# Move from d7200 to d500



## CarlosFrazao (May 11, 2016)

hi guys, has anyone made the move from the d7200 to the d500... Is it worth it or is it just the extra 4 frames and the buffer that make a difference, how much better is the low light as well. I'm thinking of either getting a d800 as a extra body or getting rid of the d7200 and getting a d500... Thanks guys


----------



## Braineack (May 11, 2016)

Can't quite see the link between debating between a D800 or D500...


----------



## CarlosFrazao (May 11, 2016)

Braineack said:


> Can't quite see the link between debating between a D800 or D500...



I was looking at the d800 for the xtra low light performance and better low noise shots. But if the d500 can get similar low light performance and noise like I have heard from some reviews then I'd rather have the faster newer camera instead of 2 different bodies


----------



## goodguy (May 11, 2016)

Braineack said:


> Can't quite see the link between debating between a D800 or D500...


Exactly.
If you want overall better image quality go with full frame.
If you are a ports/wildlife shooter then get the D500


----------



## goodguy (May 11, 2016)

CarlosFrazao said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Can't quite see the link between debating between a D800 or D500...
> ...


According to Tony Northop the D750 has twice the better low light performance over the D500
D750 is still the low light king (D5 is better but cost a ton of money) with the D610 slightly behind it and the D800 and D810 while good in low light are really more of studio/landscape cameras and not as good in low light.


----------



## CarlosFrazao (May 11, 2016)

goodguy said:


> CarlosFrazao said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



I don't think tony knows what he's talking about on that review as he stated they didn't have a d750 to test, so how can one give out such false ratings that one is twice as good if he didn't even test it..


----------



## goodguy (May 11, 2016)

CarlosFrazao said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > CarlosFrazao said:
> ...


Good question that I cant answer since I wasnt there when he did the review.
One way to explain this is by assuming he has a room with same amount of light so he can take a shot and compare it with other cameras even if he doesnt shoot as the same day. But thats just a guess of mine.
He did find the D500 better then the D7200 in low light but it wasn't a huge improvement.
The D500 took another step up in...........well everything compared to all current APS-C cameras in the market but remember it is still APS-C it just doesnt bring same amount of light onto the sensor as FF does.
I cant wait for the DXO report to see how it really compared to other DX and FX cameras.


----------



## Braineack (May 11, 2016)

The D500 is a pretty purpose built sports camera.
Crazy AF module (153pts).
Crazy FPS (11fps).
Crazy Buffer (200 RAW).
EXPEED 5 image processor.
20MP DX sensor.


The D800 is a studio queen.
51pt AF module, without groupings. Known to have AF issues.
4 FPS.
16 Frame Buffer
EXPEED 3.
36MP FX sensor.

You can't even Auto-ISO in M mode with the D800.


If I could afford it, I wouldn't hesitate picking a D500 over a D7200--if that's the type of camera I needed.  If I was doing studio/portrait or landscape work, I might pick the D800.


----------



## Peeb (May 11, 2016)

Braineack said:


> The D500 is a pretty purpose built sports camera....
> 
> 
> The D800 is a studio queen....
> ...


Did NOT know that!  Surprising to me that you cant auto-ISO such a nice camera in M.


----------



## dannylightning (May 11, 2016)

the D500 is very good in low light.  looks to be almost as good as full frame.  some photos have been posted from the d 500 at 50 thousand iso..   it has less noise than my d7200 has at 10 thousand iso..

if your shooting wildlife the D500 is killer.   here is a good thread to check out..

The Nikon D500 - Reigniting The DX / FX Debate And A Few High ISO Photos


----------



## coastalconn (May 11, 2016)

Peeb said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > The D500 is a pretty purpose built sports camera....
> ...


Not sure where you saw that, but when I had the D800, I always shot in manual with auto-ISO and EC..

To the OP of you are planning on cropping a lot with the D800, you will see pretty much no benefit from the d800.. However, it is a fantastic camera when used as a FF. I had the D7100 and the D800 back in the day.  Since I only do wildlife the D7100 was my go to camera..


----------



## jaomul (May 11, 2016)

I'd like to see what is said about the d500 in a few months. If you need 10 fps its an obvious choice, if low light stuff is your priority I'd look at a d750/610 model. According to a few reviews the d500 is almost as good or as good as current fx cameras, but I wonder how much these reviewers are sponsored and what the real performance is. I am sure its great for dx, possibly the best ever, but the hype machine is running, and all things being equal, fx sensors with 24mp have bigger light catchers than 20mp on dx, with probably similar technology


----------



## Derrel (May 11, 2016)

It's always great if you can get to see, touch, handle, and test two cameras either side-by-side or at different times. When comparing between two cameras, and coming from a third, different model, an actual hand-on test can sometimes make the decision easy. Or not! The D500 is a "step up" from the D7xxx line...it is a MUCH higher-grade type of machine.

In my experience, I look for the camera that I can SEE through the most easily; this can be a big difference if you wear eyeglasses, or have middle-aged eyes, and so on. Eye relief specifications can be checked, but there's nothing quite like going to a photo dealer and actually touching, examining, and test-shooting two cameras. I see the D800 and the D500 as being two entirely different types of cameras, but I get the idea of trying to buy the best $2k camera at this time. Right now, there are several really nice Nikon bodies available.


----------



## Braineack (May 11, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> Not sure where you saw that, but when I had the D800, I always shot in manual with auto-ISO and EC..



CRAP.  it was for VIDEO.  My bad.  ignore me like everyone already should.


----------



## jaomul (May 11, 2016)

Braineack said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure where you saw that, but when I had the D800, I always shot in manual with auto-ISO and EC..
> ...



Don't be so hard on yourself. It happens, and you were trying to steer someone the right way


----------



## CarlosFrazao (May 11, 2016)

thanks guys for all the messages, well wildlife is my passion even though i still suck at it lol, I also assist a wedding photographer every now and then and up to now have not had any problems because when we need the extra light the flash gets out the bag, the only downside i have had is for group shots my 24-70 isn't always wide enough if i can't stand back far enough and when I'm doing newborn shoots my 50mm is to narrow maybe i just need a 35mm to make up for that... i would really love the extra noise performance not only for weddings but also for my wildlife.. 

i have rented a d750 for a day and to me it was not a wow camera and actually preferred my d7200 thats why i was thinking d800..


----------



## dannylightning (May 12, 2016)

you can always pick up a sigma 18-50 2.8 or that sigma 18-35mm 1.8     or something similar..     i really like my sigma lenses.             

i had a 50mm prime and a 35mm prime..   the 50mm it always seemed like i had to stand back too far for allot of things.  and with the 35  there were times i could still not get back far enough to get everything in the shot. so far at 18mm i have not had hat problem..  

the 750 is a much newer camera than the 800 and its a better camera IMO,  if the 750 did not blow you away i do not think the 800 will either..   the 800 is basically a studio/landscape camera,  the 750 is a good at everything.    that is how i look at that..

D7200 vs D500   you will get more FPS,  new auto focus system, better low light.  no built in flash, a better buffer,    and maybe better image quality but i am not sure about that one yet.


----------



## CarlosFrazao (May 12, 2016)

dannylightning said:


> you can always pick up a sigma 18-50 2.8 or that sigma 18-35mm 1.8     or something similar..     i really like my sigma lenses.
> 
> i had a 50mm prime and a 35mm prime..   the 50mm it always seemed like i had to stand back too far for allot of things.  and with the 35  there were times i could still not get back far enough to get everything in the shot. so far at 18mm i have not had hat problem..
> 
> ...



Danny I think you need to test for us


----------



## dannylightning (May 12, 2016)

CarlosFrazao said:


> dannylightning said:
> 
> 
> > you can always pick up a sigma 18-50 2.8 or that sigma 18-35mm 1.8     or something similar..     i really like my sigma lenses.
> ...



test what lol..


----------



## CarlosFrazao (May 12, 2016)

dannylightning said:


> CarlosFrazao said:
> 
> 
> > dannylightning said:
> ...



You need to get a d500 haha


----------



## dannylightning (May 12, 2016)

CarlosFrazao said:


> dannylightning said:
> 
> 
> > CarlosFrazao said:
> ...


That would be nice..I would like one.  But that's a bit out of my price range at the moment and what I have seems to work just fine. 

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## CarlosFrazao (May 12, 2016)

Yeah is pretty expensive at the moment and here in South Africa it will just keep going up and up I should actually show you guys sometime what stuff costs here and using Nikon here is the stupid choice as its way more expensive than canon... I wish our rand to dollar would just fall s little so I can purchase of Amazon again because buying here is crazy expensive, even with our current exchange rate it's still cheaper buying from the states


----------



## dannylightning (May 13, 2016)

CarlosFrazao said:


> Yeah is pretty expensive at the moment and here in South Africa it will just keep going up and up I should actually show you guys sometime what stuff costs here and using Nikon here is the stupid choice as its way more expensive than canon... I wish our rand to dollar would just fall s little so I can purchase of Amazon again because buying here is crazy expensive, even with our current exchange rate it's still cheaper buying from the states



sorry to hear that..  all the good hobbies are expensive,   and if its overprice where you are that makes it even worse..
you have definitely been getting some nice wildlife shots what what you have now sometimes you just got to be happy with what you have if its working for you..  that is how i see it.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 13, 2016)

CarlosFrazao said:


> hi guys, has anyone made the move from the d7200 to the d500... Is it worth it or is it just the extra 4 frames and the buffer that make a difference, how much better is the low light as well. I'm thinking of either getting a d800 as a extra body or getting rid of the d7200 and getting a d500... Thanks guys



I don't know... I look a pics from @DarkShadow using his D7200 with a Sigma 150-600 C and the color, clarity, rendering is excellent. He even mentioned in a thread or two he wanted a D500 but I could not see why he would pull the trigger for one, considering the quality of his pics. The another guy who just picked up a D500 was @MSnowy and he is a little dissapointed with it at this point as compared to his D3s but I think he is still working with it.


----------



## dannylightning (May 13, 2016)

D3 and D500 are completely different animals IMO   i do not know much about the D3 though..  for those of us shooting DX already i think it would be a pretty big improvement at least in the less noise at low light area..

most of what i am seeing from the D500 is excellent..    i have not seen allot of high ISO photos though.   i have saw a small hand full taken at 51,200 ISO  and there noisy but not horribly noisy,  those photos have more noise in them than i would like to see  but that is at 51k iso which is crazy high and i would have expected much worse to be honest..

now i do not know what kind of lens these people are using in all of those excellent photos or how they would have turned out if they were using the D7200,  some some of the photos that are excellent could be a really high end lens.. or maybe not.     i see lots and lots of excellent photos out of the D7200  would it really be worth all that money to get a camera that does better in low light and shoots more FPS,   for me the answer is no..   i can shoot at 10k iso with my D7200,  sometimes the photos have a bit more noise than i would like,  a little noise reduction on those photos usually does brings them down to a acceptable level of noise for me..

what i would like to see is someone using the exact same lens and taking photos of the exact same thing with  the D7200 and the D500  to see if there is a noticeable difference in image quality in good light..   

i would also like to see the same thing done with higher ISO shots with those 2 camera bodys,   i  am sure the d500 would win but it would be cool to see.        looking at the full frame vs d500 comparison with high iso it looks like they do just as well as some full frame cameras to me when it comes to the high iso..

but check this out..   this is one of the high iso photos i have seen..     <a data-flickr-embed="true"  href="Kitten by Ken Wheeler" title="Kitten by Ken Wheeler"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1650/25986877614_1797cc1c13_b.jpg" width="1024" height="683" alt="Kitten by Ken Wheeler"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## DarkShadow (May 13, 2016)

I dunno  I would wait a little bit and see what quirks start showing up with the D500.I really think its a bit early to judge but I herd of some lens compatibility issues with Auto Focus. After all the excitement of the D500 coming and I almost was locked into the sale of one, I backed out and went for the D7200 and haven't regretted it one bit.If I needed a new camera right now,I would buy another D7200.


----------



## dannylightning (May 13, 2016)

DarkShadow said:


> I dunno  I would wait a little bit and see what quirks start showing up with the D500.I really think its a bit early to judge but I herd of some lens compatibility issues with Auto Focus. After all the excitement of the D500 coming and I almost was locked into the sale of one, I backed out and went for the D7200 and haven't regretted it one bit.If I needed a new camera right now,I would buy another D7200.



i hear you man.  the d7200 is high quality as far as i am concerned.   it does seem like there are always some problems when a new body comes out,  waiting a while is definitely a good idea plus i do not know if nikon does this but allot of things come down in price after they have been out for a while..


----------



## cgw (May 13, 2016)

Let Nikon wring out its beta testing on the frothing first-in-line, might-die-in-my-sleep-not-owning- a -D500 punters before you commit.


----------



## Braineack (May 14, 2016)

cgw said:


> Let Nikon wring out its beta testing on the frothing first-in-line, might-die-in-my-sleep-not-owning- a -D500 punters before you commit.


is it sad being you?


----------



## cgw (May 14, 2016)

Braineack said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > Let Nikon wring out its beta testing on the frothing first-in-line, might-die-in-my-sleep-not-owning- a -D500 punters before you commit.
> ...



Not a patch on sorry people like you who live here, mate.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 14, 2016)

CarlosFrazao said:


> thanks guys for all the messages, well wildlife is my passion even though i still suck at it lol, I also assist a wedding photographer every now and then and up to now have not had any problems because when we need the extra light the flash gets out the bag, the only downside i have had is for group shots my 24-70 isn't always wide enough if i can't stand back far enough and when I'm doing newborn shoots my 50mm is to narrow maybe i just need a 35mm to make up for that... i would really love the extra noise performance not only for weddings but also for my wildlife..
> 
> i have rented a d750 for a day and to me it was not a wow camera and actually preferred my d7200 thats why i was thinking d800..


Well have you considered a d600 or d610 instead?  Control layout is pretty much identical to your 7200 which is nice when switching between cameras, cost wise your looking at a huge savings and they do a really great job in low light.  You can pickup the d600s for a ridiculously low investment because of all the bad press they got, I found one that had the shutter replaced by Nikon under the shutter replacement program that only had 500 clicks on the new shutter and only paid like $775 for it.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## CarlosFrazao (May 21, 2016)

Ok you guys got me thinking and I don't really need a d500 as my d7200 should be able to do most of what I want to with it except for the frame rate, I have recently started with people photography to fund my photo gear with. And was thinking maybe I should get a full frame camera.. Between the d610 and d750 I am not sure which will fit me better and do the better job also what will fx actually bring to the table only a little low light performance than my apsc or am I looking at things the wrong way thanks guys


----------



## DarkShadow (May 21, 2016)

Well If I was looking at the D750 I would not  be looking at the D610 and If I was looking at the D610 I would search for a refurbished or a clean used D600 Instead at bargain prices.

I only lived the full frame experience less then a year when I was shooting a Canon 6D and the ISO low noise was incredible vs the Canon Crop sensor body like the Canon 60D, but what  I remember  most was the beautiful large bright viewfinder.If anything, I really think you will appreciate the much larger view especially if your eye site is less then perfect or wear glasses.


----------



## KC1 (May 21, 2016)

The biggest difference in the 7200 and the 500 isn't the frame rate, or the sensor size, it's the processor, version 4 vs. 5, the focus points and the xqd card slot.


----------



## Braineack (May 21, 2016)

KC1 said:


> The biggest difference in the 7200 and the 500 isn't the frame rate, or the sensor size, it's the processor, version 4 vs. 5, the focus points and the xqd card slot.


and the buffer.

and the AF module (beyond just the points--its ability to focus in low-light and across the entire viewfinder).

and the better construction.

and the ISO handling.

and the 4K video.

and the tilting screen.

and the BT/NFC syncing.

and the ability to use the WR-R10 to radio control a SB-5000 flash.


----------



## DarkShadow (May 21, 2016)

Yes..Um


----------



## robbins.photo (May 21, 2016)

DarkShadow said:


> Yes..Um


Doesn't really answer the only important question though.  Does it come in bronze?

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## KC1 (May 21, 2016)

No but it can Djent


----------



## KC1 (May 21, 2016)

Braineack said:


> KC1 said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest difference in the 7200 and the 500 isn't the frame rate, or the sensor size, it's the processor, version 4 vs. 5, the focus points and the xqd card slot.
> ...


You are preaching to the choir. I was listing the things that made the biggest difference to me, not listing every difference. lol Besides, you missed a few as well if you want to go down that road. Touchscreen, camera dimensions, UHS bus etc. etc.
Those to me are not the biggest differences though, so I omitted them. The XQD, focus points(and sensitivity) and processor are the big things that stand out to me. Other things might matter more to you based on how you use a camera but I can't and don't want to try to list what matters to other people, just my own experience with it.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 21, 2016)

KC1 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > KC1 said:
> ...


Which has always bugged me really.  I mean think about it, if the choir really hates being preached to that much why do they keep showing up?




Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## KC1 (May 21, 2016)

I don't think it means they hate being preached to, I think it means they have heard all the sermons before.


----------



## CarlosFrazao (May 22, 2016)

Lol I have never used more than a single focus point so 153 doesn't bother me one bit


----------



## DarkShadow (May 22, 2016)

Out of 51 focus points I use the 1 center point almost always and In AF-C while using Back button focus.The only time I will switch Is  If I am having trouble with a tiny bird In flight then it gets 21 but rarely.I don't need the camera to select the point for me,I only need the camera to nail focus.


----------



## KC1 (May 23, 2016)

DarkShadow said:


> Out of 51 focus points I use the 1 center point almost always and In AF-C while using Back button focus.The only time I will switch Is  If I am having trouble with a tiny bird In flight then it gets 21 but rarely.I don't need the camera to select the point for me,I only need the camera to nail focus.


It definitely does that better than previous cameras.


----------



## Bebulamar (May 30, 2016)

CarlosFrazao said:


> hi guys, has anyone made the move from the d7200 to the d500... Is it worth it or is it just the extra 4 frames and the buffer that make a difference, how much better is the low light as well. I'm thinking of either getting a d800 as a extra body or getting rid of the d7200 and getting a d500... Thanks guys


I think the D500 looks better than the D7200 and thus it's a better camera.


----------



## J_ind (May 30, 2016)

For me D500 appears to be great  as i am using D3200 till now. I am not a skilled photographer but i take  photos often and i know how frustrating it will be when  camera struggles to autofocus properly  during low light.I felt the need for more light once when  my camera suddenly stopped  autofocussing  when a large cloud obstructed the sunlight for a few seconds.Also during rainy days the sky remains dark most of the time and  i  think D500 will be a better choice during such conditions.

But there is one feature i hate in D500.Its the touch screen. Because of this reason i am still hesitating to buy it.I had bitter experiences with products with touch screen.I faced  problems while using touch screen in some products and they became useless (Microwave oven, cellphone etc)But D500 is very costly and i dont want to take a risk.

I am living in a town with a coal mine close to it and its hard to prevent dust. How to manage the touch screen? 

1.Is there any option to avoid using the touch screen? Do this camera have any buttons to use instead of using touchscreen?

2. Will this camera work properly  even when the touch screen fails to work?

Please help.


----------

