# D500 or D750 ?



## goodguy (Apr 23, 2016)

The D500 is out and the initial reviews looks very impressive and promising.
Since the D750 and D500 both currently cost 2000$ I am wondering if you had the money which camera would you get and why ?


----------



## jsecordphoto (Apr 23, 2016)

Depends on what you shoot. 500 if you shoot wildlife and 750 if you shoot landscapes


----------



## dannylightning (Apr 23, 2016)

jsecordphoto said:


> Depends on what you shoot. 500 if you shoot wildlife and 750 if you shoot landscapes



agreed.   if you need the 1.5x crop with out loosing mega pixels  like you do when you shoot dx on a full frame go for the D500
if you do not need the 1.5 x crop go for the D750..   that is my opinion..


----------



## coastalconn (Apr 23, 2016)

You know which one I would pick


----------



## Dave442 (Apr 23, 2016)

My plan is to go with the D500. I do not want to learn the layout of the D750. I am weighing the D500 vs a refurbished D800. Just based on the range of things I shoot, the final use of 90% of my images and my current lenses, the D500 is really the best option.

The new AF, AF point selector, new placement of the ISO button and smaller file size are real pluses for me.  This would be replacing my two well used D200 bodies and I will really only miss not having two of the same body (one gripped and one not), but at some point I'll add a second just like I did before (or the D8xx for those times when you need the mp).

The D750 is of course an excellent camera and if I had picked one up already then I would not be looking for any other camera.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 23, 2016)

D750 for me. I'm more interested in a larger capture area than in a narrower angle of view from every lens Nikon has ever made. The crop-frame cameras all make the lenses into something they never were meant to be, so the 24,35,50,85,105,135, and 300mm lenses all become way too "tight" for use indoors and in most social situations. Same with the way the 24-70mm zoom is butchered, and rendered so much less useful indoors. Same with how the 70-200 is made too narrow in angle for use in many situations. I had about 34 years of using the 24 x 36mm image area and the lenses that went with that size....to me, APS-C has always been a lens compromise. Indoors with studio flash, APS-C renders the background too much in-focus at flash apertures...it has inherently a bit more DOF than is optimal for working indoors in front of the 9-foot-wide backdrop paper that is the industry standard; for group or full-length shots indoors, APS-C pulls enough depth of field to make the background fairly well in-focus, due to how fast the APS-C approaches hyperfocal distance with the short lens lengths needed in most indoor rooms.

THe same increased DOF, and the same decreased subject/background isolation that APS-C brings to social photography can on the other hand,. be a net positive for shooting action pictures where you want a bit more focusing "cushion" in order to get just a bit of focus error margin AND for getting more in-focus when shooting high-magnification images of say, athletes, cars, or wildlife using something like a 400 or 500mm focal length!

As I get old though, I find the one thing that makes FX so much better is the physically LARGER viewfinder found in the higher-end FX cameras. The bigger viewfinder image makes it easier to see what's being framed, and how people appear, while looking through the finder.


----------



## PaulWog (Apr 24, 2016)

Crop factor isn't all it is hyped up to be. The lens would have to be able to use the megapixels to actually produce any benefit. In most cases a d750 cropped in to what a d500 would shoot on something (say a 150-600 lens) would result in very similar levels of detail.


----------



## coastalconn (Apr 24, 2016)

PaulWog said:


> Crop factor isn't all it is hyped up to be. The lens would have to be able to use the megapixels to actually produce any benefit. In most cases a d750 cropped in to what a d500 would shoot on something (say a 150-600 lens) would result in very similar levels of detail.


I respectfully disagree, from the standpoint of being focal length limited related to bird photography.   There would be slightly more detail and you would gain the benefits of 10FPS,  nearly edge to edge AF coverage, quicker acquisition and better tracking, a better build quality, a shutter that is rated to 200K instead of 150K.  Also would have a higher native resolution when you go to print.   The maximum 1 stop higher shutter speed also  can come in handy if you are shooting white birds with a fast lens.   When you crop a full frame to DX you loose many of the advantages of FX.  For instance Photographic Dynamic Range becomes almost the same.  Another advantage is the birds appear larger in the viewfinder with a DX camera and I find they are easier to track and see their expressions to capture the right moment.  

For normal general use photography  I will give the edge to the D750 in low light and if you like a shallower DOF and cropping is not required.   Although some of those advantages could be negated with some of sigmas DX lenses like the 18-35 and the 50-100 F1.8 depending on what you shoot.  Of course just my humble opinion..


----------



## jaomul (Apr 24, 2016)

D750 as I already have a d7200 and generally don't feel that 6fps limits me in my type of photography, so adding an fx would make more sense for me


----------



## baturn (Apr 24, 2016)

Had I  the  expendable cash, the D500 would already be on order.


----------



## goodguy (Apr 24, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> You know which one I would pick


Yes I do


----------



## LRphoto (May 4, 2016)

I had the same question myself so ended I going for the Nikon D610!


----------



## goodguy (May 4, 2016)

LRphoto said:


> I had the same question myself so ended I going for the Nikon D610!


Makes perfect sense


----------



## jl1975 (May 4, 2016)

I've been shooting with my D7100 and had planned on getting the D750.  But now with the D500 out, I'm not sure which way to go.  I mostly shoot my kids activities such as volleyball, dance, and band shows.  Low light performance is what I was thinking I would improve with the D750, but with the crazy native iso on the 500, I'm second guessing things.  The only downside to the D500 is the lack of the built in flash.  For the sports and performance shots of my kids, I can't use flash but I do use it to trigger my SB700 off camera for other shots.  Plus it's nice to have once in a while for a little fill.  tough decision.


----------



## CamPointShoot (May 4, 2016)

goodguy said:


> The D500 is out and the initial reviews looks very impressive and promising.
> Since the D750 and D500 both currently cost 2000$ I am wondering if you had the money which camera would you get and why ?



I bought my D750 from DigitalRev for USD1600+ 2 months ago and I must say it's my all around full frame dslr at the moment.


----------



## Watchful (May 4, 2016)

I ordered the 500, but it wasn't $2000.00. lol


----------



## Solarflare (May 6, 2016)

I would prefer the D500 for:
- sports & wildlife
- macro
- street / spontaneous / fast operation

I would prefer the D750 for:
- portraiture
- landscape
- lowlight


----------



## HeldInTheMoment (May 6, 2016)

I do mostly weddings, portraits, and boudoir photography...I was looking at the D750 but the D500 has caught my eye as well. For the same price, it seems the D750 would work better for my needs.


----------

