Put aside $60 a week after 52 weeks and the real pics come out and reviews TADA it's paid for if you don't like the camera new Lens time
Where does the D500 leave us D7XXX shooters.
- Thread starter mikew_RIP
- Start date
dh photography
Senior Member
It leaves me even more perplexed on what to do about upgrading from my outdated D7000. On one hand; I could go ahead and grab up a D7100 to use for a year or so, until the D500 has proven itself worthy. On the other; I could just start socking away the money for the D500 in 6 months. At least it did help me rule out the D7200.
2000 dollars US for a DX camera? I'm having difficulty finding the love there. Maybe if they included a converter that allowed you to make full use of an FX lens on a DX body, at no extra charge. Conversely, there may be a market for an adapter that does the reverse as well, allowing the usage of DX lenses on FX bodies without compromises.
I question the very idea of having two image size formats in the same lens mounting system. DX cameras should have been made from the very start with a mount that is unique to them. Nikon knew all along even when they made the D1 that they would be heading into full frame size sensors as soon as the technology was ready.
I question the very idea of having two image size formats in the same lens mounting system. DX cameras should have been made from the very start with a mount that is unique to them. Nikon knew all along even when they made the D1 that they would be heading into full frame size sensors as soon as the technology was ready.
Danno
Senior Member
I am thankful that I bought my D7200 before the D500 was announced. I got a great deal on a refurbished model from Nikon. I love my new camera. I like the focus, low light performance. I am just pleased with my decision. I am sure it will be interesting to see how things unfold over the next few years.
Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
I don't disagree that Nikon probably knew they would get digital bodies to a sensor size equivalent to a 35mm negative, but I think their goal with DX was to keep Nikon shooters from jumping ship with digital. If the old 35mm lenses hadn't carried over, how many would have moved on? Likewise with DX to FX....it's the ability to leverage the same glass on both bodies that makes it palatable to move without dumping an entire investment.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I make full use of FX lenses on my DX Nikons all the time. I guess I don't understand that comment. The $2000 price tag seems about right to me for the features of this camera. I don't want to get into a crop sensor vs full sensor debate, so I won't even go there.
I think you are seeing about the lowest prices that are available on D7000 or 7100 right now.I do not anticipate them going any lower.
Well, I'll use an FX lens on a DX body and enjoy the benefit of increased EFFECTIVE zoom, if I'm using a long lens, but if I want to use a wide angle lens that causes me to lose the wide angle part that is what makes a wide angle lens so fun to begin with! And doing the reverse, DX lens on an FX body, I have to use crop mode and lose the use of about half of my 36 megapixels.
I see these mix-and-match combinations to be mostly a matter of accepting some severe compromises. But I will say that getting extra zoom out of an FX lens on a DX body can at times be a GOOD thing. I would call that a benefit. My Tamzooka on my 24 MP D3200 vs. the same lens on my D800 works out to be pretty much the same thing. But that huge lens on that tiny D3200 body looks kind of silly. Seems to work fine, though.
I understand that it was probably smart of Nikon to introduce the DSLR with the capacity to use MOST of the existing Nikkor F mount lens catalog. But then again, the issues involved with FX/DX pairings can be a little bit of a headache as well.
I see these mix-and-match combinations to be mostly a matter of accepting some severe compromises. But I will say that getting extra zoom out of an FX lens on a DX body can at times be a GOOD thing. I would call that a benefit. My Tamzooka on my 24 MP D3200 vs. the same lens on my D800 works out to be pretty much the same thing. But that huge lens on that tiny D3200 body looks kind of silly. Seems to work fine, though.
I understand that it was probably smart of Nikon to introduce the DSLR with the capacity to use MOST of the existing Nikkor F mount lens catalog. But then again, the issues involved with FX/DX pairings can be a little bit of a headache as well.
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
When refurbished are under $500 and used is 3-400...I think the bottom has already fallen out of the D7100 market.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
But 24mm on an FX lens is the same as 24mm on a DX lens, regardless of camera body. The "effective zoom" comes from DX body. Focal lengths on both FX and DX dedicated lenses represents the true focal length and not the field of view offered by the body.
My 55-300mm Nikon DX lens does not provide a true 300mm FOV on any DX body, it's still an effective 450mm FOV.
The only difference is the size of the image displayed across the focal plane where the sensor is mounted. Focal length is focal length regardless, and the FOV is specific to the sensor format itself. When using a DX lens on an FX camera, the sensor is not completely covered so MP is reduced, but the reverse is not the case. The benefit to DX glass on DX bodies is all about weight savings and not projecting a larger image than the sensor will handle.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You don't have to explain the details of FX vs DX to me. I understand it quite well. I understand that there is no difference in focal length but there is a difference in image footprint size on the sensor. The effective ANGLE of the field of view changes. Which is functionally the same as going to a longer lens. A DX camera can be thought of as one where the image is already cropped for you, before you even took the picture. If you're using an FX lens. Yeah, I know, I get it. So it would be pointless to stick a 14-24mm lens on a DX camera if you were hoping to see that 94 degree FOV at the 14mm end of the zoom range.
I fear that maybe so. But it should be a good incentive for someone wanting a great camera at a bargain price.
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
If I was posting my D7100 up for sale, I would try to ask over $500 too, hoping people in the used market aren't tracking refurb prices. That said, if you're in the market, make sure you're tracking refurb prices.
Well, one thing is clear, I'm getting great pictures with my D7200 and D7100. That's not going to change no matter what other models come out. Heck, my two old, beat up D70s still get great shots. We are REALLY talking first world issues here. (Still, I want the shiny new toy.)
(Still, I want the shiny new toy.)ryanwphoto
Senior Member
I had a D7000 D300s and D7100 and they were all excellent cameras. My favorite was the D7100. For the price of the D500 it's better to have two D7100s, one for backup. Unless you absolutely needed the fps and the iso
Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk
Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk
I see the Nikon D500 as a very attractive camera. I own a D7000 which was used for sports which I found it to struggle much in low light when shooting night football games. As a result I save for more that year and a half to purchase a D4s. I love shooting with my D7000 with the exception of low-light sports.
The D500 seems to solve all the low-light, buffer, and frame rate issues of my D7000 as it relates to sports photography. Last but not least the auto focus system along with the increased focal points seems to be a huge advantage over any D7xxx series camera.
However, this camera would have been much better if it was a full frame D700 replacement. I now prefer shooting with a full frame body opposed to a crop sensor which cautions me from buying this camera. I feel a similar full frame body will come after sales tend to peak. At least that is my hope.
The D500 seems to solve all the low-light, buffer, and frame rate issues of my D7000 as it relates to sports photography. Last but not least the auto focus system along with the increased focal points seems to be a huge advantage over any D7xxx series camera.
However, this camera would have been much better if it was a full frame D700 replacement. I now prefer shooting with a full frame body opposed to a crop sensor which cautions me from buying this camera. I feel a similar full frame body will come after sales tend to peak. At least that is my hope.
Last edited: