Javier Gutierre

<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>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>

<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>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>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>

<p>My D750 did the very same thing. I did end up sending it to Nikon and they ended up replacing the shutter assembly and calibrating it. It was there less than a week and they did it for me at no charge. It was done under the recall notice and my D750 is a gray market one. Thank you Nikon ! Now it is better than ever.</p>

<p>I had two of the older batteries. It took only 3 days for the exchange. Nikon customer service is awesome. I have had 4 dealing with them now and all resolved very quickly. 100% satisfied.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't consider either one an even passable choice for "street" shooting. Too big, too conspicuous. Add a big f1.4 lens and you're apt to draw even more attention. That's a huge negative.</p> </blockquote> <p>I have to disagree here. I think it comes down to style and confidence. When I am out and about shooting, I am very obvious. All my DSLR's have grips on them and yes, there is no hiding those big lenses. When people see me, there is no doubt I am out making pictures. I find this to be advantages. I use wide to normal lenses and try to engage when I can. I find that when I take a candid of someone, most don't even notice, even with that big ole DSLR. This is not only L.A. but various parts of the U.S. and many countries I have visited. No need to be sneaky. But this comes down to style and mannerisms. </p>

<ol> <li> We need to keep in mind that it isn't like the D4, D810, D750, and D7200 ... all of a sudden have terrible AF. Those cameras have very good AF, probably far more than capable than what is usually needed for "street photography."</li> </ol> <p>Completely agree. In the middle of the day, it would make very little difference. But when the sun goes down, It does.<br> The D7200 is stuoid fast as well, especially when fitted with fast glass F/1.4-1.8 to get more light to the body.</p>

<blockquote> <p>OTOH if you are a zone-focus and f/8 kind of street shooter, you dont need either of these bodies to do that.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, exactly my point. The D500 has that type of speed. The D750 while fast, it is not quite there. But really, it has taken this long to catch up to good old fashioned zone focusing, but can get some nice DOF if that is what is desired. </p>

<p>A very nice image Shun. Love all the faces. The portrait POV works here as well. </p>

<blockquote> <p>From my point of view, the strength of the D500 is its state-of-the-art AF and fast frame rate</p> </blockquote> <p>No doubt. It is really a beast and even more amazing is how accurate and smart it is. I use manual with auto ISO and it rarely misses on exposer and it adjust to different light really quick. It does well in high contrast situations as well. really well. As it gets darker and later into the evening the difference between the D750 and D500 becomes more apparent. The D500 is quicker to focus and more spot on. Frame rate for me personally does not matter. Usually If i do not get the shot in the first try, it is gone, unless it is stationary. So I have it set a 3FPS. That seems about right for me and my style. <br /></p>

<blockquote> <p> I was paying $100 or so for a 32G SD card, which is slow in today's standards. I wouldn't stock up on XQD or any other memory cards, but if you can afford a D500, I think you can afford a card or two. </p> </blockquote> <p>I completely agree. I just ordered the 32G from B&H. I would have ordered the 64 but B&H is out of them. My experience with Adorama has not been good. B&H is my favorite place by far. </p>

<blockquote> <p>For D500 owners, if you are not using XQD already, I would recommend getting one 32G or 64G Sony XQD card so that you can record your images in the backup mode.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks Shun. I will order one this evening when I get home along with the card reader :)</p>

<blockquote> <p> Personally, I don't pay much attention to how well a lens performs at f1.4 or even f1.8. At such wide apertures, your depth of field is very shallow. At least I see little point to worry about how sharp it is, etc., since if you move over a tiny bit, it will not be entirely in focus anyway. However, I am well aware that not everybody feels that way.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks Hin. I agree about the no room for error at F/1.4 or even F/1.8. But since I am usually back about 10-15 Feet or so, that is usually less of an issue for me. Since my subjects are big, that too gives me more wiggle room. I also have started to shoot with faster shutter speeds 1/1000-1/2000 and use only the release in focus mode. It hits pretty good most often. Especially the D500 and D750 with the group focus. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Just for simplicity, a correction: JDM's 50mm f/1.4 review link was for the D200, making it a bit hard to compare. Here are Photozone's D3x analysis pages (which should be a good match for the D750) for:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/631-nikkorafs5018ff?start=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The 50mm f/1.8 AF-S Nikkor</a><br /><a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/441-nikkor_afs_50_14_ff?start=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The 50mm f/1.4 AF-S Nikkor</a><br /><a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/959-sigma5014dgfx?start=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The 50mm f/1.4 Art Sigma</a><br /><a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/616-sigma5014ff?start=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The 50mm f/1.4 HSM Sigma</a><br /><br />For what it's worth, I see a larger difference between the "Art" Sigma and the 50mm f/1.8 (the two of these that I own) than Photozone would suggest - my subjective opinion agrees with DxOMark's that the "Art" Sigma is substantially ahead at wide apertures, although it seems it's not quite up to Otus standards at f/1.4.</p> </blockquote> <p>Wow Andrew. Thank you again. Perhaps that Sigma is the way to go and put up with the weight, or better yet, for me to continue to loose weight. <br> I did notice that the test were done on old bodies and these new sensors are much more demanding. Thanks for the update. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't have a pony in this race, but Photozone.de is almost always a fair, and objective, place for comparisons of these sorts of lenses.<br />For the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G see<br /><a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/413-nikkor_50_14g" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/413-nikkor_50_14g</a><br />the f/1.8 at<br /><a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/631-nikkorafs5018ff" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/631-nikkorafs5018ff</a><br> You can compare the charts, etc.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks JDM. I will certainly be spending some time there checking things out. ;-)</p>

<p>Thank you for the very thought out response Andrew. Truly I appreciate it very much!</p> <blockquote> <p>(The AF-D is plain soft away from the centre at wider apertures, which is okay if you like the blurry look and really not if you don't; the AF-S is sharper but much pricier.)</p> </blockquote> <p>I do have the AF-D version and it is good, but in my opinion, not close the the 50F/1.8-s in terms of contrast and sharpness. But it does seem to focus faster. But the 50F/1.8-s gives me more keepers.</p> <blockquote> <p>I now have the 50mm f/1.4 Art Sigma lens. It's exceptional, but also twice the price (and weight) of its predecessor. DxO comparison <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-50mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D810-versus-50mm-F1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Nikon-on-Nikon-D810-versus-AF-S-Nikkor-50mm-f-1.4G-on-Nikon-D810__1307_963_202_963_199_963" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a> (on a D810, so you can see what I mean about the corners). For a D750, I'd save up for the newer Sigma (or an Otus) and skip the f/1.4 Nikkor, if you already have the f/1.8. </p> </blockquote> <p>Tempting, but the weight as I said earlier does matter to me. What is an Otus?</p> <blockquote> <p>I've never been all that fond of 50mm lenses anyway. (Though somehow I ended up owning five...)</p> </blockquote> <p>LOL...If this is not the truth!!!! <br> </p>

<blockquote> <p> (unlike the Sigma Art lenses, which are quite heavy for their sizes due to a lot of metal parts)</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks Shun. I own 2 Sigma Art lenses. The 30F/1.4 DX and the 35F/1.4 FX. Both are killer sharp wide open and amazing all around. But yes, they are heavy and the weight does matter to me as I am an old bird with a bad surgically repaired knee. My walks average 3-5 miles and the weight becomes an issue during the last couple of miles. But wow are they good.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I mainly use the 50mm f/1.4G for people photos and like to use it wide open. Focus speed is not especially fast but accuracy is good.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks Chip. This seems to be the consensus. This is exactly what I plan to use it for. I have discovered late evening shooting where Low light performance is crucial. I am super happy with Nikons Performance. It amazes me that they still focus almost in NO light situations. So the larger apertures are very much needed. </p>

<blockquote> <p> The fact that the D500 is compatible with the faster XQD card and UHS-II type SD is another plus in that direction.</p> </blockquote> <p>Oh yes the XQD card. I do not have any of those. I am not sure I would benefit from them. I do have the ultra fast SD cards though. The Video. I did a test video and it is pretty amazing. To be honest though, I do not use video much. In fact rarely. </p>

<p>Greetings folks,<br /> I am amazed at the many emails and pm's I receive from my blog and <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jgredline/">flickr</a> regarding these two cameras.<br /> Simple questions. Which is better? Should I upgrade? Is the shutter loud? How is the ISO performance? How is the AF.<br /> So I thought I would share some of my own thoughts and what is important to me. Let me start by saying this. I am a total amateur and these are my opinions. There is much I do not know and have not even explored the menus yet. I am very simple.<br /> So in truth, they both have their very strong points. So my perspectives are strictly from the POV of catching PIF (people in flight from a street shooters POV) In other words trying to catch that moment. <br /> ISO performance. The D500 is not even close to being in the same class as the D750. The D750 is atleast 1.5 maybe 2 stops better, best I can tell. Winner D750<br /> Image quality both RAW and Jpeg, I give a slight edge to the D750. Most of my D750 images, I post right out of the camera. Winner D750 The DR on both seems about the same to me. <br /> Auto focus speed and keeper rate. Not close. The D500 is a beast. I do not believe anything can touch it. It is like hyper focal or zone focus speeds in the SLR days all over again. Just stupid fast and accurate. especially with good fast glass. Just press the button and go. This is the most important thing to me. Auto focus speed. All else I can work with. I get a good 98% keeper rate (As far as focus acquisition goes. I still shoot allot of junk, but that is me, not the camera) So the auto focus speed is indescribable unless you shoot one. The group focus is awesome. I have been a huge vocal supporter of group focus on the D750 and wish Nikon would release a firmware upgrade for the D7200 with it. <br /> The shutter sound, seems a tad quieter, maybe. It is different. For some un known reason and maybe someone can explain this to me. When I added the Nikon Grip to the D500, It did get quieter. I am guessing it absorbed some of the noise, kind of like a dampener. <br /> I do wish it had the custom C1 and C2 dial, but I have already got used to it. Same as my D300s back in the day. <br /> So If I had to choose to keep one, which would I choose? For my type of photography, I would choose the D500. If I shot events, weddings, family stuff, I would choose the D750.</p> <p>Anyway, these are my thoughts. I would love to read yours.<br /> Thanks Javier</p> <p> </p>

<p>Greetings folks. Currently I have the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm F1.8G. I use it as my street lens on my D750. Up until I have started to use my Sigmas at F/1.4 on DX bodies, (DX Versions)A few weeks back, I never thought I would see a reason to get the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm F1.4G. My question is simply this. How does it perform compared to the very good AF-S NIKKOR 50mm F1.8G? I am sure there are folks who have both here. I shoot the 1.8 version wide open all the time and it is sharp as a tack. Would it be reasnable to think I would get decent photos from the F/1.4 version as well? <br> </p>

<p><img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3clpPNoDTRo/V1UJByAdYqI/AAAAAAAAEkQ/ohDw5cEF9T0XcpBjCHni6AOQKN_RtAdWgCLcB/s1600/Smoking%2Bhot.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1061" /></p>

<p><strong>Nikon D500 with Sigma 30F/1.4 ART</strong><br /> <strong><img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dGCXS-1ygo4/V1UJBhHo24I/AAAAAAAAEkM/4EgHsJ8FUowGjNIlT9FI5KaTRsBWJkcKQCLcB/s1600/Beautiful%2Bpeople.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1061" /></strong></p>