I was wondering why Nikon only recommends the new D500 for telephoto photography? I didn't see any other lens recommendation in their recently released Q&A document. Using telephoto lens are stressed throughout that document. Why would they want to limit usage of the camera for just those lens? Thanks.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon D500 recommended only for telephoto photography
- Thread starter PhotoRA
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d500
I'm not sure what document you are referring to, but on the Nikon press release and introduction literature, they cast a wider net than that. Clearly, the D500 is designed to excel with longer lenses, because of the DX crop factor and pixel density. The high frame rates, high memory bandwidth, and high performance AF hardware put it in the wheelhouse for sports and wildlife photographers, but I'm sure it will be more than capable for general purpose photography, as well.
Chuck Yadmark
Veteran Member
Not sure what that materials say exactly but sports/wildlife is the justification for the price and lack of flash. It is plenty competent but overkill for general photography over the next camera down the 7200
Canadianguy
Senior Member
Because birders and sports photographers were the ones screaming the loudest for a D300 replacement.
All other users already have Nikon models that can fulfil their requirements.
All other users already have Nikon models that can fulfil their requirements.
Indeed. I would say sports photographers more than any other who require both high FPS and long range.
A wild life photographer could do well enough with a D7200 or D810. One is way cheaper and the other is way more versatile as a FX camera with high resolution.
Those singing the praises of the D500 are either gear heads who just like the specs, or those who've been holding out for the D300s replacement.
If you're not into sports photography, or extremely fast animals, and want only one DSLR an FX camera makes a lot more sense. If you want a backup, again an FX is the better option.
--
www.pbase.com/bluethermal
jcvjcvjcvjcv
Senior Member
Let's turn it aroud; why would they not? After all; for most other things where the framerate isn't needed one can do perfectly fine with a cheaper DX body or a D610 / D750 with a comparatively cheap lens and get the same / better results.
It's only with the long glas where it really makes sense, that's why Nikon stresses that so much.
rhlpetrus
Forum Pro
Not really. If you are an event shooter, like wedding, you'd use it with any lens. Its ruggedness is a high point for those that treat cameras badly, like news, wedding, staff photogs (school, universities), etc. Even sports shooters need fast wide lenses for closeups.
Certainly the pitch is for action shooters, and those will use longer lenses, but not all, think of small arena sports, like basketball, they need WA lenses as well. Wildlife, birds, those require long lenses.
jcvjcvjcvjcv
Senior Member
Yes, and there is a ton of options to get cheap WA on FX with better results.
Geomaticsman
Senior Member
I'm not sure Nikon really meant "only" but I can understand Nikon recommending the D500 for telephotos which are predominately associated with wildlife and sports shooting which is the target market for the D500. Anyone using a telephoto wants reach, which the D500 delivers in spades (as compared to the D5 anyway).
Of course I don't know at this stage, but wouldn't be surprised if Nikon chose to optimize the D500's ISO performance towards higher ISO's to better support higher shutter speeds needed for telephoto's and sports and wildlife shooting by sacrificing some low ISO performance and DR, thereby making the D500 less suitable for landscape work, for example. Just a guess.
--
Gary -- Some Nikon stuff -- and a preference for wildlife in natural light
www.flickr.com/photos/garyirwin/
Of course I don't know at this stage, but wouldn't be surprised if Nikon chose to optimize the D500's ISO performance towards higher ISO's to better support higher shutter speeds needed for telephoto's and sports and wildlife shooting by sacrificing some low ISO performance and DR, thereby making the D500 less suitable for landscape work, for example. Just a guess.
--
Gary -- Some Nikon stuff -- and a preference for wildlife in natural light
www.flickr.com/photos/garyirwin/
Last edited:
If you're predominately a wildlife or sports shooter the available DX wide angle options are good enough for most of us. I still use my ancient Nikkor 12-24 f4. For some shooters, the D500 will complement an FX system - and they'll need no DX lenses. For others a Pro DX system is good enough. After all, only the wide angle and normal zooms need to be DX. Understandably Nikon doesn't want to talk too much about a Pro DX system after hammering so hard on FX = Pro.
Isn't this what a crop sensor good for? sports, bird, wild animal....... would you prefer a high resolution FF or a high speed low resolution crop camera for landscape or fashion, studio, wedding photography? I personally buying this camera ONLY use with telephoto longer than 200mm and 300mm myself, i don't see a point putting my 14-24 and Zeiss 21 on this camera when shooting landscape when I already have a D800E and 1DS MK III.
n057
Veteran Member
That's the key, if you are already into FX, you may not use the D500 for anything else than telephoto.
I do not want to have any FX, the D500 will be my general purpose camera just like the D200 was. I may even end up with two of them, one for wide, one for long. But no FX.
JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
There is plenty of WA and mid telephoto lens made specifically for DX as well, so there is absolutely no shortage of lens supply for "general purpose" shooting. All I was saying is this D500 is mean to be focused on Sports and wild life shooting which normally required long telephoto. "but it doesn't mean is "bad" for everything else, just like anyone can shoot sport or wild life with their slower FF D800 but this is not the strong selling point for the FF D800, the high frame rate, the crop factor and AF system in this D500 can be more beneficial for these type of photography when compare to FF D800.
Just curious what's your reason against buying a FX since you said you may even buy two one for wide one for long, for the wide end, FX does have some advantage over crop, I would think one FF one crop would be a perfect combo, so what's the reason you rather stick to crop sensor? some FX camera is pretty cheap these days like my friend just picked up a brand new D610 from B&H for $1500.
Last edited:
jcgamble
Active member
My primary is a D7200 now. Shooting birds in flight, I fill the D7200 buffer in 3 secs at 6 fps with around 18-21 images. The D500 with better autofocus, another stop of light, at 10 fps for 20 secs, will results in 200 images. What do you think I'm buying in the next two years? If you don't shoot like that, you probably don't need it.
jcgamble
Active member
Is there an issue of the high frame rate of 10 with non-electric diaphrams? Most of the lens recommended are E series. Maybe the mechanical diaphrams are not as consistent at high frame rates?
Telephoto is a strength of the DX format. Because you get a "free" 1.5x "teleconverter," so to speak. That means lenses have longer reach, and DX lenses can be shorter, lighter and less-expensive than equivalent FX versions.
But DX also does wides perfectly well.
The D500 was announced with that new 16-80mm DX Nikkor, which is 16mm on the wide end (equivalent to 24mm on FX). Also, Nikon's got a DX fisheye and also a DX 10-24mm and 12-24mm DX zooms if one were to need to go wider.
But DX also does wides perfectly well.
The D500 was announced with that new 16-80mm DX Nikkor, which is 16mm on the wide end (equivalent to 24mm on FX). Also, Nikon's got a DX fisheye and also a DX 10-24mm and 12-24mm DX zooms if one were to need to go wider.
jcgamble
Active member
Thanks. That rules out that issue.
n057
Veteran Member
The D500 can do the same job as any other camera, but because of the 1.5x multiplication effect, it is particularly suited for tele work, and the viewfinder does not need to use the "DX penalty box" supplied on FX. A good FX very wide lens will work very well on DX. Big and expensive maybe, but I accept that.
On the long end, FX means longer, heavier, more expensive lenses to achieve a certain FOV. So since much of what I do involves telephoto usage, I decided early on that I would not get FX. No need for the extra expense, I have everything I need now to work on DX.
Currently, I have two D200 bodies, and when I go on a shoot, one has 17-55, the other 70-200. Same body, same handling, same post-processing. Eventually, I will get a second D500.
JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum