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

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.

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

Most reactions

Back
Top