Nikon shooters - D500 (!)

[r.harris1]

Nikon announces the D500 DX. I had given up completely on a replacement for my beloved D300s!

http://nikonrumors.com/2016/01/05/nikon-d500-dslr-camera-officially-announced.aspx/

Announced along with the D5.

 

[simonsi]

Great announcement, not only for itself but it reaffirms Nikon's commitment to the DX format and lenses

Not sure I'll jump to it for a while, it doesn't fix any imaging problems I have, my current D300s exceeds my ability still LOL

 

[kenoh]

No it doesn't! you take great shots!

I find the specs or more specifically, the conservative increases in specifications interesting compared to Canon's most recent releases and also the D750 & D810 specs.

 

[Hisdem]

I bought a D7000 when they came out 5 years ago, and have been waiting for a replacement ever since. I don't wish to step up to FX as of yet but always felt like the D7100 and D7200 were not worth the upgrade. This, however, is a game changer.

 

[rcoward]

I have a very reliable but old D90 that I use for my travel photography and portraits but it has started to lose a few pixels so I am in line for an upgrade this year. I have looked at my options - staying with DX or going FX. The D7200 was interesting, keeps me having to replace my nice DX lenses, but the D750 just felt so nice and had a ruggedness about it that the D7200 didn't. As I travel a lot I was erring towards the D750 but scarred witless of having to replace all but one of my lenses. So, I patiently waited to see what the new year brought at CES 2016 and if Nikon would release a D300 replacement alongside the D5, which they have done by the spades-full!

Now all I have to do is to save up all my spare pennies and hide them from my wife - this may take a while... It will still be cheaper than replacing all my lenses!

 

[simonsi]

No it doesn't! you take great shots!

Was that to me? Too kind... <blush>
[doublepost=1452107604][/doublepost]

I bought a D7000 when they came out 5 years ago, and have been waiting for a replacement ever since. I don't wish to step up to FX as of yet but always felt like the D7100 and D7200 were not worth the upgrade. This, however, is a game changer.

Especially as the "step up" to FX doesn't now really exist given DX ISO performance increases - and largely photogs don't need an ever-increasing ability to shoot in darker and darker scenes. This announcement is great for the commitment to the DX lens line it brings too!

 

[kenoh]

Was that to me? Too kind... <blush>
[doublepost=1452107604][/doublepost]

Especially as the "step up" to FX doesn't now really exist given DX ISO performance increases - and largely photogs don't need an ever-increasing ability to shoot in darker and darker scenes. This announcement is great for the commitment to the DX lens line it brings too!

Yes it was to you...but i messed it up - as I do with most of my shots!

 

[JDDavis]

Especially as the "step up" to FX doesn't now really exist given DX ISO performance increases - and largely photogs don't need an ever-increasing ability to shoot in darker and darker scenes. This announcement is great for the commitment to the DX lens line it brings too!

Having "stepped up" to FX about a year ago I can't imagine going back to DX even with the D500 (looks like a great camera!). The reach of DX is nice but the "crop-ability" of FX has been better. The D750 is plenty light and compact for me and actually anything smaller feels uncomfortable (750 is lighter than my D90). The funny thing about improved ISO is you find yourself pushing further and further into darker scenes simply because you can. The D750 is outstanding in low light but I'm already wishing I could get even less noise in even less light. I really don't like using flashes (not sure why). The end game for ISO tech for me would be to never have to use a flash again! (I know...that's ridiculous for many reasons).

I'd love to have a D500 as a second camera with the 200-500 on it. Unfortunately, that's not in the budget! If I had to choose one system, having lived in both now, I'd still go FX.

 

[simonsi]

The reach of DX is nice but the "crop-ability" of FX has been better.

I guess thats my point though, now DX sensors are up in the 20MP+ region crop-ability is less of an issue AND ISO performance is getting more comparable so the benefit cases are getting more extreme - as you say, pushing into darker scenes. I love FX though - it provides a set of great lenses of which I can use the centre and get great performance ;-) I only have 2 DX lenses, Sigma 10-20 for WA and the Nikon 17-55/2.8 - all my others are FX which suits as I mainly do sports, aviation and wildlife.

 

[JDDavis]

I guess thats my point though, now DX sensors are up in the 20MP+ region crop-ability is less of an issue AND ISO performance is getting more comparable so the benefit cases are getting more extreme - as you say, pushing into darker scenes. I love FX though - it provides a set of great lenses of which I can use the centre and get great performance ;-) I only have 2 DX lenses, Sigma 10-20 for WA and the Nikon 17-55/2.8 - all my others are FX which suits as I mainly do sports, aviation and wildlife.

Very true. My D90 was only 12MP so it makes a huge difference (the cropping) with 24MP on FX. My D90 still takes great pictures in good light. 12MP is more than enough with that camera. As you say, the benefit case seems to be wanting to get better images in more difficult situations. At least based on the specs we see, the D500 should be the best Nikon DX made yet in that regard. I'm guessing results in most situation will certainly rival some FX cameras. You also illustrate another use case in that you focus on sports, aviation, and wildlife where the reach and FPS (and better ISO) are all plusses. I gravitate towards landscapes and adventure where there is not as strong an attraction to the DX plusses for me.

I'm certainly not a more MP is better guy but I am a bigger sensor is better guy. All things being equal, bigger sensors (or bigger film negatives) will collect more information. FF sensors have made their way into DX sized and Mirrorless sized bodies. I hope one day soon we see an MF sensor making its way into a D750 size body. The Pentax 645Z is not to terribly far off (but maybe still along way to go).

BTW, the D5 (of course) looks like it will be an ISO monster but a good bit out of my budget. A little bit heavy for me and what I like to do as well.

 

[simonsi]

the D5 (of course) looks like it will be an ISO monster

Hmmm - I expect huge ISO ability will negate the need for VR in the quite near future...

 

[JDDavis]

Good run down on D500, D7200, and D300s specs...

http://nikonrumors.com/2016/01/07/nikon-d500-vs-d7200-vs-d300s-specifications-comparison.aspx/

 

[mofunk]

Same here. Going from D90 to D750 is freakin' awesome. The focusing in low light is fast. Auto ISO is fun to shoot with too. It's a little more accurate than my D90. I'm betting that the D500 will give you the same performance as the D300/300s, fast focusing and better metering.

 

[ProjectManager101]

I have a D330, I am very satisfied. The D500 seems more suitable for video, the strongest features are there. With good lenses.... wow!

 

[Hughmac]

Something for me to aim for in the next 5 years, as in the UK it looks like it will be £1729 initially (about $2500).

Cheers

Hugh

 

[JDDavis]

Same here. Going from D90 to D750 is freakin' awesome. The focusing in low light is fast. Auto ISO is fun to shoot with too. It's a little more accurate than my D90. I'm betting that the D500 will give you the same performance as the D300/300s, fast focusing and better metering.

Agreed on the freakin' awesomeness! I've come to trust the auto ISO in most situations especially for indoor family snaps. I still keep control of it though for "serious" shots. Based on the specs the low light focusing on the D500 should be as good as or even better than the D750 with it's new AF system. It has a minimum brightness of -4 EV so it should be leaps better than the D300s as it was just -1 EV (the D750 is spec'd at -3 EV). I'm not sure if sensor size makes any difference in real world AF in low light.

All in all the D500 looks to be an amazing DX body. I think it's pushing the limits on price a bit (comparatively). The D7200 is $1000 less and is no slouch and the D750 is $100 less at the moment with instant rebates (D610 is $500 less). The only thing I think the D500 has each of those beat by a wide margin on is video. Though, once I learned how to use the D750 for video (versus a video camera) I'm pretty impressed with it's quality.

 

[AppleHater]

When I used to have D300, I loved the coverage of the auto focus points, which covered much more areas than ones for FX systems. Along with added reach of DX format, I can't say I'm not tempted to add D500 to complement my D750.

 

[mofunk]

I shot my D90 alongside a D300 and the D300 focused a lot faster than my D90. I can only image what the D500 will do. If the AF system got some enhancements it would be killer. Again anyone wanting to upgrade will still have to go through the same process...FX or DX. Pro body size or smaller when looking at the D7100/D7200, D810/D800, D750, D500, etc

 

[waloshin]

The 4K is a very nice welcome. Even when down sampled to 1080P we will see some very nice video.

 

[aliensporebomb]

I'd dearly love this one but it's a bit dear for my wallet.

 

[hagr182]

I´m getting my so long sought 24-70 2.8 soon and I am beginning to save up for a second body. By my estimates I should be able to afford either the D750 or the D500 by late november.

Still I am in the debate of sticking to the DX Format or going FX. I currently own a D5000 and whilst it´s a great little camera, I need faster focusing and better (like way better) low light performance.

I mainly shoot events, but I am looking to do more street and nature photography, so the faster focusing and compact size of DX system do appeal to me.

On the other hand I´ve heard nothing but wonders of FX.

By the time I get the body I´ll own two DX lenses and two FX lenses.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I´m getting my so long sought 24-70 2.8 soon and I am beginning to save up for a second body. By my estimates I should be able to afford either the D750 or the D500 by late november.

Still I am in the debate of sticking to the DX Format or going FX. I currently own a D5000 and whilst it´s a great little camera, I need faster focusing and better (like way better) low light performance.

I mainly shoot events, but I am looking to do more street and nature photography, so the faster focusing and compact size of DX system do appeal to me.

On the other hand I´ve heard nothing but wonders of FX.

By the time I get the body I´ll own two DX lenses and two FX lenses.

D750 +24-70 2.8 is a lovely set up.
I have the older version without VR, but tbh that's not an issue with a shorter focal length and awesome low light capability.
Of course something else might be out by November, which means a deal on current models.

 

[jerwin]

The only thing I think the D500 has each of those beat by a wide margin on is video.

Perhaps the D500 is intended to be the D5 of the DX range. Chock full of strange and exotic features with specialist appeal-- i.e for sports photography.

Rugged, 1/8000 s flash, Advanced Wireless lighting, high frame rate, faster focusing. Unless you know you need those features, there are better Nikons.