# D750 vs D500



## goodguy

I have a very strong feeling that many Nikon users are going to consider these 2 cameras when they plan on buying their new camera.

Why do I think so ?
First because they are close in pricing and because of the insane ISO the D500 is rated at.

Do I think they are comparable ?

Not at all, these are very different cameras and when you think about it they shouldn't be compared because of few obvious reasons

1.FX vs DX
2.General use camera vs Sports camera

So first lets talk about the obvious and most important thing Low light Performance

Since the camera isn't out yet I am going to go by logic assumptions deducted from the dry details we already know.
Like everyone know the fact a camera can go to a certain ISO natively doesn't mean it will produce cleaner image, never the less this might teach us that compared to other cameras in its segment we can expect to see cleaner results.
Is this camera an FX destroyer ?
I doubt that, did Nikon find a way to magically compensate for the lack of the extra light FX sensors bring ? So I still see the D750 getting about a stop (more or less) of performance advantage.

Auto Focus

The D500 AF system no doubt will be better, how much better we are yet to see but no doubt better.
How much will it make a difference to the average user ?
Well considering the D750 AF system is already amazing I doubt it will make a huge difference, for general use while 159 AF is nice it is a bit of an over kill.
And just for the record I would LOVE to have 159 AF points on my D750 but as I said it really isn't a big deal.

Buffer ?

Again for general use even the buffer I used to have on my D7100 was fine, 200 RAW is really a fantasy number that 99% of people even sports shooters will not need.
The buffer on the D750 is more then enough with 14 shots for all general user needs and more.

Button/Dial layout

This is a matter of personal taste and getting used to, I am sure I would love the D500 just as much as the D750, this is not something that would be an important issue one way or another for general use.

Touch screen

Nice bonus, will it be something used a lot ?
Dont know, again personal taste, to me as a pure stills user I dont see much important but for those who do lots of video this will be a welcome feature

4K

Again depends if you do lots of video, if you do then this again is a very welcome feature on D500

10 FPS vs 6.5 FPS

For general user 10 FPS ?
Nice
For sports shooter
Awesome

I think the D750 hits a good FPS rating for what non sport dedicated user will ever need.

I am sure there are lots more comparisons I missed but here is my summery

D500 is hands down (again according to dry details) best crop sensor camera in the world and if you are a wildlife/sports shooter who cant afford the D5 or want the crop factor of a sport DX camera then this is the camera for you, when it comes to pure AF/FPS/Buffer the D500 is the clear winner but this post is not about that, this post is about the 2 cameras for general use with emphasis on stills photography and I think for me the D750 seems like the clear winner.
Will the D500 be a good general use camera ?
Absolutely, it has all that you need but the question is if it isnt a waste of money, you are paying for current best AF system which you probably want but not really need, huge buffer you really dont need and only thing I am not sure about is how good it is in low light, wouldn't getting the D7200 for DX user be a better way to spend the money ?
You are getting an amazing DX camera which currently cost almost half the D500, in the money you can get an f2.8 constant zoom lens which will give you much better results then a kit lens.

If life was perfect and money wasn't an issue I would want the D500 as a second body but money is an issue and I dont think for general user the D500 is the best way to spend his/her money.
I am sure many will buy the D500 for general use and kudos for that as I said I would drool to have it but I just cant see justifying it.


----------



## jaomul

They both take photos though


----------



## gsgary

I'm not sure why you think low light performance is the most important thing in a camera


----------



## JacaRanda

The word sports, probably should include the word wildlife with it when talking about the D500. 

The obvious and most important thing to you - may be low light performance.  For many many others, it may not be. 
Heaven forbid I use the word reach - but the CROPPY factor matters to some.  Adding or not adding TC's may matter to some.  Purchasing bigger longer lenses to get the reach or croppy factor may matter to some.

I'm kinda thinking general use is done well enough for millions of us with an iphone 6 or note 5 or......Are we talking strictly photographers or millions of picture takers?
Definitely some cameras are better than others.  I'm not an expert, but I lean on believing that nothing made in the last 5? 10? years is bad.


----------



## JacaRanda

gsgary said:


> I'm not sure why you think low light performance is the most important thing in a camera


 
You beat me to it.


----------



## Derrel

It's tough to evaluate a camera that has not yet been released to the general public, and which has not been evaluated by multiple types of users.

The D7200 is the first Nikon that dPreview would consider almost totally ISO invariant; I have a suspicion that the new sensor technology in the D5 and D500 might break new ground. I think the new sensor and new electronics might be very significantly improved over what's in today's Nikons.

Moving the center AF area down to Minus 4 EV....that is a big deal. Doubling the AF sensor count to 180,000 data points might make AF much better,and might make face detection AF, AF tracking, and predictive AF much better than we can even fathom at this point in time.

The D7100 had sensor banding issues on recovered shadows: the D7200 can be shot at Base ISO setting but deliberately under-exposed by FIVE EV, and then the shadows lifted..and there's no banding, and almost no color noise. Nikon has recently re-configured how sensor gain at elevated ISO settings is handled by the camera, and sensors are getting better as time advances: *this might be the next generation*, the one where overall, total image quality takes a marked leap upward: the same way the D3s sensor did over the older Nikon camera models.

Given the native ISO settings and then the 1.6 million Hi-settings of the D500...I think _we *might be *underestimating what the camera can actually capture._

Second thing: according to a number of action shooters, the allure of a camera that fires at 10 frames per second is NOT the ability to blast off 10 frames in one second, but instead, something that is MUCH more valuable: the ability to capture _a viable second frame_. From what I read from a few sports guys who had the chance to move to the first Canon 10 fps camera some years back, the 10 fps firing rate basically allowed the camera to get a SECOND shot that had a good chance of being "useful", maybe even "good".

It will be interesting to actually see real images made by the D500.


----------



## DarkShadow

Well I was set on the D750 not so much for Full frame but more for its focus system and tilting screen but now that the D500 is coming and my primary use will be wildlife the D500 is a no brainer with the pro like specs.The D500 with out a doubt In my mind is a pro level Crop sensor DSLR that inherits some of its internals from the Big D5.So other then a full frame sensor of the D750 it really cant touch the D500 and perhaps with the lower pixel count and Ex 5 processor it should rock.Of course this is all on paper and don't mean squat In the real world unless it performs as it should and doesn't need a trip to nikon land for another recall.


----------



## JacaRanda

Derrel said:


> It's tough to evaluate a camera that has not yet been released to the general public, and which has not been evaluated by multiple types of users.
> 
> The D7200 is the first Nikon that dPreview would consider almost totally ISO invariant; I have a suspicion that the new sensor technology in the D5 and D500 might break new ground. I think the new sensor and new electronics might be very significantly improved over what's in today's Nikons.
> 
> Moving the center AF area down to Minus 4 EV....that is a big deal. Doubling the AF sensor count to 180,000 data points might make AF much better,and might make face detection AF, AF tracking, and predictive AF much better than we can even fathom at this point in time.
> 
> The D7100 had sensor banding issues on recovered shadows: the D7200 can be shot at Base ISO setting but deliberately under-exposed by FIVE EV, and then the shadows lifted..and there's no banding, and almost no color noise. Nikon has recently re-configured how sensor gain at elevated ISO settings is handled by the camera, and sensors are getting better as time advances: *this might be the next generation*, the one where overall, total image quality takes a marked leap upward: the same way the D3s sensor did over the older Nikon camera models.
> 
> Given the native ISO settings and then the 1.6 million Hi-settings of the D500...I think _we *might be *underestimating what the camera can actually capture._
> 
> Second thing: according to a number of action shooters, the allure of a camera that fires at 10 frames per second is NOT the ability to blast off 10 frames in one second, but instead, something that is MUCH more valuable: the ability to capture _a viable second frame_. From what I read from a few sports guys who had the chance to move to the first Canon 10 fps camera some years back, the 10 fps firing rate basically allowed the camera to get a SECOND shot that had a good chance of being "useful", maybe even "good".
> 
> It will be interesting to actually see real images made by the D500.


 
Very very true in regards to 10 fps or even faster.  I think I posted somewhere - mating Avocets.  There is a split second wing position that some of us voyeurs hope to get while they are mating.  Just one other example of why it could be a big deal to some.


----------



## DarkShadow

Exactly This.^^


----------



## goodguy

Derrel said:


> It's tough to evaluate a camera that has not yet been released to the general public, and which has not been evaluated by multiple types of users.
> 
> The D7200 is the first Nikon that dPreview would consider almost totally ISO invariant; I have a suspicion that the new sensor technology in the D5 and D500 might break new ground. I think the new sensor and new electronics might be very significantly improved over what's in today's Nikons.
> 
> Moving the center AF area down to Minus 4 EV....that is a big deal. Doubling the AF sensor count to 180,000 data points might make AF much better,and might make face detection AF, AF tracking, and predictive AF much better than we can even fathom at this point in time.
> 
> The D7100 had sensor banding issues on recovered shadows: the D7200 can be shot at Base ISO setting but deliberately under-exposed by FIVE EV, and then the shadows lifted..and there's no banding, and almost no color noise. Nikon has recently re-configured how sensor gain at elevated ISO settings is handled by the camera, and sensors are getting better as time advances: *this might be the next generation*, the one where overall, total image quality takes a marked leap upward: the same way the D3s sensor did over the older Nikon camera models.
> 
> Given the native ISO settings and then the 1.6 million Hi-settings of the D500...I think _we *might be *underestimating what the camera can actually capture._
> 
> Second thing: according to a number of action shooters, the allure of a camera that fires at 10 frames per second is NOT the ability to blast off 10 frames in one second, but instead, something that is MUCH more valuable: the ability to capture _a viable second frame_. From what I read from a few sports guys who had the chance to move to the first Canon 10 fps camera some years back, the 10 fps firing rate basically allowed the camera to get a SECOND shot that had a good chance of being "useful", maybe even "good".
> 
> It will be interesting to actually see real images made by the D500.



I love your replies, some people here just love bashing the OP with sarcastic remarks while you use logic and real numbers to assess your reply.
Yes I think I agree, we will need to wait for March when the camera comes out and see reviews and real numbers by DXO to see if this really is a leap in technology.
If it really is the next generation of performance I will be happy because it will not be long to see same advancement in FX and for me that's always good news 
If not then I still think overall for general use consider current price of the D7200 vs D500 the D7200+ fast lens will be a better buy.

Thank you for well thought reply.


----------



## goodguy

DarkShadow said:


> Well I was set on the D750 not so much for Full frame but more for its focus system and tilting screen but now that the D500 is coming and my primary use will be wildlife the D500 is a no brainer with the pro like specs.The D500 with out a doubt In my mind is a pro level Crop sensor DSLR that inherits some of its internals from the Big D5.So other then a full frame sensor of the D750 it really cant touch the D500 and perhaps with the lower pixel count and Ex 5 processor it should rock.Of course this is all on paper and don't mean squat In the real world unless it performs as it should and doesn't need a trip to nikon land for another recall.



Agreed, taking the FF sensor out of the equation the D500 kills the D750 on paper, its amazing how much technology is advanced in one year, only a year ago the D750 was all I could dream off and now it seems like while its still an awesome camera it is not the top of the pack in some ways.

Knowing a bit your style and focus in photography I think the D500 will be the perfect match I think if and when you will get it you will be using it for many years to come.
If you will get it I cant wait to hear your feedback compare to your current body and in general.


----------



## goodguy

As for why is good low light performance important ?

If you are shooting in many different scenarios where you have no flash then low light performance is very important.
If low light performance isn't really important then many people can still use 6 years or older cameras at 100ISO and still get amazing results.
I think many would like to get the best low light performance possible from their cameras, if anyone thinks good low light performance is not important and shouldn't be at top 5 important things on their want list then good for them, to each his/her own.


----------



## SCraig

I'll wait until about this time next year.  By then something else will be coming out and the D500 will be about a third less.  Or maybe I'll wait until the year after that and they will be under $1000.  Until then I'm getting the results I want from the bodies I have so I'll probably stick with them.


----------



## goodguy

SCraig said:


> I'll wait until about this time next year.  By then something else will be coming out and the D500 will be about a third less.  Or maybe I'll wait until the year after that and they will be under $1000.  Until then I'm getting the results I want from the bodies I have so I'll probably stick with them.



Exactly my point, please excuse me for the assumption but looking at some of your work you are not a pure wildlife/sports photographer but more of a general photographer like me, for you the D500 might be an overkill, the D7100 is an outstanding camera and will do the job nicely.
I have a feeling (and I admit I can be wrong) 10 FPS, huge buffer or the killer AF is not a must over your current gear.

If I am wrong please excuse me, just looking at your beautiful pictures and saying what I think your style might be


----------



## JacaRanda

goodguy said:


> As for why is good low light performance important ?
> 
> If you are shooting in many different scenarios where you have no flash then low light performance is very important.
> If low light performance isn't really important then many people can still use 6 years or older cameras at 100ISO and still get amazing results.
> I think many would like to get the best low light performance possible from their cameras, if anyone thinks good low light performance is not important and shouldn't be at top 5 important things on their want list then good for them, to each his/her own.


 
I don't think anyone would argue that it's not important; simply not the most important for everyone.  I know you did not mean to suggest it for everyone, rather it's possibly the most important for you in most of your shooting situations.

When I first started this photography thing, I watched lots of videos (after I purchased my 60D).  I can't remember his name off hand, but the guy reminded me of Santa Claus  .   Several times in his video he said it was pretty tough to buy a bad camera these days.  It's what I would tell my son (often a reference or target when giving certain kinds of information or advice).

In 15 years, your D750 will still be a kickass camera; the images you make with it now won't suck because they were not made with whatever camera Nikon comes out with two years from now.  How you use it will likely still be the most important thing.  Somewhere around here, there is a pretty doggone good photographer still using a 5DM1. 

A general question or thought - at some point will there be diminishing returns with sensor technology?  In some folks minds, the gap between crop and full frame in some respects have gotten closer and closer.  The decision between the two is not always clearcut until you figure out what/how you shoot - mostly.


----------



## SCraig

goodguy said:


> Exactly my point, please excuse me for the assumption but looking at some of your work you are not a pure wildlife/sports photographer but more of a general photographer like me, for you the D500 might be an overkill, the D7100 is an outstanding camera and will do the job nicely.
> I have a feeling (and I admit I can be wrong) 10 FPS, huge buffer or the killer AF is not a must over your current gear.
> 
> If I am wrong please excuse me, just looking at your beautiful pictures and saying what I think your style might be


No, you're not wrong.  You'll have a tough time deciding my style because I don't have one.  Or if I do it's simply that I like to take photographs of things that interest me.  Birds, wildlife, motorsports, whatever looks like fun.  Sure I'd love to have some of the features of the D500 but it's not critical to me.  I'm content with what I have and, as I said, I get the results I want.  I've played the "Cutting Edge of Technology" game too many times over the years with different things, and I'm more than willing to let someone else do the bleeding now.


----------



## DarkShadow

Even when I had a Canon 6D at only 4.5 fps I managed some sparrows In flight a dove or two all with  the central cross type.So I would say no its not a must have 10fps machine gun or 99 cross type but it sure makes or should make things a little easer and perhaps a better chance of capturing something super fast and we sure do have some fast flyers and fast action sports.


----------



## Derrel

BRIEF item as food for thought: Nikkor VR 200-500mm f/5.6 AF-S  + D500.

Minus 4 EV central focusing. Massive frame coverage with AF areas on DX sensor size camera.


----------



## Dave442

For me, the draw to the D500 is just the combination of all the items. It is not a must have item right now so I will be happy just to hear how it stands up to expectations when put to use. 
I am very pleased that they kept this body layout alive for the crop sensor line.


----------



## hamlet

2g's is a bit too much for a crop camera, but i know why it costs so much and it is justified. But i agree with the above mentioned here, these features will trickle down to more affordable cameras.


----------



## goodguy

JacaRanda said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for why is good low light performance important ?
> 
> If you are shooting in many different scenarios where you have no flash then low light performance is very important.
> If low light performance isn't really important then many people can still use 6 years or older cameras at 100ISO and still get amazing results.
> I think many would like to get the best low light performance possible from their cameras, if anyone thinks good low light performance is not important and shouldn't be at top 5 important things on their want list then good for them, to each his/her own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone would argue that it's not important; simply not the most important for everyone.  I know you did not mean to suggest it for everyone, rather it's possibly the most important for you in most of your shooting situations.
> 
> When I first started this photography thing, I watched lots of videos (after I purchased my 60D).  I can't remember his name off hand, but the guy reminded me of Santa Claus  .   Several times in his video he said it was pretty tough to buy a bad camera these days.  It's what I would tell my son (often a reference or target when giving certain kinds of information or advice).
> 
> In 15 years, your D750 will still be a kickass camera; the images you make with it now won't suck because they were not made with whatever camera Nikon comes out with two years from now.  How you use it will likely still be the most important thing.  Somewhere around here, there is a pretty doggone good photographer still using a 5DM1.
> 
> A general question or thought - at some point will there be diminishing returns with sensor technology?  In some folks minds, the gap between crop and full frame in some respects have gotten closer and closer.  The decision between the two is not always clearcut until you figure out what/how you shoot - mostly.
Click to expand...

Well said, thank you for post 
In me there are 2 Goodguy's struggling, Mr Photography and Mr G.A.S so far its a stalemate 
Love my gear and love my photography, both work well together but sometimes I find I get excited about stuff I really shouldn't instead of concentrating at the important thing and thats shooting


----------



## Braineack

goodguy said:


> Agreed, taking the FF sensor out of the equation the D500 kills the D750 on paper, its amazing how much technology is advanced in one year, only a year ago the D750 was all I could dream off and now it seems like while its still an awesome camera it is not the top of the pack in some ways.


it smashes all the nikon and canon, etc., dslr line-up.


----------



## goodguy

Derrel said:


> BRIEF item as food for thought: Nikkor VR 200-500mm f/5.6 AF-S  + D500.
> 
> Minus 4 EV central focusing. Massive frame coverage with AF areas on DX sensor size camera.


Lets see best AF system currently in the market with blazing fast FPS and huge buffer plus 200-500mm which on crop sensor is perceived as 300-750mm 
Yep if I was into birding this would grab my attention for sure


----------



## goodguy

Braineack said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, taking the FF sensor out of the equation the D500 kills the D750 on paper, its amazing how much technology is advanced in one year, only a year ago the D750 was all I could dream off and now it seems like while its still an awesome camera it is not the top of the pack in some ways.
> 
> 
> 
> it smashes all the nikon and canon, etc., dslr line-up.
Click to expand...

Agreed


----------



## goodguy

Braineack said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, taking the FF sensor out of the equation the D500 kills the D750 on paper, its amazing how much technology is advanced in one year, only a year ago the D750 was all I could dream off and now it seems like while its still an awesome camera it is not the top of the pack in some ways.
> 
> 
> 
> it smashes all the nikon and canon, etc., dslr line-up.
Click to expand...

Put a killer FF sensor on the D500 and you are getting a dream.........................oh wait thats the D5, never mind, out of my budget LOL


----------



## coastalconn

goodguy said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> BRIEF item as food for thought: Nikkor VR 200-500mm f/5.6 AF-S  + D500.
> 
> Minus 4 EV central focusing. Massive frame coverage with AF areas on DX sensor size camera.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see best AF system currently in the market with blazing fast FPS and huge buffer plus 200-500mm which on crop sensor is perceived as 300-750mm
> Yep if I was into birding this would grab my attention for sure
Click to expand...

Hey, are you guys talking about me again


----------



## gsgary

SCraig said:


> I'll wait until about this time next year.  By then something else will be coming out and the D500 will be about a third less.  Or maybe I'll wait until the year after that and they will be under $1000.  Until then I'm getting the results I want from the bodies I have so I'll probably stick with them.


Then it will be out of date, wait for the D500mk2


----------



## hamlet

gsgary said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll wait until about this time next year.  By then something else will be coming out and the D500 will be about a third less.  Or maybe I'll wait until the year after that and they will be under $1000.  Until then I'm getting the results I want from the bodies I have so I'll probably stick with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Then it will be out of date, wait for the D500mk2
Click to expand...

I agree, the camera makers always one-up each other from what i've seen. The technology behind the d500 is just the harvest of recent technological advances, we'll see a d500 killer sooner than later, which is nothing but good news for everyone on this forum and beyond.


----------



## gsgary

hamlet said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll wait until about this time next year.  By then something else will be coming out and the D500 will be about a third less.  Or maybe I'll wait until the year after that and they will be under $1000.  Until then I'm getting the results I want from the bodies I have so I'll probably stick with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Then it will be out of date, wait for the D500mk2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, the camera makers always one-up each other from what i've seen. The technology behind the d500 is just the harvest of recent technological advances, we'll see a d500 killer sooner than later, which is nothing but good news for everyone on this forum and beyond.
Click to expand...

Not good news for me I wouldn't buy one


----------



## astroNikon

Braineack said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, taking the FF sensor out of the equation the D500 kills the D750 on paper, its amazing how much technology is advanced in one year, only a year ago the D750 was all I could dream off and now it seems like while its still an awesome camera it is not the top of the pack in some ways.
> 
> 
> 
> it smashes all the nikon and canon, etc., dslr line-up.
Click to expand...

Except the D5

I want to know if the d500 has that nifty feature like the d750 of when you press the ISO button that the rear LCD lights up?  If it doesn't, then it's a killer camera !!


----------



## hamlet

gsgary said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll wait until about this time next year.  By then something else will be coming out and the D500 will be about a third less.  Or maybe I'll wait until the year after that and they will be under $1000.  Until then I'm getting the results I want from the bodies I have so I'll probably stick with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Then it will be out of date, wait for the D500mk2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, the camera makers always one-up each other from what i've seen. The technology behind the d500 is just the harvest of recent technological advances, we'll see a d500 killer sooner than later, which is nothing but good news for everyone on this forum and beyond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not good news for me I wouldn't buy one
Click to expand...

I would but i cant xD


----------



## Solarflare

Derrel said:


> [...] The D7200 is the first Nikon that dPreview would consider almost totally ISO invariant;  [...]


 In my understanding "ISO invariant" means that a picture taken at, say, ISO 1600 is identical to a picture taken at ISO 100, both under the same conditions (same light, same subject, same lens, same angle, same focal length, same aperture, same shutter speed, etc), assuming the ISO 1600 didnt overexpose and the RAW converter compensates for the 4 stops of less light.

So basically you can keep the sensor at ISO 100 at all times and just compensate for the lack of exposure in your raw converter afterwards.

I utterly fail to see how thats a desireable property ? Quite on the contrary I would want my camera to fully exploit the fact that I've told it there wont be much light, so I can get best signal to noise at any ISO. And the cameras really good at high ISO, like the Sony A7s, are far from ISO invariant.





goodguy said:


> Agreed, taking the FF sensor out of the equation the D500 kills the D750 on paper,


 ... the heck ?!?!?!?!?

Of course it does.

Why did you expect anything else ?

A full frame sensor is still quite expensive. If you have an APS-C sensor instead, naturally you can spend a lot of money on other issues instead.


----------



## hamlet

Anyone seen the in camera VR of the d500?


----------



## goodguy

hamlet said:


> Anyone seen the in camera VR of the d500?


Its "kind of" VR, its an electronic VR, not as effective as Sony's mechanical VR, how effective it is we will know once the D500 is reviewed.


----------



## hamlet

I wonder how it'll function in combination with the VR in the lens.


----------



## coastalconn

hamlet said:


> I wonder how it'll function in combination with the VR in the lens.


From what I read it is only for video and It apparently works with VR lenses I believe


----------



## Derrel

Solarflare said:
			
		

> So basically you can keep the sensor at ISO 100 at all times and just compensate for the lack of exposure in your raw converter afterwards.
> 
> *I utterly fail to see how thats a desireable property *? Quite on the contrary I would want my camera to fully exploit the fact that I've told it there wont be much light, so I can get best signal to noise at any ISO. And the cameras really good at high ISO, like the Sony A7s, are far from ISO invariant.



You are* seriously missing the point* of what can make a camera ISO invariant. Maybe spend a bit of time looking into the term, and how it is used, and what exactly it can show us, what it can demonstrate about a sensor, and what it can demonstrate to us, as far as revealing how much noise the camera's electronics and imaging pipeline affect the sensor data.

I'll give you a little bit of a hint though, okay? The D7200's sensor, and the new 28-megapixel sensor Samsung used in its new top camera...those two are the very best APS-C sensors yet tested far as APS-C sensors that are ISO invariant, according to dPreview's testing.

The D7100's sensor reveal a slight banding issue, but chroma noise is largely absent. Can you see the issues the EOS 7D Mark II suffers from? It is a camera that is NOT very ISO-invariant. Can you see the EOS 5D Mark III and the HUGE firestorm of chroma noise it has? It too is NOT ISO invariant.





 

A couple articles that will no doubt change your mind. You are caught thinking in a now _behind the times way_ regarding how low-light and or High ISO images must be made...


ISO Invariance: What it is, and which cameras are ISO-less

*LOOK at what it really means…*


Sony A7RII ISO Invariance - Luminous Landscape


----------



## Derrel

Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study

Let me summarize the advantage of using a sensor that has a high degree of ISO invariance, when you keep the camera's ISO dial set to a LOW ISO value, like 100, and then "pushing" the exposure later, in software, and brightening the image selectively, using modern software, as summarized by the dPreview author:

"We're not saying there's _no_ cost to keeping your ISO low and brightening in post.** We're saying that the cost of a 6 EV push of an ISO 100 shot (vs ISO 6400) is only a mere half a stop or thereabouts in shadows, with almost _no_ visible cost in midtones.*** Meanwhile, you give yourself no less than 6 EV highlight headroom by decreasing your ISO to 100."


----------



## Solarflare

Hmm.

If I understand those articles correctly, calling a camera "ISO-less" is really just a creative way to state a camera has good dynamic range ?

Plus it has no issues like banding or especially ugly color noise.


----------



## errol

Just take photos instead of being obsessed with technical stuff.
Its boring.


----------



## Peeb

errol said:


> Just take photos instead of being obsessed with technical stuff.
> Its boring.


I strongly support your right to go do just that.

Many of us, on the other hand, will sweat the tech issues BEFORE we go shoot, to enhance to possibility that we will collect the images we thought we wanted.

Measure twice, cut once, as an old carpenter told me.   

Now go off and have your fun while the rest of us carefully plan our next shoot.


----------



## errol

You're all chasing the perfect camera/lens.
Which of course doesn't exist.
Stop worrying about your tech...its YOU that takes the picture.
Your camera is just an electronic device.
I've seen some truly superb images produced from very cheap equiptment.
Just a good eye and a basic understanding of the art of photography is all thats required in my humble opinion.


----------



## jsecordphoto

errol said:


> You're all chasing the perfect camera/lens.
> Which of course doesn't exist.
> Stop worrying about your tech...its YOU that takes the picture.
> Your camera is just an electronic device.
> I've seen some truly superb images produced from very cheap equiptment.
> Just a good eye and a basic understanding of the art of photography is all thats required in my humble opinion.



Maybe that's your reality. That's fine if you're happy with basic equipment and get images that you like, but some of us need new technology and better equipment to take the photos that we like. Compare an astro image taken with an entry level crop body and kit lens to an image with an a7s and tell me new camera technology doesn't matter


----------



## Peeb

errol said:


> You're all chasing the perfect camera/lens.
> Which of course doesn't exist.
> Stop worrying about your tech...its YOU that takes the picture.
> Your camera is just an electronic device.
> I've seen some truly superb images produced from very cheap equiptment.
> Just a good eye and a basic understanding of the art of photography is all thats required in my humble opinion.


If you are trolling then I supposed you have succeeded in baiting one more response from me:

Your premise has merit in some contexts, but is so overly broad that it becomes useless for the purposes of this thread.  If you resurrect Ansel Adams and hand him an iPhone 5, and hand me a Nikon D500 with a 200-500 lens and direct us each to take a detailed picture of the moon, I pretty sure I could own the guy.

Ansel's understanding of the art and photographic eye: legendary.  Too bad he didn't have the right tool for the job.  

This thread is not about how to 'see' like an artist- it's about the technical nuts/bolts of capturing images.  Hows abouts you just move on to a thread that catches your fancy, eh?


----------



## errol

You cant compare an iphone to a dslr.
You're full of s##t.
Have a nice day.


----------



## Peeb

errol said:


> You cant compare an iphone to a dslr.
> You're full of s##t.
> Have a nice day.


I absolutely AM (full of it...) - thank you for making my point!

You are (privately) defining 'adequate basic gear' and telling us to use "that" (whatever it is) and go be artists.  This thread is about figuring out the correct gear for specific needs.

PLEASE start a thread about seeing/thinking like an artist- it's an important topic, and one I agree with!  Popping in  here and reeling off truism about artistry and vision in this thread, however, not helpful.


Be well.


----------



## errol

One of my images taken on very old canon 20d and a crappy canon 70-300 f4-f5.6.
Cheap tat but i think it looks like its been taken on something 'better'


----------



## errol

Peeb.....you're alright btw.


----------



## Peeb

errol said:


> Peeb.....you're alright btw.


As are you, my friend!


----------



## Peeb

Zombie thread time!

Who has used both cameras and come away with impressions?

I never really anticipated considering spending 2k on a DX body, but....


----------



## Dave442

How about anybody that sold their D750 and bought a D500, or anybody that bought the D500 and decided to change to the D750. 

So far it has been funny to watch some of the D500 unboxings. You would think the people had died and went to heaven.


----------



## Braineack

Dave442 said:


> How about anybody that sold their D750 and bought a D500, or anybody that bought the D500 and decided to change to the D750.
> 
> So far it has been funny to watch some of the D500 unboxings. You would think the people had died and went to heaven.


Not a lot of situations where someone would be debating between these, they serve different purposes.

using tapatalk.


----------



## Dave442

Braineack said:


> Dave442 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about anybody that sold their D750 and bought a D500, or anybody that bought the D500 and decided to change to the D750.
> 
> So far it has been funny to watch some of the D500 unboxings. You would think the people had died and went to heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a lot of situations where someone would be debating between these, they serve different purposes.
> 
> using tapatalk.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Although when the D750 came out I was considering it. Now with the D500 it better meets everything I've been waiting for as a D300 replacement.


----------



## shadowlands

Either camera is a winner. But if you do a ton of sports/wildlife, etc.. D500 may be best.
If you're into portraits, general travel, landscapes, weddings, etc.. D750.
Hell, I have a D800 and I shoot my kiddos sports in DX mode at 6fps, and I'm happy as can be.
But if I shot pro sports on a regular basis, I would grab a D500, D4, D300, etc....


----------



## astroNikon

I'm waiting for the D760.

You know, it's only a matter of time ...


----------



## Derrel

astroNikon said:


> I'm waiting for the D760.
> 
> You know, it's only a matter of time ...



Here you go Steve--your F-mount "760"!!!!! Full-frame! Super-rugged Nikon body!

Rob Galbraith DPI: Kodak announces high-resolution DCS 760 digital SLR


----------



## Braineack

looks just as modern as any 2016 model DSLR.


----------



## astroNikon

Derrel said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for the D760.
> 
> You know, it's only a matter of time ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go Steve--your F-mount "760"!!!!! Full-frame! Super-rugged Nikon body!
> 
> Rob Galbraith DPI: Kodak announces high-resolution DCS 760 digital SLR
Click to expand...

Holy Polish-sauerkraut  !!

It's nearly perfect
except for the 1.3x crop
and 1.5 fps
I'll have to pass because it's just not good enough.  I need something better and I'm willing to wait.


----------



## Solarflare

astroNikon said:


> I'm waiting for the D760.
> 
> You know, it's only a matter of time ...


Me too.

Because I already own the D750 ...

Also: D750 Successor Wishlist

Or alternatively, but the product would have to change a lot: Nikon Df successor wishlist


----------



## 23NR

I think the real question should be the following:

Do you want the extra reach the crop sensor on the D500 gives you, or the extra width that the Full Frame sensor of the D750 gives you?

I own a D750 and its a great camera and I'm sure so is the D500. However, it is much easier to get good wide angle lenses for the D750 than for the D500, and you will always be able to get more reach on a D500 than on a D750!


----------

