19K? The D500 is 2K.
He might need 10 of them.:encouragement:
Should I step across from FX to DX?
- Thread starter Geoffc
- Start date
He might need 10 of them.:encouragement:
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Without quoting everything, the "average Joe" who spends any amount on anything without understanding to some level of completeness the capability of the tools they're purchasing, as well as what needs will be met by the tools, is just an idiot with a credit card.
Fat Fingers
Banned
Weight ......D810 + 28-300 equals a D7200 with an 18-140 at least for wedding work but boy is that 810 combination heavy.
The 7200 and 810 pics mix perfectly and you cannot tell which camera shot which...so if you are getting older and weaker you know what to do ...Personally I hate the D800 horrible noisy clunky thing ...810 I love it . My 800 is going when Nikon bring out something I like and all the extra weight of flash flippers and grips could go if it was not for the weddings....
The 7200 and 810 pics mix perfectly and you cannot tell which camera shot which...so if you are getting older and weaker you know what to do ...Personally I hate the D800 horrible noisy clunky thing ...810 I love it . My 800 is going when Nikon bring out something I like and all the extra weight of flash flippers and grips could go if it was not for the weddings....
salukfan111
Senior Member
again with the "no true scotsman" routine
Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. Specifically thanks Jake ( @BackdoorHippie ) and Pete ( @Blacktop ) as you both confirmed my thinking that it is not a completely crazy approach to take.
As we have just moved to a different part of the UK and will have a bit more time on our hands, I think we will see what we are actually photographing over the coming months to see if this approach fits with our actual usage.
As we have just moved to a different part of the UK and will have a bit more time on our hands, I think we will see what we are actually photographing over the coming months to see if this approach fits with our actual usage.
I think we all at one point or another get caught with this "the more pixels the better" marketing from different manufacturers. Wether we want or not, it keeps bugging us with the ultimate hope to produce better pictures. Unfortunately, more pixels do not produce better pictures. As a matter of fact, it can produce more bad pictures since if the technique isn't flawless it's going to show big time.
I can only speak for myself, but I've used the D80, 90, 7000, 700, 600 and Df and when I look at some of my shots done with the 12 megapixels D90 and D700, I just love the feel I get from these sensors. When I sold my D90 to get the 7000, I thought my prints would be much better but found out otherwise. I had more blurred images than before. Same with the D600, my lenses showed more flaws than with the D700. So even I had twice the pixel count, I can't say my images were twice as good.
For someone who needs high frames per seconds and great low light performance, I think the D500 is just a dream camera. The only culprit for me would be the size and weight. I'm not certain I'd rather take a D500 on travel. The D750 or D7200 would be smaller, lighter and probably more fun for amateur usage and travel pictures.
If you're a pro and live from the work you use your gear with, then you don't have much of a choice. You've just got to invest in the best and keep up with the Jones. For amateurs, anything from a D90 to a D750 is usually good enough, unless one is feeling insecure and hope the newer gear will secure his/her feelings about himself.
I can only speak for myself, but I've used the D80, 90, 7000, 700, 600 and Df and when I look at some of my shots done with the 12 megapixels D90 and D700, I just love the feel I get from these sensors. When I sold my D90 to get the 7000, I thought my prints would be much better but found out otherwise. I had more blurred images than before. Same with the D600, my lenses showed more flaws than with the D700. So even I had twice the pixel count, I can't say my images were twice as good.
For someone who needs high frames per seconds and great low light performance, I think the D500 is just a dream camera. The only culprit for me would be the size and weight. I'm not certain I'd rather take a D500 on travel. The D750 or D7200 would be smaller, lighter and probably more fun for amateur usage and travel pictures.
If you're a pro and live from the work you use your gear with, then you don't have much of a choice. You've just got to invest in the best and keep up with the Jones. For amateurs, anything from a D90 to a D750 is usually good enough, unless one is feeling insecure and hope the newer gear will secure his/her feelings about himself.
Have to disagree a 36mp picture when reduced to 1024 pix long edge doesn't show any more flaws than a 10mp one. But you can do amazing crops. If you want to shoot wildlife then DX beats FX for reach and for frame/sec.
I know, but then if you are going to reduce to 1024 on a regular basis, you don't need all those pixels that could cost you twice as much. You could get better lenses for that money spent on a body that will be outdated about 3-4 years after.
Ah, just because when you get such a megapixel beast one usually hurries to the computer and looks at his files at 100%. And sees a bit of blur and thinks... Oh my, this thing is not as sharp as I thought it would be. Shutter speed, mirror slap, camera movement, all these factors exist with most cameras, but the higher the definition, the most they will be apparent.
This is a very interesting thread and the reason is simply because we are constantly thinking of the next 'upgrade'.
As far as technology wise, I am sure the performance will be getting better and better especially the sensor. As to 'should you' will be a very difficult question but with Al the spare $, why not?
For me coming from d300 to d610. Yes it does makes a lot of difference. At some point, I am sure the gaps are getting closer. Than we need to start another war. The lenses.
As far as technology wise, I am sure the performance will be getting better and better especially the sensor. As to 'should you' will be a very difficult question but with Al the spare $, why not?
For me coming from d300 to d610. Yes it does makes a lot of difference. At some point, I am sure the gaps are getting closer. Than we need to start another war. The lenses.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Truth is, if you're shooting with a D750 the D500 is the more seamless companion in terms of size and ergonomics. Having tilt screens on both and the same deep grip, the only difference is the pro setup of the controls. Weight difference is only 3 oz. and while it is bigger than both the D7200 and D750, it's just barely bigger than the D750 and it's sealed for those vacation days where the weather doesn't quite cooperate. But I suspect the cost is prohibitive simply for "amateur usage and travel pictures", and the functionality may indeed be far more than is needed.