-1.html

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Wow! Love that cityscape shot!

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

While I agree with you on the features of a D500, I find them of little real benefit. High FPS, bottomless buffer, better AF system are all great. However, the "slow" 5 fps on a D200 never seemed to be a problem for me.

At the end of the day, spray and pray is rarely a substitute for learning your prey both online and in the field, and exhibiting patience to get the shot(s) you want to be proud of. The first two were taken with a D200 and a 50-500 mm Sigma, the last was with a slightly faster D300.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First question... Do you actually NEED FX?

Yes, FX image quality can be great. HOWEVER, I wonder how many people actually need it. It's possible that you are the only person who ever sees all that image quality... when you are viewing your images at ridiculously magnified sizes on your computer monitor.

What do you DO with you images? Do you make really large prints? Say, bigger than 13x19? If you do make16x24s and larger, the FX camera might make sense. If the largest you ever print is smaller than that, so long as you don't do a lot of heavy cropping you wouldn't see very much difference from a recent DX model with 21MP or more resolution.

You mention birding and seem fixated on frame rate and build. As I understand it, the D810 and the D500 have the same 200,000 "click" durability rating and similar weather sealing. Yes, your D810's top continuous shooting rate is 5 frames per second and the D500 doubles that to 10 fps. But you may hate yourself if you do "too many" shots at the high frame rate (end up spending a lot more time sitting at a computer editing many more images). Short, fast bursts can be very useful at times, dut I'd argue that some other major differences between the camera are more important.

AUTO FOCUS

First, the D810 has a good, mid-grade AF system. But the D500 has a premium AF system. It has 153 AF points, versus 51 in the D810. Plus, 99 of the D500's AF points are the higher performance "cross" or "dual axis" type. The D810 only has 15 of those. In addition, the D500's AF system is rated to work down to -4EV, which is two stops lower light conditions than the D810's -2EV rating. Finally, although both have "f/8 capability", the D500 has more of those points, which is a feature that can be important if using teleconverters for additional "reach" and is a strong possibility when "birding". In fact, all these factors can be important for birders trying to capture images of small, distant, fast moving subjects in challenging lighting conditions.

TELEPHOTO ADVANTAGE

The D500's DX format is actually a big advantage when using telephotos, which you will undoubtedly do when birding. Say you are using a Nikkor 200-500mm (~$1400, 5 lb.) on the D500. To get the same "reach" with an FX D810 you will need a 300-750mm lens! No such zoom exists (at least not one that's worth consideration). So you'd have to buy prime lenses at a couple different focal lengths. And to keep those as light and manageable as possible, you might choose Nikon's relatively new "PF" lenses where you can, such as Nikkor 300mm f/4 PF (~$2000, 1.66 lb.) and Nikkor 500mm f/5.6 PF (~$3600, 3.2 lb.). You might use the latter with a 1.4X teleconverter to have a 700mm f/8 combo... If money is no object, an alternative is a Nikkor 800mm f/5.6 FL (~$16,300, 10 lb.)!

In other words, to have the same "reach" to photograph those small, shy subjects at a distance will be a lot more expensive and cumbersome with an FX camera, compared to what's possible with a DX.

So, how about just using the D810 in it's DX crop mode? Actually, instead I'd recommend cropping in post-processing... that can give the exact same results as the in-camera crop, but by doing it in post you have a lot more flexibility to vary the size and/or positioning of the crop.

However, cropping the 36MP FX camera to DX equivalent makes for 15MP images... significantly lower resolution than the D500's 21MP. Another thing often overlooked is that in DX mode the D810 delineates the image area that will be captured using a frame superimposed on the scene in the viewfinder. This can be easy to overlook, causing you to make mistakes framing your images. But, probably more importantly, the visual "crop" of the FX camera's viewfinder ends up being considerably smaller than the direct view in the D500. Instead of the 100%, 1.0X magnification of the D500, you'll be cropping a 100%, 0.7X viewfinder down to about 0.5X. In other words, the DX image area of the D810 will be much smaller and more difficult to work with than the considerably bigger DX view provided by the D500.

ALTERNATIVES

You only mention bird photography as an interest. You don't say what other things you shoot. For some purposes, the FX camera might be more ideal. They excel with wide angle lenses and depth of field effects such as portraiture (large aperture), or macro (small aperture). FX is often preferred for landscape and architectural photography. You also don't mention what lenses you have, which may be an important consideration.

If you do a wide variety of types of photography, ideal might be to have both formats in your kit, available for different purposes. If that's the case with you, maybe you should consider other options, besides the $1500 D500. For a lot less money the DX format D7500 ($900 new, $600 refurbished) gives you the same resolution as the D500, reasonably fast frame rates and a familiar 51-point AF system that's been tweaked a bit for action shooting. You also might be able to find a deal used/refurb D7200, which has slower 6 fps and similar AF, but higher 24MP resolution than D500, D7500 or, when it's in DX mode, D810. In fact, the D7200's has the best color depth and dynamic range of any Nikon DX sensor. I think the D7200 and D7500 51-point AF systems are rated to -3 EV... a stop better than your D810, although not quite as good as the D500's -4EV. The viewfinders of D7200 and D7500 are also nearly equal to the D500's... 100% and 0.94X magnification (both giving larger view than the DX crop area in D810).

The upshot of this is that a less expensive model such as a D7200 or D7500 allows you to keep your D810 to use alongside it, that might be a better solution than replacing the D810 with a D500. D500, D7500 or D7200 all would be solid upgrades from the older D300s you mentioned.

Food for thought... Have fun shopping!

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

If it were MY decision, I would go with the D500 because it is a newer generation and gets many of it' features from the D5. It is NOT my decision though! Either body will preform well. Best of luck.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...since you already have an 810, the benefits of having a *really* good crop sensor camera go *way* beyond birding. I love having the flexibility of being able to jump to crop to get a bit of stretch in certain situations. As you can see from my gear, most of my main bodies are FF...but that 500 is in there and gets used!

cvoleti

I had a similar dilemma last year, my D810 was five years old, then B&H photo video made a 1000$ reduction in D810 price, bought my second D810 never looked back.An African safari, a New Zealand self drive trip the two D810s were admirably useful.. Good luck what ever you decide...

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

Gene I say this same thing over and over again. When you start to crop and everybody likes to do it, the quality goes by by.

D500 50mm

(Download)

D4 1/1250 @ 5.6 200-500 5.6 500mm no crop

(Download)

richandtd Loc: Virginia

Lots of good points have been made and I believe I’ve made up my mind and will have to wait a little longer but I see a D850 in my future. I all ready have a computer system that will handle the pictures from the D850.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

Glad we could all help. Big decision.

richandtd Loc: Virginia

Amfofo1 asked “You also don't mention what lenses you have”
Currently 15mm-35mm 2.8, 70mm-200mm 2.8, 105mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.4. Yes I know I’ll need longer reach and will probably get the 500mm 5.6

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

The 200-500 5.6 is a nice lens to have.

RickL Loc: Vail, Az

I used my D810 very successfully for several years in nature photography. The FPS were never an issue and I got excellent shots in all conditions with the D810. It is a very good camera. I would still be using it but it and my Tamron 150-600 g2 met a tragic end with each in pieces. The insurance replaced them with another Tamron and a D850 . Having said that, I never had a focusing issue with it

In-lightened Loc: Kansas City

The 500mm f5.6 pf is a superb lens! Sharp as the core primes Nikon makes. What I have found is it is snappy, great contrast and sharp. It works very well on the D850 and D500. However...if you want more reach and pair it with a TC, if jumps to f8. Auto focus is slow at this point....soooo, if you think you will want more reach than 500mm (think song birds), you might want to reconsider the D500. Always a trade off....That said, simply love the images the D850 produces and you can crop with that many MP.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Do you need two 810s? Two things the D500 will give you is better AF as well as better low light capability. If you shoot sports at all, in-camera crop (reach is just a pure misnomer) certainly comes in handy.