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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.