Moving from D7100 to D500

[Lawrence]

That is true. D7200 is 3.92 and D500 is 4.22.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

The original post referred to the D7100 not D7200

However for all intents and purposes its not going to effect printing to any noticeable extent.
When I was working int he camera shop we had a wedding photographer that was still using a 12mp camera and the prints were better than any other professionals (in the same town) were producing with >20mp cameras

 

[FLIGHTO]

I made the switch from the D7100 as well. Can I tell a difference in IQ....No. Can you tell it has less resolution in any normal situation....No. Maybe a touch better dynamic range but nothing major. In some cases I though the D7100 brought out more detail. Color output out of camera is better to my eye....not that the D7100 was bad. I can say the ISO performance is much improved from the 7100 although anything over 6400 ISO is still too noisy to me but I am really conservative in ISO. ISO is really a marketing ploy these days. I am very confident shooting 4000 indoors no problem where as 3200 ISO was my max on the D7100 and that was pushing it. Detail does fall off quick at higher ISO especially when cropping but that's true of most cameras at high ISO......but at least you get the shot. I had to train myself to shoot tighter at higher ISO. I must say the pro body is enough for me to recommend making the switch. Is it costly....yes.. Would I make the same decision again....absofrigginlutely. If it's financially feasible to invest in the D500 I say go for it but be warned you will not be blown away by greater IQ alone. Don't buy it with crazy expectations unless your sole purpose is fps and buffer.....in that case the D500 is a bargain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Woodyg3]

If a shooter doesn't have the skill necessary to consistently nail their shots with a D7200, they're not suddenly going to be able to, simply because they're handed a D500 or a D5 or Hassie H6D-100c. It seems to me the best shooters, paid or otherwise, have a skill-set that is entirely independent of technology. They have skills that allows them to leverage any cameras technology, no matter how "lacking", to its fullest and in so doing consistently get superb shots.
....

I kinda' agree, but also know quite well that when I'm shooting birds in flight I will get a better hit rate with the D500 than I could with either my D7100 or D7200. The focusing is faster and more precise on the D500. Also, with faster frame rates, I'll get more shots to choose from. People who don't shoot sports or wildlife may say this is no big deal, but what about when you want a shot of a three year-old racing around the back yard, a kid playing soccer, a dog jumping to catch a frisbee or something similar? I believe even very advanced photographers will get more consistent results with the D500 than they would with the D7100 in these situations.

None the less, if the D500 didn't exist, I'd still be quite happy with my D7100. Heck, I got a ton of great pics with my old D70. The photographer is certainly more important than the camera. I'll never argue that point.

 

[jc32750]

Good post guys. Bought the D500 a couple months ago. Took it to Death Valley Yosemite and Kings Canyon. Got some good shots but also some over/under exposed shots. Lots to learn. One day in Yosemite I got a very under exposed shot. Said out laud "shit I bought to good of camera". My son about fell over backwoods laughing at me.
There are times when I get confused I miss the green automatic mode on the D5100, D7200 I had.
I have a lot to learn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk