# The D500 isn't FF? From all the chatter, I assumed...



## NancyMoranG (Oct 13, 2016)

so many of you are really great photographers on TPF. So when I saw all the chatter about the 500, I just assumed you all make the jump to a FF ?
Obviously I am wrong. So you seem to be in the 750 compared to the 500 mode right now. The 500 has better fps, so the sports guys buy it for that and the folks who enlarge go for FF?
How does the FF benefit between these 2? Just a newb looking to understand..
Thanks.


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 13, 2016)

NancyMoranG said:


> so many of you are really great photographers on TPF.



And me.  I'm on here as well.



> So when I saw all the chatter about the 500, I just assumed you all make the jump to a FF ?
> Obviously I am wrong. So you seem to be in the 750 compared to the 500 mode right now. The 500 has better fps, so the sports guys buy it for that and the folks who enlarge go for FF?
> How does the FF benefit between these 2? Just a newb looking to understand..
> Thanks.



The D500 does use an APS-C sensor.  It should be noted though that it is better at shooting at higher ISO's than other APS-C cameras.  The advantages to the D500 would be it's remarkable AF system and of course it's high frame rate, making it an excellent choice for wildlife/sports/action photography.

A full frame camera such as a D810/D800, D750, D610/D600 will still give you better results in low light situations but the differences between it and a D500 are much less than the differences between say full frame and a more traditional APS-C camera such as a D7200 or D7100.

The full frame will give you better background separation and still has an advantage to shooting in low light.  However most of these cameras will shoot somewhere in the 5 FPS arena and some do not feature anywhere near the buffer of the D500 so shooting longer bursts is not as easy as it is on the 500.

So like most things it's a matter of looking at your budget and deciding what bests suits your needs within those budgetary constraints.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 13, 2016)

The d500 is a DX camera above the d7200.
The d750 is a FF (the d610 being the entry level FF).

I'm looking at adding a d500 to my d750.
I currently have a d750 and a d600.  I used to have a d7000 DX.
For most of what I do the FF cameras handle things really well as they are more flexible.

But with the improved ISO performance of the D500 I'm contemplating one to use with my 150-600 and my telescope for more terrestial items (aircraft, space station).  I'm kinda in need of something with 1/8000 shutter for testing but with better ISO than my d7000.  The d750 only has 1/4000 shutter but can use lower ISO to compensate unless you need that higher shutter (which I may).  I've thought about a used d3x but the weight/size them may become an issue. (i've contemplated mirrorless too).

But the crop may benefit when I shot sports on a full size (100 yd/100 meter) field.  That plus a FF for the 24-70 lens closeup action.

and even though the FPS is scary fast (think of downloading the images to process through) I'm still liking the higher FPS though I think I probably would use a lower FPS on it ... at least initially.

I've thought about the d7200/7100 route, but there a few features that I really like of the d750 over the d600 which is the same reasoning for the d500 over the d7200.

If you don't need the superior fps, and motion tracking of the d500 then a 7200 or even 7100 might be good enough for DX.


----------



## NancyMoranG (Oct 13, 2016)

I have the D7000 and admit I still have a lot to learn on it. I am thinking since I want to do more low light shots and nature that I may add another camera. 
I have the Nikon 35 1.8, 55-300 4.5 (?), Tokina 11-16 2.8 and as of Christmas last year....the Nikon 200-500! I am convinced by all of you that I 'need' the 70-200 2.8, and am looking at that someday.
How do I know which lenses will be good on a FF if I go that route?


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 13, 2016)

NancyMoranG said:


> I have the D7000 and admit I still have a lot to learn on it. I am thinking since I want to do more low light shots and nature that I may add another camera.
> I have the Nikon 35 1.8, 55-300 4.5 (?), Tokina 11-16 2.8 and as of Christmas last year....the Nikon 200-500! I am convinced by all of you that I 'need' the 70-200 2.8, and am looking at that someday.
> How do I know which lenses will be good on a FF if I go that route?



Most all of the 70-200mm 2.8 lenses will work fine on a full frame camera.  Your DX lenses (which I'm guessing your 35mm 1.8 is, they make both a DX and FX version) will still work on a full frame camera, however when used on a full frame camera the camera will switch to "DX" mode, meaning you'll have a more limited Field of View and you aren't really getting the full benefit of the full frame sensor that way.

Your 200-500 is an FX lens (and a thumping good one from what I hear), Your 55-300 I think is DX, as is the Tokina.  So you could still use these lenses on FX but odds are good you'd probably want to think about replacing them at some point if you plan on going FX.  I picked up a 28-75 Tamron 2.8, pretty much covers all of my needs quite nicely below 70 mm, and I have the 70-200 for most everything else.

The D600 is an excellent buy for an FX camera, as far as performance vrs price is concerned it's very hard to beat.  I'd look for one that already has had the shutter replaced, if not though you can always send it into Nikon for the shutter replacement yourself after purchases.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 13, 2016)

Depends upon your budget for FF lenses.
If IQ is top priority, or if price is top priority or weight/size.

the 200-500, 70-200 are all FF lenses.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 13, 2016)

The D600 is a great camera as recommended above. 
FYI, I have one that I may be selling with the OEM grip, new shutter and all ...


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 13, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> The D600 is an excellent buy for an FX camera, as far as performance vrs price is concerned it's very hard to beat. I'd look for one that already has had the shutter replaced, if not though you can always send it into Nikon for the shutter replacement yourself after purchases.





astroNikon said:


> The D600 is a great camera as recommended above.
> FYI, I have one that I may be selling with the OEM grip, new shutter and all ...



Just read the other day a thread on another site where the D600 and D610 were considered "dogs" in low light compared to the D750.  So much conflicting info out there...  I'm happy with my DX, for now but I'm sure at some point I'll want the FX if only for the better separation and background blur.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 13, 2016)

SquarePeg said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > The D600 is an excellent buy for an FX camera, as far as performance vrs price is concerned it's very hard to beat. I'd look for one that already has had the shutter replaced, if not though you can always send it into Nikon for the shutter replacement yourself after purchases.
> ...


having both of them the d600/d610 is not a dog compared to the d750.
Yes the d750 is a little better in low light.
But if you want a word comparison then DX cameras are far worse slim dogs compared to FX cameras in low light, including the d600/610.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 13, 2016)

check the 4th line item down  Sports (low light)
though the d500 can go to higher ISO values.  There's a line chart somewhere on that site that compares the ISO values

d600 vs d750 vs d7200
==> Nikon D7200 vs Nikon D750 vs Nikon D600 | DxOMark

d500 vs d7200 vs d600
==> Nikon D500 vs Nikon D7200 vs Nikon D600 | DxOMark


----------



## coastalconn (Oct 13, 2016)

For someone like me the D500 is just about perfect. If you are almost always focal length limited like my birds, there really is no advantage to FX.  For people photography where you can get closer and fill the frame, then yes you will get better IQ.  If you shoot a FX in DX mode the advantages dissipate rather quickly.


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 13, 2016)

SquarePeg said:


> Just read the other day a thread on another site where the D600 and D610 were considered "dogs" in low light compared to the D750.  So much conflicting info out there...  I'm happy with my DX, for now but I'm sure at some point I'll want the FX if only for the better separation and background blur.



Actually there is very little difference between the D750 and the D600 for low light performance.  The advantages of the D750 would be a slightly higher frame rate, flippy screen and better autofocus system.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 13, 2016)

NancyMoranG said:


> so many of you are really great photographers on TPF. So when I saw all the chatter about the 500, I just assumed you all make the jump to a FF ?
> Obviously I am wrong. So you seem to be in the 750 compared to the 500 mode right now. The 500 has better fps, so the sports guys buy it for that and the folks who enlarge go for FF?
> How does the FF benefit between these 2? Just a newb looking to understand..
> Thanks.


If you want to make large prints an 810 is a good camera. Even an 800 has a lot of pixels so you can retain sharpness at large sizes.


----------



## fmw (Oct 13, 2016)

The advantage of full frame is that the pixels are larger at any given pixel density.  That makes them more light sensitive and able produce sharp images that are a bit larger in final form than the smaller format can.  The 500 apparently has a sensor with better light sensitivity so it behaves more like a full frame camera in terms of sensor sensitivity.  There are certainly advantages to the larger sensor but they aren't huge advantages.  I'm a photographer who has not adopted full frame and doesn't see any reason to do it.  My DX cameras do everything I need.  It usually gets down to whether the equipment is your major concern or the photography.


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 13, 2016)

fmw said:


> My DX cameras do everything I need.  It usually gets down to whether the equipment is your major concern or the photography.



Or for some of us it came down to do you shoot a lot in lowlight situations where you can't use a flash and needed a camera that could do that well without spending 2 grand on a body.


----------



## NancyMoranG (Oct 13, 2016)

I guess adding to my curiosity is that they are almost the same price!? I always thought FF meant much more $$$?!


----------



## fmw (Oct 13, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > My DX cameras do everything I need.  It usually gets down to whether the equipment is your major concern or the photography.
> ...



or that I'm not afraid to use a tripod.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 13, 2016)

NancyMoranG said:


> I guess adding to my curiosity is that they are almost the same price!? I always thought FF meant much more $$$?!


The D500 is the PRO Dx
The D610 is the entry FF prosumert
The d750 is the advanced prosumer FF camera.  The d810, d4, d5 are PRO FF cameras.  The d3300 is entry level consumer, d5500 advanced consumer. D7200 prosumer DX

If you review the button layout you'll see the difference between the Consumer vs Prosumer vs PRO layout

 You are getting a move re solid metal body with the d500 than the prosumer which have partial metal bodies, and more weathersealing etc. I think consumer bodies are all plastic. The electronics are better and faster as you move up too

The d500 has a 20mp sensor which has larger Pixels than the 24mp d7200 etc D.C. Cameras so it's more light sensitive but not as much as a fullframe which is even a larger sensor with larger photocell pixels.


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 13, 2016)

fmw said:


> or that I'm not afraid to use a tripod.



Well as usual your making assumptions based entirely on your style of photography, which is not the same as everyone elses.  For some of us, myself included, a tripod is quite impractical.

I don't shoot stationary objects or subjects that will respond to a request to keep still, for one - so lowering my shutter speed to allow an APS-C sensor to gather more light would result in motion blur and an unusable end result.

I also walk a great deal to get the shots that I need, so carrying a tripod is also rather impractical, especially when I have a much better solution available, and that was buying a full frame camera.  It allows me to shoot handheld at the shutter speeds I need even in low light conditions.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 13, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > or that I'm not afraid to use a tripod.
> ...


Same here
D7000 didn't give me the performance at high ISO and higher shutter speed at open apertures.   FF fixed that with the same lenses.


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 13, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...


I enjoyed my D7100, for shooting outdoors in good light it did a bang up job.  Shooting indoors though it just really couldn't do the job nearly as well.

So no regrets going full frame, despite the occasional snark I might encounter.  

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## DarkShadow (Oct 13, 2016)

I thought about adding the D610 but don't think I would gain anything on the IQ side, My D7200 has fantastic IQ and incredible ISO performance.I have some shots in the 11,000 range and what noise was there cleaned up nice. I might want the D500  down the road but pretty happy with what i have for know.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 13, 2016)

I took a long and slow route to the D500.  I'd owned a D200 since 2007, used it since, and was pretty satisfied with the results, although I really didn't "push" the camera.

Fast forward to 2016.  I upped my interest in taking photos, and after comparing the various Nikons, I settled on the D500, mostly since it was the latest of the DX models.  It's been a great performer since I bought it, and I've added several DX lenses for use on it.  I had almost exclusively FX lenses for my D200, so buying new DX lenses was the order of the day.

Looking at the FX lenses, I realized that I wasn't fully utilizing them, since they were "hangovers" from my 35mm days with the F5 and N90s.  I knew that selling them, I would take a bath on value, so I looked to get an FX camera.  I chose the D750, and now I can have both worlds.

I know that everyone doesn't have the option of plunking down over $4K inside 30 days, but the stars aligned for me.  Both have a lot of features, and they're far from being completely alike.  In fact, they're both "horses for courses".  I tend to use the D500 a bit more as a "walking around" camera, and the D750 is more often used for my nature likes.  I've been happy using both with my 200-500mm f5.6.

I've barely scratched the surface of taking full advantage of both cameras, but I have the time and the patience to learn each of them.


----------



## MSnowy (Oct 14, 2016)

I use D500 as my DX and the D3s as my FF. Both really good in low ligh,t fast focusing and high FPS. You really need to base your camera on what you shoot most. My next FF will be the D5 because that is the best FF for what I shoot.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 14, 2016)

NancyMoranG said:


> I guess adding to my curiosity is that they are almost the same price!? I always thought FF meant much more $$$?!


take one minute and just look at the specs...


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 14, 2016)

DarkShadow said:


> I thought about adding the D610 but don't think I would gain anything on the IQ side, My D7200 has fantastic IQ and incredible ISO performance.I have some shots in the 11,000 range and what noise was there cleaned up nice. I might want the D500  down the road but pretty happy with what i have for know.



Honestly there are some subtle differences between the D600 and D7100 as far as IQ, but I'd hardly call them earth shattering.  In certain shots particularly with a busy background the D600's images look a little less "jagged" in the out of focus areas than the D7100's did.  You really have to be looking for it, probably not something a casual observer would notice.  But other than that IQ wise they are so close it's not even funny.

Really for me the big advantage to FF was the ability to shoot in bad lighting at much, much lower ISO's - that's really where the IQ gain is as far as I'm concerned, I don't have to apply nearly as much noise reduction and in some cases none at all.

But outdoors in good lighting?  You'd be really hard pressed to tell the difference between the two in a lot of situations.


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 14, 2016)

MSnowy said:


> I use D500 as my DX and the D3s as my FF. Both really good in low ligh,t fast focusing and high FPS. You really need to base your camera on what you shoot most. My next FF will be the D5 because that is the best FF for what I shoot.



But as usual you avoid the really pertinent question.  Are you looking to adopt?

I'm big, but I don't eat that much....

Lol


----------

