D500

again I said image NOT shot

take it all the way back then ....... a shot from a Canon S95 can be better than that from a D4S ......... but the image will not be

not really worth the discussion anymore

Shot/image, same thing to me, but i'll rephrase question if you like

In what way is a D4S image better than a D7200 image for example?
 
I just feel that the most effective and consistant way to get a good BIF is to use spot, single cell and move with the bird ............. only thing that works for me, but I also need luck
But this camera isn't aimed just at taking pictures of birds - in flight or nailed to a feckin' perch.

Besides, you can still use one focus point if you prefer, while people who want to use the other 150 can also do so.:)
 
It will be much less noisy at higher ISO for a start. That's key imo, especially if you're doing wildlife here in dull dreary England where you're often having to up the ISO and getting noisy images. We'll have to wait and see how noisy the images from the d500 are...or indeed, are not.
 
It will be much less noisy at higher ISO for a start. That's key imo, especially if you're doing wildlife here in dull dreary England where you're often having to up the ISO and getting noisy images. We'll have to wait and see how noisy the images from the d500 are...or indeed, are not.

And that is the key right there, no one really knows this just yet............ fingers crossed ;)

Also, having never really looked into the D810, how does it compare fps/buffer wise with the new D500

Plus all the other raft of improvements taken from the D5, AF, processor etc, i still think the D500 will be a worthy piece of kit for any wildlife/sport/aviation tog, plus any other use that comes along
 
Shot/image, same thing to me, but i'll rephrase question if you like

In what way is a D4S image better than a D7200 image for example?

I think that it is a fruitless discussion ... it is a personal opinion

I have a D750, D700 and D7200 at the present time

The images from the D750 are (much) better than from the D7200, specially and generally in the majority of cases at all ISO's ............ comparing RAW files the IQ is better, the noise levels are far better etc., etc.

The D700 is a really good camera and some shots are up there with the D750 ...... I prefer the D700 images to any D7xxx image

The DX sensor on the D300/D700/D7100/D7200 is and has been far noisier generally and specifically than the FX D750 and D750

The D7200 is OK as a spare body but that's all ........ I would not buy another, I would buy a D610 or D750 in preference ....... I bought then D7200 specifically for BIF's and a cary around in the car .. for the larger buffer and fast frame rate, which coupled with a good card is effective

The images from the FX sensor can be improved much more in pp than the DX image can ............ DX crops can be terrible, FX crop can be really good.

simple for me, I have and use both cameras side by side ........... with good nikon glass .......ranging from a 55mm f1.2, 105mm f2.8, 300mm f2.8 ...........70 200mm f2.8, .300mm f4 .. 300mm f4 ....... to the 600mm f4 .......................used with both bodies

just my experience - maybe your is better
 
Last edited:
But you have already admitted you only use your DSLR for Bird photography, as has been pointed out many times Bill, the new D500 isn't just a Bird camera

And i too have had a D700, and currently a D7100, and i could see no discernible difference between the 2 in terms if IQ and high ISO noise

But to blanketly say that all images taken on an FX sensor will be better than DX is just plain daft

Yes FX has an edge at high ISO, and with dynamic range, but if you shoot a polar bear in snow storm at ISO 100 then these 2 points are moot anyway

As long as you use your DX sensor body within its contraints (ISO, dynamic range) then there should be no reason they aren't comparible with images taken on FX format

And it's not to do with anyone's experience being better, just my experience being different ;)
 
Last edited:
The D7200 is OK as a spare body but that's all ........ I would not buy another, I would buy a D610 or D750 in preference ....... I bought then D7200 specifically for BIF's and a cary around in the car .. for the larger buffer and fast frame rate, which coupled with a good card is effective

The images from the FX sensor can be improved much more in pp than the DX image can ............ DX crops can be terrible, FX crop can be really good.

I think that is far too much of a generalisation Bill, DX & FX are entirely different beasts, I know 'birders' who love the D7200, even using it in preference to the D4S ... crops will vary with both FX & DX but the advantage with the D7200 is with a 24MP camera giving 1.5x the reach of FX, ideal for wildlife.
You've had the D7200 what 2 weeks?
 
You've had the D7200 what 2 weeks?


Roger, I had the D7100 before that for almost 3 years and used it a lot, prior to that the D7100 ........... I know the strength and weakness of the DX body D7xxx versus the FX and DX D300 .......... I saw little improvement from the DX D300 to the DX D7100 ...... noise levels have always frustrated me ...... especially with plain background, (which you can mitigate to some extent), on cropped small bird images

I know that you have had the D4S and now the D810 and D7200 so you can compare
 
Don't believe you considering Nikon past DX record with noise

Don't believe me? I was replying to Rich and agreeing with you that the D4S will be much better at handling noise at higher ISO than a DX body such as the D500... :confused:
 
Don't believe me? I was replying to Rich and agreeing with you that the D4S will be much better at handling noise at higher ISO than a DX body such as the D500... :confused:

I should have said "Don't believe it"

sorry
 
Me too but then I still keep asking myself, 'what is the point of 3D?'.
As mentioned before I find it quite useful sometimes. However, after my recent discovery regarding the dynamic area AF I do question Nikon's decision on this. What I mean is that the highlighted AF point never moves form the original point even when it's using another focus point, therefore you have no idea what focus point is actually being used until you actually take the shot and review it, how is this ever right?
 
Roger, I had the D7100 before that for almost 3 years and used it a lot, prior to that the D7100 ........... I know the strength and weakness of the DX body D7xxx versus the FX and DX D300 .......... I saw little improvement from the DX D300 to the DX D7100 ...... noise levels have always frustrated me ...... especially with plain background, (which you can mitigate to some extent), on cropped small bird images

I know that you have had the D4S and now the D810 and D7200 so you can compare

Bill I had a D7000 and D7100, my only reason for taking the D7100 back was due to AF problems (early batch had issues), IMO the D7200 is streets ahead of the D7000 in most respects.
Again, IMO, the AF acquisition on the D7200 is ahead of the D4 and on a par with the D4S (uses the same 'engine'), though obviously it does not have the same ISO capability of either (or the price tag).
For the money (a not insignificant consideration for most people) the D7200 is a brilliant little camera :)
 
Bill I had a D7000 and D7100, my only reason for taking the D7100 back was due to AF problems (early batch had issues), IMO the D7200 is streets ahead of the D7000 in most respects.
Again, IMO, the AF acquisition on the D7200 is ahead of the D4 and on a par with the D4S (uses the same 'engine'), though obviously it does not have the same ISO capability of either (or the price tag).
For the money (a not insignificant consideration for most people) the D7200 is a brilliant little camera :)
I must admit I'm struggling to get the price difference of nearly £1k between the D7200 and D500 based on the specs, but I guess it becomes more apparent when you actually use them? If I was in the market for a crop body Id struggle to justify the cost of the D500 over the D7200. However, when the price drops I'm sure the D500 will be a much more tempting proposition.
 
I must admit I'm struggling to get the price difference of nearly £1k between the D7200 and D500 based on the specs, but I guess it becomes more apparent when you actually use them? If I was in the market for a crop body Id struggle to justify the cost of the D500 over the D7200. However, when the price drops I'm sure the D500 will be a much more tempting proposition.

Indeed.
In reality the D500 isn't going to get you the 'killer' shot any more than the D7200 or indeed D70 will, 'right place/right time' does that ... the plain fact is (and we all know it but refuse to accept it) is that Nikon, like all other suppliers, just want to hike more cash from the gullible consumer who 'must have' the latest gizmo no matter what - there's a name for it but it escapes me at the moment :)
 
The development and release of the D500 has surprised me ..... almost confused me

The D400 never came and Nikon missed the boat by at least 2 years ....... filling in with the D7xxx

The Nikon line up was until a few years ago pretty straightforward and logical

They have now produced a relatively expensive DX Body with almost all the bells and whistles possible, (Nikon's third most expensive body?) - is this part of Nikon's future development strategy, strange if it is?

Canon have thrown the MP gauntlet down and Nikon have not responded

The DSLR is still considered to be the best option for Sports and Wildlife ............ but the DSLR still has this ancient mirror slap vibration producing system

I would have thought that, considering Nikon past experience in the development of the V1 system ...... that the DX future for Nikon would be mirrorless in an F-mount body about the size of the D750 ..... with all the electronic etc., bells and whistles that they have

They could then use this experience to develop an FX mirrorless body and run these alongside their DSLR FX range........ as and when they are confident that they can produce a similar body to their present FX systems

I am not sure where Nikon source their DSLR sensors from these days, but I think that it was Sony

Interested to hear your comments
 
Last edited:
Accountants run companies Bill, it isn't in their financial interest to give us our ideal product :)
 
I've never had any problem with noise on my D70 D300 D2XS D7000 D7100 D7200 V1 plus V2 these have all been exceptable , the problems start when you try to get more out of a photo, cropped to hell , plus trying to correct exposure cock-ups, then yes , then you will have problems with noise... I've been up to iso 6500 on the 7200 no problems there, its the same with the V1 V2, perfectly acceptable noise, BUT DONT CROP the images they dont like it , get closer or buy a longer lens :D..
 
I've never had any problem with noise on my D70 D300 D2XS D7000 D7100 D7200 V1 plus V2 these have all been exceptable , the problems start when you try to get more out of a photo, cropped to hell , plus trying to correct exposure cock-ups, then yes , then you will have problems with noise... I've been up to iso 6500 on the 7200 no problems there, its the same with the V1 V2, perfectly acceptable noise, BUT DONT CROP the images they dont like it , get closer or buy a longer lens :D..

Getting close enough not to crop is pretty difficult when you work full time and haven't got time to sit around for hours waiting for wildlife to build up your trust ;) And longer lenses cost 5x or more the price of this body so unless you're really serious, most people can't justify the cost...so where does that leave us? Complainig about the noise it seems :p
 
Whilst i cant afford a D500 the price comes as no surprise,if its as good as the claims whats the problem,why shouldn't a DX cost more than an FX,unless of course you make the mistake of thinking of FX as better in all situations,just think of them as different tools for different jobs and look at what the top FX costs to get some perspective.
 
Whilst i cant afford a D500 the price comes as no surprise,if its as good as the claims whats the problem,why shouldn't a DX cost more than an FX,unless of course you make the mistake of thinking of FX as better in all situations,just think of them as different tools for different jobs and look at what the top FX costs to get some perspective.

Why do many, some or a just few prefer FX

It all started with Leica in 1939, (?), - 24 x 36 was chosen from cinema film, (I believe) .. and that is what most of us have got used to and work with ..... and compare to ... it is/was the standard

do we all agree that a DX sensor is just a smaller FX sensor

price was dictated by sensor size (cost to manufacture) when digital came in
 
Last edited:
Getting close enough not to crop is pretty difficult when you work full time and haven't got time to sit around for hours waiting for wildlife to build up your trust ;) And longer lenses cost 5x or more the price of this body so unless you're really serious, most people can't justify the cost...so where does that leave us? Complainig about the noise it seems :p
whats it to do with working full time?...and i dont sit in a hide all day..try digiscoping..thats where i started, come to think about it,I got a astro scope somewhere.... ( goes to find it)
 
Why do many, some or a just few prefer FX

It all started with Leica in 1939, (?), - 24 x 36 was chosen from cinema film, (I believe) .. and that is what most of us have got used to and work with ..... and compare to ... it is/was the standard

do we all agree that a DX sensor is just a smaller FX sensor

price was dictated by sensor size (cost to manufacture) when digital came in

Thats an over simplification,if a DX is just a smaller FX i wonder why they spend so much money on finding the right pixel density,pitch ect,when they could just cut a FX down.
 
Whilst i cant afford a D500 the price comes as no surprise,if its as good as the claims whats the problem,why shouldn't a DX cost more than an FX,unless of course you make the mistake of thinking of FX as better in all situations,just think of them as different tools for different jobs and look at what the top FX costs to get some perspective.
Isn't the sensor one of the biggest costs though?
 
whats it to do with working full time?...and i dont sit in a hide all day..try digiscoping..thats where i started, come to think about it,I got a astro scope somewhere.... ( goes to find it)

Hmm you have me intrigued with this digiscoping. I have a telescope and a Nikon mount adapter that came with it. Never thought about using my telescope for long-reach bird photography.

Any links to point us in the right direction? ;) :D

Many thanks!


EDIT - Scrap that, I've just had a thought that it's a refractor telescope and I think the image I get would be upside-down?
 
Last edited:
The development and release of the D500 has surprised me ..... almost confused me

The D400 never came and Nikon missed the boat by at least 2 years ....... filling in with the D7xxx

The Nikon line up was until a few years ago pretty straightforward and logical

They have now produced a relatively expensive DX Body with almost all the bells and whistles possible, (Nikon's third most expensive body?) - is this part of Nikon's future development strategy, strange if it is?

Canon have thrown the MP gauntlet down and Nikon have not responded

The DSLR is still considered to be the best option for Sports and Wildlife ............ but the DSLR still has this ancient mirror slap vibration producing system

I would have thought that, considering Nikon past experience in the development of the V1 system ...... that the DX future for Nikon would be mirrorless in an F-mount body about the size of the D750 ..... with all the electronic etc., bells and whistles that they have

They could then use this experience to develop an FX mirrorless body and run these alongside their DSLR FX range........ as and when they are confident that they can produce a similar body to their present FX systems

I am not sure where Nikon source their DSLR sensors from these days, but I think that it was Sony

Interested to hear your comments
I can't believe that Nikon aren't investing in mirrorless tech, maybe it's just a case of they're not as happy as they'd like to be with it. Maybe when mirrorless match DSLR in AF we'll see an influx of Canikon Mirrorless? I guess we'll have to wait and see ;)
 
I'll hang back and see what it's like when it hits the shops, not keen on the lack of flash, it's a real pain if you have to carry one around.
ATM my photography is on hold waiting results of a scan so we'll see where it goes from there, but yep defo interested although I do like the
results I get from the D7100.

Anyone know whether the D500 will have the sensor filter back ?
 
I can't believe that Nikon aren't investing in mirrorless tech, maybe it's just a case of they're not as happy as they'd like to be with it. Maybe when mirrorless match DSLR in AF we'll see an influx of Canikon Mirrorless? I guess we'll have to wait and see ;)

I'd imagine they're investing heavily in it. Just because we're not seeing the results yet doesn't mean they aren't.

Personally, I'd like to stick with DSLRs for another few years, but start implementing some of the tech the mirrorless cameras are getting right. A EVF or hybrid VF would be cool, along with better AF when using LV. My iphone focuses better than my D750 in LV. If it even had focus peaking I'd be happy.
 
I'd imagine they're investing heavily in it. Just because we're not seeing the results yet doesn't mean they aren't.

Yeah, that's what I was alluding to, sorry if it wasn't clear ;)

Personally, I'd like to stick with DSLRs for another few years, but start implementing some of the tech the mirrorless cameras are getting right. A EVF or hybrid VF would be cool, along with better AF when using LV. My iphone focuses better than my D750 in LV. If it even had focus peaking I'd be happy.

Yep, all implementations I'd like to see too, assuming you mean by hybrid you mean an optical viewfinder that has an overlay to show such things as peaking? LV AF improvements are a must imo.
 
This is a bit of a cool selling point for action:
Nikon-D500-Viewfinder-Coverage.jpg
 
Not having inbuilt flash would not worry me use it so little I would just use my external when / if needed
 
Back
Top