D500 pixel density

[Steve in Oz]

I'm sure it's been canvassed plenty of times before... the D7200 has a pixel density of 6.62 mp/sqcm. That gives the D7200 a higher pixel density than the FX format D810 (4.22 mp/sqcm) and D850 (5.32 mp/sqcm). Putting aside things like low-light, high ISO performance, the D500 at 5.68 mp/sqcm starts to look attractive on this measure - but is it that critical in terms of picture quality? The other thing that makes the D500 attractive to me is the sheer speed of it: I photograph a lot of aircraft on approach and take-off so the FPS and buffer would be a big advantage over the D7200. I also have a D750 for more 'corporate' work and a good wardrobe of DX (16-80 etc) and FX (16-35, 24-120, 80-200) lenses.

 

[BF Hammer]

That pixel density is a low consideration when shooting high-speed subjects with telephoto lens. All sharpness of the image depends on how steady the camera is held and how fast the shutter speed is.

 

[Steve in Oz]

I do okay...

 

[Clovishound]

Well, the D500 has been considered the go to wildlife camera, mainly due to AF capability and fps. That is, until the higher end Z cameras came out. If you are looking to upgrade for this type of photography, I would look at the Z8 or Z9, if your wallet can stand it. Between the higher resolution sensors, high fps, and much improved AF, they are definitely a step up. The other issue is that the D500 is out of production.

Having said all that, if you are getting results you are happy with, I see no reason to upgrade. Especially an incremental upgrade without a clear need, and advantage to the new gear. I do understand the desire to get the shiny new stuff. I recently had a difficult time saying no to the Z7ii that is currently on sale, to replace the Z5 I have now.

 

[Peter7100]

I don't have a D7200, but in terms of photographing aircraft, I find my D500 light years ahead of the D7100.

 

[Woodyg3]

I shoot aviation enough to know that heat haze and regular old atmospheric haze are my biggest issue. The camera can't help with that.

That said, The faster frame rate of the D500 is a pretty big benefit in my experience. The panning image stabilization of the lens in use is significant, as well. I like using area autofocus, as well, which is not available on the D7200.

I'll add that I have not tried any of the mirrorless offerings from Nikon. Hopefully some people who regularly shoot aviation can chime in.

 

[Fred Kingston]

I shoot aviation enough to know that heat haze and regular old atmospheric haze are my biggest issue. The camera can't help with that.

That said, The faster frame rate of the D500 is a pretty big benefit in my experience. The panning image stabilization of the lens in use is significant, as well. I like using area autofocus, as well, which is not available on the D7200.

I'll add that I have not tried any of the mirrorless offerings from Nikon. Hopefully some people who regularly shoot aviation can chime in.

Shooting "aviation" is more about the lens than the camera body... in my experience. Planes don't move as fast as birds, but they don't get close either so you're swinging a 200mm+ lens around...

 

[Steve in Oz]

if you are getting results you are happy with, I see no reason to upgrade. Especially an incremental upgrade without a clear need, and advantage to the new gear

You're quite right: it would be an 'incremental' upgrade. I like the level of detail the D7200 provides, like on the nose wheel of that B787. The D750 falls very, very slightly short of the D7200 on that, but unless you're specifically looking for that level of detail it's not noticeable. Of course the ability to use FX lenses on the D7200 or D500 is a big attractor: that B787 I got with the D7200 and a 90s-era 300mm f4 AF, giving me a field of view equivalent to 450mm in FX terms.

 

[Clovishound]

The extra reach of a crop factor is one of the reasons the D500 was so popular for wildlife. My 200-500 on a D500 would be effectively a 300-750 at the same F5.6 max aperture. I have put that 200-500 on my old D3400 a few times to get the extra reach, but I've gotten so used to the Z5, I have a hard time going back to the entry level DSLR, even though the resolution of the sensor is similar.