Your Last DX Camera

Doug Haag said:

Like Max Iso, I too like a bigger, more substantial tool and at age 73 am still able to handle it. But when I saw a thread here about how it felt too big in one poster's hands, I decided to double check the size and weight specs.

Its cubic area (width x height x depth) is 24% larger than the D7200. And it weighs 27.5% more.

Surprisingly (or perhaps not), the D500 is 10% larger and 15% heavier than the full frame D750. Guess that's just part of the difference between a Pro camera body and a Consumer body (regardless of sensor size).

So if size and weight are important factors for you, I concur that you should probably think twice -- especially if you plan to use it near the ocean, Froggie. :-D

Click to expand...

Understand, I appreciate the pro sized body will suit most folk. However I do plan to use it on the sea most of the time, so weight and size is a factor moving about on an unstable moving platform, leaping in and out of a cockpit or companionway.

OceanFroggie said:

OceanFroggie said:

Like Max Iso, I too like a bigger, more substantial tool and at age 73 am still able to handle it. But when I saw a thread here about how it felt too big in one poster's hands, I decided to double check the size and weight specs.

Its cubic area (width x height x depth) is 24% larger than the D7200. And it weighs 27.5% more.

Surprisingly (or perhaps not), the D500 is 10% larger and 15% heavier than the full frame D750. Guess that's just part of the difference between a Pro camera body and a Consumer body (regardless of sensor size).

So if size and weight are important factors for you, I concur that you should probably think twice -- especially if you plan to use it near the ocean, Froggie. :-D

Click to expand...

Understand, I appreciate the pro sized body will suit most folk. However I do plan to use it on the sea most of the time, so weight and size is a factor moving about on an unstable moving platform, leaping in and out of a cockpit or companionway.

Click to expand...

You are caught in an interesting conundrum


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

OceanFroggie said:

Understand, I appreciate the pro sized body will suit most folk. However I do plan to use it on the sea most of the time, so weight and size is a factor moving about on an unstable moving platform, leaping in and out of a cockpit or companionway.

Click to expand...

If I were out on the sea, then I would be taking into account the weather sealing too. ;-)

They had to make it larger just to fit in all those extra AF points ;-)

I currently have a Nikon D7000 and a D7100. Both these cameras take great pictures and I am pleased with them. I had been wanting a 7100 for years and finally got me one. I think these cameras will serve me well for several years if not longer. The way I see it is if you have a good camera and lenses that does what you want and possibly more "Keep it / them" You're wasting your time and money trying to keep up with "the latest thing" From what I have read about the D500 it does have some nice features, but drops the MP back to 21 and has no built in flash. If all the new features aren't useful to you or your need for them, you're in a sense taking a step backwards. $2000.00 seems like a lot of money for a fancier DX camera that will likely be replaced with something else in a couple / few years. Look how it went with the D7000, D7100, D7200.

Michael 59 said:

I currently have a Nikon D7000 and a D7100. Both these cameras take great pictures and I am pleased with them. I had been wanting a 7100 for years and finally got me one. I think these cameras will serve me well for several years if not longer. The way I see it is if you have a good camera and lenses that does what you want and possibly more "Keep it / them" You're wasting your time and money trying to keep up with "the latest thing" From what I have read about the D500 it does have some nice features, but drops the MP back to 21

Click to expand...

You understand that teh difference between 24 and 21 is negligible, no?

Michael 59 said:

and has no built in flash.

Click to expand...

Problem easily solved.

Michael 59 said:

If all the new features aren't useful to you or your need for them, you're in a sense taking a step backwards. $2000.00 seems like a lot of money for a fancier DX camera that will likely be replaced with something else in a couple / few years. Look how it went with the D7000, D7100, D7200.

Click to expand...

You mean you got a D7000, then a D7100, then you will probably soon itch for a D7200 also. What is the sum total of those cameras?

The D500 is not intended to replace the lesser D7xxx cameras, it replaces the D300s, which dates from 2009. Surely, you notice the difference?


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Yes. I do know the difference between 21 and 25 is very little and yes not having a pop up flash is nothing terrible. I'm just saying that's a nice chunk of change to pay for it. As for the 7200. I have little or no desire to get that one. The two I have now do everything i need and more.

tahoe22 said:

If it turns out to be all they say it is....Do you think the d500 will be the last dx camera you need to buy?....maybe changing brands would have something to do with it .

Thanks

Click to expand...

Unless in future, Nikon comes up with something extraordinary at similar price point, yes this will be the camera I will possibly ever need. It just checks all the right boxes for me.

I will keep my D300 for 1 or 2 more years, for What I do it still is the main workhorse with my 80-200

I would say yes - only because my D300 has been such an amazing sports camera for almost 10 years now. Keep in mind, I can say this while the camera was surviving perhaps the fastest-paced period of evolution DSLRs have ever seen.

And yet it seems to have come out on top, in terms of design, layout, reliability, etc. it really is a perfect camera for me. I never really "knew" I needed the connectivity advantages or beautiful color rendering the D7200 offers - but wow if the D500 can meet the IQ and prove to be an evolutionary jump in connectivity, all the while sustaining the amazing handling and build quality of my beloved D300.. I think the D500 could easily prove to be a camera that is.. in a word.. perfect (for what I do anyways).

It's a little ironic in that the D300 forced me to hone-in my low-light skills to near perfection to squeeze out every shot I could in indoor sports arenas and such. This is a foregone conclusion with the D7200 as it's just exponentially better on all fronts in low light - but I'd imagine the D500 will be like holding my D300, with the addition of effortless low-light shooting AND a constant amount of "headroom" available that will seriously make me feel invincible while I'm out there shooting.

I just can't wait. I must be one of the few people that ISN'T horrible frustrated that they made the announcement only weeks after buying the D7200.

I prepared myself for the size, weight, shape, control dial, etc etc differences of the D7200 for a few weeks before pulling the trigger, and no matter how amazing the results of the little guy - picking up the D300 still give me that "I'm home again" feeling. Early on I found myself selecting certain menus, or turning the camera on-off-on and I was just FRUSTRATED at the lag. This was before the D500 was announced, and it was at that moment that I truly felt abandoned by Nikon. I was holding their best DX camera in the world, and my 10 year old D300 was amazingly faster still (I have the grip/EL4 so I'm at 8fps also).

While there may be tweaks, video updates, new additions to connectivity, etc - the fundamental scenarios this D500 can shoot and excel at; low-light sports for example, should provide results at a level which will be at the very least, EASILY "acceptable" for another decade +. Even then, it's so near the theoretical boundaries of the DX platform that it may very well stay near the top of IQ for the foreseeable future - upgrades will be in other areas.

This is the camera I've been waiting for, and from what I've seen - it'll easily solve and surpass any and every concern I've ever had (or could ever think of) in the field with my D300. I really can't wait.

Michael 59 said:

I currently have a Nikon D7000 and a D7100. Both these cameras take great pictures and I am pleased with them. I had been wanting a 7100 for years and finally got me one. I think these cameras will serve me well for several years if not longer. The way I see it is if you have a good camera and lenses that does what you want and possibly more "Keep it / them" You're wasting your time and money trying to keep up with "the latest thing" From what I have read about the D500 it does have some nice features, but drops the MP back to 21 and has no built in flash. If all the new features aren't useful to you or your need for them, you're in a sense taking a step backwards. $2000.00 seems like a lot of money for a fancier DX camera that will likely be replaced with something else in a couple / few years. Look how it went with the D7000, D7100, D7200.

Click to expand...

You're thinking about this totally backwards. If "features are just features" and all you care about is MP, why not grab a D5300 or so?

I've been shooting Nikon DSLRs for equestrian sports since the D1 - and still have the D200 and D300. Eventually I had to get the D7200 when they announced it (no choice, my own customers had better capabilities in certain conditions than I did with current consumer kit systems - even with my 70-200 2.8!)

It felt totally alien to me when I got it. It was the first non-Dx or Dxxx camera I had ever owned.

The people that buy (or the people who NEED) the D500 aren't going to have the mentality that you've got here. In the field, or a fast-paced press environment, or a competition when your editor has many requirements and shots you NEED to get, you rely on your equipment the way a Navy Seal relies on his weapons, boots, whatever - any failure, lag, confusion.. and you're dead.

The menu lag, on-off lag, tiny size, apparent battery drain when off (really annoying and something I don't seem mentioned on these forums!!!) plus other things just really assure that the D7xxx cameras are NOT in the same realm of an "overall camera platform" that the Dxxx cameras are. There's a reason NPS includes them into their professional camera categories; they really are professional from the top-down. For some of us, that menu-lag, compact layout, or the TINY upper info LCD (they really SHRUNK that from the 7100? If that's not proof that they're trying to distance the 7200 from the D500 I don't know what is!) will cost us a shot, which could cost us a promotion, or get us a demotion, or just cause us to lose sleep for a few weeks before doing something stupid like getting a credit card and buying a D4 lol.

No, you can't just buy every subtle upgrade - you're right. BUT the D500 IS NOT the "latest thing" since the D7200. It's the "latest thing" since the D300 - nearly 10 years ago (not sure what the fuss about the D300s is - to an actual non-video shooter they're freakin' identical!)

For some of us, the little things really matter. I'm proof of this concept - as I decided the little things didn't matter and that the D7200 looks so incredible on paper (especially in the areas that my D300 lacked) that it HAD to be adequate, right? ...nope! The little things really do matter. IQ is great on the 7200, but the platform is indeed in a different category of camera. I didn't think that mattered, but now I know (and will never forget) that it does matter.

Well to begin with, people need to stop acting as though DX is some second rate little brother to the big pro monster FX rigs. Show me one person, other than a pro, who really needs an FX camera. Then, show me identical images shot from both formats side-by-side and tell me if you can actually see a difference. The pros need an FX camera for a lot of reasons but one of them is not that they take better pictures.

In answer to your original question though, I plan to upgrade from a D90 to the D500. It will likely be the last camera I will want or need to handle my occasional semi-pro uses. Since I have several DX lenses already, moving to an FX camera would be pointless and prohibitively expensive.

I am actually quite anxious to get my hands on the D500 and read this site's full review.


Skatterball

Skatterball said:

Well to begin with, people need to stop acting as though DX is some second rate little brother to the big pro monster FX rigs. Show me one person, other than a pro, who really needs an FX camera. Then, show me identical images shot from both formats side-by-side and tell me if you can actually see a difference. The pros need an FX camera for a lot of reasons but one of them is not that they take better pictures.

In answer to your original question though, I plan to upgrade from a D90 to the D500. It will likely be the last camera I will want or need to handle my occasional semi-pro uses. Since I have several DX lenses already, moving to an FX camera would be pointless and prohibitively expensive.

I am actually quite anxious to get my hands on the D500 and read this site's full review.

Click to expand...

Isn't a little bit of a tired argument to somehow argue DX is every bit as good as FX in every circumstance? Or that FX is every bit as good as DX in every circumstance? The two each have their strengths and weaknesses. Just get used to that. If you want high ISO, high dynamic range, narrow DOF, very wide angle, FX beats out DX. If you want lower cost, greater reach (more pixels on distant subject with a given lens), smaller size (in some circumstances), more DOF, then DX beats out FX.

If you're not trying to shoot a subject beyond the reach of your lens and you are optimizing for IQ only, then it's pretty hard to beat FX. But, if you are optimizing for other things, DX can be very attractive.

You asked for one non-pro who needs an FX camera and I'd point to myself when shooting night soccer. The additional high ISO support that FX provides makes the difference between usable and not usable photos in many poorly lit venues with the lenses I find work best for me. I'm not a pro.

Like you until I see how one feels in hand and try it out in a store I just won't know for sure.

The numerous positives are obvious but for me as a mere leisure user, the few small negatives are casting some doubt in my mind about its suitability for my needs (i.e. lack of builtin flash + therefore no builtin CLS, weight/size, etc). But I see the reduction to 21mp as a big plus. Only time will tell if this is the last DSLR for me, if not it may well be the D7200.

Agreed. Although for many photographers an FX camera is somewhat of a badge rather than a tool. Like owning a Rolex watch or a Mercedes Benz. They both tell time and transport people but by what measurement other than ego do you justify them over a Chevy or a Timex.

Paddler213 said:

Yxa said:

tahoe22 said:

If it turns out to be all they say it is....Do you think the d500 will be the last dx camera you need to buy?....maybe changing brands would have something to do with it .

Thanks

Click to expand...

No it was the D200

Click to expand...

It was the D200. Then the D300. I'm pretty sure the D500 will be the last one.

Click to expand...

Well, from where I sit, the d200 was the first really special DX camera. I still have 2 working models that could be pressed into service if needed. But, I always figured that the d200 would be replaced by something better.

Same thing applies to the d300. As good as it is, there are plenty of things that needed changed to make it better and I saw no indication that the majority of users did not expect a camera that would better replace the d300. Until the d500 appeared, there were still the occasional threads talking about things users want to see improved or added to the d300 replacement.

Of course, the d500 is too new to make any kind of assessment of things that it might need to make it better. But, I have no doubt that as time goes on, there will be features or issues that people will want on a camera that will replace the d500 and most of us will expect a d500 replacement. If it is a "true" replacement and not a d300s type of phony replacement, then I'll have to assess that camera's features and decide if I will buy it.

Regardless, assuming that Nikon remains in business, it is reasonable and logical to expect them to continue to offer new bodies to replace the old ones in the line.

Kerry

Skatterball said:

Agreed. Although for many photographers an FX camera is somewhat of a badge rather than a tool. Like owning a Rolex watch or a Mercedes Benz. They both tell time and transport people but by what measurement other than ego do you justify them over a Chevy or a Timex.

Click to expand...

I shoot with FX instead of DX because it meets my needs better. FWIW, my first three dSLRs were all DX so it's not like I don't know the difference.

When I'm out shooting, the people around me have no idea whether my camera is DX or FX and, in fact, most wouldn't even know what those two designations even mean. The notion of a badge would really only apply to another photographer who was curious enough to actually discern what brand and model you were shooting and happened to know that product line to know the difference. I've been shooting dSLRs for many years and wouldn't even know a crop sensor vs. a full frame sensor if it was a Canon just because I don't know their model numbers.

Yes, both a Chevy and a Mercedes Benz will both get you to the grocery store just fine, but, on average, there are significant differences between them that are relevant to some buyers so I'm not sure that's a very good analogy to make your point that it's all about the badge.

With 24mm f/1.4, 12mm f/2.8 and 60mm f/1.4 lenses designed for the system, with a robust body large enough to be quick in use.

If Fujifilm comes out with a high-spec body, they pretty much have the lenses already, so that would be it.

If Nikon does these lenses for DX, then maybe the D500 will be it.

If Nikon does the mirrorless, and the mirrorless lenses to go with it, then Nikon wins it.

Not the last one for sure. My last one was D200 then I moved to D3 replaced by D800 and then D810.

Am looking forward to D500.

D200 was my last DX. The D500 is a nice camera, but too little too late.