D500

AdamSi said:
... might be worth putting pen to paper and lay it on a bit as you certainly been an avid Nikon supporter over the years and with all your images and posts it has to be worth a try !
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.

I have over £250,000 worth of Nikon equipment and I spend about £1000 per month at Nikon's UK repair centre. But I'm not eligible to join Nikon Professional Services, since I'm not actually a professional photographer myself, and until a few months ago they treated me like any other punter with a D3000 and a kit lens. A few months ago, after literally years of trying, I finally managed to get some recognition from them that perhaps it might be worth giving me some sort of priority. Now the repair turnaround times I have experienced have improved from being 10x as long as Canon's to "only" 5x as long. (Recent averages: Nikon 15 days, Canon 3 days.) I think I'm supposed to feel grateful.
 
StewartR said:
Good luck with that.

I have over £250,000 worth of Nikon equipment and I spend about £1000 per month at Nikon's UK repair centre. But I'm not eligible to join Nikon Professional Services, since I'm not actually a professional photographer myself, and until a few months ago they treated me like any other punter with a D3000 and a kit lens. A few months ago, after literally years of trying, I finally managed to get some recognition from them that perhaps it might be worth giving me some sort of priority. Now the repair turnaround times I have experienced have improved from being 10x as long as Canon's to "only" 5x as long. (Recent averages: Nikon 15 days, Canon 3 days.) I think I'm supposed to feel grateful.
Click to expand...

I just telephoned to get an estimate of when it might be ready to return to me (they've had it 28 days so far) ... I'm told it might be the end of this week or on the other hand it could be next week, they can't say as there are so many repairs!
Anyone recommend some good Canon kit to replace my D500 and 500 f4 VR?
 
gramps said:
I just telephoned to get an estimate of when it might be ready to return to me (they've had it 28 days so far) ... I'm told it might be the end of this week or on the other hand it could be next week, they can't say as there are so many repairs!
Click to expand...
Bad luck about that. :(
gramps said:
Anyone recommend some good Canon kit to replace my D500 and 500 f4 VR?
Click to expand...
Nothing anywhere near as good close to the cost, only for many thousands more.

When stuff works of course. ;) :rolleyes:
 
StewartR said:
Good luck with that.

I have over £250,000 worth of Nikon equipment and I spend about £1000 per month at Nikon's UK repair centre. But I'm not eligible to join Nikon Professional Services, since I'm not actually a professional photographer myself, and until a few months ago they treated me like any other punter with a D3000 and a kit lens. A few months ago, after literally years of trying, I finally managed to get some recognition from them that perhaps it might be worth giving me some sort of priority. Now the repair turnaround times I have experienced have improved from being 10x as long as Canon's to "only" 5x as long. (Recent averages: Nikon 15 days, Canon 3 days.) I think I'm supposed to feel grateful.
Click to expand...
That really is shocking but guess I should not be surprised
 
I'm still flitting between e-m1 mk2 and d500 thoughts. At the weekend, i was drag racing again and took over 750 shots with the Olympus, culling around 600 due to OOF ( or misfocus ) or duplication ( the joys of high FPS ) - I also used my son's d3100 and i think i only got 2 OOF shots out of 160. He has a 18-105 which is too short for drag racing really..

So, as a kit lens, it got me wondering about the 18-140 - anyone have any experience of this as a walkabout ?
 
"Your repair is in progress"! :banana::banana::banana::banana:

Suppose I shouldn't get too excited, after all it's taken them 34 days to get it off of the shelf.
 
damianmkv said:
I'm still flitting between e-m1 mk2 and d500 thoughts. At the weekend, i was drag racing again and took over 750 shots with the Olympus, culling around 600 due to OOF ( or misfocus ) or duplication ( the joys of high FPS ) - I also used my son's d3100 and i think i only got 2 OOF shots out of 160. He has a 18-105 which is too short for drag racing really..

So, as a kit lens, it got me wondering about the 18-140 - anyone have any experience of this as a walkabout ?
Click to expand...

Get the D500, buy an old kit lens 18-70 for walkabout (its a good bit of glass) and a 70-300 VR for Pod and others - both lenses cheap used.....


You know it makes sense..... ;)
 
Have 2 camping stoves already so that I can stay at Santa Pod and cook things really really slowly..
 
Please excuse if this has been covered elsewhere on this thread, but a genuine question.

I currently have a D7200, is the D500 a major or minor upgrade in terms of IQ and AF speed ?

In other words, have those who have upgraded found this to be worthwhile or not ?

I appreciate that things like the relative high iso performance can be determined from the reviews but I am much more interested in user experience rather than test shots.

I am pretty happy with the D7200 but find very little time for photography nowadays. I am making a deliberate effort to make some time though, which has not been possible for the past couple of years, so want to make the most of my opportunities by having the right gear.

Any advice would be really appreciated.

Gary
 
gary43 said:
Please excuse if this has been covered elsewhere on this thread, but a genuine question.

I currently have a D7200, is the D500 a major or minor upgrade in terms of IQ and AF speed ?

In other words, have those who have upgraded found this to be worthwhile or not ?

I appreciate that things like the relative high iso performance can be determined from the reviews but I am much more interested in user experience rather than test shots.

I am pretty happy with the D7200 but find very little time for photography nowadays. I am making a deliberate effort to make some time though, which has not been possible for the past couple of years, so want to make the most of my opportunities by having the right gear.

Any advice would be really appreciated.

Gary
Click to expand...
Is there something you can't do with your D7200? :thinking:

The AF in the D500 is better, though if you are not usually in situations that pushes it, you may not see a huge improvement over the AF in the D7200, which is very good. The FPS and buffer are a huge improvement, but if you don't shoot subjects that need that, not much use. Ergonomics are a personal thing, but if you don't feel that there are buttons or the handling of the D7200 holding you back, the again, probably not important to you.

In many ways the D500 is a better camera, but if you are not going to use the extra features, especially if you are only taking pictures occasionally, then stick with the D7200. That's just my opinion.

If you want to buy a new camera because you just want to, and have the cash, then fill your boots. ;) :)
 
Last edited:
gary43 said:
Please excuse if this has been covered elsewhere on this thread, but a genuine question.

I currently have a D7200, is the D500 a major or minor upgrade in terms of IQ and AF speed ?

In other words, have those who have upgraded found this to be worthwhile or not ?

I appreciate that things like the relative high iso performance can be determined from the reviews but I am much more interested in user experience rather than test shots.

I am pretty happy with the D7200 but find very little time for photography nowadays. I am making a deliberate effort to make some time though, which has not been possible for the past couple of years, so want to make the most of my opportunities by having the right gear.

Any advice would be really appreciated.

Gary
Click to expand...

The D7200 is a very capable camera that gives excellent IQ, from my experience the files it produces are pretty clean.
The D500 beats the D7200 hands down on AF speed and accuracy and fps/buffer speed and things like customising buttons can be a boon but IQ will depend on what you use it for.
 
redhed17 said:
Is there something you can't do with your D7200? :thinking:

The AF in the D500 is better, though if you are not usually in situations that pushes it, you may not see a huge improvement over the AF in the D7200, which is very good. The FPS and buffer are a huge improvement, but if you don't shoot subjects that need that, not much use. Ergonomics are a personal thing, but if you don't feel that there are buttons or the handling of the D7200 holding you back, the again, probably not important to you.

In many ways the D500 is a better camera, but if you are not going to use the extra features, especially if you are only taking pictures occasionally, then stick with the D7200. That's just my opinion.

If you want to buy a new camera because you just want to, and have the cash, then fill your boots. ;) :)
Click to expand...

Hi redhed17

TBH, I do not think that the D7200 is particularly lacking at least in terms of AF in good light and at isos of, say, 800 or below. If the low light AF is improved or high iso noise is improved in the D500 then that would be a real bonus. I would like to get back into wildlife photography so the improved AF would be a bonus for BIF. I do find the tracking a bit disappointing on the D7200.

I might just have GAS, of course !

Thanks for the input.
 
gramps said:
The D7200 is a very capable camera that gives excellent IQ, from my experience the files it produces are pretty clean.
The D500 beats the D7200 hands down on AF speed and accuracy and fps/buffer speed and things like customising buttons can be a boon but IQ will depend on what you use it for.
Click to expand...

Hi Gramps

Thanks for the feedback, your comments on AF speed and accuracy are very useful.

I am trying to maximise shutter speeds right now so are regularly using highish iso.

OOI, I did download the test charts from dpreview, in RAW form, at iso 3200 and 6400 and they clean up really well with Topaz Denoize. IMVHO, the noise from D500 seems quite "fine grained" compared to D7200 and the former seemed to look really clean with a light touch in Denoize without losing detail.

Thanks again for getting back.
 
gary43 said:
Please excuse if this has been covered elsewhere on this thread, but a genuine question.

I currently have a D7200, is the D500 a major or minor upgrade in terms of IQ and AF speed ?

In other words, have those who have upgraded found this to be worthwhile or not ?

I appreciate that things like the relative high iso performance can be determined from the reviews but I am much more interested in user experience rather than test shots.

I am pretty happy with the D7200 but find very little time for photography nowadays. I am making a deliberate effort to make some time though, which has not been possible for the past couple of years, so want to make the most of my opportunities by having the right gear.

Any advice would be really appreciated.

Gary
Click to expand...
It depends as what you may consider major might not be what I consider major and vice versa. However, here's my thought after using both.

1) AF: A noticeable difference in speed of acquisition and tracking ability.

2) Noise handling: not a massive difference but certainly noticeable.

3) Build quality: Noticable difference, the D500 feeling like a pro build.

4) Ergonomics: D500 has a noticeably better grip. Obviously this is very subjective.

5) Tilt screen: well the d7200 doesn't have one so the D500 wins hands down here :LOL:

6) Fps and buffer: No comparison, the D500 is massively better.


Is the D500 worth twice the price? Probably not, but that doesn't stop folk ;)
 
Hi snerkler

Thanks for the steer above. Points 1, 2 and 6 are important to me. I think there is a compelling case to get one of these. With-or-without the 16-80 kit lens seems to be the choice now !

Anyway, thanks again.

Gary
 
gary43 said:
Hi snerkler

Thanks for the steer above. Points 1, 2 and 6 are important to me. I think there is a compelling case to get one of these. With-or-without the 16-80 kit lens seems to be the choice now !

Anyway, thanks again.

Gary
Click to expand...
You can normally save quite a bit by getting the 16-80mm at the same time as part of a kit deal. Depends on what you have already, and/or whether you will get the lens at some point anyway. I've found it to be a very good lens.

I was an early adopter and there was no saving in buying the camera and lens that the same time so I just got the camera. [emoji34] Thankfully I found a great deal on just the lens later. [emoji4] I got one on the 'bay' for £690, which is still a good deal a year on, as it is currently £847. You may be able to save about £100 by buying together.
 
Last edited:
Just looked at the numbers regarding buying in the UK and Importing, btw, let's not go on the UK v Importing tangent please, I think we all know the pro's and cons.

For £31 more than just the camera in the UK you can get the D500 and the 16-80mm. :eek: I didn't think it would be that close for UK camera v Import camera and lens. :eek: :confused::thinking:


UK Imp Difference
Camera and Lens 2449 - 1730 = 719

D500 1699 - 1260 = 439
16-80mm 847 - 729 = 118
Total 2546 - 1989 = 557

I am not endorsing buying via import, just providing what I think are interesting numbers. :)
 
Evening..so the m43 sell-off has given me enough pennies to start looking at the D500 ( that’s the easy bit )

Next comes lenses as I’ve been covered with 18-420mm in 3 lenses. Looking around, I could get a Tokina 11-whatever, 16-80 and 70-300.

But the 16-80 looks bloody pricey - is the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 any good ? Is the 70-300 better than the 70-200 f4 + 1.4tc ?

I don’t have / can’t justify a million £ on lenses but I’d rather buy once for the right one than compromise and buy again and again
 
damianmkv said:
Evening..so the m43 sell-off has given me enough pennies to start looking at the D500 ( that’s the easy bit )

Next comes lenses as I’ve been covered with 18-420mm in 3 lenses. Looking around, I could get a Tokina 11-whatever, 16-80 and 70-300.

But the 16-80 looks bloody pricey - is the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 any good ? Is the 70-300 better than the 70-200 f4 + 1.4tc ?

I don’t have / can’t justify a million £ on lenses but I’d rather buy once for the right one than compromise and buy again and again
Click to expand...
Checkout the d500with the 16-80 as a kit, but think if I was getting a Tokina 11-xx I would get the Nikon 24-120f4 instead
 
I think the Tokina goes to 16mm so the 24-120 would leave a gap wouldn’t it ?
 
damianmkv said:
Evening..so the m43 sell-off has given me enough pennies to start looking at the D500 ( that’s the easy bit )

Next comes lenses as I’ve been covered with 18-420mm in 3 lenses. Looking around, I could get a Tokina 11-whatever, 16-80 and 70-300.

But the 16-80 looks bloody pricey - is the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 any good ? Is the 70-300 better than the 70-200 f4 + 1.4tc ?

I don’t have / can’t justify a million £ on lenses but I’d rather buy once for the right one than compromise and buy again and again
Click to expand...

I've got the 16-80mm (had the 16-85mm before that) and the Nikon 70-300mm. I also have have the Sigma 10-20mm. In FF equivalence terms they cover 15mm - 450mm, and they overlap very nicely. :)

For me, on DX, the 16-80mm (or the 16-85mm) is the best general purpose lens, and imho has the best commination of size, weight, cost and quality. The 16-85mm can be had pretty cheaply if you can't stretch to the 16-80mm. Not seen a huge increase in quality with the 16-80mm, and while I still have the 16-85mm to compare, I'm happy with what I am getting with the 16-80mm, so haven't bothered. :)

I've been very happy with the pictures I get/got from both lenses. The Nikon 70-300mm was OK on my D300S, but I had to stop it down a bit. On the D500 it is like a new lens, and is very sharp wide open. :D

The Sigma 10-20mm I have hardly used, but I had the cash, and I occasionally need something wider than 16mm. When I have used it I have had no problems with it. :)
 
Last edited:
Fair point about the WA - when I shot Nikon 3 years ago I had the sigma 10-20 and rarely used it. Same goes for the oly 9-18 - nice to have but it came out about 3 times a year..

Maybe a 35mm 1.8 would be better suited..
 
I think the 16-80 is a cracking lens and I am very happy with it.
I also have the 70-300 AF-P Dx, which is also good and excellent value, despite its plastic mount.
 
I’ve not got stable hands Mark so I’m guessing that unless you’ve necked 3 bottles of wine, that’s non-VR ?
 
Thanks for those - I’ll have to decline despite the great price. I think the fungus would always be a concern but I really appreciate your offer
 
damianmkv said:
D500 + 16-80 ordered..even though i've sold gear for more than I'm now spending, why do i always feel so guilty ?
Click to expand...
Buyers remorse, I get the same thing and it sucks :( Fortunately it tends to be relatively short lived.
 
gramps said:
Finally got told that my D500 has been repaired and will go on the van tonight for delivery tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Thats good news, i missed the reason for the return was it just poor battery performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top