Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2016 · Replace D800 with D500?
  
 
frosty1987
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Replace D800 with D500?


I currently do second shooting for weddings for fun and to make some extra cash during the summer.

My current setup is:

D750
D800

Nikon 24mm 1.8G
Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART
Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART
Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II

x1 SB-910.

I've been finding that taking all that gear with me to weddings as a second shooter is taking it's toll on my body and I was thinking of selling my D800 as it's getting old now and to replace it with a D500.

With this setup I was thinking of dropping my 70-200 and leaving it at home.

My D750 would have the 24/35/50mm and my D500 would take the 35mm/50mm.

This way I would get 24mm-85mm coverage between the 2 bodies depending on crop factor.

It would save me some weight not only by reducing weight from the D800 but not having to take the 70-200 as well.

Also, even though it is not a FF sensor, I believe the AF, High ISO and Continuous shooting buffer of the D500 would be a good replacement for the D800.

Thoughts? Pros / cons?

I could get another D750 but I think the D500 has some features that would even trump the D750 and and it would be good to have 1 of each.



Oct 05, 2016 at 05:05 AM
snapsy
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Replace D800 with D500?


None of the features unique to the D500 would find much utility for your wedding shooting. Plus it's only marginally lighter than the D800 (30.3 oz vs 35.1 oz).


Oct 05, 2016 at 05:14 AM
rico
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Replace D800 with D500?


The big gain is performance and intelligence of the AF. I shot a wedding (as primary) with D500 and D7100. Latter has the pro-grade Multi-CAM 3500, but was thoroughly trounced. The D500 in Area/3-D mode can find the subject if you just get the camera pointing in the general direction, and locks with blinding speed in any light. I didn't need AF assist from the Speedlight. 90% of the wedding was taken with D500 + 17-55:



No time to think in moments like this.



Oct 05, 2016 at 06:26 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Replace D800 with D500?


The short answer is no, I wouldn't even look at the D500 as a replacement for a D800.

yes, it will deliver significant AF performance improvements.

But in IQ terms it's a massive step down from a D800 or even from your D750.

You'd be much better off spending the same money and getting a second D750, which will match your current body and deliver better low-light/high ISO than any DX body can, with AF that you already are comfortable and will share all accessories with your current body.

The D500 is the right body if you need AF performance and continuous drive performance but are OK in giving up a stop of ISO performance over a FX body. Weddings are not the place where I'd be wanting that tradeoff. You need solid AF, but IQ is at least as important and the D500 actually has the worst IQ of the current Nikon DX bodies at all but high ISO's (it's not bad at all, but the 20MP sensor gives up DR & resolution over the 24MP sensors in exchange for speed and high ISO perfomance)

I'd suggest adding an 85 to your kit as a replacement for your 70-200.

Note the D750 is actually 5g lighter than the D500 (the D800 is 140g heavier, about 1/4lb)



Oct 05, 2016 at 12:54 PM
frosty1987
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Replace D800 with D500?


Thanks for the replies everyone.

I guess it seems the consensus is for my particular purpose another D750 would be a better replacement for the D800 over a D500.

I only wish the D750 had some of the features of the D500 (thumbstick and 1/8000s shutter)



Oct 05, 2016 at 02:48 PM
jrscls
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Replace D800 with D500?


Agree adding an 85 f1.8 and a d750 makes more sense.


Oct 05, 2016 at 02:57 PM
BSPhotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Replace D800 with D500?


If I am reading correctly, your complaints about the D800 are age and weight as compared to your existing D750. That said, another D750 seems to make the most sense. There would definitely be some advantages brought to the table with a D500, but they aren't the things you were wanting solutions for. If you had said that the D750 just isn't focusing fast enough, doesn't have a rugged enough of a build, or you didn't like how the AF points were too much in the center of the frame. Those would be problems that the D500 might solve.

Now a D800 and a D500 together, that could be an interesting duo....



Oct 05, 2016 at 06:50 PM
Mark_L
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Replace D800 with D500?


mawz wrote:
Note the D750 is actually 5g lighter than the D500 (the D800 is 140g heavier, about 1/4lb)


This. If weight is a consideration why sigma ART primes which are huge and heavy and not 1.8G primes?

The D500 is the hot camera of the moment because it is the latest one and has a fancy AF system. Nikon will make a Dxxx camera with it soon enough.



Oct 05, 2016 at 10:05 PM
rico
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Replace D800 with D500?


Beside AF, D500 is a win on weight: not from the body, but from DX. As we shooters of the diminutive Sony Alpha 7 are painfully aware, FF sensors come with FF lenses, and suddenly the bag is full of boat anchors. Nikon DX allows DX lenses like 17-55/2.8 (cf 24-70/2.8 FX), 55-200/4-5.6 (cf 70-200/4 FX), and the 40/2.8 macro (cf 60/2.8 FX macro). Yes, I could bring my D3X with Sigma 35 Art and it's FF friends, but there's no reason. I'm shooting at f/5.6-11 for DOF, and always have plenty of light (Speedlight). Previous image was shutter-dragged to 1/4sec and, like the entire wedding, was locked at ISO 100.

Events are three-dimensional, and apertures like f/1.4 and f/2.8 don't work. DOF, however, is improved by DX:



No time for luxuries like viewfinders and framing—hoist, shoot, and pray the AF found its mark.



Oct 05, 2016 at 11:23 PM
Bill Graham
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Replace D800 with D500?


frosty,

I think you're carrying too much stuff anyway. Two bodies, 2 lenses, 2 flashes with a spare body, lens and flash tucked away in the corner. As a second you can get by without the spares. A 28-70 or 24-70 for one body, get yourself a 70-200 f/4 for the other.

Think about it: If you're shooting a wedding, you're shooting with a flash. You're shooting stopped down to f/4-f/8 for DOF, manual exposure with a shutter speed of 1/125-1/250, ISO 400 or thereabouts and the TTL-BL flash handles the rest. Your job is to document the event, period. Let the primary shooter handle the artsy stuff, if he wants to play around with existing light and razor-thin DOF well and good. You're the guy producing the shots that the bride and groom can look at and say"There's Aunt Mary and Cousin Ruth dancing with Uncle Bob who's been hitting the punch bowl a little too often" and get a good laugh.

Look at the shot Rico posted, typical reception shot with a lot of DOF, sharp on the subjects front-to-back. A little hot on the light for my taste, maybe shooting off a bounce card would have been better but if the customer likes it he's done what he got paid for and that's what event shooting is all about.

I've shot weddings as second and primary "back in the day" when all we had for digital was Dx bodies, I had a D200 with the 70-200 and a D300 with a 28-70, SB-800s on both bodies. If I were doing it today I'd have a D500 with the new 16-80VR and a D750 with the 70-200 f/4, flashes mounted on both with some variety of rotating flash bracket. Of course there would be spares and specialty glass in a bag in the closet but it wouldn't be hanging off my shoulder.

Just my thoughts, YMMV.

Best,
Bill




Oct 05, 2016 at 11:51 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



BSPhotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Replace D800 with D500?


People still use flash brackets?

@frosty1987, you might want to post the same question on the wedding forum if you're interested in the perspective of people currently shooting a lot of weddings. There are a few that have picked up D500s either to use or even just to test.



Oct 06, 2016 at 02:22 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Replace D800 with D500?


Mark_L wrote:
This. If weight is a consideration why sigma ART primes which are huge and heavy and not 1.8G primes?

The D500 is the hot camera of the moment because it is the latest one and has a fancy AF system. Nikon will make a Dxxx camera with it soon enough.


Because the Art's in question stomp the 1.8G's at wide apertures (always an issue in low light).

Sure, for minimizing weight the 1.8G's are awesome, and they're solid performers. But they simply aren't in the same class as the Art's for optical performance.

And I doubt you'll see a DXXX body with the D5/D500 AF system for a couple generations yet. The D800 refresh will probably get a tweaked version, but it took 3 generations (D90, D7000, D7100) for the D3/D300's AF to show up in that line and I expect we'll see the D5/D500 unit when the D7500 shows up (assuming they skip the D7400 name like they did with the D5x00's)



Oct 06, 2016 at 02:34 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Replace D800 with D500?


rico wrote:
Beside AF, D500 is a win on weight: not from the body, but from DX. As we shooters of the diminutive Sony Alpha 7 are painfully aware, FF sensors come with FF lenses, and suddenly the bag is full of boat anchors. Nikon DX allows DX lenses like 17-55/2.8 (cf 24-70/2.8 FX), 55-200/4-5.6 (cf 70-200/4 FX), and the 40/2.8 macro (cf 60/2.8 FX macro). Yes, I could bring my D3X with Sigma 35 Art and it's FF friends, but there's no reason. I'm shooting at f/5.6-11 for DOF, and always have plenty of light (Speedlight). Previous image was shutter-dragged to
...Show more

I'd have to disagree on that.

None of the lenses you list are matches for their FX equivalents.

The 17-55DX is out of its depth on 20-24MP bodies. It's also flare-prone. Even if you are good with the optics (which I'm not given the extreme cost over the better Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS), I can replace it with the 24-85VR on FX and save 10oz while getting comparable optics and giving up 1/2 stop at the long end (but gaining VR and 1/2 stop at the wide end). It was a good lens in its day, but its only claim to fame today is being the worst and most expensive fast DX normal zoom on the market today. Not that it's actually bad, but it's not in the same performance category as more modern f2.8 zooms.

The 55-200DX? Seriously for a wedding? Really? I mean it's great for what it is, but so is the original 70-300G. Neither is a lens that would be in my bag for serious paying gigs. Maybe as an ultralight backpacking lens, but that's it.

The 40 and 60 macro's are nice, but it's the 60 that would be in my bag on DX, replacing a 90 or 105 (admittedly at major weight savings).

The reality is with Nikon's DX lineup, there's very little weight gains to be had from DX and a high-end body, because most of the glass you need to approach FX IQ is either FX, or sized like FX (Sigma f1.8 zooms, f2.8 UWA zooms)



Oct 06, 2016 at 02:50 AM
tntcorp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Replace D800 with D500?


+1 for the weight comparison between the sigma art & the nikon 1.8 from mark_l

most if not all clients don't pay attention to the lenses on the camera or know the rendering of one versus another.

for 2nd shooter who wants to reduce weight, nikon 1.8 is the way to go.

and unless i am mistaken, af performance of nikon 1.8 outperform sigma art at max aperture and not vice versa.

for the op, does the primary shooter frequently use your 1.4 images? your answer will determine if you should continue to carry the heavier lenses.

combining current bodies with lighter weight lenses should be the most economics approach to reduce weight.


mawz wrote:
Because the Art's in question stomp the 1.8G's at wide apertures (always an issue in low light).

Sure, for minimizing weight the 1.8G's are awesome, and they're solid performers. But they simply aren't in the same class as the Art's for optical performance.




Edited on Oct 06, 2016 at 01:44 PM · View previous versions



Oct 06, 2016 at 04:09 AM
rico
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Replace D800 with D500?


I bought the 17-55/2.8 to pair with the original D300, and don't mind having paid full retail. It was made for single-digit DX bodies, and it shows in the build quality, focus speed and spill resistance—all desirable features when you're closely surrounded by feisty revellers with large drinks. I accept the extra weight to use the event dream-team: D500 + 17-55 + SB-5000. Results speak for themselves. Speaking as a gear whore, I find the kit DX Nikkors 18-55/55-200 to perform beautifully for silly money, and they weigh nothing: I have two sets. When carrying two DSLRs with pro flashes around one's neck for hours, lens weight is an obvious place to compromise. D7100, SB-800, 55-200 DX @ (f/8,55mm):



I have a full studio if I want to pixel peep my images.



Oct 06, 2016 at 05:29 AM
LeifG
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Replace D800 with D500?


mawz wrote:
The short answer is no, I wouldn't even look at the D500 as a replacement for a D800.

yes, it will deliver significant AF performance improvements.

But in IQ terms it's a massive step down from a D800 or even from your D750.


In what way is it a massive step down?

mawz wrote:
Because the Art's in question stomp the 1.8G's at wide apertures (always an issue in low light).


Surely you mean the Arts stop the 1.8G's at F1.4. Otherwise independent tests show them to be on a par optically.



Oct 06, 2016 at 06:40 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Replace D800 with D500?


LeifG wrote:
In what way is it a massive step down?


You're giving up a stop of noise performance, a stop of DR and minor (D750) to major (D800) resolution changes going from a current FX body to the D500 (or any other DX body)



Surely you mean the Arts stop the 1.8G's at F1.4. Otherwise independent tests show them to be on a par optically.


Love to see those tests, because everything I've seen shows the Art's to be closer to the Otii than to the 1.8G's at wide apertures. The Art's have far better control over CA, are sharper across the frame and deliver more resolution at wide apertures than the 1.8G's.



Oct 06, 2016 at 11:24 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Replace D800 with D500?


rico wrote:
I bought the 17-55/2.8 to pair with the original D300, and don't mind having paid full retail. It was made for single-digit DX bodies, and it shows in the build quality, focus speed and spill resistance—all desirable features when you're closely surrounded by feisty revellers with large drinks. I accept the extra weight to use the event dream-team: D500 + 17-55 + SB-5000. Results speak for themselves. Speaking as a gear whore, I find the kit DX Nikkors 18-55/55-200 to perform beautifully for silly money, and they weigh nothing: I have two sets. When carrying two DSLRs with pro
...Show more

In the D300 era the 17-55 was an excellent choice, delivering comparable optics to the 3rd party options and better build & AF.

Today, that's not the case. It's still an excellent lens if you already own it, but it's not a good value proposition vs the newer stabilized 17-50's from Sigma or Tamron, or Sigma's utterly stunning 18-35/1.8 if you're buying. You can get the 17-50's new for less than the Nikkor sells for used.

As to the kit lenses, yeah, they're excellent value for the money, especially if you leave them at f8-11 where they are remarkably good. But they're not lenses I'd bother to show up to an event with unless I had to, because they're simply not flexible enough with the limited aperture range and AF performance. There are other reasonably light lenses that are a better choice here (Tamron's lightweight 17-50's come to mind, and are very reasonably priced)



Oct 06, 2016 at 12:52 PM
LeifG
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Replace D800 with D500?


mawz wrote:
You're giving up a stop of noise performance, a stop of DR and minor (D750) to major (D800) resolution changes going from a current FX body to the D500 (or any other DX body)


You'd be very hard pressed to see one stop of DR unless you do some really extreme processing of the shadows, and I mean extreme. The D750 is the true comparison given the pixel count, and 24MP versus 21MP is neither here nor there especially since the D750 has a low pass filter. So the only real advantage is 1 stop less noise, but measurements show it to be less than that and in practice the D500 noise is better controlled. So a slight IQ advantage to the D750 at high ISO, worthwhile for those who pursue high ISO perhaps.

But I'd hardly call that "a massive step down".

In fact the D500 has some advantages such as an electronic front curtain shutter and eyepiece shutter which can have a significant impact on image quality. In fact I'd say the main difference was the ability to get shallower DOF on the D750 with a given lens e.g. 24mm F1.4.


Love to see those tests, because everything I've seen shows the Art's to be closer to the Otii than to the 1.8G's at wide apertures. The Art's have far better control over CA, are sharper across the frame and deliver more resolution at wide apertures than the 1.8G's.


Head over to the dpreview Sigma 24mm Art review, or the Photozone reviews of 24mm and 35mm F1.8 lenses and the equivalent Sigma Arts. The difference is minor and perhaps only noticeable in a test environment. The key differences are the wider aperture on the Art's, and the smaller size and weight of the Nikons. You takes your pick.



Oct 06, 2016 at 09:16 PM
Bill Graham
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Replace D800 with D500?


BSPhotog wrote:
People still use flash brackets? .......


Yeah they do, at least the the people who don't want to spend half a day retouching eyes on a few hundred pics. Light still travels in a straight line and retinas still reflect it back. It's called "redeye" and you can see a good example in the last photo Rico posted.




Oct 06, 2016 at 11:17 PM
1
       2       end






FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password