Nikon d7500, D7200 or used D800

[Hanz Simone Belleza]

Thinking of purchasing a new camera after my D5300 drowned.

Either i get the d7200 with 18-55, 70-300mm and 50mm or d7500 with 16-80 or d800 with 50mm.

I live in a city that, for some reason, is very dark on the inside so i need a camera with good low light capability, is durable, and has great ergonomics.

 

[Historicity]

Thinking of purchasing a new camera after my D5300 drowned.

Either i get the d7200 with 18-55, 70-300mm and 50mm or d7500 with 16-80 or d800 with 50mm.

I live in a city that, for some reason, is very dark on the inside so i need a camera with good low light capability, is durable, and has great ergonomics.

Both the D7200 and the D7500 are going to have better low-light capability than the D800. The D8XX series is a step up from the D7XXX series and used by pros and semi-

The D800 has significantly better low light performance than both the D7500 and D7200. The D800 is about a stop better in low light than the D7500; even in DX crop mode, the D800 is only about 1/3 stop behind the D7500.

What sort of measurement were you thinking of? I was thinking in terms of the highest ISO that could be achieved without significant noise. In my hiking experience that transfers into low-light performance. I could not get decent shots above about ISO 800 with some of my early Olympus DSLRs. I recall being able to get decent shots with ISO 1600 from my first Pentax, the K20d. As it is now, at least in the Pentax world, the KP and K1ii are at the top.

In this site: https://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/nikon/d800/vs/nikon/d7500/ you can see that the D800 is listed as producing usable quality from up to 6400 ISO. The D7500 is listed as producing equivalent quality from up to ISO 51200. The D7200 using the same site is described as producing usable quality up to ISO 25,600.

Lawrence

D800ff vs. D7xxx DX. I wonder which has better ISO capability!!! Have you thought that FF might have better light gathering as long as sensors are within the same era. DXO rates D800e as one of the best iso performer.

You're right. I just checked DXO; so I don't know. When the weather warms up a little I'll be taking them all out in the early morning. I start a hike at dawn because days in summer and fall get hot very quickly. I'll probably have a revised opinion when that happens.

Lawrence

 

[Historicity]

Thinking of purchasing a new camera after my D5300 drowned.

Either i get the d7200 with 18-55, 70-300mm and 50mm or d7500 with 16-80 or d800 with 50mm.

I live in a city that, for some reason, is very dark on the inside so i need a camera with good low light capability, is durable, and has great ergonomics.

Both the D7200 and the D7500 are going to have better low-light capability than the D800. The D8XX series is a step up from the D7XXX series and used by pros and semi-

The D800 has significantly better low light performance than both the D7500 and D7200. The D800 is about a stop better in low light than the D7500; even in DX crop mode, the D800 is only about 1/3 stop behind the D7500.

What sort of measurement were you thinking of? I was thinking in terms of the highest ISO that could be achieved without significant noise. In my hiking experience that transfers into low-light performance. I could not get decent shots above about ISO 800 with some of my early Olympus DSLRs. I recall being able to get decent shots with ISO 1600 from my first Pentax, the K20d. As it is now, at least in the Pentax world, the KP and K1ii are at the top.

In this site: https://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/nikon/d800/vs/nikon/d7500/ you can see that the D800 is listed as producing usable quality from up to 6400 ISO. The D7500 is listed as producing equivalent quality from up to ISO 51200. The D7200 using the same site is described as producing usable quality up to ISO 25,600.

Those are not from benchmark measurements, it is just a specification sheet comparator, one of any number on the internet that do it to benefit from a few ad clicks. Just because a manufacturer puts iso 51200 in a spec sheet doesn't mean you would want to use it. Nobody with their thinking head on expects to get 3 stops better high iso with a D7500 than a D800. If it's even as good it would be an unusual achievement.

Hmm. Those measurements came from Imaging Resource which as far as I know does their own testing. Here is a document covering their testing philosophy with links to their testing methods: https://www.imaging-resource.com/TIPS/TESTS/TESTS.HTM

Lawrence

 

[Historicity]

Both the D7200 and the D7500 are going to have better low-light capability than the D800.

I strongly doubt that:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D7500,Nikon D800

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7500-versus-Nikon-D800___1161_792

Imaging Resource does their own testing as far as I know: https://www.imaging-resource.com/TIPS/TESTS/TESTS.HTM They test, or at least claim to test for more parameters than DXO seems to. Why, for example, does DXO say that they test ISO for sports? I want high ISO for the mornings I begin hikes in the dark. I'll be trying the D800e as well as the D700 when the days warm up. I'll be very glad if you are right. If not, I also have a Pentax K1ii which is very good in low light.

Lawrence

 

[Tony Beach]

Both the D7200 and the D7500 are going to have better low-light capability than the D800.

I strongly doubt that:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D7500,Nikon D800

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7500-versus-Nikon-D800___1161_792

Imaging Resource does their own testing as far as I know: https://www.imaging-resource.com/TIPS/TESTS/TESTS.HTM They test, or at least claim to test for more parameters than DXO seems to.

Every site I'm aware of has issues with their testing. Broadly speaking you can get a good idea what's going on, but within the margins of error they are a waste of time. However, the D7500 and D800 are not within the margin of error here because the D800 has a much larger sensor than the D7500.

Why, for example, does DXO say that they test ISO for sports?

Ignore that, and their lens comparisons too. However, their measurements are largely consistent with Bill Claff's, both of which I provided you links for above.

I want high ISO for the mornings I begin hikes in the dark. I'll be trying the D800e as well as the D700 when the days warm up. I'll be very glad if you are right. If not, I also have a Pentax K1ii which is very good in low light.

Okay, good, because ultimately that's what counts. In the meantime though, here are links to Imaging Resource's NEF files for the D7500 and D800 at ISO 1600:

D7500

D800

Also, here is a quick comparison I did of them:

[IMG width="400px" alt="The D7500 is on the left and the D800 is on the right. Best viewed at "original size." "]http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing//Untitled-1_191.jpg[/IMG]
The D7500 is on the left and the D800 is on the right. Best viewed at "original size."

When I opened them with NX-D I found myself lost in the weeds. There are too many little things that add up when trying to get the files to match; so instead I just opened them both up with ACR in Photoshop, adjusted the WB on each, and used Adobe Standard profile. Next, I resized the D800 file using Bicubic Smoother in Photoshop to match the file size of the D7500, that way you are viewing them both at the same output.

My point here, besides outlining my workflow for this comparison, is that these results are not indicative of what you could end up with from these camera. That said, any way you approach it, in a head-to-head comparison using the same workflow and adjusting for the same output, the D800 is going to come out ahead of the D7500 as long as you are using the entire frame of the D800 and exposing both cameras optimally using comparable lenses on them.

 

[bclaff]

Both the D7200 and the D7500 are going to have better low-light capability than the D800.

I strongly doubt that:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D7500,Nikon D800

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7500-versus-Nikon-D800___1161_792

Imaging Resource does their own testing as far as I know: https://www.imaging-resource.com/TIPS/TESTS/TESTS.HTM They test, or at least claim to test for more parameters than DXO seems to.

Every site I'm aware of has issues with their testing. Broadly speaking you can get a good idea what's going on, but within the margins of error they are a waste of time.

FWIW, the PhotonsToPhotos measurements have a pretty small margin of error.
See Measurement and Sample Variation for some specifics.

However, the D7500 and D800 are not within the margin of error here because the D800 has a much larger sensor than the D7500.

Yes, sensor area is the key factor (unless you get into equivalence arguments which I never entertain).

Why, for example, does DXO say that they test ISO for sports?

Yeah, the DxOMark Sports Score is a confusing combination of multiple factors.
If anyone wants to see the breakdown they can visit DxOMark Sport Score Audit .

Ignore that, and their lens comparisons too. However, their measurements are largely consistent with Bill Claff's, both of which I provided you links for above.

Yes, I used to use DxOMark as a "sanity check" but found that if anything my measurements were more accurate.

 

[Historicity]

Hello, Bill. I can't recall if I've ever communicated with you directly, but I have a Pentax K1ii and was part of the agonizing thread resulting from DPReview's reliance upon negative test scores and the consequent poor rating they gave the K1ii. I have subsequently used the K1ii with a wide variety of lenses and my own experience is that it is a superb camera for Landscape (hiking) use. I haven't left Pentax but I did get a little bored over Ricoh's time lag in producing new gear and have begun adding Nikon gear. Of the three Nikon cameras I've purchased (The D500, D800e and the D700), I liked the D800e more than the D500, but after getting the D700 am inclined to like it best -- for the sort of photos I take.

I am not totally at odds with Tony Beach. I've had cause to take all such test scores with a grain of salt. They may all be true, but they haven't really tested for the sort of shooting I do; so when I find that a camera, e.g., the K1ii, performs better than the tests would lead me to believe, I conclude they must have been testing for something I don't need.

Also, I was in charge of a lab testing department for verifying that the C-17 had met all the requirements the Air Force had contracted with us for. A variety of test parameters were established and agreed upon by both McDonnell Douglas and the Air Force. My little group took each required test, coordinated with the lab test engineer, design engineer, and anyone else as necessary to get the evidence that would satisfy the Air Force that we had met their requirements. Frankly, the DXO information that I've seen thus far would require more selling than I would feel comfortable doing. Imaging Resource, at least, provides the illusion of clarity. Of course, all it would have take to bring the selling process to a halt would be an Air Force engineer asking a question like Tony Beach's to bring the selling of the Imaging Resource results to a screeching halt.

Both the D7200 and the D7500 are going to have better low-light capability than the D800.

I strongly doubt that:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D7500,Nikon D800

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7500-versus-Nikon-D800___1161_792

Imaging Resource does their own testing as far as I know: https://www.imaging-resource.com/TIPS/TESTS/TESTS.HTM They test, or at least claim to test for more parameters than DXO seems to.

Every site I'm aware of has issues with their testing. Broadly speaking you can get a good idea what's going on, but within the margins of error they are a waste of time.

FWIW, the PhotonsToPhotos measurements have a pretty small margin of error.
See Measurement and Sample Variation for some specifics.

However, the D7500 and D800 are not within the margin of error here because the D800 has a much larger sensor than the D7500.

Yes, sensor area is the key factor (unless you get into equivalence arguments which I never entertain).

Why, for example, does DXO say that they test ISO for sports?

Yeah, the DxOMark Sports Score is a confusing combination of multiple factors.
If anyone wants to see the breakdown they can visit DxOMark Sport Score Audit .

I'm not sure what I'm looking at, but I checked some of the cameras I'm familiar with & see, for example, that the D600 handily beats the D850 in terms of "published score." I'm pretty sure the D850 is a better camera than the D600; so I'm not sure how valuable it is to know that the D600 has a higher "published score."

Ignore that, and their lens comparisons too. However, their measurements are largely consistent with Bill Claff's, both of which I provided you links for above.

Yes, I used to use DxOMark as a "sanity check" but found that if anything my measurements were more accurate.

Having been retired from Boeing Engineering since December 1998, my "sanity checks" have become much more modest: If most of a day's shots look pretty good to me in Lightroom 6 and I have 20 or so I'm willing to upload to my Smugmug account (a modest thing of interest to a few friends and Rhodesian Ridgeback fanciers) then I am happy for the rest of the evening.

Lawrence

 

[Tony Beach]

Every site I'm aware of has issues with their testing. Broadly speaking you can get a good idea what's going on, but within the margins of error they are a waste of time.

FWIW, the PhotonsToPhotos measurements have a pretty small margin of error.
See Measurement and Sample Variation for some specifics.

You're my default reference Bill. I recall a discrepancy with the D750 at one time, but that was fixed. I still would take any of the D7000 series or the D500 over using D750 in DX mode, but that's not the purpose of your site.

However, the D7500 and D800 are not within the margin of error here because the D800 has a much larger sensor than the D7500.

Yes, sensor area is the key factor (unless you get into equivalence arguments which I never entertain).

I factor in equivalence, but it's not really a factor when you are:

1.) Shooting landscapes.

2.) Comfortable with a narrower DOF.

Equivalence is also not the purpose of your site.

Keep up the good work and thanks for all your contributions.

 

[bclaff]

Hello, Bill. I can't recall if I've ever communicated with you directly, but I have a Pentax K1ii and was part of the agonizing thread resulting from DPReview's reliance upon negative test scores and the consequent poor rating they gave the K1ii. I have subsequently used the K1ii with a wide variety of lenses and my own experience is that it is a superb camera for Landscape (hiking) use.

I think the K-1 II probably produces great Out Of the Camera (OOC) JPEGs.
My issue with that camera, and a few other Pentax models, is that very heavy signal processing is applied to the raw data at relatively low ISO settings (for the K-1 II above ISO 500).
My personal preference is to do my own noise reduction and sharpening when processing raw files rather than having something baked in.
If Pentax allowed the user to turn this off in the menu this would be a non-issue entirely.

...

 

[Historicity]

Hello, Bill. I can't recall if I've ever communicated with you directly, but I have a Pentax K1ii and was part of the agonizing thread resulting from DPReview's reliance upon negative test scores and the consequent poor rating they gave the K1ii. I have subsequently used the K1ii with a wide variety of lenses and my own experience is that it is a superb camera for Landscape (hiking) use.

I think the K-1 II probably produces great Out Of the Camera (OOC) JPEGs.
My issue with that camera, and a few other Pentax models, is that very heavy signal processing is applied to the raw data at relatively low ISO settings (for the K-1 II above ISO 500).
My personal preference is to do my own noise reduction and sharpening when processing raw files rather than having something baked in.
If Pentax allowed the user to turn this off in the menu this would be a non-issue entirely.

...

Yes. I remember you saying that; which didn't make sense to me at the time. Why would anyone want to leave noise in a raw file just so they could remove it themselves? I recall that back in my Olympus DSLR days, getting rid of the noise in raw files was a normal part of editing. I bought a few Denoise-type SW utilities during that noisy period.

After Olympus quit making DSLRs, and I bought a Pentax K20d, I was delighted that I got no noise in raw files below ISO 1600. Pentax cameras got better and better (in terms of lesser and lesser noise). I can't remember the last time I read a "what's the best way to get rid of noise" thread on the Pentax forum.

However, if instead of saying that we were going to punish Ricoh big time for eliminating our right to remove our own noise and instead said had a more reasonable or understandable reason, for example, that by making megapixels smaller and denser over time we had reduced the color-making capability in modern sensors. That would have been a far more convincing condemnation, I suspect.

I have heard something like that argument recently in regard to the D700 -- that almost all modern sensors now have numerous small megapixels and by making them small and thin we no longer have the capability of large D700-like megapixels that can produce great color.

Lawrence

 

[bclaff]

Hello, Bill. I can't recall if I've ever communicated with you directly, but I have a Pentax K1ii and was part of the agonizing thread resulting from DPReview's reliance upon negative test scores and the consequent poor rating they gave the K1ii. I have subsequently used the K1ii with a wide variety of lenses and my own experience is that it is a superb camera for Landscape (hiking) use.

I think the K-1 II probably produces great Out Of the Camera (OOC) JPEGs.
My issue with that camera, and a few other Pentax models, is that very heavy signal processing is applied to the raw data at relatively low ISO settings (for the K-1 II above ISO 500).
My personal preference is to do my own noise reduction and sharpening when processing raw files rather than having something baked in.
If Pentax allowed the user to turn this off in the menu this would be a non-issue entirely.

...

Yes. I remember you saying that; which didn't make sense to me at the time. Why would anyone want to leave noise in a raw file just so they could remove it themselves? ...

Noise Reduction (NR), which is not noise removal, isn't an all or nothing proposition.
The same is true of other post processing such as sharpening.
Honestly, I rarely do any NR on my images and at most minimal sharpening.

If you're happy with the Pentax approach that's fine, I'm not trying to change your mind; but I personally wouldn't be interested in it and I'm baffled as to why it isn't optional for people like myself.

 

[Tony Beach]

...by making megapixels smaller and denser over time we had reduced the color-making capability in modern sensors. That would have been a far more convincing condemnation, I suspect.

I have heard something like that argument recently in regard to the D700 -- that almost all modern sensors now have numerous small megapixels and by making them small and thin we no longer have the capability of large D700-like megapixels that can produce great color.

Except that's simply not true. It's a complete fabrication, mostly espoused by fPrime, and it's been repeatedly debunked by many knowledgeable contributors here at DPR. That stuff simply doesn't pass muster when it ends up in the Photographic Science and Technology forum. He keeps presenting a few cherry-picked data points that he doesn't really understand, such as Sensitivity Metamerism Index (SMI) which DxO Mark describes as "not very discriminating" when it comes to comparing the sensors' performance, or there was that thread he started where he cited Phase One marketing material.

He will be dismissive and disingenuous and I'm sure he has some bogus argument why it doesn't count that when using the Print tab[1] DxO Mark measures the Color Sensitivity of the D800 at base ISO at two stops better than his precious D700 at base ISO, and that the D800 does essentially as well at ISO 400 as the D700 does at ISO 200. You can also see similar numbers for Tonal Range.

ttps://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D800-versus-Nikon-D700___792_441

Modern sensors produce better colors than older sensors precisely because they have less noise.[2] You can see that in DxO Mark's graphs that show the color sensitivity and Tonal Range get worse as ISO is increased (because ISO is a response to underexposure, which is where noise comes from). If you want to you can waste some time reading about DxO Mark say about this here:

https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Color-sensitivity

[1] The reason to use the Print tab instead of the Screen tab is because the Print tab compares equal areas of the sensor whereas the Screen tab compares equal areas of the screen (i.e., just the individual pixels), so in theory you could have a single pixel covering the entire screen, but a single pixel sensor would be useless for photography.

[2] Modern sensors have less noise because they have greater fill factors (the wires are getting smaller), better microlenses, and greater quantum efficiency.

 

[bclaff]

....

... when using the Print tab DxO Mark measures the Color Sensitivity of the D800 at base ISO at two stops better than his precious D700 at base ISO, and that the D800 does essentially as well at ISO 400 as the D700 does at ISO 200. You can also see similar numbers for Tonal Range...

Hmmm, not stops but only 1.8 bits (about 0.1 stops); 25.3 bits at ISO 100 (base) for the D800 and 23.5 bits at ISO 200 (base) for the D700.




--

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

 

[Tony Beach]

....

... when using the Print tab DxO Mark measures the Color Sensitivity of the D800 at base ISO at two stops better than his precious D700 at base ISO, and that the D800 does essentially as well at ISO 400 as the D700 does at ISO 200. You can also see similar numbers for Tonal Range...

Hmmm, not stops but only 1.8 bits (about 0.1 stops); 25.3 bits at ISO 100 (base) for the D800 and 23.5 bits at ISO 200 (base) for the D700.

The link for this is broken (the h got cut off from https, I should try again:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D800-versus-Nikon-D700___792_441

The D800 at:

• ISO 100 is 25.3 bits
• ISO 200 is 24.5 bits
• ISO 400 is 23.4 bits

That's a difference of .8 bits going from the ISO 100 to ISO 200, and 1.1 bits from ISO 200 to ISO 400.

The D700 at:

• ISO 200 is 23.5 bits
• ISO 400 is 22.6 bits

That's a difference of .9 bits going from ISO 200 to ISO 400.

More to the point, according to DxO Mark you get essentially the same Color Sensitivity at ISO 400 on the D800 as you get at ISO 200 on the D700. That's a one stop improvement (inasmuch as you can get the same Color Sensitivity with half the exposure), and the D800 has two more stops of improvement over that. Going in the other direction, at ISO 800 they are much closer, but the D800 is still marginally better than the D700 at every ISO. Looking at this measurement and the Tonal Range measurement the bottom line is that the D800 does not lose ground to the D700 because of its smaller photosites.

 

[Ruekon]

Thinking of purchasing a new camera after my D5300 drowned.

Either i get the d7200 with 18-55, 70-300mm and 50mm or d7500 with 16-80 or d800 with 50mm.

I live in a city that, for some reason, is very dark on the inside so i need a camera with good low light capability, is durable, and has great ergonomics.

I would say that the D7500 with 16-80 gives you the best performance for the money you want to spend and the best balance between investment into camera and optics. I can recommend the 16-80 f/2.8-4E ED VR. All its coating and ED glass excel in complex available light situations, VR may give you additional f-stops, and the electronic aperture control contributes to more accurate results. Even though I'm using this lens with a D500, I think that the D7500 is similar in many regards.

 

[Nomoreheroes]

Thinking of purchasing a new camera after my D5300 drowned.

Either i get the d7200 with 18-55, 70-300mm and 50mm or d7500 with 16-80 or d800 with 50mm.

I live in a city that, for some reason, is very dark on the inside so i need a camera with good low light capability, is durable, and has great ergonomics.

Then the D800 will suit you fine

It has good lowlight capabilities and is well built and has great ergonomics

 

[Mark_A]

Thinking of purchasing a new camera after my D5300 drowned.

Either i get the d7200 with 18-55, 70-300mm and 50mm or d7500 with 16-80 or d800 with 50mm.

I live in a city that, for some reason, is very dark on the inside so i need a camera with good low light capability, is durable, and has great ergonomics.

The options I worked out for myself 12 months ago were, used D610 or D800.

I went with the used D800 and I haven't looked back.

I did already have 5 FX lenses that would work with it.

Mark_A

 

[Hanz Simone Belleza]

Thinking of purchasing a new camera after my D5300 drowned.

Either i get the d7200 with 18-55, 70-300mm and 50mm or d7500 with 16-80 or d800 with 50mm.

I live in a city that, for some reason, is very dark on the inside so i need a camera with good low light capability, is durable, and has great ergonomics.

Clarification: I have zero lenses except for the 18-55mm af-p vr. Budget is still at 1000usd

 

[Ruekon]

Thinking of purchasing a new camera after my D5300 drowned.

Either i get the d7200 with 18-55, 70-300mm and 50mm or d7500 with 16-80 or d800 with 50mm.

I live in a city that, for some reason, is very dark on the inside so i need a camera with good low light capability, is durable, and has great ergonomics.

Clarification: I have zero lenses except for the 18-55mm af-p vr. Budget is still at 1000usd

1000usd is a tricky budget. D7500 with 16-80 costs about twice as much. The D7200 is a very good still camera, despite of its age, and sells for good prices. Alternatively, if you want to go with time (video, tilting touch screen, silent shutter, eye autofocus, ...) I would have a look at Fujifilm X-T20, Sony A6400, or the like.

 

[Rexgig0]

With a budget of $1000 US, and having one 18-55mm DX kit lens on hand, I would buy a D7200, and start saving for another lens, to be acquired in the future, probably a Micro-Nikkor.

With a somewhat larger budget, twice as much, I still believe I would buy a D7200.

Really, until the D500, the D7200 was Nikon’s best DX camera, a true semi-pro camera, if not quite “pro DX.” With the advent of the D500, to clearly carry “pro DX” title, for sports/action/bird/wildlife shooters, it seems Nikon has turned the D7000-series away from being semi-pro. I am not saying this to be critical, as the concept of model differentiation is valid, but I would rather have a D7200 than a D7500.

I recently bought a D7200, to be a gift for my brother, and the “instant rebate” price was so nice, I was tempted to return to the store, and buy a second one, for myself. There are times a capable DX camera makes sense, even for those of us with FX cameras.

As for a pre-owned D800 camera, I would not interested, with a budget of $1000, or even $2000.

 

[Tony Beach]

As for a pre-owned D800 camera, I would not interested, with a budget of $1000, or even $2000.

OP wrote, "I live in a city that, for some reason, is very dark on the inside so i need a camera with good low light capability, is durable, and has great ergonomics." Given that, a D800 ticks off all those boxes.