Sony A6700 vs Nikon D500

[1stTimeNewbie]

I love the long reach of APS-C cameras. In choosing between the reliable Nikon D500 and the fancy Sony A6700 camera bodies, which camera will produce better images? The A6700 has an advantage with a 26MP count vs 21MP for the D500. Does the 5 MP difference give Sony an image quality advantage? I plan on coupling the Sony 200-600 FE lens with the A6700 giving me an equivalent of a 900 mm max reach. For the D500, I will be using the 200-500 Nikon lens giving me a max reach of 750 mm. By default, advantage to the A6700 although its not fair to compare lenses with different focal lengths. Here is where I need help. Although the Sony A6700 has legendary Sony autofocusing elements, does it outperform the Nikon D500's fast and accurate focusing system? Will I get more keepers with the A6700? And finally, the D500 is good with low light photography. I typically go birding early in the morning or close to dusk when the light is not ideal. With the D500, I have been able to capture good bird in flight pictures in these scenarios, will the A6700 perform better? Any insight or feedback regarding this matchup will be greatly appreciated.

 

[1stTimeNewbie]

recent picture of my D500 coupled with a sigma C 180-600 lens. As you will notice, based on angle of the light, picture was taken close to sunset.




another pic with D500/Sigma 180-600 lens. overcast skies.

 

[Martin_99]

recent picture of my D500 coupled with a sigma C 180-600 lens. As you will notice, based on angle of the light, picture was taken close to sunset.


another pic with D500/Sigma 180-600 lens. overcast skies.

The first photo at 1/3200 and ISO 320 is very far from being "low light", similar as second one. I sometimes shoot birds on branches at 1/125s and ISO1600 (about 7EV of light less!), but usually stop shooting when light go down even more.

I can't compare these two cameras for you, but I would definitely go for modern mirrorless camera. A6700 with 200-600 is very nice wildlife start.

 

[Bill Ferris]

I love the long reach of APS-C cameras. In choosing between the reliable Nikon D500 and the fancy Sony A6700 camera bodies, which camera will produce better images?

Either camera can be used by a creative skilled photographer to make great photos.

The A6700 has an advantage with a 26MP count vs 21MP for the D500. Does the 5 MP difference give Sony an image quality advantage?

The difference is trivial. It works out to a 14% difference in resolution, which is barely preceptible when comparing images at 100%.

I plan on coupling the Sony 200-600 FE lens with the A6700 giving me an equivalent of a 900 mm max reach. For the D500, I will be using the 200-500 Nikon lens giving me a max reach of 750 mm. By default, advantage to the A6700 although its not fair to compare lenses with different focal lengths.

It's a fair comparison. It's fair because, in wildlife and bird photography, it's common for people to use different format cameras and focal lengths. The trick is to compare inherently different systems in a way that's meaningful.

Here is where I need help. Although the Sony A6700 has legendary Sony autofocusing elements, does it outperform the Nikon D500's fast and accurate focusing system? Will I get more keepers with the A6700? And finally, the D500 is good with low light photography.

Both systems can be used to do great work. The system that's best for you will depend, in large part, on how you'd use it. But before getting to that, let's take a look at the comparative performance of the systems.

Both are APS-C cameras and will collect the same total light energy working with the same exposure. That means both have the potential to make images of the same quality and noise.

The key, then, in a comparison of the systems is the lenses that will be used with them. The Sony 200-600mm f/5-6.3 zoom lens has 20% more reach than the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E. That's a noticeable advantage.

The Sony zoom has a (600mm/6.3=95mm) 95mm maximum entrance pupil at the long end. The Nikkor has a (500mm/5.6/89mm) 89mm maximum entrance pupil at the long end. The slight advantage in aperture gives the Sony a 14% advantage in light gathering. That's not significant but also isn't nothing.

I typically go birding early in the morning or close to dusk when the light is not ideal. With the D500, I have been able to capture good bird in flight pictures in these scenarios, will the A6700 perform better? Any insight or feedback regarding this matchup will be greatly appreciated.

Since you've already got the D500/200-500 combo, this becomes an upgrade question as opposed to simply a, "Which system is better?" question. If you're looking to upgrade from the D500/200-500, an A6700/200-600 isn't the answer. It's an expensive system change that will yield minimal gains in reach and light gathering. Image quality will often be indistinguishable, occasionally noticeable, but not significant or game-changing.

If you want a real upgrade from the D500 system you've got, look at newer full-frame bodies paired with longer or faster lenses. It's expensive but the result has the potential to be obviously, significantly better.

Good luck.

 

[Off The Mark]

As Bill pointed out above, this seems like more of an expensive lateral move (in terms of image quality) than an improvement.

Sony may or may not have better autofocus, but I would really do a lot of research in to that before pulling the trigger on moving your entire system over.

As someone who has owned four Sony aps-c cameras and owned three DSLR Nikon cameras, I think you might miss out on the ergonomics and user interface of the D500. I found that when moving from my Nikon D750 to a Sony a6500, I was spending a lot more time menu diving on the Sony camera.

The a6700 does have IBIS, which is a nice feature (not sure if the D500 has it or not), but Sony IBIS has never been great.

Soooo... to me, it just sounds like the real benefit for you would come IF all the AI focus recognition and tracking features are a significant advancement over those in the D500.

One last thought (although you didn't bring this up, so don't know if this is relevant at all or not ): If you want to shoot VIDEO, then I think the Sony a6700 is a clear winner.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I love the long reach of APS-C cameras. In choosing between the reliable Nikon D500 and the fancy Sony A6700 camera bodies, which camera will produce better images? The A6700 has an advantage with a 26MP count vs 21MP for the D500. Does the 5 MP difference give Sony an image quality advantage? I plan on coupling the Sony 200-600 FE lens with the A6700 giving me an equivalent of a 900 mm max reach. For the D500, I will be using the 200-500 Nikon lens giving me a max reach of 750 mm. By default, advantage to the A6700 although its not fair to compare lenses with different focal lengths. Here is where I need help. Although the Sony A6700 has legendary Sony autofocusing elements, does it outperform the Nikon D500's fast and accurate focusing system? Will I get more keepers with the A6700? And finally, the D500 is good with low light photography. I typically go birding early in the morning or close to dusk when the light is not ideal. With the D500, I have been able to capture good bird in flight pictures in these scenarios, will the A6700 perform better? Any insight or feedback regarding this matchup will be greatly appreciated.

As you seem to suspect, IMO the big difference is that the A6700 has an autofocus system with 759 points across almost all of the frame and a very modern tracking system, where the D500 has an autofocus system with 55 points across maybe 40% of the frame and a very good-for-its-day--but that day was 2016, versus 2023--tracking system. I can't give you a direct comparison, but when my son switched from a Canon 7D II, which I see as broadly comparable to a D500, to a Sony A6400, he was surprised e.g. how much stickier the Sony's tracking is. The D500 may be better than the 7D II, but the A6700 is better than the A6400.

So maybe a relevant question is: you "have been able to capture good bird in flight pictures", but is your hit rate for really sharp photos 95%, 65%, 35%, or 5%? In other words, how much room for improvement does there seem to be? If the answer is 'a lot', then maybe you should rent the Sony combination and try for yourself.

Beyond autofocus, the experience of a slightly larger (0.71x versus 0.67x) EVF versus a slightly smaller OVF, and the differences in size, weight, and shape, I suspect you'd find the differences in sensor noise and dynamic range performance are small, maybe bordering on invisible in normal use. The A6700 with the 200-600mm gives you potentially 33% more pixels per subject dimension than the D500 with the 200-500mm, which to me seems not trivial but probably modest.

 

[BartekG]

Soooo... to me, it just sounds like the real benefit for you would come IF all the AI focus recognition and tracking features are a significant advancement over those in the D500.

Subject detection is a game changer. You no longer have to fight to keep the focus point on the eye and instead can focus on the composition. a6700 subject detection works really well and will not loose the eye position even if the animal turns the head back. I switched to a6700 + Tamron 150-500 from D7200 + Sigma 150-600 C and started getting shots I would miss with D7200.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

Image quality : slight advantage to the A6700, but not enough to justify switching cameras

Burst rate : 11fps for the A6700, 10fps for the D500, same situation as the image quality.

Autofocus : both cameras are exceptionally fast and accurate, however the A6700 has the advantage of having subject detection autofocus that basically focuses for you while the D500 needs the user to initiate the (very good) tracking. On a hitrate basis, the A6700 might be a little better than the D500, but just like the two prefvious points, it's a difference that is small enough that it's not really worth switching systems for.

Handling / ergonomics : huge advantage to the D500 here in my opinion, as you have a large grip, full set of controls (+ joystick), and a large viewfinder that suffers from no lag at all. The A6700's EVF is not that bad a but a bit small and most importantly will display a "slideshow", not life view when shooting at 11fps. BOth camera have pretty good buffers, but the XQD slot in the D500 will allow to clear files much faster.

In my opinion, the strength of the A6700 are elsewhere : the smaller package, the lighter weight, the MUCH better video specs, the fact that outside of wildlife shooting it can be used in more situations (I would gladly take an A6700 to a small social event or to a friends gathering to snap pictures with a small prime attached to it, I would definitely not do that with a D500).

 

[MustAg]

.

 

[MustAg]

I have no idea what people who are doing the detailed comparisons are smoking. In particular I dunno what's wrong with people who said Sony "might" have better AF lol. The D500 AF was good when it released like 8 or 9 years ago, but it's hopelessly outperformed by modern mirrorless cameras especially in live view mode to the point a comparison is utterly ridiculous. A6700 has the same AF system from the A9 III and A7R V with a dedicated chip for AF and subject recognition.

Not even the sensors are comparable, A6700 has slightly more dynamic range despite being like 25% higher res, which shouldn't come as a surprise since it's much newer. And for video they're not even in the same league for way too many reasons.

E mount system is far more future proof than the F mount and will keep receiving newer lighter more value efficient lenses.

The only right answer to this question is, unless you're paying a lot less for the D500 (and I mean no more than half the price of the A6700) then you're making a monumentally horrible decision.

Regarding the lenses, the Sony 200-600 is better optically, not night and day better but better. It's also the same size despite having 100mm reach advantage. If 200-500mm is enough for you, you can get the Tamron 150-500mm for Sony E. It's got a slightly wider focal range than the Nikon and yet it's 1.7 kg or so vs the Nikon's 2.1 kg weight.

If this gave you the impression that I hate the D500 or the 200-500mm lens, then I don't. But it's important to know that technology evolves, and the only reason why you'd buy old stuff is if you're saving money. The A6700 isn't the best camera in the world (although for its 1300 dollars price currently it's pretty hard to beat), there are better cameras, and it has competitors that make a very solid case for themselves depending on your needs, but when you compare it to a camera that's like 8 years older than itself, and one that has an obsolete mount at that, then you really are setting it up for success

 

[1stTimeNewbie]

Makes sense, thanks.

 

[Bill Ferris]

I have no idea what people who are doing the detailed comparisons are smoking. In particular I dunno what's wrong with people who said Sony "might" have better AF lol. The D500 AF was good when it released like 8 or 9 years ago, but it's hopelessly outperformed by modern mirrorless cameras especially in live view mode to the point a comparison is utterly ridiculous.

A D500 was my primary camera for birds and wildlife for 6 years. In May, I upgraded to a Z9. Anybody who talks about a D500 as though the autofocus can't be relied upon for this genre of photography has surely never used one.

A6700 has the same AF system from the A9 III and A7R V with a dedicated chip for AF and subject recognition.

Not even the sensors are comparable, A6700 has slightly more dynamic range despite being like 25% higher res, which shouldn't come as a surprise since it's much newer. And for video they're not even in the same league for way too many reasons.

Actually, the A6700 has zero advantage in DR at the exposures and ISOs the OP will be using when doing bird photography: https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D500,Sony ILCE-6700

They're both APS-C cameras. They work with the same exposure at the same f-stop and shutter speed and make photos having the same level of shot noise. Upgrading to an A6700 is a lateral move.

E mount system is far more future proof than the F mount and will keep receiving newer lighter more value efficient lenses.

The only right answer to this question is, unless you're paying a lot less for the D500 (and I mean no more than half the price of the A6700) then you're making a monumentally horrible decision.

The OP already owns a D500. "With the D500, I have been able to capture good bird in flight pictures in these scenarios, ..."

Regarding the lenses, the Sony 200-600 is better optically, not night and day better but better. It's also the same size despite having 100mm reach advantage. If 200-500mm is enough for you, you can get the Tamron 150-500mm for Sony E. It's got a slightly wider focal range than the Nikon and yet it's 1.7 kg or so vs the Nikon's 2.1 kg weight.

The Sony zoom is a good lens. Paired with the A6700, it offers a 14% increase in light-gathering vs the OP's current system. There won't be much difference between images made with both systems.

If this gave you the impression that I hate the D500 or the 200-500mm lens, then I don't. But it's important to know that technology evolves, and the only reason why you'd buy old stuff is if you're saving money.

There are advantages the OP's D500 has over the A6700, including:

• Superior viewfinder
• Deeper buffer
• A greater variety of AF modes are available at the touch of a button without having to remove one's eye from the OVF or one's forefinger from the shutter release
• The shooting/custom settings banks allow for deep customization of four camera configurations
• Better build quality

Just because something is newer doesn't make it better.

The A6700 isn't the best camera in the world (although for its 1300 dollars price currently it's pretty hard to beat), there are better cameras, and it has competitors that make a very solid case for themselves depending on your needs, but when you compare it to a camera that's like 8 years older than itself, and one that has an obsolete mount at that, then you really are setting it up for success

If the OP wants to make an upgrade that will yield obviously better image quality than produced by the D500/200-500 system they currently use, their best option is to wait and save until they can upgrade to a full frame system.

 

[MustAg]

I'm not saying you can't use D500 for birds or wildlife, but I am saying that as far as the OP question is concerned, it's not even remotely close to A6700 in terms of af. There are a billion reasons as to why, and I really don't have the time to go over all of them but the simplest examples: in live view the A6700 slaughters, it has better tracking, and it's astronomically smarter. When you have both animals and birds or humans and birds in the same frame, it'll know exactly what you want it to focus on. Just scratching the surface here.

The graph you yourself posted shows a small advantage for a6700 at certain iso values, despite its sensor being 25% higher res.

It's subjective who has the better viewfinder. Personally mirrorless EVFs are way better to me, you can see how your settings affect the final image, and that makes all the difference in the world sometimes. A6700's EVF is plenty crisp and bright and has 120hz refresh rate. I would take it over any optical viewfinder (and I've used DSLRs before).

A6700 has way more AF modes, a much much better and smarter AF system, and this becomes especially true if you're using live view. The d500 really doesn't even come close.

Better build quality? I don't think so. A6700 is pretty solid and weather sealed. I don't see this being a real world advantage in any way.

I was answering a question that was asked in the OP, it's possible the upgrade won't make a huge difference for OP if he already has D500 but the a6700 is objectively a significantly better camera. More room for cropping with no associated loss in DR, better keeper rate especially in live view and especially for wildlife and birds, lighter weight makes it easier to take on the go, far far better for video, and much wider feature set for every day shooting (ibis, better viewfinder magnification, faster bursts, articulating screen).

I guess in this case newer is better.

 

[duncang]

I love the long reach of APS-C cameras. In choosing between the reliable Nikon D500 and the fancy Sony A6700 camera bodies, which camera will produce better images? The A6700 has an advantage with a 26MP count vs 21MP for the D500. Does the 5 MP difference give Sony an image quality advantage? I plan on coupling the Sony 200-600 FE lens with the A6700 giving me an equivalent of a 900 mm max reach. For the D500, I will be using the 200-500 Nikon lens giving me a max reach of 750 mm. By default, advantage to the A6700 although its not fair to compare lenses with different focal lengths. Here is where I need help. Although the Sony A6700 has legendary Sony autofocusing elements, does it outperform the Nikon D500's fast and accurate focusing system? Will I get more keepers with the A6700? And finally, the D500 is good with low light photography. I typically go birding early in the morning or close to dusk when the light is not ideal. With the D500, I have been able to capture good bird in flight pictures in these scenarios, will the A6700 perform better? Any insight or feedback regarding this matchup will be greatly appreciated.

The 200-600 is sharper and has longer focal length - in addition it takes the 1.4TC with little loss of sharpness so you can shoot at 840mm f/9.


You will struggle get things like swallows in flight with the D500 - the camera needs to be able to track the subject across the entire frame and the a6700 has the latest Sony AI based subject detection and tracking. When used with Wide Area focus mode the camera will detect and focus on the bird as it moves across the frame - all you have to do is keep the bird in the frame lol!

For a realtime EVF you will need to shoot in drive mode H (7fps) and for action you will need to use mechanical shutter.

There are many advantages the Sony system offers, some of which include:

- better AF in low light - it will keep tracking a tern at dusk a good 15-20 minutes after the Z8/Z9 are no longer able to stay on the same subject and long after the D500 can no longer focus on them. Of course the image quality isnt going to be great since it is an APS-C sensor - however there won't be much difference to the D500 other than a 30% increase in resolution (26mp vs 20mp) - which will be noticeable.

- EVF shows the actual image exposure which makes it easier to get the correct exposure

- Zebras help set the correct exposure which is especially helpful for small subjects like birds where you want to make sure the subject exposure is correct. Gone are the days of guessing.

- customisable buttons and dials so you can set up two back focus buttons with different focus areas

- bird/animal/human subject detection and tracking - a big advantage for making sure you are nailing the focus on the subjects eyes

- option to upgrade to FF cameras like A9, A7r5, A1 etc. using the same lenses


excellent subject detection and AF accuracy

You can crop a fair bit if the light is good






Sharp 600 when used wide open


backlit before sunrise the camera will detect the Birds Eye and focus on them




Taken early in the morning in weak light




No trouble tracking the same subject against a busy background






Very sharp at 200mm




The same at 600mm




Birds in flight no problem.

Consecutive shots from a sequence - consistent accurate AF system

























Bird eye detect will keep the birds eyes in focus - the D500 will focus on whatever is closest to the camera.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

I'm not saying you can't use D500 for birds or wildlife, but I am saying that as far as the OP question is concerned, it's not even remotely close to A6700 in terms of af. There are a billion reasons as to why, and I really don't have the time to go over all of them but the simplest examples: in live view the A6700 slaughters, it has better tracking, and it's astronomically smarter. When you have both animals and birds or humans and birds in the same frame, it'll know exactly what you want it to focus on. Just scratching the surface here.

If you use the D500 with the back screen, you're using it wrong. This is a camera you use 99% of the time with the viewfinder.

The D500's autofocus system is easily competeing with the A6700's in speed and accuracy. The only (major) difference is subject detection, otherwise both cameras are as fast and accurate in on a general basis.

The graph you yourself posted shows a small advantage for a6700 at certain iso values, despite its sensor being 25% higher res.

resolution isn't a linear metric. It's a logarithmic metric. The more resolution you have, the less difference it makes.

You cannot see a reasonable difference between a 21MP and 26MP image without printing sizes like A1 or A0 or bigger. You make it sound like 5MP are a big deal. It's not.

It's subjective who has the better viewfinder. Personally mirrorless EVFs are way better to me, you can see how your settings affect the final image, and that makes all the difference in the world sometimes. A6700's EVF is plenty crisp and bright and has 120hz refresh rate. I would take it over any optical viewfinder (and I've used DSLRs before).

But you don't have no lag free shooting, like you have no blackout shooting. The D500 has blackout, as it's a DSLR obviously, but it also means it has exactly zero lag, while the A6700 goes in slideshow mode when used at 11fps, making it harder to track subjects with.

A6700 has way more AF modes, a much much better and smarter AF system, and this becomes especially true if you're using live view. The d500 really doesn't even come close.

Why would you even use live view on a D500? The AF system is smarter, but it's not more accurate or faster than the D500's.

Better build quality? I don't think so. A6700 is pretty solid and weather sealed. I don't see this being a real world advantage in any way.

If you're saying this, you probably have never held a D500 in your hands. The D500 is a tank, the A6700 is a nice camera.

They're not built to the same standards.

I was answering a question that was asked in the OP, it's possible the upgrade won't make a huge difference for OP if he already has D500 but the a6700 is objectively a significantly better camera.

It's a more versatile camera, yes. For wildlife it might be more practical as it's smaller, lighter and has subject detection.

But when it comes to raw performance, you won't see a huge increase in the burst spped, you won't see a huge increase in the image quality and it's more a side move to mirrorless than a straight upgrade.

You're trading a lag free viewfinder, super large (almost unlimited) buffer and tank like build quality for a smaller, lighter camera that will allow you to detect birds, but the EVF is worse for wildlife, the ergonomics are not as good when using long lenses and the camera isn't as well built.

It's a side grade for OP's application, unless OP wanted to also take their camera in other things than wildlife shooting.

More room for cropping with no associated loss in DR, better keeper rate especially in live view and especially for wildlife and birds, lighter weight makes it easier to take on the go, far far better for video, and much wider feature set for every day shooting (ibis, better viewfinder magnification, faster bursts, articulating screen).

I guess in this case newer is better.

you keep bringing up the live view but you never mention the viewfinder AF. Have you ever handled a D500 before dissing it out? Seems to me that you didn't.

 

[MustAg]

Like I said, I don't think there's any point in going into details. You can talk about how using live view is a bad idea with d500 or how its af and sensor are adequate but in the end all you're doing is trying to cover up its shortcomings compared to modern mirrorless cameras.

Live view exists for a reason, sometimes you're trying to shoot something with the camera raised above your head, someone you're shooting from the hip or at ground level. Particularly common when you're shooting animals and birds, it exists for a reason

25% more room to crop exists and is a significant difference.

A6700 af is better, smarter, and far far more flexible. If I wasn't able to tap to focus while raising the camera above my head I wouldn't have been able to take many shots. That's to say nothing of the much more sticky tracking. 8 years make a world of difference when it comes to newer hardware and algorithm optimization.

D500 video capabilities are nothing compared to A6700, especially for wildlife and birds.

The difference between the 2 is huge, as it would be given the almost one decade age difference.

Btw, I've owned a D7200, which is pretty close to D500 in terms of size and ergonomics. There's little point in a camera being a tank or big or heavy. So long as it's nice and comfy to grip that's all there is to it, I don't use my camera to bash zombies in the head.

The simple truth is, one camera is adequate for certain use cases, but that doesn't change that the other is better in almost every way.

As for whether it's worth it for op to switch, I'm not sure about that. It all depends on op's use.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Like I said, I don't think there's any point in going into details. You can talk about how using live view is a bad idea with d500 or how its af and sensor are adequate but in the end all you're doing is trying to cover up its shortcomings compared to modern mirrorless cameras.

Bird & wildlife photographers don't use Live View. Imagine trying to hold a camera paired with a 500mm or longer lens far enough in front of your face to use Live View. The Sony 200-600 weighs almost 5 lbs. It's not happening.

The A6700 does have several user interface shortcomings vs the D500:

• The grip isn't big enough to accommodate your whole hand. That makes it more difficult to support the weight of the camera & long lens. (D500's grip is larger. Add the OEM battery grip for even more real estate.)
• Only one SD card (D500 has two card shots, including an XQD/CFExpress slot.)
• No thumbstick. (The D500 has one.)
• No function buttons on the front panel. (The D500 has two.)
• Maximum 7 fps burst rate shooting lossless compressed raw. (D500 has a 10 fps burst rate shooting 14 bit raw.)
• 1/4000-second maximum shutter speed with mechanical shutter (D500's maximum shutter speed is 1/8000-second)
• Single battery. (D500's vertical grip accessory enables use of a second battery and full camera controls in portrait mode.)

Migrating from the D500 to an A6700 would be a lateral move from an image quality standpoint and a step backwards from a user interface perspective. While the D500 has a professional user interface, The A6700 is an enthusiast camera.

Live view exists for a reason, sometimes you're trying to shoot something with the camera raised above your head, someone you're shooting from the hip or at ground level. Particularly common when you're shooting animals and birds, it exists for a reason

Bird & wildlife photographers don't use Live View. When you're holding 6+ lbs. of photographic equipment in your hands, the most effective and comfortable way of supporting that weight is with the left hand supporting the lens, the right hand holding the camera grip, and the viewfinder up to your face.

Trying to hold that weight extended away from your face so you can use Live View is unbalanced, unstable, and ineffective. That's why nobody who shoots birds & wildlife uses it.

25% more room to crop exists and is a significant difference.

A 26MP camera has a 14% resolution advantage over a 20MP camera. That's what the laws of physics and the math tell us. It's not significant. You can confirm this by comparing the A6700, D500, and other APS-C systems in the DPR Studio Scene:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d500&attr13_1=sony_a6700&attr13_2=canon_eosr7&attr13_3=fujifilm_xh2&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=400&attr16_1=400&attr16_2=400&attr16_3=400&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.5878063822028354&y=-0.2050220701907383

A6700 af is better, smarter, and far far more flexible. If I wasn't able to tap to focus while raising the camera above my head I wouldn't have been able to take many shots.

That's to say nothing of the much more sticky tracking. 8 years make a world of difference when it comes to newer hardware and algorithm optimization.

Rather than bury the OP under hyperbole, let's provide them with some factual analysis relevant to their inquiry.

For the sake of argument, let's say the A6700 has better autofocus. Let's say its hit rate for birds in-flight is 90% while the D500's is 75%. At 7 fps and shooting lossless compressed raw, the A6700 buffer maxes out at 23 frames after about 3 seconds. 23 x 0.9 = 21 frames.

The D500 has a 10 fps burst rate shooting 14 bit raw and a 200 image buffer limit. You'd need to mash the shutter release for 20 seconds to hit that limit. Let's say that, at peak action, you hold the shutter release for 5 seconds. That's 50 frames. 50 x 0.75 = 38 frames.

The D500's faster frame rate and bottomless buffer overcome the A6700's AF advantage by a healthy margin. Even if we allow for the A6700 to continue shooting at a reduced frame rate (5 fps) for another 2 seconds, it's still not delivering as many keepers.

D500 video capabilities are nothing compared to A6700, especially for wildlife and birds.

Again, irrelevant to the thread, which is about still photography of birds.

The difference between the 2 is huge, as it would be given the almost one decade age difference.

Btw, I've owned a D7200, which is pretty close to D500 in terms of size and ergonomics.

You're joking, right? The D7200 is "pretty close to (a) D500 in...ergonomics." The D7200 has Nikon's enthusiast interface. The D500 has Nikon's professional interface and build quality, not to mention a superior autofocus system.

There's little point in a camera being a tank or big or heavy. So long as it's nice and comfy to grip that's all there is to it, I don't use my camera to bash zombies in the head.

You don't use your camera to photograph birds or wildlife, either. The OP does. The A6700 is a lateral move in image quality and a step backwards in ergonomics.

The simple truth is, one camera is adequate for certain use cases, but that doesn't change that the other is better in almost every way.

The A6700 may be better for some genres. It's not an upgrade for the OP's usage. At best, it's a $3,300 lateral system change.

As for whether it's worth it for op to switch, I'm not sure about that. It all depends on op's use.

Bird photography. The OP states that in the top post and its been the context framing this entire side discussion.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

Wanted to make a reply of my own, but you made a better one than I could I worded myself.

I agree with evertyhing you said.

 

[MustAg]

Most of this isn't correct.

Bird & wildlife photographers don't use Live View.

Of course they do. I've been doing it for 8 years and I use live view a ton. Live view doesn't mean single handed use and you can use one hand to support the lens and the other to control the camera. Again, many of my shots wouldn't have been possible without it. I sometimes take pics of squirrels while the camera is almost ground level and I don't wanna crawl on my belly to do it. I also lift it above my head for birds and I'm not 8 ft tall and don't think most photographers are.

The grip isn't big enough to accommodate your whole hand. That makes it more difficult to support the weight of the camera & long lens. (D500's grip is larger. Add the OEM battery grip for even more real estate.)

I have pretty big hands and never had an issue with the A6700. I actually like that it's compact and easy to travel with.

Only one SD card

Not really a meaningful feature for me. I mean maybe for a wedding photographer that could make a difference but not in wildlife.

No thumbstick.

You can use the D-pad to move the focus point and you can tap to focus which d500 doesn't support.

No function buttons on the front

There are multiple custom buttons and a function button on A6700. Almost everything is customizable too.

Maximum 7 fps burst rate shooting lossless compressed raw.

11 fps, not 7.

1/4000-second maximum shutter speed with mechanical shutter

I've been a photographer for 8 years and never ever used 1/4000 let alone 1/8000. Even 1/2000 can freeze chopper blades in motion. I really don't view this as a meaningful advantage.

Single battery.

The batteries are cheap and last well over a thousand exposures on a charge. I've taken 2k on one charge.

Migrating from the D500 to an A6700 would be a lateral move from an image quality standpoint and a step backwards from a user interface perspective. While the D500 has a professional user interface, The A6700 is an enthusiast camera.

None of this is valid or correct. The A6700 has a slightly higher res and higher DR sensor. The D500 sensor is fine, even though it gives you less room to crop, but there's far more to a decent shot than the image sensor. Features like better AF, IBIS, the ability to select the exact kind of subject you want the camera to track, and things like focus stacking (for when you're photographing insects and small animals) can be the difference between a good and an unusable shot.

My first camera was D7200 which has a pretty close UI to D500. The A6700 menu and interface is not only more mature but also more customizable and way more feature rich. This might be the worst point you brought forward.

Bird & wildlife photographers don't use Live View. When you're holding 6+ lbs. of photographic equipment in your hands, the most effective and comfortable way of supporting that weight is with the left hand supporting the lens, the right hand holding the camera grip, and the viewfinder up to your face.

This makes me think you've never used a bird lens? You can easily use live view, and you have in many situations. Using one hand to support the lens at the tripod collar and the other to hold and control the camera.

A 26MP camera has a 14% resolution advantage over a 20MP camera. That's what the laws of physics and the math tell us

What math??

26.2-20.9 (exact mp numbers from Sony and Nikon) = 5.3

20.9 * 25% = 5.225

This is how you do the math. The A6700 sensor has slightly more than 25% greater res vs the D500's.

The laws of physics have nothing to do with this, it's the most basic of math calculations.

Rather than bury the OP under hyperbole, let's provide them with some factual analysis relevant to their inquiry.

No disrespect whatsoever, but so far there's been very little factual analysis.

For the sake of argument, let's say the A6700 has better autofocus.

For the sake of argument?

Have you ever used a modern Sony camera? A canon R7 or R6 II? Do you understand why AF is much faster and stickier with these mirrorless cameras?

Not only do they use far better AF algorithms, but they also have way better hardware, with Sonys having a dedicated npu chip for af and subject recognition.

Not even the biggest of Nikon fans would claimit holds a candle to A6700 when even the much newer Z50 doesn't.

Let's say its hit rate for birds in-flight is 90% while the D500's is 75%. At 7 fps and shooting lossless compressed raw, the A6700 buffer maxes out at 23 frames after about 3 seconds. 23 x 0.9 = 21 frames.

Considering that the A6700 does 11 fps and not 7 (I dunno where you got that number) this is another completely incorrect calculation.

You're joking, right? The D7200 is "pretty close to (a) D500 in...ergonomics." The D7200 has Nikon's enthusiast interface. The D500 has Nikon's professional interface and build quality, not to mention a superior autofocus system.

https://cameradecision.com/topviews...0-vs-Nikon-D7200-top-view-size-comparison.jpg

Have you held either of these yourself? They're literally almost identical in terms of grip and body size. No one's talking about interface or af when it comes to these 2.

You don't use your camera to photograph birds or wildlife, either. The OP does. The A6700 is a lateral move in image quality and a step backwards in ergonomics.

https://postimg.cc/gallery/v4wBKKk/a0e742a1

Here's a sample of the wildlife and bird pics that I've taken. I literally specialize in macro birds and wildlife/animals. That's like 90% of what I do with my camera. I've also used both Nikon and Sony (3 Nikon bodies 2 Sonys). Yet another thing you got wrong.

The A6700 may be better for some genres. It's not an upgrade for the OP's usage. At best, it's a $3,300 lateral system change.

It's better for everything. Whether the upgrade is worth the money for op it's highly subjective.

Your post got pretty much everything wrong from the math calculations to your assumption regarding my experience. Again, not an ounce of disrespect meant, but you seem to have done the comparison based on what you think you know rather than what these 2 cameras are capable of.

The D500 might very well be totally adequate for op, to the point that an upgrade is a waste of money. This much I'm fine with of course, but saying the D500 is remotely close to things like A6700 or R7 is completely incorrect.

 

[BartekG]

There are advantages the OP's D500 has over the A6700, including:

• Superior viewfinder

Only in terms of dynamic range, resolution and delay. EVF shows highlight warnings, focus, increases brightness, magnifies image etc. EVF helps in taking better photos.

• Deeper buffer

Is the a6700 buffer too small?

• A greater variety of AF modes are available at the touch of a button without having to remove one's eye from the OVF or one's forefinger from the shutter release

It is possible to control a6700 af without removing the eye from the viewfinder - there are 9 programmable buttons and all under the right hand. As for the modes - you only need full frame tracking with subject detection, center point tracking with subject detection and center point tracking without subject detection. The second one is 95% of my shots.

• The shooting/custom settings banks allow for deep customization of four camera configurations

a6700 has 3 setting banks.

• Better build quality

That one is true, but it doesn't mean the a6700 will break on normal use. I don't see any reports of broken a6700.

Modern mirrorless cameras are superior for wildlife photography.