« The Weekly Flickr Video Series | Main | Big Words and Sports Fans »

Monday, 25 July 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Plenty of D500s should be around at the Olympics next month.
Its one of those cameras, like the Canon 7D that should just get the job done while flying under the radar.
I can imagine that most professional Nikon sports/action shooters will have one of these in the bag even if they don't write blog posts about it.
The market is moving to the point were DSLRs in general are becoming specialized sports cameras. Prosumer/enthusiasts photographers who love to write articles and reviews are fully caught up in mirrorless cameras right now.

I'm no Nikonian, but clearly it's a specialty tool, not an all-purpose, specs dominating, object of worship. In other words, its not the same sort of thing as the D800 was when it was first released. I think the folks who need it know it, and I think it will make them happy, which is more than I can say about most cameras.

I think the D500 is well liked among sports shooters, photojournalists, event shooters. The most common phrase I see used to describe it is a "mini D5". I'd thoroughly enjoy using a camera like this for the handful of things I use my 70-200/2.8 for. (Right now, I have a D7000). But I'm doing less and less of that and my future is mirrorless. (I also have an A6000 and that's the camera I prefer to pick up and carry right now). I'm not committed to Sony. At some point, I expect to ditch the DSLR and possibly the Sony and settle on one system. Could even be Nikon, but has to be mirrorless. Or an RX10. That's probably the camera for me; I just take myself a smidgeon too seriously to accept it.

if you head over to Thom Hogan, he'll explain very clearly why Nikon has lost it's way...


Clueless. As is Canon when it comes to mirrorless.

I can tell you in four simple words why Fuji is so successful in mirrorless.

"Voice of the Customer"

Nikon has only 3 prime lenses for the DX cameras. One is a wide angle (10.5MM fisheye.) That's it for wide angle lenses for the DX.

I bought my first DX camera in August 2007 and I have been waiting since then for a good range of wide angle lenses. Hasn't happened. Probably never will.

I'm now a Fuji user. I have said this before at this blog but it bears restating: No primes means Good Bye.

PS: I still have the Nikon D5100 for action photography but not for much longer. Fuji cameras are getting better by leaps and bounds.

Yep, got it to replace my D7100. I was soooo close to getting a D7200 (probably only a few days away) when the D500 came out, but as a serious, albeit amateur, sports photographer, this has it all over the D7200. Focus speed and relaibility, and fps, and better sealed (I believe), and AF-on button do it for me. Happy so far! Things that annoy me: shooting banks instead of U1 and U2 modes, no pop-up flash (for firing other flashes)

Come on, Mike
Where are you trying to take us? Would you like to buy "overall" camera? What would that be?

Nikon's marketing fails to emphasize their strengths but having shot with a lot of cameras, the pro Nikons (and better Canons) offer auto-focus tracking performance that is unrivaled by anything else. Which doesn't matter to most photographers who tend to photo static tourist subjects, sleeping cats on window sills, etc. Once you set the camera up for reliable tracking it is a phenomenal revelation as you can actually hold focus of your dog running towards you, or your child riding their bike, or anything alive and active. It's not just for sports photographers or high end pros either, it's just something most people have never experienced because they're intimidated by the controls and the poorly written instruction books.

Having a true optical viewfinder that keeps up with the action without flicker or ghosting goes with that. And having a full sized design that allows XL American meathooks to comfortably hold the camera without pressing tiny buttons unintentionally is also very welcome.

The D500 is particularly attractive because the AF sensor points finally cover almost all of the frame. The thing should be a beast for action-sports-wildlife photography.

Nikon continues to be its own worst enemy, they have a fantastic camera here yet they can't even articulate why.

The wildlife and sports photographers are grabbing the D500 up pretty quickly. They are using them with the Nikon 200-500, 200-400 4.0, 300 mm 2.8, 500 4.0 and similar.

It is a nice camera, but it is also about the same price as a used Nikon D810 in excellent condition. Although they serve different niches, a lot of pros also use the D810 in crop mode for wildlife. I forget the exact number of pixels at the various crop levels, but it is close enough to the 24 MP of the D7200 and similar to make it a dual purpose toil.

I bought a used D500 at a good price. The personwhobsold it decided to keep his D810 instead.

I was hoping that I could use it for wildlife & event stills, and also for 4K video in place of my Panasonic GX85 and Sony A6300. That was the only way I could cost justify a $2k APS-C body.

Unfortunately, the autofocus in video mode is completely unusable, especially in lower lightit. It couldn't replace the Sony or Panasonic, especially for wildlife video. And my Canon 7DII is the best for reliable AF in video mode, although it is only 1080.

There were enough other irritating quirks that I resold it for what I paid a day after I picked it up.


I would have kept my D810 over the D500 too. instead I also sold my Nikon D810. I am downsizing mybNikkn kit, while keeping a Nikon D7200 and D5500. I had planned on selling off my Nikon to keep my Canon DSLRs instead, but I couldn't bring myself to totally drop Nikon.

Especially for higher quality images at base ISO. So I bought a Nikon USA D7200 refurbished with a couple of lenses. My net cost after selling the consumer lenses was $675 for the D7200 body.

The D5500 is much smaller and lighter, for more casual use. I paid $500 for that with the kit lens. I would have tried to get by with just the D5500, but it lacks some critical features, like Micro Adjust. That can be almost mandatory with something like the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary at 600 mm. Your depth if field is pretty small! I may sell it and just keep the D7200 if I don't use it.


I also have a Canon system. It is a bit stupid to have both, but I haven't been able to get myself to sell off my Nikon kit.

The Canon would be my primary system if I sold one of the 2 DSLR systems, mostly because I can do easily adapt the Canon lenses to both Sony and Panasonic, for stills and video.

The Canon electronic lenses adapt with Excellent+ autofocus, IS support, and in body aperture control. I am dumping 85% of the proprietary Sony and Panasonic lenses to save from having 3-4 separate lens kits, and keepingonly a few basic Sony and Panasonic lenses. A Sony 18-55 kit zoom (much betterthan the horrid 16-50 PZ) a Sony 501.8, and similar.


I also prefer the Canon ergonomics to Nikon by a large margin. The Canon 7DII is absolutely the best camera I have ever used from an ergonomics standpoint.

The dedicated AF control lever and dedicated AF control toggle give you very powerful control over the AF modes and AF points. You can also program most AF selections into 2 different rear buttons for back button autofocus.

So, for example, I can be using single shot auto focus with a single center point for a stationary object. Then if I press the back button AF button, I can be in wide zone coversge, with continous AF (servo AF) for birds in flight. The button next to it might also have continous AF, but it might use the Center Point + 4 expansion points, or 8 expansion points. It is a system that is far, far ahead of anything on my A6300 or D7200.

I love the 65 all-cross AF points, wide frame coversge of the AF points, and the incrediblysiphisticstdx AF system derived from the Canon 1DX.

Canon also lets you remap more functions than Nikon, and they have the "Quick Menu" that allows you to control all of the major camera functions using only the rear control dial and the center OK key. Nikon still has many functions that can only be performed using dedicated buttons scattered aroundthe body. The D750 in particular, in the non-pro body, has horrible ergonomics. I lived the sensor, but hated the camera after 5 months of use and sold it.

The Canon 7DII also lets you turn on or off a display in the viewfinder for every major corresponding function. Then, I have the OK button on the rear control dial set to call up the Menu (for Format, orbwgstever), and the dial itself set to control ISO. And the dial can be locked, which gives me fast control only when I need it.

The Canon 7DII images at higher ISO are identical to the images from my Nikon D5300 and Sony A6000, which I shot side-by-side for 1,000's of frames. It does lag a bit at base ISO, which is the only real justification for me to keep the Nikon(s).

I paid $1,050 for a Canon USA 7DII with printer last January, after rebate. My net was $950 after selling the printer.


I have been shooting Canon, Nikon, and Sony side by side for 8-9 years now. I added Panasonic a year ago, because all of the Sony camerasovefhesf in internal 4K recording (except the A7RII- usually.)

The wildlife and low light events that I shoot are pretty demanding. They are the opposite of the manual focus, tripod, stopped down landscape shooters for whom a SonybA7 or A7R were perfect. For stills, the Sony A6300 and similar are still niche cameras, for casual use, portraits, etc. I couldn't give up my DSLRs, especially with the huge selectionof high quality, affordable lenses or specialized lenses. I would love to get down to 2 systemsthiugh, or even one if any manufacturer could offer it all.

Cheers! Take care Mike.

I had a D200 and was reasonably happy, and was I think skipping a generation in the D300. And then the D700 came out, and lured me into full-frame by giving me everything I valued in the D3, plus more, for a lot less money. Never thought I would go full-frame, but I valued high ISO enough, and they brought the price down enough, that I fell for it.

But then I was in full-frame land, so the hypothetical D300 successor lost importance for me. I was scared about upgrade paths, though.

Meanwhile, nothing really better than the D700 came along for a very long time, so I got out of the habit.

I'm also doing more bright-light outdoor work, where the Nikon gear isn't what I use.

So, I dunno. No love for anything involving spending thousands of dollars on my hobby just now, is what.

Might be tempted in a year or two. Specific items of interest to me, are the autofocus system, improved viewfinder, sensor, and the touch screen, and how it works with the autofocus.

With regards DxOMark sensor ratings, I pay little heed to the ranking and numbers awarded, but I am interested in the graphs. One that struck me with the D500's measurements, that really stood out, to the extent that I wondered if it was a mistake, was the Tonal Range graph. That shows a huge jump from any of their previous APS-C sensors. It's also a good bit above the levels of the likes of Nikon D750 and D810 full frame sensors.

Having had a D700 for many years now (many, many years in technological time) I have since had several cameras with a flip up screen, which I use profusely and admit to reenacting my Rollei/Hasselblad days with.
It's only that I miss, on my dear D700 ...

I've got one. I used the D300 until now and waited and waited for the D400, which never came. The D500 is the DX camera I wanted, better higher ISO performance, indeed better view finder, higher frame rate without the grip, better AF. I shoot wildlife, red deer, that's mostly near dawn or dusk. So the far better ISO/noise results did it for me. With a FX camera, I would 'lose' reach. For me other things I shoot it would not matter much if I had a dx or fx camera.
The 'release mode dail' feels cheap, plasticy, it 'wobbles' (a tiny bit) when turned. The touchscreen does have limited function, there's so much more it could have been used for. The switching back to UHS-1 mode for SD cards and in fact the whole SD card troubles are a joke (this is 2016 after all!).
The missing iOS app is a joke. The whole snapbridge/wifi thing is a joke for a serious camera like this. The app is just a remote trigger, no controle over aperture or shutterspeed. Move your photo's to your smart device... at 10 frames/sec? Really?

I've showed the D300 and D500 with the same 1.4 50mm lens on it to someone who never looks through a camera, they said night and day difference between the 2 in the view finder. Yes D300 is an old beast, there's better and FX would even be brighter. But still...
With the D300 ISO range was limited to 400 or 600 for shooting the deer. Higher it would smear the fur into patches of the same colour due to noise. Noise removal would gain a bit, but not much. Now I can use my 500 f4 P a stop closed down to get a bit more sharpness, I can use faster shutter speeds to eliminate subject/camera motion and shoot more into dusk with ISO up to 1600-3200.
Yep, this not perfect camera is the one for me. Do I need one? Hmm, the D7200 is almost the same for a far better price. But the lightning AF, 10fps and ISO 1640000 with touchscreen gets you all the girls in the bar. Pretty sure it does.

As a longtime shooter of manual focus lenses on Nikon DLSRs, I am probably a member of a niche Nikon doesn't care about.

Three weeks ago, with much trepidation, I bought a Sony A7ii and an F-mount adapter.

I have not had this much fun with a camera since my D40, and possibly not even then.

Nikon would have to perform some pretty nifty tricks to get me back into the fold.

Mike, when the D500 camera was first introduced, my local camera store called and wanted me to come in and look at the D500. I spent a little time in the store with the camera along with the 16-80 lens. I have to admit the size of the camera was similar to my current D750. However, with the smaller lens, the whole package was smaller than my D750 and 24-120 lens. It was attractive for travel. In the end, I decided I just wasn't ready to give up my full frame sensor yet.
When I travel I take my Fuji gear, which I love, but when I have to do a shoot that is important and I want to make sure I have some quality images I reach for the D 750 and either the 24-120 or the 24-70. The latter is the best lens,camera combination I have ever shot. It just flat out works. As a life long Nikon shooter that is just my opinion. All the best and I hope this week is better for you than last week.

Mike, I would like you to elaborate on how you think both Nikon and BMW "kind of lost their way". Not sure what you mean with that comment, and besides, I can't see any clear similarity between both. For instance, is Nikon the BMW or rather the Mercedes Benz of camera makers?

[When I was young BMW made light, agile cars that were well balanced and set up to be great fun driving spiritedly on public roads. Now it makes the equivalent of overbuilt Pontiacs: heavy, overpowered muscle cars that really can't show their stuff except on a track. Bah humbug and other oldster grumpiness to that! As for Nikon, see Stephen Scharf's comment and link. --Mike]

The D500 is a fantastic little D5, the D750 is the just about the perfect all-around enthusiast's camera. The M3 to the D5's M5, to carry the comparison.

The D7200 is another perfect all-arounder, but glad Nikon is still making dedicated performance machines - and it seems likes price sensitivity has gotten...weird with cameras. Either you have bargain DLSRs, really pricey point and shoot style models, and multi-thousand dollar high end cameras, with a small smattering of choice in between.

Mmm, I quite like the look (and specs) of this Nikon says this Canon fanboy...unfortunately in my neck of the woods its about twice the price of a 7dmk2! Regarding BMW, I have a 2003 325 ti sport manual and it still drives beautifully and I have had absolutely no maintenance problems the last 100 000km's very much like my Canon FF dslr's they are just so easy to use, reliable and with more than adequate image quality - and the same can probably be said for Nikon. There is just something about a true and trusted formula...heck I still regularly use my vintage 2006 Mamiya ZD camera that still outperforms the DR of my 'modern' 6D today albeit only at 50 & 100 iso. But unlike BMW I think Nikon and Canon have stuck to their tried and trusted formula's - I for one would still like to be able to buy a 'proper' dslr in the future - unlike the new BMW's which I will unfortunately avoid...

Mike, you obviously haven't driven my wife's BMW 335i twin turbo retractable convertible. It's far from being an overbuilt Pontaic. And this is coming from a guy that's owned 10 pre-73 Porsche's, a 2002Tii, and a '88 535is which was probably the best sports sedan ever built, and I regret that I sold it to my mechanic 3 yrs ago:)

Just looking at the picture of that D500 "beast" has me remembering vividly - and fondly I might add - of my last 2 Nikons: the D300 and D5000. Then I moved to "Fujiland" and watched my "X-files" eclipse anything I had done with them.

I pay less attention to DxO info than I do regarding what the "whole" camera has to offer me. In that regards, my Nikon experience was wholesome. They gave me the capability to take pictures with whatever lenses I had at the time that met my expectations.

But, because flying birds and running tigers are not part of my one shot at a time photography, but weight and size of my gear is all important too, I consider "Fujiland" the paradise I've been hoping for. I'm staying put!

I shoot a lot of portraits and wildlife, and have used a D300 in the distant past. D500 was the camera I'd have bought 3-5 years ago, but I don't see the point of spending that much on a camera anymore. Instead, I recently picked up two refurbished D7200s in mint condition (possibly unused) for about $400 less (combined) than the price of a single new D500 body. I may have to work a little harder for the focus, but the 7200 is what I needed. And with two bodies, I can keep a long tele on one, and a short zoom on the other when shooting wildlife in the field (in conditions not conducive to changing lenses).

I also have a micro 4/3 camera I picked up on a clearance sale, but while the weight makes it easy to carry around, I can't stand its UI and too-small size, so it just gathers dust. I'll stick with Nikon for the foreseeable future.

The D500 is only slightly heavier than the D750; and not by enough you'll notice; 760g vs. 750g.

I've been considering one but will probably stay with my D7200 for now.

It partly depends on where you live. When I lived in Juneau, Alaska there were a lot of D300 shooters who were waiting for something like the D500. The Canon 7D was very popular. These cameras hit a performance/reach sweet spot for anyone who likes to shoot wildlife, and a high percentage of photographers who live out West in the boonies shoot wildlife. So to me it looks like Nikon has delivered a camera that will last for many years, and by the time it wears out people will be ready for that much lighter mirrorless large-sensor super camera that is finally available in F mount.

Action...Smaction...although the new D500 is tailor made for action/sports/bird/wildlife photographers, it is just as nimble, responsive and quick focusing for those of us working the streets and travel minded shooters. The new circular viewfinder/eyepiece is much easier for eyeglass/sunglass users. Plus the tilt screen turns the D500 into a semi-Vivian Maier twin lens reflex rig. With a wide to moderate small zoom attached to sling strap it feels just right on my hip and lets me walk the streets, quickly find and compose what I'm looking for. When it comes to downloading Raw files the newer XQD cards are MUCH faster than even the highest rated SD cards. My D300 is a 10 year old friendly tank...the D500 reminds me of a Ferrari and will still be going strong over the next 10 years.

I thought the D500 was aimed at the run'n'gun sports crowd, and the people I know who shoot a lot of that stuff are snapping them up. The AF is great - don't bother trying to "peak focus" on an Audi R18 in Live View. I'm not that attracted by the flipper viewing screen, my D750 has one that I rarely use, and I'm still pretty sure it will be the first component to fail.

And of course the D500 is as beefy as a D750 - it's built to last. I know a lot of pros who still use their D300s every day, because it just keeps going (and still has sufficient resolution for portraits for the Web, etc.)

Yep, D7200 is the sleeper. I should trade in D600 and get the 7200.

I was waiting for this, but not at this price, and still no Nikon program for APS-C primes. I have to say, just walked around my town shooting 'native sqaure' images on my M4/3rds camera, like using a Mamiya 6, and I think about how much time it would have taken to crop each of those images. Sorry, no more cameras that don't have multiple aspect ratios. Since even mirrorless like the Sony's don't shoot square, seems like I'm with M4/3rds now. The more I use it, I can honestly say it's quality just isn't there against the FF and even in some cases, the APS-C crowd, but for an old studio product shooter, there's no way I can give up shooting 4:3 and 1:1!

While waiting for the D400.. er D500 to replace my D300, Micro 4/3s came along and the Panny GX7 became my new go to camera. M4/3s fits more to the type of photography I prefer these days.

I used the D500 for a week when it came out, side by side with the D810, for a photojournalistic essay on a local ballet company in studio rehearsals. Both cameras were shooting at ISO 1600. The D500 had good AF and that amazing full-width AF array with good cross sensors almost all the way out to the edges, which made composing off-center subjects with wide-ish angle lenses really easy. It was really responsive, and the D810 felt like a slug every time I'd switch back to it. The shooting buffer seemed unlimited compared to the D810's.

Image quality was good, though not as tonally rich as the D810 even at those high ISOs, but good enough. The automatic AF fine tune was like magic, and that tilt-screen is great. However, it felt like a version 1.0 or even 0.99 product: all of the major functions worked, and worked well, but there were still rough edges, mostly to do with the user interface, along with those few last bugs that are intermittent or hard to reproduce.

It is a very fine camera, and the only thing that kept me from getting it is the lack of a fast wideangle prime lens. If Nikon had a 16mm f/1.4 lens like Fuji's, I'd have the camera and that lens already.

Speaking of Nikon, how about those lens rumors? New 70-200/2.8, a 105/1.4 (!), and a 19/4 tilt-shift (!!). It may be a very expensive end-of-year for Nikonians!

Hi how is the AF performance compared to the 7200 in real world terms?

I suppose if I were starting from scratch again, I'd be tempted to go for the D500. I'd certainly recommend it to anyone who's already in the system. But I went with Pentax when building my DSLR kit about 10 years ago and I'm not about to switch now. In fact, my next move may be dropping DSLRs completely (not very soon, however). It doesn't help that I also have some Fuji and micro 4/3 gear. It's enough. New cameras don't tempt me like they used to.

I've had a D500 for about two weeks now, still exploring it and just purchased byThom D500 guide.

I've had a lot of Nikon's and this one is amazing too. I have a couple of D810's, had a couple of D800's, a D7100 and long ago a D300.

For it's target, the D500 is not a poor man's D5, it's a light urber fast APC sensor based monster. The image quality of all the cameras you compared it to are second to none, so is the D500. The small difference in DXO ratings are not significant in real world use, your settings and control will make a much bigger difference in real world use.

And the fast shutter speed is not just for sports or landscapes, but "spray and pray" gigapans. I've done a couple of test with this and it works - shoot a gigapan once you get the flow right in 20 seconds.

Nikon got it right by going to XDQ. It is amazing to be able shoot 200 14 bit RAWs in 20 seconds. This is firmware controlled, the only reason you can't shot more is not XDQ speed, but concerns about the sensor and electronics over heating. It's not like any camera I've had before because the burst just ends.

The focus tuning, pro viewfinder lock, touch screen and so much more make this a great camera for me. While I agree the D7200 is a better value for most photographers, the D500 is a great camera for some photographers like me.

With the sales price of $500 off right now for a D500 and very good 16-80 F2.8 VR lens this made me go for it. It's a great system, one of the best ever for photographers that need very high frame rates, fast focus, unreal burst length, high DR, and a list of features that just goes on.

Very happy D500 owner here!

The RRS plate that I got for this camera is also unique in that it has a slot for the hex tool needed to use it. A very smart design.

The D7000 was my first (and so far only) dslr. I went with Nikon precisely for the warmth I saw in the old glass, and because my dad shot Nikons back in the 1980s.

I lust after a DF and know the D750 would be more practical for my purposes, but never have the money to drop on either. I have no interest in or need for the D500s capabilities and see no need to upgrade to the D7200: I have no dread of the Anti-Aliasing filter, in fact, the clinical sterility of the files from the D7000—even when shot through great old glass like the 75-150mm E or the 105 F/2.5 with those great old coatings on the front.

Currently, my D7000 is used as a glorified scanner for negatives from my FE and FG (and 35 ZF, LC-A, and Diana Mini), and to shoot boring, throwaway videos of me unboxing and flipping through the photobooks I spend most of my photo budget on. The D750 wouldn't be as good at that, given the larger sensor. The D7200 would be better at it, perhaps, but then so would a dedicated film scanner, and my most recent digital purchase was for the excellent Fuji X70, and I think I'll probably switch to Fuji entirely as soon as I can save up for an XT1, a lens or two, and a Nikon F-->Fuji X converter... Files out of the Fuji have something that Nikon just doesn't, for me anyway.

While I would like to own a D500, a D7200 would be a more-appropriate camera for my needs. (My D7000 produces great photographs, but I could use a DSLR that has better AF when I take photos of birds.) That said, given that I spend as much time taking video footage as I do stills, the Nikon 1 series mirrorless cameras are, overall, better for my needs. Sadly, Nikon did a bad job of marketing them, and really hasn't supported them well by creating a truly comprehensive set of lenses and accessories, and developing useful updates to the higher-end V1 and V2 cameras. There are rumours that Nikon will either kill off the 1 series altogether, or resurrect it with cameras having larger sensors. DSLRs like the D500 and D7200 definitely have their place, and I am glad they exist. But I wish Nikon would pay more attention to its mirrorless products.

While I once would have loved a D500 to replace my old favorite D300, I no longer do much of the type of photography it is best suited for---in my case waterfowl or occasionally wildlife. I may end up with one in the future, but it will be a while, and it won't be out of a great sense of necessity. Then considering the lack of top lenses in Nikon DX, and what I perceive as Nikon's half-hearted commitment to DX, am not sure the future will be better.

Going by what Thom Hogan recommends when choosing between the D5oo and the D7200, I believe I might even pick up the D7200 and save the money. I doubt I need the extra toughness of the D500 body, and the other benefits may not be worth the price to me.

Back in 2008 had you told me that I'd be considering a "lessor" DSLR than the D300 level for my main DSLR, I'd challenged you to a duel. Things have certainly changed.

A couple of years ago, Mike, I half-expected you to pick up a Nikon crop body with a 58mm G and start doing portraits with that combination. At one point, you even tried a 58mm G – known for the character of its OOF rendering and the transition to in-focus sharpness (though not contrast) – but I don't think you ever published your thoughts in full, did you? It always seemed to me like your kind of lens.

To someone usually photographs undemanding subjects, the D500 may look unnecessary.

In fact, if you stick to slow-moving approachable subjects in decent light, there is no need for interchangeable lenses, you can produce publishable photographs with a quality compact like an LX100. The most common reason people buy larger, heavier, more expensive cameras is to capture usable photos under less-than-ideal conditions.

DXO may rate the D500's sensor 38th, but most of those better rated cameras are in a different class, full frame or larger, and not necessarily suited for the kind of photography the D500 excels at. No APS-C camera beats the d500 by more than 4 points, and other online reviewers state that the D500 is the overall APS-C winner at high ISO. Saying that the D500 is worse than D7200 ( the highest scoring APS-C to date) is like saying someone is worse at tennis than Serena Williams.

But what the camera is about is action photography. For a professional at the Olympics, a birder who discovers an eagle fishing, wedding photogrpher in dim light capturing the bride dancing with her father, an enthusiast on his only-ever safari, or a parent watching their offspring in the state championship basketball game, the fact that the D5 or D500 will bring home significantly more keepers, and stand a better chance of landing the once-in-a-lifetime shot, is worth the purchase price and then some.To quote Thom Hogan's "Seven Reasons Why I’m Still a Nikon DSLR User", they ( along with Canon's very best ) are "unmatched in speed and accuracy when a subject isn’t stationary".

The D500 and D5 are, in 2016, the cameras most likely to.

That said, I will need to wait more than a year before I can consider purchasing one.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007