The D750 vs D500 from a street shooters POV

<p>Greetings folks,<br /> I am amazed at the many emails and pm's I receive from my blog and <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jgredline/">flickr</a> regarding these two cameras.<br /> Simple questions. Which is better? Should I upgrade? Is the shutter loud? How is the ISO performance? How is the AF.<br /> So I thought I would share some of my own thoughts and what is important to me. Let me start by saying this. I am a total amateur and these are my opinions. There is much I do not know and have not even explored the menus yet. I am very simple.<br /> So in truth, they both have their very strong points. So my perspectives are strictly from the POV of catching PIF (people in flight from a street shooters POV) In other words trying to catch that moment. <br /> ISO performance. The D500 is not even close to being in the same class as the D750. The D750 is atleast 1.5 maybe 2 stops better, best I can tell. Winner D750<br /> Image quality both RAW and Jpeg, I give a slight edge to the D750. Most of my D750 images, I post right out of the camera. Winner D750 The DR on both seems about the same to me. <br /> Auto focus speed and keeper rate. Not close. The D500 is a beast. I do not believe anything can touch it. It is like hyper focal or zone focus speeds in the SLR days all over again. Just stupid fast and accurate. especially with good fast glass. Just press the button and go. This is the most important thing to me. Auto focus speed. All else I can work with. I get a good 98% keeper rate (As far as focus acquisition goes. I still shoot allot of junk, but that is me, not the camera) So the auto focus speed is indescribable unless you shoot one. The group focus is awesome. I have been a huge vocal supporter of group focus on the D750 and wish Nikon would release a firmware upgrade for the D7200 with it. <br /> The shutter sound, seems a tad quieter, maybe. It is different. For some un known reason and maybe someone can explain this to me. When I added the Nikon Grip to the D500, It did get quieter. I am guessing it absorbed some of the noise, kind of like a dampener. <br /> I do wish it had the custom C1 and C2 dial, but I have already got used to it. Same as my D300s back in the day. <br /> So If I had to choose to keep one, which would I choose? For my type of photography, I would choose the D500. If I shot events, weddings, family stuff, I would choose the D750.</p>

<p>Anyway, these are my thoughts. I would love to read yours.<br /> Thanks Javier</p>

<p> </p>

<p>When the electronics technology is within a year or two, I am sure that FX will beat DX hands down concerning low-light, ISO performance. There should be little doubt that the D500 is not going to match the D810, D750, etc. in terms of high-ISO results. When you have over twice as much sensor area, the physical advantage is major.</p>

<p>The D500 wins for it superior AF and faster frame rate. The D750's AF is very good already and 6.5 fps isn't bad either, but they are no match for the D500's capability. The fact that the D500 is compatible with the faster XQD card and UHS-II type SD is another plus in that direction. When you shoot a lot of frames @ 6.5 fps, the D750's buffer and relatively slow SD card write speed can occasionally be an issue, but admittedly I don't run into that issue very often. Knowing that the D500 is fast gives me more freedom to capture more frames.</p>

<p>Of course the D500 has the 4K video option, something I haven't tried yet.</p>

<p>Like Javier, I use both cameras. Which one I choose highly depends on the subject matter. It is like choosing among (1) a pickup truck, (2) a Porsche, or (3) a Toyota Prius hybrid; there is no one answer that is right for everybody or right for every occasion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> The fact that the D500 is compatible with the faster XQD card and UHS-II type SD is another plus in that direction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh yes the XQD card. I do not have any of those. I am not sure I would benefit from them. I do have the ultra fast SD cards though. The Video. I did a test video and it is pretty amazing. To be honest though, I do not use video much. In fact rarely. </p>

<p>Either camera will make a very capable tool for street photography. I don't do street often, but the focusing ability and image quality attainable with either of these cameras are more than sufficient, particularly for an area of photography which was perfectly doable with manual focus film cameras.</p><div></div>

<p>XQD solves a lot of the issues with CF (vulnerable pins) and SD (too small and fragile), and its transfer speed is a lot faster. For still capture, the latest XQD has speeds that maybe an overkill, but I can see it will be useful in the longer run for 4K, 8K video.</p>

<p>I find XQD has a good physical size and is thick enough that it is no easy to bend and damage. Of course, it no longer has PCMCIA-style pins. When Nikon announced the D5 and D500 back in January, the main downside for XQD was price. While it is still expensive, the price has come down significantly: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dg3H</p>

<p>For D500 owners, if you are not using XQD already, I would recommend getting one 32G or 64G Sony XQD card so that you can record your images in the backup mode. Lexar cards are fine too, as I have both brands, but Sony cards come with an XQD reader. (That option also begins to appear with Lexar as well.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For D500 owners, if you are not using XQD already, I would recommend getting one 32G or 64G Sony XQD card so that you can record your images in the backup mode.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Shun. I will order one this evening when I get home along with the card reader :)</p>

<p>Here are a couple of XQD options. Again, for your first card, it is nice to get an included card reader:</p>

<ul>

<li>32G $65: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1086276-REG/sony_qd_g32a_32gb_g_series_xqd.html</li>

<li>64G $109: http://www.adorama.com/SOQDG64AJ.html</li>

</ul>

<p>A couple of observations about XQD at this point:</p>

<ol>

<li>You don't save much from getting slower XQD cards. Therefore, IMO you might as well get the fastest ones available.</li>

<li>Per-unit price goes down as capacity goes up. You get more bang for the buck with 128G cards, but most of us don't need such a large capacity.</li>

<li>Some Lexar XQD cards don't work on higher-end Sony camcorders. Besides Nikon's D4, D4S, D5 (XQD version) and D500, most of the other electronics that use XQD cards are Sony camcorders. Either brand seems to work well on Nikon cameras, but for better compatibility and possible resale opportunities, maybe you are better off with Sony XQD.</li>

</ol>

<p>I know $65 for a 32G memory card is still expensive. However, back in 2011, I was paying $100 or so for a 32G SD card, which is slow in today's standards. I wouldn't stock up on XQD or any other memory cards, but if you can afford a D500, I think you can afford a card or two. I think the D500 is the one camera, along with dropping prices, that is making XQD more popular.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I was paying $100 or so for a 32G SD card, which is slow in today's standards. I wouldn't stock up on XQD or any other memory cards, but if you can afford a D500, I think you can afford a card or two. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I completely agree. I just ordered the 32G from B&H. I would have ordered the 64 but B&H is out of them. My experience with Adorama has not been good. B&H is my favorite place by far. </p>

<p>From my point of view, the strength of the D500 is its state-of-the-art AF and fast frame rate. To me, it is an excellent wildlife camera, and I rarely use anything below 300mm on it. However, I did take it to the fair once just to check out the new camera. In that occasion I used a 28-300mm super zoom, which was very convenient that day.</p>

<p>I would imagine that the D500 will function just fine for street photography, but given the two choices, I would opt for the D750 for that type of work.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I would imagine that the D500 will function just fine for street photography, but given the two choices, I would opt for the D750 for that type of work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There isn't just one way to shoot street photography, so this is a bit of an apples and oranges discussion. Obviously, if you have a documentary style which prioritizes AF speed, the D500 would be better. OTOH, if you shoot a lot of low-light/high ISO stuff, the D750 would be better. But we are talking about two immensely-capable cameras which could each handle most street applications with ease. OTOH if you are a zone-focus and f/8 kind of street shooter, you dont need either of these bodies to do that. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you have a documentary style which prioritizes AF speed, the D500 would be better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily. We need to keep in mind that it isn't like the D4, D810, D750, and D7200 ... all of a sudden have terrible AF. Those cameras have very good AF, probably far more than capable than what is usually needed for "street photography." However, I am quite impressed that Nikon managed to make non-trivial improvements on top of that in the D500 (and D5). When you shoot certain sports, birds in flight especially when the flight pattern is erratic and therefore extremely demanding on AF, you can see that the D500 can give you more keepers.</p>

<p>When you capture some subject that is not as demanding, you might not see much difference between AF from the D750 and AF from the D500. For example, if the AF from the D750 can already give you 95% of keepers in a situation, there simply isn't much room for improvement. Even though for example the D500 can bring that up to 98% or even 100%, the difference isn't very meaningful.</p>

<p>Don't take the numbers too literally, but it is the action photography situations where I used to get perhaps 70% to 80% AF success rate that I appreciate the new 95% success rate.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From my point of view, the strength of the D500 is its state-of-the-art AF and fast frame rate</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No doubt. It is really a beast and even more amazing is how accurate and smart it is. I use manual with auto ISO and it rarely misses on exposer and it adjust to different light really quick. It does well in high contrast situations as well. really well. As it gets darker and later into the evening the difference between the D750 and D500 becomes more apparent. The D500 is quicker to focus and more spot on. Frame rate for me personally does not matter. Usually If i do not get the shot in the first try, it is gone, unless it is stationary. So I have it set a 3FPS. That seems about right for me and my style. <br /></p>

<p>A very nice image Shun. Love all the faces. The portrait POV works here as well. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>OTOH if you are a zone-focus and f/8 kind of street shooter, you dont need either of these bodies to do that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, exactly my point. The D500 has that type of speed. The D750 while fast, it is not quite there. But really, it has taken this long to catch up to good old fashioned zone focusing, but can get some nice DOF if that is what is desired. </p>

<ol>

<li> We need to keep in mind that it isn't like the D4, D810, D750, and D7200 ... all of a sudden have terrible AF. Those cameras have very good AF, probably far more than capable than what is usually needed for "street photography."</li>

</ol>

<p>Completely agree. In the middle of the day, it would make very little difference. But when the sun goes down, It does.<br>

The D7200 is stuoid fast as well, especially when fitted with fast glass F/1.4-1.8 to get more light to the body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We need to keep in mind that it isn't like the D4, D810, D750, and D7200 ... all of a sudden have terrible AF. Those cameras have very good AF, probably far more than capable than what is usually needed for "street photography." </p>

</blockquote>

<p>i wasnt suggesting that those cameras now suck because a new body is out. what i am saying is that if your style of street is more photojournalistic, i.e., event reportage of fast-moving situations, then you would benefit from the improvements in AF speed and acquisition. of course not everyone shoots street the same way, but that is a point i already made. as is the point that some people dont even need AF to shoot street. we've discussed this a lot on the street/documentary forum, but there is also a difference between passive street photography and engaged SP. passive is when you shoot from a distance and dont really engage with your subjects. engaged might entail having a conversation with the subject before shooting a photo. in the latter instance, AF speed is completely irrelevant. </p>

<p>I own a D810 (similar to the 750) and just got a D500. i bought the D500 to use primarily for wildlife and sports to take advantage of the incredible AF speed, the 10 fps shutter and the DX crop factor. The D810 is unbeatable for situations where dynamic range is paramount, but it does not cut it for wildlife and action. FPS are just too slow and while AF speed is excellent, it can't touch that of the 500. I was using a pair of D3's's for action shooting and while they are great, the 500 has the amazing AF speed, the faster fps rate and the crop factor. It was a no brainer for me at $2k.<br>

I do a fair amount of "man on the street" photography as well and I generally use an old D700 which is the smallest, least intrusive DSLR body I own. Not clear to me that I would necessarily use the D500 for my street work since I agree that the fps and the AF speed of the D500 are not all that useful in the street. As someone above mentioned, the D700 is hardly a slouch in FPS and AF speed. And more importantly, the crop factor of the D500 might actually be a negative since I often do not want to get in that close (exact opposite of wildlife and sports shooting). My preferred street lenses (on the D700) are the 70-200/2.8 and my beloved 28-105/3.5-4.5 - the 28-105 is not as great on the D800 and the 70-200 is too long at 200 with the D500 crop. So while I won't be using the D500 on the street, I will undoubtedly will begin to lean on the 810 (hard to beat the dynamic range and file size if I do need a crop) with the 700 as backup. And...lately, I have become very happy with the Sony 6000 and the Zeiss 28-105 lens for street work. WAY easier to carry and WAY easier to be discreet with fast AF speed and dynamic range.<br>

It was way less expensive back in the day when a camera was nothing more than a lightproof box that enabled one to wind film past a great piece of glass. Other than AF and metering, my old F2's worked as well as my F5's. </p>

<p>I pack my camera bag with body and lens combos that "fit the purpose". (Mostly I just don't get rid of my older cameras.) The D810 is great for outdoor scenics, the D7200 is great for general purpose when traveling lighter and macro, and the D500 for fast moving subjects. I don't do street photography but a Sony 6300 with appropriate zoom seems to be the most fit for purpose. </p>

<p>I don't consider either one an even passable choice for "street" shooting. Too big, too conspicuous. Add a big f1.4 lens and you're apt to draw even more attention. That's a huge negative. I think the D5300 is Nikon's best camera for this, but would really prefer an M43 with it's tiny lenses. As for ISO, the most famous night time street shoot in the entire history of photography was Brassai. He used a Voigtlander Bergheil 6.5x9 with 105mm f3.5 Heliar. ISO was about 25. Small cameras rule for this application.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't consider either one an even passable choice for "street" shooting. Too big, too conspicuous. Add a big f1.4 lens and you're apt to draw even more attention. That's a huge negative.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to disagree here. I think it comes down to style and confidence. When I am out and about shooting, I am very obvious. All my DSLR's have grips on them and yes, there is no hiding those big lenses. When people see me, there is no doubt I am out making pictures. I find this to be advantages. I use wide to normal lenses and try to engage when I can. I find that when I take a candid of someone, most don't even notice, even with that big ole DSLR. This is not only L.A. but various parts of the U.S. and many countries I have visited. No need to be sneaky. But this comes down to style and mannerisms. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have to disagree here. I think it comes down to style and confidence. When I am out and about shooting, I am very obvious. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wait until about $2,300 worth of stuff gets ripped out of your hands, and you get shoved down along a subway train. Those people are out there.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I think it comes down to style and confidence. When I am out and about shooting, I am very obvious. All my DSLR's have grips on them and yes, there is no hiding those big lenses. When people see me, there is no doubt I am out making pictures. I find this to be advantages. I use wide to normal lenses and try to engage when I can. I find that when I take a candid of someone, most don't even notice, even with that big ole DSLR. This is not only L.A. but various parts of the U.S. and many countries I have visited. No need to be sneaky. But this comes down to style and mannerisms.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is obviously a very subjective opinion, and not even close to typical among street shooters, who have been known to black out all logos on their gear. FWIW, i rarely shoot street with anything longer than a fast prime; the zooms mostly stay at home. i do sometimes shoot in sketchy areas with 5 or 6 thousand dollars worth of gear, but i use a nondescript domke bag which doesnt scream, expensive gear inside! If i am shooting in foreign countries, i dont want to be obvious, except in tourist-y areas where there are a bunch of people shooting things. i tend to keep the camera in a waistpack instead of around my neck, or use a blackrapid-type strap which can be concealed under a jacket. i can actually fit two fuji bodies and several primes in a waistpack and have wide-angle to telephoto capacity in a much smaller-than-dslr setup. it's a great setup for travel or street/urban landscape. when i shot in havana viejo in cuba i just had a d300 and one lens, a 12-24/4, in a waistpack. it's not so much about needing to be sneaky as it is not wanting to get hassled by locals. i know how to be "camera dude," but i dont always want to play that role. but YMMV.</p>

<p>On occasions when I have used a DSLR rather than an RF for street photography, I reach for my D800e rather than my D500 for the simple reason that I want the FOV from my full frame lenses to be what I have become used to.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, all the other considerations are secondary because either body will do well for street, including AF speed. After all, the D800e's AF speed is faster than my manual focus technique with an RF, and shooting an RF has been fast enough.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I think it comes down to style and confidence." I think the decision also comes down to personality. One of the guys I shoot with has a very A-type personality, loves to talk to people on the street he doesn't know, and just exudes fun and friendliness. He uses his D810 to his advantage and even shows his street subjects the images he took during and after shooting them. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wait until about $2,300 worth of stuff gets ripped out of your hands, and you get shoved down along a subway train. Those people are out there.</p>

</blockquote>

Kent, I always thought the SD stood for South Dakota but it sounds like you do your street shooting in South Damascus.