used D810 or new D500

[david_simon]

<p>I will in the near future upgrade my D300. When the D500 was announced that was what I was going get. But I can get a low count used D810 for less then the D500 will cost new. I shoot mainly birds and nature. I have a 200-400mm Nikon and an old Nikon 55MM 2.8 macro. My 18-200mm Vr1 will be terrible on either so that will be upgraded eventually.<br>

Suggestions ?</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Do you photograph birds with a high frame rate, using the D300. If so, the D810 is not quite the right camera for that purpose. And unless you mostly use the D810 in the DX or 1.2x crop mode, you also lose quite a bit of reach as the 200-400mm is not that long.</p>

<p>If your D300 is still working fine, I would say wait till the end of 2016. Most likely the D500 will be several hundred dollars cheaper and the success to the D810 will have been introduced such that used D810 will be even cheaper. In your case the D500 is probably the better choice.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>those are two entirely different cameras in terms of function and purpose. the 810 should have an edge in low light/high-ISO, as well as sheer resolution, while the 500 has a new AF/metering system and the joystick thingy for fast AF point selection. the thing to pay attention to isn't just frame rate (which the d500 wins) but buffer size. the 810 can shoot 28 14-bit lossless compressed RAWs. the D500 can shoot 200 lossless compressed 14-bit RAWs (when used with an XQD card). that's a considerable difference! for wildlife/BIF, the d500 should be the clear choice. the only reason i see to go with an 810 is if you are doing a lot of landscape work and/or plan on making huge prints.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>If you want to save a bit of money, then I'd get a D7200 + 18-140mm VR kit lens (fantastic lens for the price), and forget about the D500 or the D810. The frame rate of the D7200 is the same as that of your D300. The D7200 sensor and AF system have much better performance than the D300. It's maybe not as robust, but if you don't plan on throwing your camera gear around I'm sure it'll be just as reliable.</p>

<p>The saving won't just be in the cost of the camera body, but you'll also be able to use your old lenses and get the same magnification as you get on your current D300. Your 200-400 zoom will give only 2/3rds of the "reach" on a D810, and would need replacing with an expensive 600mm lens or the addition of a 1.4x teleconverter. The teleconverter option will lose you a stop of aperture and make AF less reliable.</p>

<p>IMO money put into lenses is better spent than worrying about the finer points of camera performance. Buy only what you <em>need</em> in a camera, not what you think you <em>ought </em>to have. Because there's always going to be a supposedly "better" camera just a few months away.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The D810 would be my preference. You would likely not be disappointed with either.</p>

<p><em>"Your 200-400 zoom will give only 2/3rds of the "reach" on a D810"</em><br /> <br /> Actually, a DX sized crop on a D810 will have about the same MP count as the full frame from a D7200 or D500 (15MP compared to 20MP [D500] or 24MP [D7200] - the differences would not be large enough to see any differences in prints after post processing)<br /> <br /> <em>The teleconverter option will lose you a stop of aperture and make AF less reliable.</em></p>

<p>The one stop loss is not significant with the D810 if you are not cropping or only cropping a small amount and AF performance with the 200-400mm with a TC on D810 would be excellent anyway.</p>

<p>The D810 runs at 7 FPS in DX mode with the right grip and batteries, only a bit slower than the D500.<br /> <br /> Add to that a larger viewfinder (worth going for the D810 for this reason alone IMHO) and far superior low light performance, the D810 is a win-win in every regard.</p>

[Two23]

<p>For birds, the D500. It will do a decent job on landscapes too, of course. Don't forget that the 24mm PC-E will perform like 36mm though.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>The frame rate of the D7200 is the same as that of your D300.<br>

The D810 runs at 7 FPS in DX mode with the right grip and batteries</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lets not forget that the D300 can run at 8fps with the MB-D10 and the right batteries.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, a DX sized crop on a D810 will have about the same MP count as the full frame from a D7200 or D500 (15MP compared to 20MP [D500] or 24MP [D7200] - the differences would not be large enough to see any differences in prints after post processing)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It does make a difference though if the DX-size image needs to be cropped further.</p>

<p>D500 vs D810 (or its successor) is a choice I am also contemplating for my bird and air show photography - I will definitely wait with the decision until after I have handled the D500 and quite likely until after the specs for the D810 are revealed (which I expect to be sometime later this year). Not planning on making a purchased before the end of the year anyway.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>" ....the differences would not be large enough to see any differences in prints after post processing"<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well I can easily see a difference in resolution using the same high-quality lenses on a DX-cropped D800 and on my D7200. The difference between 15.4 and 24 megapixels is certainly <em>not</em> insignificant. And the cropped DX area of an FX viewfinder is actually more difficult to view than the slightly dimmer DX camera's complete finder.</p>

<p>Also the use of a 1.4x teleconverter not only affects AF, but requires one stop higher ISO for the same shutter speed. And the converted lens will exhibit shallower DoF at like apertures when a comparable area of subject fills the FX frame as opposed to the DX one.</p>

<p>The vibration from the shutter alone of my D7200 is far less than that from my D800 with MU or Live View, making it easier to get totally sharp shots with a long lens. I don't care how hefty a tripod and head is, it can never completely damp vibrations caused by minute camera movements. Otherwise we wouldn't need to use a remote release.</p>

<p>There's no arguing with the fact that a small format camera makes a better tool for any work that requires a high magnification; be it telephoto or macro. For example: until recently serious astronomers were using tiny SVGA chips to capture tiny areas of night sky, and with stunning results.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"For birds, the D500. It will do a decent job on landscapes too, of course."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's pure speculation at the moment Kent. Since no-one's had their hands on one outside of selected Nikon stooges.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>How do you become a Nikon stooge? I'm volunteering.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>the D810 is a win-win in every regard.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In <em>every</em> regard? i don't know how one arrives at that conclusion objectively. compared to the d500, it has:</p>

<ul>

<li>slower frame rate</li>

<li>1/7th the RAW buffer size</li>

<li>less-advanced AF/metering system</li>

<li>less-wide array of selectable focus points</li>

<li>no focus joystick thingy</li>

</ul>

<p>those are all performance metrics, meaning they <em>do</em> all make a difference in actual field use. while low-light performance at high-ISO is a point in the 810's favor, the d500 can focus to a lower EV value. all things considered, for shooting things that move, i would take the better AF performance almost every time.<br>

</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Eric, I don't know about you but to me the most important thing a camera can give a photographer is its IQ. And in this area, the D810 is superior. Add to that the larger, brighter FX viewfinder, and well, I think the best choice is clear. Not that the D500 will not be excellent.</p>

<p>Slower frame rate - yes, a bit, but not significant (comparing in DX mode).</p>

<p>Buffer size? Comparing apples to apples (DX buffer size), at about 100 for 14 bit compresssed, the D810's buffer is much more than adequate.</p>

<p>Less advanced AF? Frankly, I don't know if anyone could tell much difference because Nikon's AF systems on all their high end cameras is so good.</p>

<p>AF Points? 51 is plenty. I only consider the cross type ones usable. Many of the D500's added cross type AF points are at the extreme left and right of the frame. Important? I think not.</p>

<p>Don't know what the joystick thingy is. Perhaps you can explain...</p>

<p>Frankly, I doubt that anyone with a D810 will trade their body in for a D500. As I stated in my original post, the OP would be happy with either.</p>

<p> </p>

[elliot1]

<p>Eric, I reread my original post and as you often do with my posts, took my 'win-win' comment out of context. My win-win' comment referred to the fact that specifications wise, the two cameras are fairly similar, (close enough that there is not a huge advantage of the D500 over the D810) <strong>plus</strong> you have the advantage of a much larger viewfinder and far superior low light performance with the D810 Vs the D500. Additionally, overall IQ under most shooting circumstances will likely be better with the D810 (FX) vs the D500 (for larger print sizes). I personally would not buy another DX body because of the size of the viewfinder alone.<br>

<br>

In fact, in reviewing the specifications of the D500, one of the best features it has is its ability to shoot under artificial lighting at higher shutter speeds with its flicker reduction feature. So for someone shooting certain indoor sports, the D500 will likely be a superior choice. But for what the OP shoots, birds and nature, the D500 may not be his best overall choice.</p>

 

[vladimir_pushkin]

<p>Thanks to David for the good question. I, too, 200-400\4vr and D300. 200-400 has a big problem with the accuracy of AF. Adjusting the number of AF depends on the distance and the focal length at the same time. I created a table with a focal length, the distance to the target and the setting of AF tune. Now my brain melted.<br />I am very much encouraged by the latest configuration АF tune D500. Friends, if I can finally adjust the autofocus, taking into account the distance to the object? I know that Sigma attempted. Can I hope that Nikon will allow me to set up 200-400 and I will not continue to shed tears?<br /> I apologize for my English.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Elliot, the D810 will only show superior IQ if the subject is magnified to the same proportions relative to the frame size of each camera. And any comparison to the (currently vapourware) D500 is purely theoretical at the moment. Using the same lens, the DX format may well prove superior because of its higher pixel density, later sensor generation and better in-camera image processing. Albeit over a smaller subject area.</p>

<p>This is basically a "format wars" question, and there's no arguing with the fact that where high magnification is needed a smaller format wins out. WRT giving increased depth of field for a similar aperture and field-of-view, and needing a shorter and therefore less expensive lens to achieve the same FOV. There also comes a point where optical magnification ceases to yield superior results, due to atmospheric effects and/or inability to correct lens aberrations (within economic restraints) to the same degree as focal length increases.</p>

<p>Vladimir, AFAIK Nikon's AF fine tuning only allows for the correction of a zoom lens at one particular focal length, and at one particular distance or range of distances. In some cases this just isn't sufficient and AF becomes compromised. IME the AF error varies on a camera to camera basis, and isn't so much dependent on the lens. Although there are doubtless lenses out there that have bad AF performance.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>" the D810 will only show superior IQ if the subject is magnified to the same proportions relative to the frame size of each camera"</em></p>

<p>Very true, and that is exactly my point! That is after all the FX advantage. But ultimately a DX sized image from a D810 is only marginally smaller than what you would get with a D500. The difference is so small that it would be almost impossible to see any difference when making prints or pixel peeping. So there are limited advantages of a D500 over a D810 for the OP's intended use.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>correction to my post above. The last sentence should read:</p>

<p>"So there are '<em><strong>only very'</strong></em> limited advantages of a D500 over a D810 for the OP's intended use.<br>

<br /> <br /> I still maintain that for the OP's intended use of the body, the D810 may be a better choice and would be my choice.</p>