D750 D500 D7200

<p>Hi,<br>

I want to upgrade my D300. Photographing birds with the D300 was always a challenge due to poor ISO performance at 800 and above, and the 12 megapixels are too little for photographing small birds which are some distance away (especially since I want to make prints, 12" x 18" and 16" x 20"). Photographing small birds is one of my primary objectives in the coming months.<br>

At the moment, the D750 is my #1 choice. I do environmental portraitures too, and miss the field of view that a 50mm lens brings on a full frame body (a 50mm lens is all that I ever needed back in the days when I used film).<br>

But the D7200 costs significantly lesser (almost half). I can get the D7200 and Tamron 180mm macro for the cost of a D750.<br>

However, does the IQ of the D7200 match up to the D750 at say, 6400 ISO?<br>

I will make my final decision purely on the basis of IQ at high ISO values. <br>

I look forward to your insights.</p>

<p>Presently in photo net and elsewhere , lot is being discussed about D500 . IQ of D7200 would never match D750 . If IQ is the sole parameter and not the reach, choose D750 . However , it makes more sense now to wait a bit and then go for D500 . Follow different threads , you would be enlightened .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will make my final decision purely on the basis of IQ at high ISO values.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D750 is clearly superior at high ISO values. But I wonder if you really want to make this your only criterion. The D7200 does rather well at high ISO, and is better suited to bird photography than the D750. I currently have a D7100 and a D750, and invariably use the D7100 for birds.</p>

<p>The D500, which you included in your subject line but didn't discuss, seems to be very good at high ISO, still not as good as the D750 in the tests I've seen, and also has fewer pixels, but its ability to shoot at 10 fps could be a real advantage for birds in flight.</p>

<p>I bought the D750 as an upgrade to my D300 just 2 weeks before the D500 got announced.</p>

<p>Had I known, I would have waited for the following reasons:<br>

* I like the heftier body of the D300/500 as opposed to the D750<br>

* I like the more direct, pro-like controls of the D300/D500<br>

* Lenses for the APS-C camera's are cheaper and there's more choice than for the full-frame ones</p>

<p>The reason I'm happy anyway that I bought the D750<br>

* The amazing jump in low-light performance (I shoot theatre and dance, and it makes a world of difference to me)<br>

* the articulating screen, which makes it easier to shoot from a low of high point of view<br>

* It was available now, instead of in a couple of months (the D500)<br>

* the larger sensor and files give me more cropping options</p>

<p>Good luck deciding :)</p>

The D500 also has an articulated rear LCD, same as the D750, but the D500's is a touch screen like an iPad.

<blockquote>

<p>does the IQ of the D7200 match up to the D750 at say, 6400 ISO?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>no.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will make my final decision purely on the basis of IQ at high ISO values.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's your money, but if i was a bird photographer, i would get the D500 for the tracking AF abilities.</p>

<p>Ditto on the D500 for birds. You can shoot portraits with any camera. The lens & lighting system are the important things for that.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Thank you for all your replies.<br>

I have been using APS-C cameras since 2003 and really miss the field of view of a 50mm lens on a 35mm full frame camera. I also think that a full frame camera will support my portraiture endeavors more than an APS-C, also taking the high ISO performance into account since I enjoy making photos in low light.<br>

Thanks once again. </p>

<p>Take a look at this thread here. <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dwIV">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dwIV</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>If birds are your goal somehow, it seems cheaper to buy a 35mm lens for APS C portraits than whatever birding might require for FF and a D750 doesn't provide extra MP for cropping compared to your D300.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also think that a full frame camera will support my portraiture endeavors more than an APS-C, also taking the high ISO performance into account since I enjoy making photos in low light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ok, but your post listed two APS-C bodies. if you have already decided to get a FF camera, why post at all? and are you planning to take bird portraits or shoot birds in flight? </p>

<p>or models in flight?^^</p>

<p>The 'reach' of DX and the IQ of FX are both determined by physics. They are strict alternatives. You cannot have both at the same time (well you can have a D810 and use it in crop mode for reach, but when in DX crop mode you will lose the FX IQ). You have to choose.</p>

<p>If you go to Imaging Resources "Camera Comparometer" you can see 100% 6400 ISO samples from the D7200 and D750 side-by-side. Personally I think the difference is noticeable, but not necessarily significant. Bearing in mind that the FF D750 would need a substantial investment in glassware over your D300 to achieve a similar framing. A D7200 and 35mm f/1.4 lens would be a cheaper option to obtain the (too wide IMO) same AOV as a 50mm lens on full-frame. Whereas 50mm on DX makes a nice portrait combo with better flattening of perspective and needing less background area in a studio setting.</p>

<p>Here's the Comparometer link: <a href="https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM">https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</a></p>

<p>There are also samples from the D500 recently posted there.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you for the inputs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D500, which you included in your subject line but didn't discuss, seems to be very good at high ISO, still not as good as the D750 in the tests I've seen, and also has fewer pixels, but its ability to shoot at 10 fps could be a real advantage for birds in flight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm now tending towards the D500. I thought about the photos that I want to make and the times when I was actually out making those photos. I always yearn for that little extra reach, fast focusing, and excellent IQ. I think that when I'm out there with my D500, I won't regret the decision. The D750 will always make me wonder whether I have made the correct decision.<br /> I have attached some images of the kind of photos that I want to make. All made with the 12 Mp D300 and 200-500 f5.6. After cropping, the images of the two small birds (I must admit that I haven't looked up their IDs yet) ended up at 1.5 megapixels. The D500 with its 20 Mp should be able to give me a nice 6" x 9" print at 300 dpi, right? The image of the parakeet is a cool 6.7 Mp. The D500 would take that up to about 10 Mp?<br /> I couldn't help but notice that the cross type sensors on the D500 don't fall on the rule of thirds. It would have been nice if it had.<br>

<img src="http://www.girishmenon.com/photonet/d500-13.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="648" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.girishmenon.com/photonet/2.jpg" alt="" width="332" height="500" /><br>

<img src="http://www.girishmenon.com/photonet/3.jpg" alt="" width="332" height="500" /><br>

<img src="http://www.girishmenon.com/photonet/1a.jpg" alt="" width="332" height="500" /></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I couldn't help but notice that the cross type sensors on the D500 don't fall on the rule of thirds. It would have been nice if it had.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are capturing a landscape image, you don't need to worry about AF points much.</p>

<p>At least for me, my sports and wildlife images typically involve some cropping, sometimes a lot of cropping. In fact a lot of times I try to put the subject in the center of the frame such that when the subject moves around, sometimes rapidly, it stays inside the frame. I crop afterwards to have the final composition where the subject is typically off center.</p>

<p>Just captured this image late yesterday, with the D500 and the 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR. That is a rather big and long lens to hand hold. I had some difficulty with so much magnification as the terns were flying quickly and sometimes erratically.</p>

<p>The usable portion of the image is just a small area in the top right, even at 500mm. My primary difficulty was keeping the entire subject inside the frame. Once again the D500's AF capability is great, especially since it has lots of cross-type AF points on the two ends of the frame.</p><div></div>

<p>That's a nice example. Thanks, Shun. If it had been a stationary bird, it might have been a little sharper? Or a faster shutter speed perhaps? </p>

<p>In that occasion I used 1/1250 sec, slightly slow for birds in flight. With current mid/high-ISO capability, I prefer to use 1/2000 sec for action. See the pixel-level crop below.</p>

<p>However, the biggest limitation for that image is that it is a pretty extreme crop. For web display it is more than sufficient. I can make a 4x6 print without any problem and perhaps stretch it to 5x7, but it doesn't have the pixel count for, e.g., a calendar print.</p><div></div>