Upgrade from D7000 - D7200 vs D500?

I currently shoot a D7000 with a D90 as a backup/second body. I'd like to upgrade to either a D7200 or D500 as my main body, move my D7000 to backup, and give my D90 to my sister-in-law.

I'm wondering if there's any good reason for me to spend the pretty significant difference on the D500 over the D7200. I shoot primarily portraits and events (mostly weddings). Low light/high ISO performance is VERY important to me, but I don't want to go full frame because I have a significant amount of money invested in DX lenses. Also, I have zero interest in the new D7500 because it only has one card slot (WHY NIKON?!?!).

The D500 is superior in regards to FPS and AF speed, but I'm not a sports shooter, so those things aren't overly important to me. I guess the question is this. Is the high ISO performance of the D500 a big enough improvement over the D7200 to justify the cost difference?

daveminnich said:

I currently shoot a D7000 with a D90 as a backup/second body. I'd like to upgrade to either a D7200 or D500 as my main body, move my D7000 to backup, and give my D90 to my sister-in-law.

I'm wondering if there's any good reason for me to spend the pretty significant difference on the D500 over the D7200. I shoot primarily portraits and events (mostly weddings). Low light/high ISO performance is VERY important to me, but I don't want to go full frame because I have a significant amount of money invested in DX lenses. Also, I have zero interest in the new D7500 because it only has one card slot (WHY NIKON?!?!).

The D500 is superior in regards to FPS and AF speed, but I'm not a sports shooter, so those things aren't overly important to me. I guess the question is this. Is the high ISO performance of the D500 a big enough improvement over the D7200 to justify the cost difference?

Click to expand...

I just checked prices on both bodies and found it to be $540... That's not exactly chump change.

That being said, however, there are other differences between the D500 and the D7200 besides FPS and high ISO performance. As you point out the overall speed is probably the most noticeable difference, and probably accounts for a large portion of the price difference between the two bodies. But to be totally fair the D500 also sports a beefier pro-body build, has the articulating rear LCD with a much higher resolution than the D7220, the full 1.0x magnification viewfinder, an upgraded processor AND the overall speed increases you mention as well as the improved high ISO and auto-focus performance.

My point being is that while you are paying a lot more for a D500 vs the D7200, you're also getting a lot more; which makes it difficult to reconcile your question, "Is the high ISO performance of the D500 a big enough improvement over the D7200 to justify the cost difference?" as asked in my opinion. Mainly because when you put the question that way, the obvious answer is no. But that's not what justifies the price difference; a whole slew of things justify the price difference, it's just that most of them just don't matter to YOU. In which case I think you've answered your own question.
....

Excellent response, thank you. The only thing that may sway me to the D500 is the build quality. However, is the D7200 water sealed as well as the D500? I don't anticipate shock damage/impacts to my cameras, but being forced to shoot in the rain is a real possibility.

daveminnich said:

Excellent response, thank you. The only thing that may sway me to the D500 is the build quality. However, is the D7200 water sealed as well as the D500? I don't anticipate shock damage/impacts to my cameras, but being forced to shoot in the rain is a real possibility.

Click to expand...

According to Nikon the D500 and the D7200 both have the same weather sealing as is used on the D800 bodies. That being said I'm not exactly sure just how that amount of weather sealing compares to, say, a duck's butt, but I'm thinking the D500 and the D7200 both come about as weather sealed as a Nikon camera gets.

I'd go D500 for the buffer alone. Xqd cards are amazing and the joystick for moving af points has made it so I use it way more than my D750. In event shoots, it definitely helped getting multiple shots to avoid blinking, other people getting in the way etc. The MP difference won't be noticable at all. I know most people say invest in glass instead but since it seems you already have the lenses, a great body would be worth the investment. As far as low light, it seems about as good as any current gen aps-c but I'm a flash shooter so low light isn't something I worry about much.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

The high ISO performance of the D500 over the D7200 is very small, about 1/2 f-stop at most. Plus, for portraits and events the increase in number of pixels for the D7200 is a small, but significant advantage. Also, don't forget with you will also be forced to carry your flash with you at all times, and invest in some sort of flash remote trigger if you want to shoot flash off camera. The design of the D500 is heavily slanted towards sports/action, but since you aren't interested in this, save some money and get a D7200. And one final though, the learning curve to move from the D7000 to D7200 is a lot less than moving to the D500. Plus, since you want to use the D7000 as backup, the switch from the D7200 would be almost seamless whereas the switch from D500 to D7000 would be major in a backup, high pressure situation such as a wedding.

Bikerbrent said:

The high ISO performance of the D500 over the D7200 is very small, about 1/2 f-stop at most. Plus, for portraits and events the increase in number of pixels for the D7200 is a small, but significant advantage. Also, don't forget with you will also be forced to carry your flash with you at all times, and invest in some sort of flash remote trigger if you want to shoot flash off camera. The design of the D500 is heavily slanted towards sports/action, but since you aren't interested in this, save some money and get a D7200. And one final though, the learning curve to move from the D7000 to D7200 is a lot less than moving to the D500. Plus, since you want to use the D7000 as backup, the switch from the D7200 would be almost seamless whereas the switch from D500 to D7000 would be major in a backup, high pressure situation such as a wedding.

Click to expand...

The similarities in control layout between the 7000 and 7200 is certainly one of the things that has me leaning in that direction. I do have multiple speedlights and a trigger. I'm using the Flashpoint R2 flashes with the built in receiver and their R2 trigger. What a killer setup, absolutely loving it.

I have a D7200 and I have to say that I really like it. It does a great job, even shouting the occasional sporting event and such. Given what you describe as the things you like to shoot I do not see a reason to invest in the D500. I feel the same way you do about the D7500 and prefer the D7200 because of the battery grip and the two card slots.

I think you would be happy with the D7200 it has good weather sealing and a magnesium subframe. Good luck with your decision.

One thing that you might consider is the D7100. There is not a lot of difference in the D7100 and the D7200. You can pick up a Refurbished D7100 for a good price now. You could then use the difference to upgrade your glass

If I was upgrading from my 7000, I would choose the 7200 over the 500. Even though the 500 offers some nice features, I find the flash limitations, the need for a different card, and the extra cost not justifiable for me as someone who doesn't shoot a lot of sports. The money saved by buying a D7200 could be put towards better glass.

Bikerbrent said:

The high ISO performance of the D500 over the D7200 is very small, about 1/2 f-stop at most. Plus, for portraits and events the increase in number of pixels for the D7200 is a small, but significant advantage. Also, don't forget with you will also be forced to carry your flash with you at all times, and invest in some sort of flash remote trigger if you want to shoot flash off camera. The design of the D500 is heavily slanted towards sports/action, but since you aren't interested in this, save some money and get a D7200. And one final though, the learning curve to move from the D7000 to D7200 is a lot less than moving to the D500. Plus, since you want to use the D7000 as backup, the switch from the D7200 would be almost seamless whereas the switch from D500 to D7000 would be major in a backup, high pressure situation such as a wedding.

Click to expand...

You can buy a refurbished D7200 for under $800 and refurbished D500 for around $1600. I currently have a D500. Had the D7200. I shout birds and wildlife plus GT car racing. Great camera. Nice buttons. Does not have automatic mode which when I get confused is a helpful go to but... program mode is helpful. Good metering as well. Both good cameras. I agree regarding D7500. Go with D7200 or D500.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The one point to think seriously about is the control layout. Where my primary body is the D810, the D500 made a lot of sense as a second body because the layout is more similar. When I was shooting the D7100, I was looking at D610/D750. If you are planning to keep the D7000 as a backup, and don't have a killer need for the D500, then going the route of the D7200 is probably what I would recommend.

Horoscope Fish said:

That being said I'm not exactly sure just how that amount of weather sealing compares to, say, a duck's butt, but I'm thinking the D500 and the D7200 both come about as weather sealed as a Nikon camera gets.

Click to expand...

Well here's a duck's butt for comparison. The duck decided to explore our camp in the Adirondacks when it suddenly discovered our (sleeping) dog and decided to bug-out. Taken with the D7200 and the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2. The D7200 managed to keep butt focus during the entire frantic flight out.

First D7500 s into hands for playing with in about two weeks so we should start getting some actual hands on reports soon thereafter. Lots of people shooting it down without giving it a chance. I think many will be surprised by the performance for the money.

If you can afford the D500 it is a no brainer to me.

Samo said:

First D7500 s into hands for playing with in about two weeks so we should start getting some actual hands on reports soon thereafter. Lots of people shooting it down without giving it a chance. I think many will be surprised by the performance for the money.

If you can afford the D500 it is a no brainer to me.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you can afford the D5 it is a no brainer.

If we are jumping levels then a digital Blad is the no brainer but since we are talking DX Nikon then the D7200 is old tech just like the D7000.

There are some real differences between the D7200 and D500 that don't show up on a feature list. Do you shoot always in RAW format or for events do you avoid 3days of processing by using JPG, if the latter, you might want to rent a D500 for a weekend and try in on low light scenes. You will assume there is a lot more than a 1/2 stop difference. The Expeed 5 processor in the D5 and D500(and D7500) is a very big step up and provides industry best rendering color fidelity in low light that was significantly better than the D810/800 that is no slouch as class leader for IQ in FX.
AF performance of the D500 is not just good but the best. The D5 is the only camera that can top it,just barely. There are many reasons the D500 was selected as camera of the year and best overall camera by more than one review sites and magazine.
The D7200 is a very competent camera but will not be as good as the D7500 for the same reasons the D500 is better, due to sharing the same sensor and Expeed 5 processor. If you do not need that superior low light rendering,any camera in the D7x00 range would probably produce indistinguishable images, they are all good with decent lighting. I am not one to suggest upgrading any recent camera because I think people upgrade too often and don't ever exhaust the capability of the old one. Sticking with one competent camera for a long time probably produces more improvement than hopping from one camera to another. I always suggest concentrating on collecting things that make a real difference, such as lighting, mentors and lenses before changing bodies.

Yes constant upgrading of bodies is sort of a futile proposition to me as well. I was there once upon a time and so glad to have that ideology behind me. I will upgrade my DX body with the D7500 however because they have indeed used the flagship goods in it. 8 fps tracking and nailing the focus every frame is super impressive for $1200. ISO 12800 usable? Get out of here already! Nikon is fixing to raise some eyebrows. As I said a day or two ago look at flickr and the web. First in hand reports are in. They have a home run camera on deck. It is a baby 500 indeed. Deeper grip and lighter than what came before too.

spb_stan said:

There are some real differences between the D7200 and D500 that don't show up on a feature list. Do you shoot always in RAW format or for events do you avoid 3days of processing by using JPG, if the latter, you might want to rent a D500 for a weekend and try in on low light scenes. You will assume there is a lot more than a 1/2 stop difference. The Expeed 5 processor in the D5 and D500(and D7500) is a very big step up and provides industry best rendering color fidelity in low light that was significantly better than the D810/800 that is no slouch as class leader for IQ in FX.
AF performance of the D500 is not just good but the best. The D5 is the only camera that can top it,just barely. There are many reasons the D500 was selected as camera of the year and best overall camera by more than one review sites and magazine.
The D7200 is a very competent camera but will not be as good as the D7500 for the same reasons the D500 is better, due to sharing the same sensor and Expeed 5 processor. If you do not need that superior low light rendering,any camera in the D7x00 range would probably produce indistinguishable images, they are all good with decent lighting. I am not one to suggest upgrading any recent camera because I think people upgrade too often and don't ever exhaust the capability of the old one. Sticking with one competent camera for a long time probably produces more improvement than hopping from one camera to another. I always suggest concentrating on collecting things that make a real difference, such as lighting, mentors and lenses before changing bodies.

Click to expand...

That's some damn solid advice, right there.
.....

When we are into a hobby for a while enthusiasm rises and falls in a wave that repeats itself. Often getting a new camera reignites interest to get out there and shoot more or under conditions you otherwise might want to stay in or find something more comfortable. Searching for a new toy is half the fun but its cost is not a measure of how much excitement it generates. For example that spark of renewed enthusiasm can just as much be felt with a new bag or used MF lens or $45 flash controller, some cheap extension tubes, or low cost 3rd party flash.

My most recent buys that kick started shooting more was Yongnuo YN-622 and YN-622 Tx flash controllers. $100. They worked so well I got 3 more plus additional light stands. I got as big a kick out of that as getting my D800 for $3200 more dollars. Unless you have a compelling reason to spend money,your hobby can benefit as much or more with an influential but low cost item. A workshop with a leader who's work you admire, with hands on learning can jazz one really deeply, and result in noticeably better results and range of effectiveness in session results. 3 hours with a PS expert side by side, or a 2 hour studio session with a creative light master and the improvement would be more than buying a D5 and every top lens you drool over.

It is not the new camera that generates better images, it is the renewed enthusiasm. Getting unfamiliar camera and actually set your learning back a bit, as you learn it. Anything that triggers the increased enthusiasm improves your effort, which improves the images.
For everyone's specialty, there are small things that make the biggest differences. For a wildlife shooter it might be learning more fieldcraft from an accomplished wildlife photographer. For a studio shooter, doing portraits and full body imagery is might be hiring real pro model and learning posing, one of the most important yet neglected talents, learning to get the most out of your subject. For sports shooters the best return on the learning time might be learning from a pro how to get accreditation for to the field. That will mean more than that new $12000 super tele prime. One ballet theater shooter I know here said his game jumped up two notches by signing up for a ballet class and learning the terms, and styles so anticipation for moves or angle got much better. He did not need that whiz-bang $6000 lens after all to get his shots published internationally.

There are lots of ways to regain the enthusiasm that got us upgrading all the time, that does not require spending a month's salary. Ask anyone whose work your like, how he does it, the last thing they might mention as factors in great results is the camera. Even great lenses are not as predictive of results as lighting, posing, position(sports, BIF, stage etc), post processing. Seek the enthusiasm, not the device, mentally coupling buying a new expensive item with passion has an expensive unneeded price tag.