D500 vs D7200 Image Quality and ISO performance

[Anjitha]

Dear Nikon friends

I am wild life photographer and a pixel peeper. I like to see clean images from my next investment on camera body. I was using Nikon D7200 +200-500mm combination. It was great combo. What I missed with this combination is low light performance and little bit of quick focus. I had high expectation on D500 but it looks like a bummer comparing IQ and low light performance to D7200 (1000 US$).

In good light situation D7200 looks like unbeatable as a DX camera. I was ready to sacrifice less megapixel on D500 for higher ISO performance. It seems D500 is less megapixel , less ISO sensitivity and less color accuracy in higher ISO situations compare to D7200.

D500 will be woow for people coming from other older models but not for D7200 users or FX users in same generation in turms of IQ and ISO performance. I already sold D7200 and I feel I made a mistake. However I can get it back or focus on FX body like D810.

Lets be practical here than marketing gimmicks from Nikon .

1) In D7000 best maximum ISO I can use is 800 ,
2) In D7200 best maximum ISO I can use is 1600 or 3200 hardly 6400 with Noise reducer
3) In D500 it looks like you hardly can use 3200 that also high noise and less color accuracy or contrast compare to D7200.

I get a feeling that I will get downgraded by IQ & ISO performance if I invest on D500.

See some pictures from D7200 above ISO 1600




ISO 2000




ISO 1600



I appreciate what Nikon has done with other features like AF system , 10fps and other all features. I am not a video shooter and 4K doesn't mean anything to me.

I hope there are more photographers like me in same situation. What is your thoughts and what is your suggestion to invest next camera body if you consider IQ and low light performance.

Anjitha Senarath
------------------------

https://www.flickr.com/photos/anjitha

 

[wildlifr]

Dear Nikon friends

I am wild life photographer and a pixel peeper. I like to see clean images from my next investment on camera body. I was using Nikon D7200 +200-500mm combination. It was great combo. What I missed with this combination is low light performance and little bit of quick focus. I had high expectation on D500 but it looks like a bummer comparing IQ and low light performance to D7200 (1000 US$).

In good light situation D7200 looks like unbeatable as a DX camera. I was ready to sacrifice less megapixel on D500 for higher ISO performance. It seems D500 is less megapixel , less ISO sensitivity and less color accuracy in higher ISO situations compare to D7200.

D500 will be woow for people coming from other older models but not for D7200 users or FX users in same generation in turms of IQ and ISO performance. I already sold D7200 and I feel I made a mistake. However I can get it back or focus on FX body like D810.

Lets be practical here than marketing gimmicks from Nikon .

1) In D7000 best maximum ISO I can use is 800 ,
2) In D7200 best maximum ISO I can use is 1600 or 3200 hardly 6400 with Noise reducer
3) In D500 it looks like you hardly can use 3200 that also high noise and less color accuracy or contrast compare to D7200.

I get a feeling that I will get downgraded by IQ & ISO performance if I invest on D500.

See some pictures from D7200 above ISO 1600

I appreciate what Nikon has done with other features like AF system , 10fps and other all features. I am not a video shooter and 4K doesn't mean anything to me.

I hope there are more photographers like me in same situation. What is your thoughts and what is your suggestion to invest next camera body if you consider IQ and low light performance.

Anjitha Senarath
------------------------
https://www.flickr.com/photos/anjitha

There's been more than enough direct comparisons between the D500 and D7200 (side by side images, as well DR vs. ISO data) now. So we know that the D500 is slightly better with noise at higher ISO. If you fell for the wild speculation regarding D500 ISO performance prior to release, that's unfortunate. Most of us had a pretty good idea of what to expect (slightly better at high ISO than the D7200), and got exactly what we expected; the best overall dx camera ever made.

 

[JimPearce]

Back in the day, the D7000 had a massive advantage in "Image Quality" yet we D300 shooters generally took better wildlife shots. The D500 is far less compromised in "Image Quality" compared to a D7200, but we'll still get this carping from pixel peepers. I just have to laugh at their claims that the D7200 is the king for low ISO, as though 1/3 of a stop of DR (when you have DR to burn) makes a difference.

 

[Warkari]

Anjitha,

There is a thread by Bryand7k in which he posts a photo at ISO2500. So folks have been taking pictures at higher ISOs that are quite good.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3997474

Maybe a bit of adjustment and learning required.

- Amit

 

[Bill Dewey]

Back in the day, the D7000 had a massive advantage in "Image Quality" yet we D300 shooters generally took better wildlife shots. The D500 is far less compromised in "Image Quality" compared to a D7200, but we'll still get this carping from pixel peepers. I just have to laugh at their claims that the D7200 is the king for low ISO, as though 1/3 of a stop of DR (when you have DR to burn) makes a difference.

 

[wildlifr]

Back in the day, the D7000 had a massive advantage in "Image Quality" yet we D300 shooters generally took better wildlife shots. The D500 is far less compromised in "Image Quality" compared to a D7200, but we'll still get this carping from pixel peepers. I just have to laugh at their claims that the D7200 is the king for low ISO, as though 1/3 of a stop of DR (when you have DR to burn) makes a difference.

 

[alcaher]

what kind of wildlife do you shoot? The photos you posted indicate that you take willife pictures of static subjets or pictures of animals that dont move fast (moderate action so do speak), i also do that kind of photogrpahy and macro.

I think for birding (small birds ) the d7200 does an excellent job, i have seen that in flikr page, and i think those extra 3 or 4 mp helps a bit for cropping.

If you feel you need better lowlight performance then the differences d7200 and d500 comes down to better AF at lowlight, 10fps and that little extra of high iso performance above 3200.

Many people here are dedicated BIF photographers, sport photographers and fast action wildlife shooters, so i understand all the exciment around the d500.

The d500 performes better when subjet move fast or when light is darker.... thats what i have seen so far in this forum.

 

[DB White]

what kind of wildlife do you shoot? The photos you posted indicate that you take willife pictures of static subjets or pictures of animals that dont move fast (moderate action so do speak), i also do that kind of photogrpahy and macro.

I think for birding (small birds ) the d7200 does an excellent job, i have seen that in flikr page, and i think those extra 3 or 4 mp helps a bit for cropping.

If you feel you need better lowlight performance then the differences d7200 and d500 comes down to better AF at lowlight, 10fps and that little extra of high iso performance above 3200.

Many people here are dedicated BIF photographers, sport photographers and fast action wildlife shooters, so i understand all the exciment around the d500.

The d500 performes better when subjet move fast or when light is darker.... thats what i have seen so far in this forum.

I think you are correct. D500 is great for sports/wildlife shooting in low light when you need high fps and excellent autofocus. I do think the D7200 has better image quality for daylight, low ISO, shooting. I'll probably keep my D7200 for landscape shots, and use the D500 for shooting sports. The D7200 is an amazing bargain right now as a refurbished camera. The D500 does reasonably well in low ISO conditions, but I think it has difficulty in high contrast lighting compared to the D7200. The difference might not be very obvious unless you are already used to the D7200. (I am a little disappointed the D500 low ISO files don't "pop" a little more.) But, the D500 shows its strengths when you shoot in dim light. If you don't need the 10 fps and the class-leading low light ability the D7200 is a great choice.

 

[OleThorsen]

Anjitha several threads here have shown that the D500 is just a little 1/3 to 1/2 stop better than the already good DX D7200 sensor at high ISO. At low ISO the D7200 has 1/3 to 1/2 stop advantage compared to the already very good D500.

Looking at your D7200 ISO1600 and ISO2000 samples you posted, I would say you don't need to upgrade to a D500, before you improve your postprocessing skills. Your D7200 samples look very smeared because of heavy NR. If you're not already using selective sharpening and NR techniques, then search for tips on this technique, and you will be able to improve dramatically with your D7200.

I can get much better results with a V3 (CX sensor) in much less light (-2 to -3EV) at ISO1600, where the D7200 is around 1 2/3 stop better than V3.

Regards
Ole Thorsen

Galleries by Ole Thorsen

www.pbase.com

OMNISCIENCE
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience.
(Grook by Piet Hein)

 

[breivogel]

Determining whether the D500 or D7200 is "Better" is really in the eyes of the user (and their expectations/aspirations). As far as high Iso and resolution goes they are pretty similar. In real world use, I think one would find it hard to determine which was which if you were not told. The substantial difference is in the AF system and FPS (as well as body style). As to how these influence you images depends a lot on the subject and operator skill level.

Whether you should dump your D7100/7200 for a D500, depends on your finances and need for a particular feature. Don't expect a major improvement in your photos if they are not up to snuff presently. Much more clear cut choice for those with a D300/200 (absolutely!)

 

[rocoga]

Hello!

I have a nikon d200 and nikkor 200-500. I do not want to change other camera in 8 years. What is the best option: D500 or D7200 ?. Shooting birds static and in flight.

Thanks in advance.

Roberto Colino

Explore Roberto Colino’s 320 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[lefantian]

Just go to the D500 and I guess you'll never regret.

 

[Anjitha]

There's been more than enough direct comparisons between the D500 and D7200 (side by side images, as well DR vs. ISO data) now. So we know that the D500 is slightly better with noise at higher ISO. If you fell for the wild speculation regarding D500 ISO performance prior to release, that's unfortunate. Most of us had a pretty good idea of what to expect (slightly better at high ISO than the D7200), and got exactly what we expected; the best overall dx camera ever made.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avid documentarian of evolution.

I am afraid I wasn't knowing what to expect from D500 until they release.Selling d7200 early was a good decision as I can buy it again cheaper than I sold it if needed. I was expecting at least D750 ISO performance as D750 is little older camera. Someone can say cant compare DX vs FX but I think it is possible with old generation FX vs new generation Dx.
I hardly see D500 is slightly better ISO performance to D7200. "Slightly " mean at least a one step better? I was expecting at lease one step better with this Dx Pro level camera. (ISO 3200). I think it is almost equal or less in IQ and low light performance comparing to D7200. So its not best Dx camera ever made in terms of IQ and low light performance

Please check the colors of D7200 vs D500 in below Image (specially yellow & red) I assume that they use same camera settings. Also please check ISO performance of 3200.

Anjitha Senarath
------------------------

https://www.flickr.com/photos/anjitha

 

[Iain G Foulds]

... Anijitha: Unless I am reading your post incorrectly, you actually prefer the D7200 image??

 

[stromaroma]

I'd like to get a D500 but it's almost $3000 in Canada with tax. The D7200 is half the price. What is the buffer like on the D7200 for NEF's? It is terrible on the D7000 I have. My next camera would replace my D300 which is great but high ISO is bad. I would want a decent buffer and high ISO capabilities which the D7200 seems to have. Fast low light AF is nice to have but not super important for me.

 

[Anjitha]

Back in the day, the D7000 had a massive advantage in "Image Quality" yet we D300 shooters generally took better wildlife shots. The D500 is far less compromised in "Image Quality" compared to a D7200, but we'll still get this carping from pixel peepers. I just have to laugh at their claims that the D7200 is the king for low ISO, as though 1/3 of a stop of DR (when you have DR to burn) makes a difference.

 

[scokill]

People throw around a 1 stop difference like it's insignificant. It's extremely significant. I don't know why someone would expect that level of improvement.



Here is a ISO6400 RAW comparison between D500, d7200, d7100 and d7000. Probably easy to pick out d7000 but I wonder if the OP can pick out the d7200 and D500...just curious. Converted with ACR, no NR, no sharpening, no adjustments other than resize for comparison.

 

[breivogel]

Hello!

I have a nikon d200 and nikkor 200-500. I do not want to change other camera in 8 years. What is the best option: D500 or D7200 ?. Shooting birds static and in flight.

Thanks in advance.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/126282984@N05/

The D500 (or D7200) is light years ahead in image quality to the D200. You will be able to shoot at least 2-3 times higher iso - very useful with the 200-500. Also 2X the number of pixels, equivalent to increasing the focal length by 1.4 times.

The D500 is twice as expensive as the D7200. It might be a little better for birds in flight due to a larger focus area, but has a little less resolution, though. The control layout on the D500 is similar to the D200 - the D7200 is quite different.

Your choice, either one will be good.

 

[Anjitha]

Anjitha,

There is a thread by Bryand7k in which he posts a photo at ISO2500. So folks have been taking pictures at higher ISOs that are quite good.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3997474

Maybe a bit of adjustment and learning required.

- Amit

 

[breivogel]

I am afraid I wasn't knowing what to expect from D500 until they release.Selling d7200 early was a good decision as I can buy it again cheaper than I sold it if needed. I was expecting at least D750 ISO performance as D750 is little older camera. Someone can say cant compare DX vs FX but I think it is possible with old generation FX vs new generation Dx.
I hardly see D500 is slightly better ISO performance to D7200. "Slightly " mean at least a one step better? I was expecting at lease one step better with this Dx Pro level camera. (ISO 3200). I think it is almost equal or less in IQ and low light performance comparing to D7200. So its not best Dx camera ever made in terms of IQ and low light performance

Please check the colors of D7200 vs D500 in below Image (specially yellow & red) I assume that they use same camera settings. Also please check ISO performance of 3200.

Anjitha Senarath
------------------------

I don't know why you thought that D500 would equal the D750 High ISO. Almost no one who understood sensors thought that would be the case.

They did improve the in-camera Jpeg engine, which gave some nice results. The D500 does have somewhat "nicer" noise than the D7200 - more fine grained and less blotchy. Hard to quantify in ev steps.