Sigh...why all the hate?

Started Jan 8, 2016 | Discussions thread
Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,368
Re: Sports or no?


Tony Beach wrote:

In what way is the D7500 different from the D500? Is the D7500 not a generalist camera? It stands to reason that if a D7500 is a generalist camera and the D500 can do everything the D7500 can do and more (including sports and wildlife) then the D500 is a better generalist camera than the D7500.

Interesting question.

Within the context of the understanding that a camera for general photography, is a camera that, "can do a bit of everything, isn't necessarily best at anything, and doesn't cost an arm and a leg," then performance beyond a certain level may be seen as unnecessary, especially if that enhanced performance comes at a premium.

In this context, the D7500 may be there better generalist camera - camera for general photography.

By your criteria that would solely be because it costs less, at least as far as I'm concerned. Since I prefer the ergonomics of the larger body the D7500 does not cut it for me, not to mention the bullet points below.

The D7500 can be used for a wide range of genres and it costs hundreds less than the D500. While there is no doubt the D500 delivers improved/better performance in certain areas, an argument can be made that the performance improvements aren't necessary for general photography. A photographer needs the flagship AF system, 10 fps burst, 200 shot buffer, etc. only if they specialize in sports, wildlife or action. Otherwise, those specs meet a need that doesn't exist.

I will do you one better, my S95 is the better "general photography" camera because it easily fits in my pocket. As long as I'm not taking action photos, landscape photos, or any serious photos whatsoever.

Besides being a better sports and wildlife camera, why would I say the D500 is a better generalist camera than the D7500?

  • The D500's better (than the D7500) AF system is useful for more than just sports and wildlife -- it is a generalist feature.
  • The D500 has more viewfinder magnification than the D7500, which is a good thing to have for general photography.
  • The D500 works much better than the D7500 with non-CPU lenses.
  • For landscapes the D500 is fully compatible with PC-E lenses, whereas the D7500's built-in flash slightly impedes some extreme movements.
  • For studio photography the D500 has flash sync and 10 pin ports, whereas the D7500 does not.

I do general photography (birds, wildlife, landscapes, portraits, sports) with a Nikon D610.

This is why I substituted "generalist camera" for "general photography" In photographic terms you are a generalist, which is to say you have many interests; "general photography" is a vague concept akin to "walk-around photography."

That body has weaker AF, a slower burst rate and shallower buffer than the D7500. The above-listed features of the D500 are great and all, but they're non-essential for the photographer who's looking for a camera that can do a bit of everything at a reasonable price.

Again with the "reasonable" price argument. What if I want a generalist camera that does each thing I want it to do with minimal compromises and spending less than $2000 for it is reasonable to me? What if spending more than $500 including lenses is not reasonable to me? Like the term "general photography," "reasonable" is just too vague to debate.

Yes, there is a small segment of the photography enthusiast population who want and are willing to pay for the best for general use. That acknowledged, the larger population of generalist photographers want a reasonably-priced camera. It's when we start to specialize in a specific genre of photography that we start to look at the price to be paid for enhanced performance and say, "That might be worth it."

That or we all eventually suffer from GAS

There are plenty here who think it's reasonable to own multiple cameras, and often the D500 is one of them. Me, I can barely afford one good camera, so for me that's my D800 because it gets the job done and does it very well I think. Indeed, at around $1200 for a lightly used D800 I don't think there's a better "generalist camera" out there using your criteria as I would apply it; however, take away the price issue and I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the D500 isn't the best DX "generalist camera."

Whilst we seem to agree that the D500 is a great camera, your term "best generalist camera".........."all purpose"........(my term..... not that I want to spoil you patent rights on the word)..

English is a living language, constantly in flux.

......seems to turn a blind eye to the D500's resolution limitations as well as it's lesser DR. best all rounder APSc?....

Sure, because there is the D850.

Yes..... but, whilst being capable, I just think there are other bodies better adapted to landscape for example, the D810/D750/D850 is way more suited for that

See above. I was careful when I said best DX camera.

and even the D7200 has better DR and resolution.

Nothing wrong with the D7200, but I wouldn't buy it based on a third of stop DR at base ISO or resolution you cannot see the vast majority of the time. Having more room to work with tilt/shift lenses is a bigger deal to me. YMMV.

The "true" all purpose (generalist) DSLR is the D850, which apart from I Fps, has everything and more whist also mimicking the D500 with only a 1Fps penalty.

Again, see above.

If my goal is to shoot landscapes or astro, it's the D750 every time, so much better the D750's IQ really is!

I will take the D800 over the D750, but that's a debate for another forum.

Is your abounding love for the generalist D500 going to amount to a purchase, or are you just admiring "generalisably" from afar?

Ahem, not my word there. Also, I reserve love for living things; but it's fair to say that I think highly of the D500, would like to get one, and expect to get one someday.

As to when will I get a D500, since no one is offering to buy me one (and I would fork out the additional money for the batteries, XQD card(s), and an L-bracket) I'm just going to have to wait until I can afford it and all the little extras.

Whether my next camera purchase is another D800 or a D500 will depend on whether or not I go from being a hobbyist to doing paid photography work on a regular basis. If I need a second camera for paid work, then I get another D800 because it costs less and it's an exact duplicate of what I have, although it is conceivable that I would get a D500 if that paid work involves photographing fast moving dogs (not likely though as I don't see any lucrative potential there). That last point is exactly why I think the D500 is such a great generalist camera, because having that AF system is going to make a difference for a lot of the photography I do.

In the meantime, travel means more to my photography than any piece of gear right now.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow