@shoot3r, with your experience do you think I will be able to put the D7200 to use for weddings as I described in my original post? I would like to use the D7200 for portraits, too.
shoot3r wrote:
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.
The IQ's virtually the same ...you're paying for the world class AF (besides the speed)
More keepers MORE than justifies the price differential, as I sell my work. Just sayin'
kvanacker wrote:
@trenchmonkey@ Can you explain a bit about your experiences with the AF?
If you're shooting things that move, the D500's AF is the best out there (w/D5). I've put
over 60K on D7200's (still have one in fact) it was very good in that regard. The D500's
on another level re: acquisition/tracking. I find IQ and high ISO to be very similar. Comes
down to your need to capture the difficult action shots with consistency (not to mention
those add'l choices with a 10 vs. 6 frame rate) HTH
kvanacker wrote:
@shoot3r@, with your experience do you think I will be able to put the D7200 to use for weddings as I described in my original post? I would like to use the D7200 for portraits, too.
I'm not a pro, and have never shot weddings, but for that type of usage, I don't think the D500 would have much advantage over the D7200. For weddings and portraits, I would get the D750 or D810. Better low light performance, better subject isolation, better IQ.
I have a D500 and D7200 (and D750 but that's outside the scope here) and I use the D500 for most things. The only time the D7200 comes outta the camera cabinet is when the GF wants to use it, or if I'm wanting to use qDSLRdashboard to control the camera over wifi. The D500's wifi is a bit convoluted to get it to work with that app.
Aside from that, the D500 has assumed all DX roles. The difference in resolution is minimal, the difference in image quality is also minimal.
I like the more accurate AF on the D500. The speed is nice as well, but I find that I generally get more hits with the D500, even at a lower FPS than max. It's focusing brain is just that much better.
The D7200 has a larger sensor at 24MP and it has the built-in flash with the commander function. If I was going to do macro photography and only had a single speedlight then the D7200 would be better than the D500 camera - and I have owned the D7200 and currently have the D500.
With the D500 the flash situation sucks and I need the SU-800 and the speedlight or the Nikon macro flash kit which is what I actually use. For travel though the D7200 and a single speedlight is a much handier setup. I can pull the flash from my camera bag and pop-up the flash on the camera and attach the IR blocker on the hotshoe and be ready in two minutes to start shooting. Being able to hand hold the speedlight at whatever angle and direction I want is much more flexible a setup than the Nikon macro flash one that attached to the end of the lens.
The D7200 has a larger sensor at 24MP and it has the built-in flash with the commander function. If I was going to do macro photography and only had a single speedlight then the D7200 would be better than the D500 camera - and I have owned the D7200 and currently have the D500.
With the D500 the flash situation sucks and I need the SU-800 and the speedlight or the Nikon macro flash kit which is what I actually use. For travel though the D7200 and a single speedlight is a much handier setup. I can pull the flash from my camera bag and pop-up the flash on the camera and attach the IR blocker on the hotshoe and be ready in two minutes to start shooting. Being able to hand hold the speedlight at whatever angle and direction I want is much more flexible a setup than the Nikon macro flash one that attached to the end of the lens.
@elkhornsun, I was initially concerned about the D500 lack of inbuilt flash for its various uses (I'm a junkie for artificial light). Here's the investment that fixed all my problems: SB-300, SB-5000, WR-R10, WR-A10, and a bunch of learning time. The SB-300 is cheap, cute, and runs off a pair of AAA cells. It also works much better than any pop-up flash, being more powerful and higher up to avoid red-eye. It can also trigger things optically such as studio packs and Speedlights in SU-4 mode. The Nikon radio system works well, including for macro work, and the camera has total control of all remote SB-5000 units. SB-5000 off camera, handheld, radio triggered, napkin diffusion:
Of course, there's the small matter of money, but D500 owners don't care about that, right?
I don't know how much difference there needs to be in these lines to be noticeable to my eye. I do find it interesting that the D3 and D500 put down almost the exact same line as far as DR and noise.
I used to have an SB-300 and it is a great little flash but I find the SB-500 much better. It can be either a commander or a remote. I now have two of these - both bought on the B&S forum for about 1/2 the new cost. My SB-700 now rarely leaves the house.
I had the D7200 and sold it and bought the D500 when it came out. In good light and mostly stationary or slow moving subjects, the D7200 shows slightly more detail due to the 24MP sensor.
But in low light, high ISO situations and fast moving subjects, I was never satisfied with the quality I got from the D7200. The D500 is much better and the quality in that case comes much closer to my D750 than the D7200 ever could. And the AF is ways better on the D500.
...you're paying for the world class AF (besides the speed)
