The D750 vs D500 from a street shooters POV

<p>No, SD stands for Secure Digital. Kent hides inside a memory card. :-)</p>

<p>A smaller camera can allow more inconspicuous photography with a short lens (e.g. Fuji X100s I used for a while), and this can allow some results that would be different when using a larger camera (since the subject reaction can be different) however I don't find using larger cameras a problem for street photography - I accept that when I'm close the subject is likely to react to my presence in some way. I prefer well designed, not too closely spaced controls and easy focus point selection in Nikons. Also I prefer FX image quality to that of smaller formats, but it's just what I'm used to, I'm sure I could get used to the results of APS-C or MFT sensors given their advantage in smaller lenses of reasonably large f-stop. However, I can't get around my difficulty of using the tiny and closely spaced controls in many of these small cameras, so I stay with Nikons of at least D7x00 family size, or larger. I also prefer the optical viewfinder to detect small variations in subject expression in real time which allows me to get better control of the results than using an EVF. Using a back screen LCD for composition and timing the shots by looking past the camera bypassing the camera is another approach which may work for some situations; with wide angle and normal focal lengths usually the reduced stability is not a big issue.</p>

<p>Of the D500 and D750, I suppose either would work fine in most circumstances, with the D500 having better AF and the D750 better image quality. I suspect D500 must be quieter (smaller mirror and shutter) which would be an advantage to it, however, there are more fast wide angle options for FX and the quality of wide aperture wide angle shots tend to be better with FX, in my experience. If your style of street photography has everything in focus then either format would probably give similar results. I like shallow depth of field to accentuate the main subject and simplify the composition and prefer FX for this reason (and others). For ergonomics, I would have to say I prefer the D500 to the D750 as the latter has a very tightly curved, deep grip which I cannot hold comfortably whereas the D500 in my brief testing was very comfortable. Which lenses (DX or FX) one has also plays a role in the camera choice, of course. The D500 is a camera which probably finds itself more often used for telephoto work.</p>

<p>I've never been in a situation which I would consider dangerous when doing street photography. I guess it depends on which environment one would choose for this activity. I tend to stay in populated city central areas and old towns when photographing street, so there are generally other people that can see what happens and this probably makes it less likely that theft (of a large camera) or mugging takes place. Also I live in a relatively safe part of the world. </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.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ken, Truly you have been traumatized out there someplace, but I do not live in fear. If it happens, it happens. I will say this though. Over the past 10 years, I have had two SLR's stolen from me. Both were stolen in bad areas and stolen because I was careless. I was not robbed per say, AS i put them down and they were gone, years apart. So now I use straps that go around my shoulder instead of neck straps and never put them down. I do let them hang on me. While I do not shoot in those crazy areas all that much any more, when I do, I still use film SLR's. Actually, I still use allot of film. I love those old mechanical bodies and the simplicity of not being concerned about ISO, FOCUS HIT OR MISS, APERTURE OR SHUTTER SPEEDS. I just set it and go. What I get is what I get. But I do use my DSLR's 90% of the time. The rest is split between other cameras.</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. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I actually have some older Pentax Bodies that indeed are blacked out and have generic straps on them. My D7200 is also this way. Generic shoulder strap but it does have the grip and is not blacked out. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>FWIW, i rarely shoot street with anything longer than a fast prime; the zooms mostly stay at home.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same here. 8-) I choose one fast prime lens for the day and make it work. What ever lens I choose that day, that is my favorite. Having said that, I have started to use short zooms more and more though. 12-24 or 17-50. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> 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>

</blockquote>

<p>I am jealous. Cuba is in my bucket list. I need to get there soon. When I do make it to Cuba, I will likely take two SLR's with a boat load of film and a good point and shoot. I have an Old Canon G15 that I love. <br>

As always Eric, I love reading your thoughts. Never wasted words :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, all the other considerations are secondary because either body will do well for street, including AF speed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keith, Thanks for the comments. I completely agree with this. After all, one only need to look at History. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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>Michael, Thanks for the comments. I would say that you described me and my style most of the time. I do the same. Often times I email them the photos. I hand them my card and away I go. There are also times when I will print photos and give many of the folks I shoot prints. This of course is not always the case, not even close. Maybe 50/50</p>

<p>Ilkka Nissila...Thank you for taking the time to write out a very thoughtful response. I truly appreciate it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A smaller camera can allow more inconspicuous photography with a short lens (e.g. Fuji X100s I used for a while), and this can allow some results that would be different when using a larger camera (since the subject reaction can be different)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had the original X100 for a while, but mine was full full of bugs and I ended up selling it. The focal length was perfect for me as was the ISO performance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>however I don't find using larger cameras a problem for street photography - I accept that when I'm close the subject is likely to react to my presence in some way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I prefer well designed, not too closely spaced controls and easy focus point selection in Nikons. Also I prefer FX image quality to that of smaller formats, but it's just what I'm used to, I'm sure I could get used to the results of APS-C or MFT sensors given their advantage in smaller lenses of reasonably large f-stop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The FX images in my opinion are richer and cleaner, no doubt. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, I can't get around my difficulty of using the tiny and closely spaced controls in many of these small cameras, so I stay with Nikons of at least D7x00 family size, or larger. I also prefer the optical viewfinder to detect small variations in subject expression in real time which allows me to get better control of the results than using an EVF. Using a back screen LCD for composition and timing the shots by looking past the camera bypassing the camera is another approach which may work for some situations; with wide angle and normal focal lengths usually the reduced stability is not a big issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of the D500 and D750, I suppose either would work fine in most circumstances, with the D500 having better AF and the D750 better image quality. I suspect D500 must be quieter (smaller mirror and shutter) which would be an advantage to it,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure the D500 is quieter than the D750. It sounds different, but not quieter to me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>however, there are more fast wide angle options for FX and the quality of wide aperture wide angle shots tend to be better with FX, in my experience. If your style of street photography has everything in focus then either format would probably give similar results. I like shallow depth of field to accentuate the main subject and simplify the composition and prefer FX for this reason (and others). For ergonomics, I would have to say I prefer the D500 to the D750 as the latter has a very tightly curved, deep grip which I cannot hold comfortably whereas the D500 in my brief testing was very comfortable. Which lenses (DX or FX) one has also plays a role in the camera choice, of course. The D500 is a camera which probably finds itself more often used for telephoto work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These days, lens choice at least as far as I am concerned is a non issue now. I am one of those that is migrating to a more shallow DOF tough. But even that is a non issue on format. To me what FX offers is cleaner images that are more vibrant. More alive some how.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've never been in a situation which I would consider dangerous when doing street photography. I guess it depends on which environment one would choose for this activity. I tend to stay in populated city central areas and old towns when photographing street, so there are generally other people that can see what happens and this probably makes it less likely that theft (of a large camera) or mugging takes place. Also I live in a relatively safe part of the world.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not do crazy to often any longer either.<br>

Thanks again for the thoughtful post.<br>

Javier </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Cuba is in my bucket list. I need to get there soon. When I do make it to Cuba, I will likely take two SLR's with a boat load of film and a good point and shoot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cuba is extremely photogenic, so i would recommend doing this sooner than later. i kind of want to say it doesnt matter what camera you bring there, but upon further reflection, a G15 for me might be a bit inadequate because you will return with some files you will want to print large. that camera is perfect for travel, though -- its just that the sensor will limit results. having been there and done that, if i went again, i would take the x100 for candids, and maybe an APS-C body with a few lightish lenses at differing lengths. a case could easily be made for a high-rez FF body, though, but loading up on lenses gets heavy and wouldnt be all that optimal unless you were specifically making it a landscape photography trip. or Cuban jazz trip. Habana in and of itself is fantastic for street photography, but you actually dont need a lot of gear while doing it, just an agile shutter button finger, and a sense of composition.</p>

For example, if you really like what you do with the D200, then the D500 is logical. I'm not a fan of FX as such, but I still prefer to have a more mobile DSLR, but there are other considerations, better results, a greater degree of DOF. Switching to FX changes many variables for you. For a close-up, I'll transfer it to the D750, but that's all, perhaps, add landscapes with an average DOF. For me, the D500 is best suited, but you have to look at the samples and, of course, test them.

For good light photography, ie. totally hopeless after-dark or before breakfast, I'm always surprised how good the AF is on the J5, esp with it's fold 'up' screen, you can use it like a WL finder. Pop the 18.5mm 1.8, standard EQ focal-length, and it's a happy camera. If you're quick, the touch screen allows Focus and Shoot, so choosing a target manually is good. Equally, Face Priority/Tracking is pretty nippy too.

 

...and it's very small and unobtrusive, especially in all black if you're wearing dark clothes too...:)

My $.02 and I'll probably get hooted off the forum for using such antiquated equipment. It's all about capturing the image and traveling light. I have a D700 and the full complement of F4 zooms - big, loud, and obvious. Tried m 4/3 and didn't like it - small, fiddly, and was always hitting the wrong buttons. Just picked up a Nikon D60 in EX+ condition for $125 and a 18-70 zoom for another $100, relatively fast, and more compact than the current VR super zooms. Plus I've got the primes that I can use for zone focus. A good lightweight street/travel kit. Sure, a new $2,000+ body and up-to-date lenses is going to better IQ, but backpacking over Mexico and Central America today - I don't think so!

For what it's worth, I am a little self-conscious about using expensive cameras in public. It's a reason I was happy with a cheap silver (so cheap looking too!) 28-200 on my D700, and my F5 is missing a lot of paint. These days I mostly take the risk, although I've certainly turned my Nikon "mug me" strap black side out. Fortunately I've never yet had a problem - though I remember someone arguing the merits of a large wooden tripod with spiked feet when it came to defending your kit.

 

That said, I'm way too self-conscious to shoot strangers on the street - I'm more a wildlife and architecture person except at explicit events where I can explain my presence. If I wanted to look like a professional rather than a creep to any stranger I was shooting, I'm sure it would help to have a camera that looked the part (whatever the public perception of that camera would be); there's a forum member who does street candids with a D5, I believe...

 

The only time I've ever been called out by people was when I was trying to get photos of pub signs in Cambridge for a web site (that included pub crawls). One person objected to being seen drinking outside the pub after closing time (I explained that I'd not even noticed she was there, and would ensure she was cropped) and another was convinced I was a journalist and wanted a chance to warn her mother than she was making money on the street (I explained I wasn't, and that she wasn't in the shot anyway). Both times I drew attention to myself by firing a big flash at night. Then again, I've been told off (twice) for photographing sun reflecting off buildings in downtown LA because apparently I looked like a terrorist. Oh, and actually I once got yelled at for taking photos of pub signs in London with a (deliberately cheap) film camera - someone was convinced I'd taken a photo of them, and then had a strop when I explained I couldn't really prove otherwise without developing the film.

 

There are a lot of horror stories in the UK. I've known people to be thrown out of pubs for taking photos. There are reports of people being arrested for taking photos of a lake, because somewhere not visible from the photographer's viewpoint there was an inlet where people were letting their kids change clothes. While most people are fine if you ask nicely (which I tend to feel has a chance of messing with the candid behaviour that I'd actually find interesting) I also completely get that some will have a strop about it, and people get really paranoid about children appearing anywhere without permission. Fortunately I rarely have these problems with rocks and wildlife.