Nikon D500 Review vs D7200, D5 and Canon 7D MkII

J

jay_dean

Senior Member
Interesting vid that. As others have said low light ISO doesn't seem that much better, and i'd pretty much written the D500 off for me, but what i did find interesting was the better detail on heavy crop vs the D7200. Thats got my attention:confused:
 
Woodyg3

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
I got to hold and fiddle with a D500 for a couple of minutes at a tent sale at our local camera shop today. Two things I noted right away were the larger, brighter viewfinder and the little joystick style focus point selector. My ole eyes appreciated the viewfinder, and moving focus points is a million times easier with the new device. The huge number of focus points almost all the way across the frame would be a great feature for me, as well. Getting a nearby Blue Heron's eye in focus, for example, would be so much easier. :)
 
E

Elliot87

Senior Member
I would love to get the D500 but I don't see myself switching to a new body until 2018. The D7100 is still a more capable camera than I am a photographer although I do find it limiting in low light.
By 2018 the D500 could be a bit cheaper, there might be a better D510 or whatever Nikon would call it or D7300/D7400 on the market. If a D7300 is released with better autofocus system, ISO performance and buffer frame rate than the D7200 then I can see that being my next camera.
 
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
jay_dean said:
Interesting vid that. As others have said low light ISO doesn't seem that much better, and i'd pretty much written the D500 off for me, but what i did find interesting was the better detail on heavy crop vs the D7200. Thats got my attention:confused:
Click to expand...
The high iso D500 pics have noise that you are better off not removing. It's fine and seems to cost you sharpness when you remove it. I would wait awhile before coming to any conclusions. I've been taking a lot of pictures purposefully at isos north of 10k and it seems good. I've got a back focus issue on my usual bird rig and once it stops raining and I get a change to calibrate the len expect a 95% keeper rate.
 
J

jay_dean

Senior Member
salukfan111 said:
The high iso D500 pics have noise that you are better off not removing. It's fine and seems to cost you sharpness when you remove it. I would wait awhile before coming to any conclusions. I've been taking a lot of pictures purposefully at isos north of 10k and it seems good. I've got a back focus issue on my usual bird rig and once it stops raining and I get a change to calibrate the len expect a 95% keeper rate.
Click to expand...
Image detail has a higher importance than high ISO performance for me tbh, pulling better feather detail from heavily cropped bird images is probably my number one priority for my birding camera, followed by AF, then ISO. I probably wouldn't use an ISO of more than 3200 and i wouldn't really expect the D500 to blow the D7200 out of the water in the ISO department. Its the camera i'll be keeping an eye on for a while
 
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
Danno said:
Pretty good video. Thanks for sharing. They were Northrup is pretty excited.
Click to expand...
What was he talking about with DX cameras giving up half the sharpness on FF lens? That guy is fully indoctrinated into the "any FF is better than the best DX" koolaid. Many folks are getting close to giving up on all their FFs besides 810 (which is a camera with an DX pixel pitched oversized sensor anyway). The video seemed like left handed compliments to me.
 
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
jay_dean said:
Image detail has a higher importance than high ISO performance for me tbh, pulling better feather detail from heavily cropped bird images is probably my number one priority for my birding camera, followed by AF, then ISO. I probably wouldn't use an ISO of more than 3200 and i wouldn't really expect the D500 to blow the D7200 out of the water in the ISO department. Its the camera i'll be keeping an eye on for a while
Click to expand...
I wouldn't rush on it either. The D510 or D500s will have all the hiccups fixed. The point I was trying to make is the noise looks a lot better than D7100 noise or D750. Unlike those cameras, there is not a benefit to noise reduction. Hard to explain. For owl and harrier shooting this camera is going to be a huge improvement for me and I won't be a slave to iso.
 
Danno

Danno

Senior Member
salukfan111 said:
What was he talking about with DX cameras giving up half the sharpness on FF lens? That guy is fully indoctrinated into the "any FF is better than the best DX" koolaid. Many folks are getting close to giving up on all their FFs besides 810 (which is a camera with an DX pixel pitched oversized sensor anyway). The video seemed like left handed compliments to me.
Click to expand...

There will always be that argument over DX and FX and I choose not to engage in it. I got from the video what I was interested in learning so for me it was a good video.
 
E

Elliot87

Senior Member
salukfan111 said:
What was he talking about with DX cameras giving up half the sharpness on FF lens? That guy is fully indoctrinated into the "any FF is better than the best DX" koolaid. Many folks are getting close to giving up on all their FFs besides 810 (which is a camera with an DX pixel pitched oversized sensor anyway). The video seemed like left handed compliments to me.
Click to expand...

That's the only thing which jarred with me. He has also seemed to suggest you lose light with DX, when in reality the light hitting the sensor is the same intensity regardless of what body a lens is attached to.

If someone could explain this notion that a FF lens loses some of its potential sharpness on a DX body then I'd like to hear it.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Elliot87 said:
That's the only thing which jarred with me. He has also seemed to suggest you lose light with DX, when in reality the light hitting the sensor is the same intensity regardless of what body a lens is attached to.

If someone could explain this notion that a FF lens loses some of its potential sharpness on a DX body then I'd like to hear it.
Click to expand...
While I'll admit I haven't watched the video linked to, I think what might be being referred to here is what's called "Equivalence". It has more to do with the comment about losing light (DX vs FX) than sharpness, however. Maybe I should watch the video because I associate equivalence with "noise" more than sharpness... *scratches head*

Anyway, you may want to see this article: What is Equivalence and Why Should I Care?

Pertinent Quote from article: You are no longer capturing all the light that the lens is projecting [with a DX lens]. The light intensity on the sensor remains the same, but the amount of light you can capture has dropped. (Because you're now only capturing the inner, bronze colored cone of light, rather than the more yellow one).
 
E

Elliot87

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
While I'll admit I haven't watched the video linked to, I think what might be being referred to here is what's called "Equivalence". It has more to do with the comment about losing light (DX vs FX) than sharpness, however. Maybe I should watch the video because I associate equivalence with "noise" more than sharpness... *scratches head*

Anyway, you may want to see this article: What is Equivalence and Why Should I Care?

Pertinent Quote from article: You are no longer capturing all the light that the lens is projecting [with a DX lens]. The light intensity on the sensor remains the same, but the amount of light you can capture has dropped. (Because you're now only capturing the inner, bronze colored cone of light, rather than the more yellow one).
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm about to head out but will read it later and see if I can get my head around it all.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
While I'll admit I haven't watched the video linked to, I think what might be being referred to here is what's called "Equivalence". It has more to do with the comment about losing light (DX vs FX) than sharpness, however. Maybe I should watch the video because I associate equivalence with "noise" more than sharpness... *scratches head*

Anyway, you may want to see this article: What is Equivalence and Why Should I Care?

Pertinent Quote from article: You are no longer capturing all the light that the lens is projecting [with a DX lens]. The light intensity on the sensor remains the same, but the amount of light you can capture has dropped. (Because you're now only capturing the inner, bronze colored cone of light, rather than the more yellow one).
Click to expand...

This is by the same author who wrote the articles that I linked here this morning. While I haven't read this one yet I immediately recognized some of the same logic and they seem to go hand in glove.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
I certainly don't pretend to understand all this stuff myself, far from it, but I thought the article sort of touched on this so I thought I'd pass it along.
Click to expand...

It's great stuff. I never in a lifetime would have thought that a DX sensor gets "less light" in some fashion from an FX lens, and as soon as I think I have my mind wrapped around it something slips away again. Still, as a math and science geek this stuff always intrigues me.
 
J

jay_dean

Senior Member
salukfan111 said:
What was he talking about with DX cameras giving up half the sharpness on FF lens? That guy is fully indoctrinated into the "any FF is better than the best DX" koolaid. Many folks are getting close to giving up on all their FFs besides 810 (which is a camera with an DX pixel pitched oversized sensor anyway). The video seemed like left handed compliments to me.
Click to expand...
Dunno about that really. I take my D700 over my D7200 for an indoor event shoot every time. It might be old school tech, but its still a superior ISO performer imo
 
L

Lawrence

Senior Member
Our first one came into the shop the other day with the 16-80 f2.8 kit lens.

All I can say is this is one awesome, AWESOME, FREAKING AWESOME piece of machinery. We took a photo in a dark (seriously dark) cupboard at ISO 51200 f2.8 hand held and it came out like daylight with hardly any noise.
certainly way less noise than my camera (D7100) has at 6400.

To Summarise I would give anything to have one but they are NZ$5500.00 here in this combo - and that I don't have.
 
Last edited:
Top