Going DX D500 vs. D7200

Was having a conversation yesterday with an old friend, also a photo enthusiast, one point he brought up was the advantage of having a Pro / Enthusiast DX camera to compliment an FX system by increasing the reach of FX lenses. The camera discussed was the D 500, and his rationale was effective. Another topic was having a less costly camera to match your system as a way to reduce a bit "worrying about expensive gear". That was a bit of a contradiction, but I read a variety of reviews - Thom Hogan being an influential one, then visited a variety of comparisons of the D 500 and the D 7200. At the end of the exercise, it would appear that a variety of advanced D 500 features, touchscreen, Wi Fi, Bluetooth, articulating screen, etc. are of no particular importance to me. On a purely "capture images" basis (video also irrelevant), there didn't to seem to be a vast difference between the D 500 and the D 7200 at less than half the price. I currently use a DF & D 750, backed up with Ricoh GXR, which will take my old Nikon glass. I really don't need another camera, but the thought of the greater reach, particularly for birds is appealing. Given my circumstances, are there any compelling advantages to the D 500 that justify the price difference?

FWIW, I bought my D7200 before the D500 came out, so no buying dilemma for me. I bought the DX body for the very same reasons you quote - more magnification with a higher pixel density.

 

I felt no buyer's remorse at all when the D500 came out. Looked at the specs and review images, and thought 'Pff, nothing there to interest me thanks'. I'm one happy D7200 user.

I'm one happy D7200 user.

Thanks!

On Nikon U.S.A.'s web site, there's a PDF which compares the D500 and D7200 directly (along with the discontinued D300s). It might be worth your time to compare the two.

 

For some reason, the system will not allow me to post the link. Go to Nikon USA web site.

The D500/D7500 sensor gives almost no more reach than a D850. While DX bodies tend to have higher pixel density than FX bodies, I'm wary of the message that DX gives more reach without qualifiers. The D300 has less "reach" (larger pixels) than the D800, for example.

 

That said, the D7200 has slightly more reach than the D500, though I wouldn't consider it significant (about 1.1x).

 

For birds, though, I'd take the AF system, AF selector joystick, auto AF tuning, higher frame rate and ability to write to cards quicker for the D500. The touchscreen is nicer for review than you'd think, too. It's not really "less costly", though. Oh, also 4K video if your birds are moving!

 

The D7200 (and 7100 if you don't need buffer) are very good cameras, and they also handle quite like the D750 if you need to switch back and forth. The D500 feels like a D8x0 body (especially D850) - small, light and cheap it's not.

 

I speak as a D810 owner who's hired a D500 (for backup/speed), and only played with the D7x00 range briefly. So I may not know what I'm talking about...

Go to Nikon USA web site.

Thanks - a good source. Haven't been there in a while, though they will be pumping for the new one. I did find several point by point comparisons elsewhere. Was looking more from a practical sense, given experience with both or either. Again, thanks!

I can vouch that, as a D700/D800/D810 user, the D500 was very familiar and nice to handle. I didn't always hit focus (partly me, partly not having tuned my lens) but it generally behaved very well. If I didn't like having 36+MP and full frame, I'd be happy with one. The tilt and touch screen is nice too.

 

Because of what I'm used to (bolstered by usually having an L plate on them), the D7x00 series feel like plasticky toys to me. They're very solid and capable, but tiny and featherweight in comparison. But then so is (to a lesser extent) the D750. I'd probably notice and care a lot less with a big lens on it. The change in interface style between that range and the prosumer models (which I'm defining by the interface style, not dismissing the D750) would probably throw me more.

 

Of course, no dSLR handles like the Df, so you've already got multiple styles to deal with.

Sandy, I can't recall whether or not you purchased the 200-500 or are still using the old AF-D 80-400. If the latter, then you will most likely be disappointed by its performance on the D7200 and D500. More so on the latter since the lens simply can't keep up with the performance of the D500's AF system (or in other words, putting a D500 behind that lens is a waste). I tried when my wife got her D500 - and luckily found a good deal on a refurbished AF-S 80-400 to replace the old AF-D lens.

 

After losing patience on waiting for a D300 successor, I purchased a D7100, then a D7200 to overcome the buffer limitations of the D7100; when I purchased the D7200 the D500 was already available and as soon as I was able to secure one at a more reasonable price, the D7100 and D7200 were history; I never liked the way they were set up and handled anyway. But that's me and YMMV (in particular since you use a D750 and the D7200 will feel familiar). I offered my D7200 to my wife but she outright rejected it simply based on the way it felt - she very much enjoys her D500 now!

 

Unless you do want the better AF performance of the D500 and intend to use it's high-speed burst potential, a D7200 might serve you well (or even a D7500 if you can live with the things Nikon took away but would enjoy the 8fps it is capable of).

If you travel a lot, the issue of value is not entirely irrelevant. One of the things I liked about traveling with the D3200 was this, and now with a nice but aging D7100, I still find it a little less worrisome than I would with a D500. And while the smallness and light weight are a drawback to some, such as Andrew Garrard above, they can be assets to one who travels light and never checks baggage.

I should say I've been very tempted by the idea of something like a D3200 as a backup just because it's small and light - it's an argument that may interest be in a mirrorless Nikon. The handling issue may mostly be what I'm used to - generally I don't mind the weight. I've certainly chosen to carry cheaper cameras when going somewhere dodgy - it's also why I like my F5 missing paint, and why I was happy with a cheap silver 28-200 on my D700 for a few years.

 

On the other hand, I'm currently on a business trip and (not feeling very well) just took my RX100, to save weight. (Relatively. I still have three laptops with me...) Horses for courses.

Usually you are better off putting money into lenses than a camera.

 

 

Kent in SD

Usually you are better off putting money into lenses than a camera.

I've got lots of lenses, except one I'd want for DX, good advice, though.

Sandy, I can't recall whether or not you purchased the 200-500 or are still using the old AF-D 80-400. I

Still have the old one, love / hate relationship. Probably use anything but single shot a couple of times a year, and rarely get better results, but that's just my style.

Sincerely appreciate your input! Thanks.

On the other hand, I'm currently on a business trip and (not feeling very well) just took my RX100, to save weight. (Relatively. I still have three laptops with me...) Horses for courses. Andrew

That's what I use the GXR system for.

From what I've seen of your work, I think you would get substantial benefit from the D500's buffer and autofocus performance. (I'm thinking rodeo shots.) A D7200 won't give you anything really better or substantially different from your D750. Given your known love of older lenses, I would not consider the D7500, as it gives up the AI follower for older lenses. (The D500 keeps this feature.) From an image character standpoint, you will notice a significant difference in DOF using the DX sensor. This may not matter unless you are a closet portraitist. :D Also, take note that the D500 does not have a built-in flash, which may or may not matter. I offer these opinions based on my own wrestling with choices to upgrade to either a D500 or D810 from my much-loved D7100. If I was already well-served with FX gear, then I think I would look closely at a D500 as providing the most differential from what I already own. A D7200 will closely mimic the handling and controls you are already familiar with (as noted by Andrew), but it won't add an appreciably different functionality to your bag. Besides, it's so easy for me to suggest how you should spend your money!

but the thought of the greater reach, particularly for birds is appealing.

 

Unless you do want the better AF performance of the D500 and intend to use it's high-speed burst potential

 

The above statements really speak volumes in favor of the D500. Birding is much more enjoyable with the greater reach, better AF performance and high-speed burst. Using the same lens (Nikon 200-500mm), there was a world of difference between birding with my D800e and my D500. I've never gone birding with a D7200, but I suspect I would miss the D500's AF speed.

A reviewer who will remain unnamed (but who I know you read) had the following to say about the D750 vs. the D500:

"Get the D750 for nature, portraits, interiors and landscapes. Get the D500 only if sports or birds are your thing; the D500 runs very fast, while the D750 has a much bigger sensor, better ergonomics and a built-in flash." I think this accurately encapsulates the issue.

I'm not totally sure I'd describe the D750 as having "better ergonomics" than the D500. It depends on personal preference, though.

better ergonomics

Since I happen to know who you are talking about, I have to point out that one has to have a very specific definition of "ergonomics" to make the statement that the D6x0/D750/D7x00 have better "ergonomics" than the D500. Mine differs substantially from the "one who should not be named" - and I acted accordingly. And for nature, portraits, interiors, and landscapes, I take the D810 over the D750 anytime. Pretty much the only task I would prefer a D750 would be photojournalism/events - and luckily I don't do those.

 

Posted at the same time as Andrew pretty much saying the same thing.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Dieter Schaefer

A reviewer who will remain unnamed

Voldemort?:rolleyes::)

Voldemort?:rolleyes::)

 

He seems to have that kind of reputation on this site. :p Take it for what it is worth. We can argue all day about the precise adjectives used, but I still think the difference in best applications for the D750 and the D500 are generally correct, and consistent with my own perceptions. I also think this is apropos since you (Sandy) are a D750 shooter and you seem to like that body.

Edited January 23, 2018 by DavidTriplett

are there still a lot of 'measurebaters' on this forum still ? I've been inactive for many years...

When i acquired my d500 i also thought that an articulating screen was not of much use, but as soon as i put the camera on a gimbal with a tel lens, i foun it quiet usefull, since looking through a viewfinder bcan become a bit cumbersome when following birds in flight with a camera on a tripod , especially when i want to keep my camera low.

With that articulating screen on 45 degrees, looking down on it it becomes like operating a machinegun to "shoot the birds" :-) ( do not know how to explain it more clear in English..).

He seems to have that kind of reputation on this site. :p

Actually, I have found the guy to be relatively accurate on gear that has interested me and that I have bought & used. I guess the issue is that the D 500 is another relatively expensive camera which negates one of my goals - an inexpensive pro / enthusiast camera. The D 850 has never been a consideration. Second, with cameras as with a rifle opposed to a machine gun, my preference has always been the single accurate shot rather than spray and pray. If I miss the moment, it is on me and my skill or lack of it, but I have chosen the specific moment. All of the ginchy electronics on the D 500 are great, but of little value to me since I mostly won.t use them. I thought the articulated screen on the D 750 might be handy-have probably used it half a dozen times with no result I couldn't have otherwise obtained.. I positively HATE touch screens - it amazes me sometimes that my kindle is not permanently embedded in the bedroom plasterboard. I'm shopping the D 7200 used on line - I'll probably be able to get one used for around or under $700. If it doesn't do what I want, it can go. Do appreciate all of the input!

A reviewer who will remain unnamed (but who I know you read) had the following to say about the D750 vs. the D500:

"Get the D750 for nature, portraits, interiors and landscapes. Get the D500 only if sports or birds are your thing; the D500 runs very fast, while the D750 has a much bigger sensor, better ergonomics and a built-in flash." I think this accurately encapsulates the issue.

I own both the D500 and D750. They are "horses for courses". I like using the D500 for macro and close-up work, where my images don't need a huge amount of "blow-up" for prints. My D750 gets most usage for scenics and nature. Not a big fan of the built-in flashes, since they're too close to the lens axis for my tastes.

 

Pullleaze ---- Don't make me choose!