elliot1

<p>Ah, the beauty of shooting RAW and processing with software that offers lens specific corrections is that for the most part, these 'flaws' are corrected/eliminated even on high megapixel bodies!</p>

<p><em>"What I need most is AF speed."</em><br /> <br /> You also want accurate AF, correct? A fast aperture lens (24-70mm f2.8) will give you a brighter viewfinder and potentially faster, more accurate AF. So the bit of extra weight may be worth it in the long run. This lens will also give you exceptional IQ in every regard. Used, the 24-70mm f2.8 is very reasonably priced. If you want to save a bit of money, consider the slightly older 28-70mm f2.8 version which is still AF-S and you loose only 4mm on the wide end.</p>

<p>Jim, thanks for that correction - you are absolutely correct, the camera only shoots JPGs.</p> <p>You can view comparison shots at various ISOs here:</p> <p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</p> <p> </p>

<p>Cons: small sensor (possibly only an issue for low light shooting although the sample low light photos on Nikon's website look pretty good, and if you shoot RAW and have good image processing software and are not making poster sized prints, this should not be an issue</p> <p>Also, it is a bit bulky (large). Again, not an issue, especially if you are used to a DSL</p> <p>The specs look impressive especially the powerful zoom, 2000mm equivalent.</p> <p>Don't know if you have viewed this from Nikon:</p> <p>http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/compact-digital-cameras/coolpix-p900.html</p> <p>Overall, it looks like a great camera!</p>

<p>A fast prime lens will probably give you the best result for your application, although based on what you said about your clientele (which is typical), you should be fine with both the body and lens you have. Shooting RAW + JPG is your safest bet, but JPGs should be fine and likely all you need very soon after you start. Good luck!</p>

<p>The lens is an important factor that has not been mentioned, and is probably more important than the megapixel count or body. What lens will you be using?</p> <p>Lighting is also a critical factor that will make or break your images. Do your homework on lighting for portraits.</p>

<p>#2</p><div></div>

<p>What is a 'dosa'?</p> <p>pool shot...</p><div></div>

<p>Sunrise</p><div></div>

<p>#2</p><div></div>

<p>Our new grandson!</p><div></div>

<p>His conclusion is incorrect as a bit of detail is lost as you increase the ISO. At low ISO and especially for typically sized prints, it would be virtually impossible to see a difference anyway, especially if shooting RAW and processing with decent image processing software software.</p> <p>You can view/pixel peep samples (out-of-the-camera JPGs) for both bodies here and judge for yourself:</p> <p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</p> <p>Unless you are making post sized prints there should be no real concern. It seems everything about the D7200 is improved over the D7100.</p>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>Not only is there no Nikon warranty, butNikon will not even service gray market items if you are willing to pay them, so used is the way to go because you never know...</p>

<p>At this point in time, a D200 would not be a body choice I would consider if I was going to add one to my gear bag. I owned 3 of them and really liked it at the time.</p> <p>FWIW, if you shot RAW, a D200 and Canon EOS M should render very similar IQ (virtually identical), and the price difference between the two should not be all that great. It usually makes sense to have identical main and backup camera for ease of operation. Plus you will not have to buy duplicate lenses and accessories, which in the long run will save you money.</p>

<p>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.</p> <p>But ultimately, it is always nice to have two identical bodies for event photography.</p>

<p>There is minimal difference from 300mm to 400mm. Cropping your images at this time shot with your 24mp body is probably your best bet until you are ready to purchase the new 200mm-500mm lens from Nikon (the difference between 300mm and 500mm is more substantial), it may not be worth getting a 400mm lens. And although the 200-500mm does not have the 'convenience' of a wider focal length, you could always use your second body for that option.</p> <p>I have both the 28-300mm and 80-400 VRI. I agree with Mary, If you are happy with the 28-300mm then you will likely be happy with the 80-400 VRI with regards to IQ. Focus speed on newer Nikon bodies is reasonable as long as you use the focus limit switch.</p> <p>I do process my images with DXO software which does a nice job of correcting 'flaws' - IQ from processed RAW files from the 80-400mm VRI are actually surprisingly good in every regard.</p>

<p>As is often the case in school gyms, the lighting systems will typically be poor for photography and fast shutter speeds will often not be possible as you may have already discovered (due to fluctuation in light output which can dramatically affect the consistency of light and white balance). So you want to shoot at the highest shutter speed and lowest ISO that gives you the results you are looking for.</p> <p>The best way to solve the grain/noise issue is shoot RAW if you are not already doing do and use advanced software with high quality image processing abilities that can reduce grain/noise with minimal loss of IQ. There are several such program available and they are not expensive. The results are excellent. High ISO shots will be noise/grain free and have still have excellent detail.</p> <p>Another option is to consider using a prime lens with a faster aperture. This will help lower the ISO and thus reduce noise/grain a bit more.</p>

<p>I owned one briefly many years ago, and found that the image quality on the long end to be only good at best (even stopped down), and that the IQ of my Nikon 70-300mm lens at 300mm cropped to the 500mm FOV and upsized in Photoshop was as good or better than that of the Bigma at 500mm. I promptly sold it.</p> <p>There is only a minimal difference in the FOV between 400mm and 500mm. Since you are satisfied with you current 400mm lens, it might be a good idea to save your money at this time.</p> <p>It is also a very large and heavy lens, hence the nickname "Bigma", which makes it difficult to use.</p>

<p>Ebay is generally a very safe place to shop for most items if you understand the feedback system and Ebay/Paypal buyer protection programs offered by eBay. But I do agree that eBay is probably not the best source for memory cards in general. If the OP did end up with counterfeits, he can likely get his money back. It will be interesting when the OP lets us know the results of his investigation.</p>

<p>Again, I am very, very happy with my Olympus system but frankly it may make more sense to buy a Nikon DX body like the D7200 which offers excellent IQ, resolution and AF and either of the two Nikon Lenses I listed over either of the two new lenses (they are just too expensive IMHO).</p>