Don't you think the D750 and D810 are already the replacement FX cameras for the old D700?
Where does the D500 leave us D7XXX shooters.
- Thread starter mikew_RIP
- Start date
Don't you think the D750 and D810 are already the replacement FX cameras for the old D700?
hey have positioned the D500 as the top line Crop Sensor camera, to that fact the D5 is positioned as the top line Full Frame camera, I would only see them make incremental changes to the D700 line up to improve it like the D750 then the D810, possibly D850 next?
I think they will continue the 7xxx line, though it will be crippled against the D500. The next 7xxx may get 1 or 2 new features, but the specs will remain behind the D500 with the exception of pixel density, Nikon's pattern. I think if they want to combine 2 lines, it should be the 3xxx and 5xxx, that would put the 7xxx line right in the middle.
Dx lenses are offered as an alternative to larger Fx. Unfortunately the Dx line is missing it's own trinity which is a negative if buying into the D500 from my perspective.
Dx lenses are offered as an alternative to larger Fx. Unfortunately the Dx line is missing it's own trinity which is a negative if buying into the D500 from my perspective.
ryanwphoto
Senior Member
Haha wish I thought like you. It would have saved me $$! I started at a brand new D7000 like 3-4 years ago then, D300s as second body (used), then brand new D7100 (D7000 backup), full gear switch to Sony full frame mirrorless, and now a used D600 and back in the Nikon camp. Yeah....
Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk
I would question the "would have been much better if it was a full frame D700 replacement"Nikon have taken FX ahead with there last couple of launches,there is a large DX user base out there that have been hanging on by there finger nails waiting for a top spec DX,it was our turn
The crippled D7XXX line is a little fear of mine,i suppose i may buy the D500 but i would be paying for a lot i dont want or need.
It doesn't have a Nikkor trinity, but if you don't mind third-party lenses, then there is
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (being replaced by 11-20)
Sigma or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Sigma 50-150 f/2.8
This is a proper f/2.8 trinity, covering 11-150 mm range, which corresponds to about 17-220 mm in the FX format. Image quality is excellent in all three lenses.
No way. I think after the sales of the D500 and the D5 slow down, a D700 replacement will come on the market with a pro body and the new auto focus system which is a very large improvement over the current systems from my experience with the D5 during a Nikon presentation held in Baltimore, Maryland. The D750 nd D810 were never referred to as a replacement to the D700.
I don't see Nikon coming out with an additional FX camera in the D750/D810 price point range. Other than the 8fps ability of the D700, what does the D810 lack that you would want?
As always, I could be wrong.
I don't see Nikon coming out with an additional FX camera in the D750/D810 price point range. Other than the 8fps ability of the D700, what does the D810 lack that you would want?
As always, I could be wrong.
The D810 lacks the new autofocus system and the ISO performance of the D500, and the it lacks the frames per second as you mentioned.
The D500 is a DX so the light collection is always worse than the D810.
Pixel pitch is 4.2 vs 4.8. 4.8 will have better low light performance.
Last edited:
That is no longer true. You may want to visit a Nikon Dealer that has the D500 in the store and checkout the low-light capability. Technology advances has changed that. The D500 will out perform the D810 in low-light.
In focusing speed and accuracy, I would bet that is true. I would be amazed, though, if the D500 has lower noise at any given ISO.
I suspect that Nikon will have a D820 (or similar name) in the future with a newer focusing system and image processor.
Nikon did not change the laws of nature. Noise reduction is not the same as low light performance.
In most cases, the "best low light performance" it is sold as means nothing but "marginally better". The SNR of my D7200 is marginally better than my D3300 but it was being hyped as if it could shoot flying bats in total darkness.
The next DX line will do better than the previous because they sacrificed resolution to gain low light performance but to outperform an FX they'll have to sacrifice a whole lot more than they're doing now.
Last edited:
All we can do is speculate at this point. I speculate that it is not even close. The D500 may have some new killer NR process, but as [MENTION=31330]J-see[/MENTION] pointed out NR is not the same as clean low light ability.
We shall see what we shall see.
ryanwphoto
Senior Member
No matter if it's a FX or DX there is some noise reduction. FX shooters will always say that full frame is better than a crop for low light because that's what has been true for the last 10 years or so. These new crop frames are throwing older full frames right out if the water on low light, high ISO performance. New processors etc. And I would argue that the d500 would compete with a D810 in low light. NOT resolution. Shoot Both at ISO 10,000 I bet you would see more noise in the D810 than the d500. Yes resolution is different and the size of the sensor is quite a bit bigger but have to factor in pixel size. I think the d500 is only 20 or so megapixels whereas the D810 is 36!
I've shot a Sony a7 24mp full frame and a Nikon d7100 and to my eye they were pretty close in ISO performance. Yes I know one was smaller pixels etc etc, but in real life how much of a difference will this actually make? For the price and the sharpness of images you can get out of a D7100, that would win in my books. Also for the price in comparison to a D810 and features you get, a d500 might be an excellent choice.
Just because you shoot DX doesn't mean your any less of a photographer. ☺ no matter how many pixels you have.
Also the ISO range of the d500 is far superior to the D810, I think we all know that the more ISO range usually means the higher ISOs produce less noisy images.
Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk
I've shot a Sony a7 24mp full frame and a Nikon d7100 and to my eye they were pretty close in ISO performance. Yes I know one was smaller pixels etc etc, but in real life how much of a difference will this actually make? For the price and the sharpness of images you can get out of a D7100, that would win in my books. Also for the price in comparison to a D810 and features you get, a d500 might be an excellent choice.
Just because you shoot DX doesn't mean your any less of a photographer. ☺ no matter how many pixels you have.
Also the ISO range of the d500 is far superior to the D810, I think we all know that the more ISO range usually means the higher ISOs produce less noisy images.
Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Unless you compare these two cameras side by side (I have not seen this yet) then it is just pure speculation.
Also no one here is saying anything of the sort. (reply to bold letter quote). The original post doesn't even mention DX vs FX in the title.
ryanwphoto
Senior Member
Well that's just the feeling I got when everyone started arguing that the d500 couldn't be compared to a D810. The first thing that comes to my mind is FX shooters trying to protect their full frames. That's all.
And yes We don't know of course and I haven't tested it side by side either but that's just my thoughts on the subject.
Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk
If that was the case I would have a FX camera as a backup to my D750. As you notice I have a D7100. I have it for many reasons, but clean low light capability is not one of them.
The main reason however that I have a D750 is the clean low light capability. I put this camera up against the D4/S any day in that regard, and certainly up against any DX camera out there.
I have nothing to protect or gain by saying these things. That's silly high school stuff.