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

[NancyMoranG]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.