D500 or D750

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by kylebybee, Feb 1, 2016.

  1. I have a d7000 and 35 f/1.8 DX, 85 f/1.8 G, sigma 50-150 f/2.8, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6, want to get second body and more lenses for upcoming wedding and portrait assignments, can't decided whether to get the new DX beast (I shoot some sports as well) or step to FX with the D750.
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I have a d7000 and 35 f/1.8 DX, 85 f/1.8 G, sigma 50-150 f/2.8, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6​
    Among that set of lenses, only the 85mm and 70-300mm are not DX lenses. If you move to FX, you need to add a few lenses to do weddings, such as some 24-70mm/f2.8 and perhaps also a 70-200mm/f2.8. The total cost is non-trivial. Have you factored that in yet?
     
  3. I know about the extra cost of the full frame and am willing to invest....if the image quality would justify it. I'm a enthusiast wanting to go pro and would like to know if FX is really necessary. I guess I could rent before buying, just thought I would get opinions as well.
     
  4. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    If you are serious about getting into wedding photography, FX is definitely the way to go due to its better low-light performance. Investing in lenses comes with the territory.
    The D750 is not bad for shooting sports either, although the D500 maybe better for outdoor sports with daylight.
     
  5. The larger viewfinder is a really nice benefit of FX bodies. And yes, IQ is improved [at higher ISOs] with FX bodies over DX. But no, FX is not absolutely necessary, just nice to have.
    But ultimately, it is always nice to have two identical bodies for event photography.
     
  6. I agree with Shun considering your plans. I use both formats.
    -O
     
  7. 35 f/1.8 DX, 85 f/1.8 G, sigma 50-150 f/2.8, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8​
    That's a nice set to have for weddings and portrait work - and rather than adding a different body to the D7000, I suggest to get two D7200 bodies (use with 17-50 and 50-150, stick whatever other lens you will use on the D7000). Then, if you don't have any, at least two flashes.
    You don't mention what kind of sports - is the 70-300 sufficient for what you shoot? Or do you need something faster/something longer? Do you need the 10fps of the D500?
    Going FX would require some big investment; at least one camera body, a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8; that's easily $6K+ just to get going. Your DX system could do backup duty.
    Would consider a D500 only if sports was the main focus - but it appears that you are focusing on weddings and portraits - so a D750 would be the better option (if you indeed go FX). Staying with DX is definitely the less costly option - and unless your sports shooting requires a D500, I think two D7200 would serve your better.
     
  8. I would not get a D500 for weddings. For sports & wildlife, it's perfect. Whatever you get to do weddings, you need TWO of them. I did weddings for two years with a pair of D7100. They worked just fine. I was in it to make money, not spend money.
    I know about the extra cost of the full frame and am willing to invest....if the image quality would justify it. I'm a enthusiast wanting to go pro and would like to know if FX is really necessary.​
    Necessary? No, it is not. Not one of my customers can tell the difference between images made with my D7100 or D800E under normal shooting conditions for weddings/portraits. Consider that even the D7100 has higher image quality than what I was getting just a dozen years ago from a Hassleblad (and people raved about that at the time.) I did eventually buy a D800E, mainly so I could use the Nikon 24mm PC-E lens, and partly so I could make very big enlargements (20 in. and larger.) If you don't routinely do either, keep in mind NO ONE will pay you more because you use a D810 rather than a D7200. You will spend more money but not make any more. It's a business fact. I would suggest starting with a solid base of lenses and lighting system, and begin building up your business first. I'm speaking from experience here. BTW, making money with photography is much more about people skills and not so much camera gear. The thing about gear is to have a back up for EVERY THING. It's very expensive, but they won't stop a wedding because you dropped a lens or your only camera got stolen etc.
    Kent in SD
     
  9. Going FX would require some big investment; at least one camera body​
    No no NO!! You must have at least TWO camera bodies! At least two. They will not pause a wedding because something happened to your only camera and you need to run out to Best Buy and get another one. Weddings are unlike most other kinds of photography in that once they start, you have to be prepared for anything. You can reshoot a portrait, but you can't reshoot a wedding.
    As for "investment," I spend $1,500 for my D800E and promptly spent another $6,000 for lenses for it.
    Kent in SD
     
  10. No no NO!! You must have at least TWO camera bodies!​
    He has a D7000 and a complete lens system for it, so technically with the acquisition of one FX body he has two camera bodies. Not that I think having a mixed DX/FX setup is optimum when shooting a wedding. But you are right, I should have written "at least one - better two". But now we are up at $8K (buying new; buying used could save a few bucks). Buying two D7200 makes a lot more business sense...
     
  11. im not really seeing an argument for a d750 here.
     
  12. But now we are up at $8K (buying new; buying used could save a few bucks). Buying two D7200 makes a lot more business sense...
    Yes, I'd say $8K is about the minimum to spend to enter the wedding business. There's going to be many more expenses on top of that--advertising, new computer, maybe studio expenses etc. And you are correct--you must look at it as a business. Kent in SD
     
  13. Thank you for the responses. I can see the benefit of having identical bodies, and the D7200 is appealing. The sports is more of a hobby, my son races bicycles so naturally I take photos of that sport.
     
  14. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The argument for FX, i.e. D750, is easy, namely much better low-light performance for indoor weddings. However, the
    cost is high once you factor in lens costs. The business case (how to make a profit) is up to the OP to figure out. Roughly speaking, $2000 each for a D750, 24-70mm/f2.8, and 70-200mm/f2.8 lenses. You will start with a $6000 hole that is not exactly easy to get out of for a beginning wedding photographer. (Lenses can be cheaper if you buy third-party ones or used.)

    While you should have at least one backup camera for any serious shoot, and preferably you also have backup lenses,
    flashes,etc., the backup cameras doesn't need to be the same model. I in fact tend to bring three bodies, not just two, and
    I have never owned two of the same Nikon camera bodies. The closest I have had were one FE and one FE2. And I also
    have a D7100 and a D7200.
     
  15. To lay out some of the differences in list form:
    If you're shooting in a dark venue which doesn't allow flash, the D750 will give you better images than a DX camera.
    The D500, D7100, D7200 and the D750 all have significantly better autofocus than your D7000.
    The D750 takes heavier lenses than the equivalent ones for Nikon DX cameras. A 24-70 f/2.8 is much heavier than your 17-50. A 70-200 f/2.8 is much heavier than your 50-150. If you will be using a DX/FX combination, you probably want to use both a 17-50 and a 24-70, you'll be carrying more weight than with a pair of DX cameras.
    The D750 is a lot louder than the DX cameras discussed here. This isn't particularly important--I've seen entire weddings shot with very loud Hasselblads--but you should be aware of that before making your decision.
    If you decide to upgrade your D7000, you'll get very little money for it in trade, and might want to consider keeping it as a third body in case the first two break.
    BTW, I sometimes shoot events with a D7100/D750 combination, and it's somewhat inconvenient compared to two identical bodies, not terribly so. I use a wheeled camera carrier.
     
  16. I have never shot a wedding nor do I ever plan to. Having said that I do love shooting in some indoor places like union station or old churches as examples. Owning both the the D750 and D7200, I can offer this. I know that the Focus modules and so forth are suppose to be the same in both those bodies. I am telling you they they are not. The D750 focuses fast and very accurate. But where it really shines as Shun said is the low light performance. Atleast a full stop in ISO and that is so huge. The view finder is bright. It is just better. I have a D500 on pre order and I am just hoping it matches the D750 in ISO performance, but I have my doubts. The D7200 kills the D7000 by the way. It is night and day all around.
     
  17. Having shot a wedding with both a D7000 and a D600 I can tell you both are a benefit, to me.

    Marc Meeks
     
  18. The only time you should need good low-light performance during a wedding is when getting shots of the ceremony where flash isn't allowed or is inappropriate. The rest of the time you can (and maybe should) use flash. A tripod and/or VR also make the low light ability of the camera not-so-important.
    People were shooting weddings perfectly well on 400 ISO film not too long ago remember, and for most modern DSLRs 3200 ISO is a walk in the park. So IMO, no you don't need a D750.
    Nobody seems to have suggested that as a startup kit you could just add another DX body to the D7000 you already have. The D7000 will only be there as a backup after all. I think swapping between FX and a DX backup camera wouldn't be a good idea, although you could split focal lengths between them.
     
  19. When the D500 becomes available you could rent one to try at an event and see if it meets your needs. The D750 is a
    great camera, but as others have pointed out the new lenses will set you back, and with DX sensors now being as good
    as FX ones were a few years ago it might not be necessary.
     
  20. People were shooting weddings perfectly well on 400 ISO film not too long ago remember, and for most modern DSLRs 3200 ISO is a walk in the park. So IMO, no you don't need a D750.​
    Brilliantly put and so true. I could only laugh :cool:
     
  21. Here's a bit of advice. Invest in lenses, not camera bodies. The DX lenses are the work of the devil as far as I'm concerned. Yes, they're small, cheap and work great. But as soon as you want to shoot with an FX camera you're screwed. You actually have NO lens at that point. Nothing for FX. So, invest in good FX lenses. I have lenses from the 1960's that still work on my Nikon DSLR. No, they're not convenient but they're solid and work. I have a colleague who's converted his old Nikkors into cine lenses and uses them with an adapter on other brand cameras. Best of luck with your decision and your photography.
     
  22. The argument for FX, i.e. D750, is easy, namely much better low-light performance for indoor weddings. However, the cost is high once you factor in lens costs. The business case (how to make a profit) is up to the OP to figure out. Roughly speaking, $2000 each for a D750, 24-70mm/f2.8, and 70-200mm/f2.8 lenses. You will start with a $6000 hole that is not exactly easy to get out of for a beginning wedding photographer.​
    this is an argument for going $6000 in debt, mainly. the FX transition is a lot easier if you already have the lenses. but when i say im not seeing an argument for a D750, i'm saying that for what Kyle wants to do, 2x redundant bodies are the baseline, and he could easily do that with DX. the better low-light aspect of FX really only comes into play past a theoretical limit of DX, let's say > ISO 3200, maybe even > 6400 with post-processing NR techniques. and to some degree can be addressed through fast primes. unless you're already solid with wedding gigs, it may be more prudent to make a more modest investment and work your way up to a more expensive FX system.
     
  23. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    $6000 could be a lot of money for some people, and it could also be pocket change for some other people. Unless one is fortunate enough that someone else give you a few FX f2.8 zooms, you have got to start somewhere or remain with DX for the long term. The fact that the OP has the Sigma 50-150mm/f2.8 DX lens is setting some limitations for himself.
    As I said, it is up to the OP to figure out his own business case and how to spend his money. As he puts it himself:
    I know about the extra cost of the full frame and am willing to invest....​
     
  24. well, if you get 2x d750, plus 2.8 standard and telezooms, it's an $8000 investment.
     
  25. You need to figure out what kind of photographer you are going to be and what kind of clients you are going to have.
    It's the job that you need to do that will determine what kind of equipment you need.
    If you want to be able to do most any kind of photography job you need a full set of gear. Two camera bodies, lenses from ultra wide to tele (f2.8 of course and VR if possible), a full set of primes, t/s lenses, macro, hotshoe flashes, a set of strobes, light modifiers and grip, fully color managed setup with high end monitors. And then of course a business, insurance, marketing etc. That's a lot more than a couple of thousands.
     
  26. If you do weddings with flash, you should be able to work with DX. You already have a lot of DX lenses suitable for the
    tasks of weddings and portraits. It would seem that for you, staying with DX would be a lot more economical than getting
    FX cameras and lenses.

    If you are dying to get better low light results and shallower depth of field, or the larger viewfinder of FX cameras, then FX
    may be something for you. But it would be costly to transition to.

    I find that if I use flash at events, people stary posing with artificial expressions for the camera. If I use available light only
    and no flash, I get more subtle and natural expressions and many people are unaware of being photographed. I find the
    larger viewfinder of FX cameras is very helpful in timing shots for the best expressions. These are some of the reasons
    why I prefer FX for most people photography situations. In the studio and also on location, for portraits I do usually use
    flash as the subject is already aware of the camera and posing. I find it difficult to switch between the posed formal and
    candid documentary modes and generally the posed work at weddings occurs at a specific time and I avoid bringing the
    flash to the candid part since it really affects the mood and results that I get, and it's easier for me to capture the kind of
    expressions that I like when not using flash. But it may be a subtle thing and not everyone will mind the difference. I do
    use some bouncef flash for shots where I must shoot into the window light in the afternoon and the indoor artificial lights
    haven't been turned on yet, or aren't bright enough to balance the window light. This occurs e.g. during cake cutting quite
    often.
     
  27. I find that if I use flash at events, people stary posing with artificial expressions for the camera. If I use available light only and no flash, I get more subtle and natural expressions and many people are unaware of being photographed.​
    this might depend on how you're using flash, though, as well as whether you are using a huge honking zoom or a more compact prime. going off-body with a sync cord can prevent that deer in the headlights look direct flash can produce. i tend to like available light too, but in certain situations, a little bit of fill works well. i never use the red-eye reduction mode with the 3 pre-flashes, either.
     
  28. I typically use only a tiny blip of flash (with a fairly large aperture and moderately high ISO so I get a lot of ambient light) in situations where the ambient light is coming too much from behind the subjects, and bounce that light from the white surfaces behind and above me. It doesn't cause any "deer in the headlights" appearance but the result is much like there had been an additional big window behind me. However, when the flash goes off a few times, even if it is a slight blip of light, many people will start to pay attention to the photography and I lose the ability to capture expressions and social behavior as they would have happened without the subjects being camera aware. Now, it may be that the bride and groom and their family like posed work of events, but then they probably shouldn't ask me to make the photographs. ;-)
     
  29. This is off subject but may have to do with decision making. The Nikon DX 35 f/1.8 that I have has been a mystery to me. What is the difference between it and the regular FX 35. The focal length doesn't change or does it, I know that an f/2.8 DX lens actually renders a f/4 aperture equal to FX. So does Nikon make the f/1.8 on the 35 DX a true f/1.8?
     
  30. The 35mm f/1.8 DX renders a smaller image circle than the FX version, so you get some vignetting and soft corners with the DX version if you use them on FX (I recall at longer distances the vignetting becomes very obvious). The FX version is designed to render a high quality image over the whole FX sensor area, so that's the lens you need for FX (or one of the 35/1.4's). f/1.8 is f/1.8, there is no difference there. However if we think in terms of equivalents, a 35/1.8 on DX is roughly equivalent to a 53mm f/2.7 on FX in terms of its angle of view and the depth of field that you'd get if aiming to shoot the same photo wide open.
     
  31. Thank you Ilkka.
     
  32. Ilkka is right and competent as always.
    I would add that D500 has 4K (you can take super-duper-ultra HD footage in the future for 4K TV sets) and it more robust and it has 1/8000.
    With very high skills of the photographer people will like APS photos, but the work of low-skilled photographer will be mostly abhored. Both are capable of stunning work at weddings.
     

Share This Page