For those of you who own or owned both would there be a reason you would leave the house to photograph with the D7200 instead of the D500? Does the D7200 give you anything you don't have with the D500?
Since I've purchased my D500, the D7200 hasn't seen a single day out. It's a shame too - the D7200 is a wonderful camera and up until I received the D500, I used it on a very regular basis. I love the sensor and it has good ISO performance, decent tracking, overall a great body - but it's no D500.
Keep in mind though I like to shoot action - if I was just doing "normal" work (portraits, landscapes, etc), the D7200 would probably see more use. It's just that the D7200 really doesn't do anything better than the D500. The only advantages are slightly smaller size and 3 more MP. Oh, and the pop up flash.
If I was DX only and had both bodies, I would use the D7200 for Landscape, Macro and maybe studio/portraits. Everything that required FPS or world class AF I would go D500 (wildlife, sports, etc.)
How do they compare at low-ISO and for DR? I wouldn't be surprised if the D7200 were marginally better (like how the D8x0 sensors are better in these areas than the D5).
I've had the D500 since soon after it came out and bought a D7200 last month as a back up camera to replace my D7100. I find the D7200 and D500 images to be nearly indistinguishable, although I'm sure if I were on a mission to find differences, they could be found.
My plan was to use the D7200 for landscapes and general family shooting and use the D500 for wildlife. However over Christmas I found myself using the D500 more for indoor family shots and grand kids because the focus options, including viewfinder face detect in Auto area mode, were just so much more extensive. Focus speed and ability to acquire, even with indoor lighting, wasn't that different in single-point or dynamic area, but group autofocus, auto-area and 3d tracking were obviously better in the D500.
Overall, I think I'm happy with the pair for original intended purposing. D7200 will go on hikes landscape photos is the goal and weight can be an issue. It will have the 18-140 on it, ready to grab for the quick shot, while the D500 will have the 200-500 for wildlife. On travel, unless wildlife photography is the goal, I think I'll take the D7200 since it's a little lighter and not such a target for theft (or financial loss if it is stolen or banged up).
Peter
The features specific to the D500 that I find useful are:
1) Articulating LCD. I shoot down a microscope and at ground level, so it avoids me standing on a chair, or lying on the ground in the dirt.
2) Electronic shutter. I can shoot at 1:1 and get pin sharp images which would be soft even with mirror lock up. I can also shoot down a microscope at ISO 100 rather than ISO 3200.
3) Eyepiece shutter. Without it remote trigger shots would be metered wrongly.
4) Highlight priority matrix metering. I no longer have to do exposure compensation.
5) Excellent white balance.
6) Pro form factor and control layout, much more ergonomic than D7200 or D600.
7) Aperture adjustment in live view (not on D600, not sure about D7200). It's much more convenient.
For general use, such as landscapes and portraits, the D7200 might be the better choice. But for macro and photomicrography, the D500 wins big time.
BSPhotog wrote:
How do they compare at low-ISO and for DR? I wouldn't be surprised if the D7200 were marginally better (like how the D8x0 sensors are better in these areas than the D5).
Bill Claff's excellent dynamic range comparison pretty much tell the story of high ISO capability and dynamic range. I tossed in a D750 for a comparison of FX to DX for reference;
Jim Holtz wrote:
Bill Claff's excellent dynamic range comparison pretty much tell the story of high ISO capability and dynamic range. I tossed in a D750 for a comparison of FX to DX for reference;
If I had a D500, I don't really see the need to own a D7200 unless you just liked to keep/collect bodies or wanted a backup. Let's be realistic here, the D500 does everything the same or better than the D7200. You guys can post your charts and talk about portraits vs landscapes vs sports vs whatever, but even if the D7200 was a "better" option, you're having to zoom in, pixel-peep and look at charts online to figure out exactly how it's better. At that stage, what's the point?
Take the D500 always and leave the D7200 at home or sell it.
Jan 06, 2017 at 05:56 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Only advantage I see for the D7200 is it is half the price, it's cheaper. But it should be, it's not near the quality or pro features of the D500.
D7XXX never interested me, just one look at the viewfinder is all I need to put it down.
coming from using way too many "pro" cameras, though it doesn't have the feature set of the D500 it performs pretty much best in class. I look through the viewfinder and I generally get what i'm after. the quality is there. i won't be kicking this one to the curb anytime soon.
oh, the batteries do last longer in it.
and yes, i can do a few cooler things with the D500. not denying that.
I'm a wildlife photog mainly. The fast frame rate, the Group AF and articulating screen are the features I love most. Great hit rate on birds in flight and fast action.
I miss the flash but use the other camera to have the built-in flash for Nikon Creative Lighting System use for portrait type work.
I have not personally handled the D500 which appears awesome, but our close family friend has the D7200 and she loves it. Many of the shots are destined for social media, and the size and weight is ideal for her. I know that when I have the D810, the size/weight is too much for her hands.
A large portion of the market is catering for our better halves, and the size and weight is a very important issue for many.
I don't disagree with the position that the D500 does everything better than the D7200; but there's something about the D7200 that appeals to me that I can't put into words. For me it's the perfect balance between quality, features, size, and price. There's also something about the feel of the D7200/16-80mm combo in my hands that I love. It's just the right size and weight to use as a walk around kit. Plus, it makes a great back-up to the D500 for bird photography.
I am jumping on this thread because I need a little advice. I am wedding photographer and I like to keep a DX camera in my bag because of the times I am required to stand in the temple, church or sanctuary, shoot with no flash and not move. I mostly use my Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 on the DX body or if I am really far away, I put on my 300mm F2.8. I currently use a Nikon D300 and I am past time to upgrade. I also use the camera for details with my sweet Sigma 17-50 F2.8 macro lens. I know that the D500 is the superior cameras but the price is too much for me too justify. Same with the D7500. I am finding used D7200's in the $700 to $800 range. My question is am I going to suffer any quality issues with the D7200 and will I regret the purchase? My FX body is the D750. Thanks!
I had the D500, but returned it. Awesome camera, but for me, it was not worth paying double the price of a D7200. I'm more concerned with IQ than speed.
.
