D500 vs D7200 Image Quality and ISO performance

[JimPearce]

You need to downsize those "48"s until they're both sharp (MTF50), and then see which is larger.

 

[OleThorsen]

There is no way there wouldn't be a difference in res. Right at 10 percent:


26 Pixels High


29 high

Wow what a difference in resolution between D7200 and D500. Congratulations Reilly you just proved that those 288 pixels (short edge) didn't disappear up in the blue sky. Do you happen to have any photon level analysis so the difference gets even more clear for those that don't understand that significant difference?

Here on my XPS 13 FHD screen that D7200 full size "picture" would measure around 35.6x23.7m (116.8x77.8ft). A normal 300ppi D7200 full size print would measure 20x13" or 1.4x0.96" or 7.8% larger than the D500, so I'm just waiting to see you post a comparison of how many more printer dots are printed on that number 48.

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)

 

[wildlifr]

I actually am a pixel peeper, and I have yet to see a demonstration of any better IQ with the D7200; whether it be the 3 MP difference in detail, or the 1/3 stop improvement in DR at low ISO. It may be possible to see a difference in those two IQ parameters, I don't know. But I haven't seen it yet. The only difference my pixel peeping has shown is a slight improvement in high ISO noise with the D500 if the D7200 is downsized to 21MP, and a slightly more pronounced improvement in high ISO with the D500 if the D7200 is not downsized.

4 MP should make a difference, and of course it does:


ISO 800 LRCC defaults

I see no difference in noise at ISO 800.

Aside from being larger at 100%, I don't see it.

There is no way there wouldn't be a difference in res. Right at 10 percent:


26 Pixels High


29 high


Red

Yes, I understand that 24 is bigger than 21, and it's clear that if that difference is going to be seen it takes doing this sort of image gymnastics to show it.

My issue is that my wildlife paradigm shift happened about three years ago with the D800e and I've been spoiled rotten by 36MP. Aside from the issue of higher noise, my D7200 is right at or often below my personal line for fur and feather detail. I'm waiting for someone to knock my birding socks off with the D500, but it hasn't happened yet. The color per LR/ACR is not good, but one hopes that may be repaired soon. For me, another res drop of ten percent would be tough to take just for the sake of slightly better autofocus. Fps I don't care about, I get five hundred shots in a typical day birding as it is, and I would never shoot a bird at 3200, let alone 12,800.

Not trying to rain on the parade, just giving my view for those who might be on the fence, such as the OP. The D500 looks like an obvious choice for sports, that's for sure.

If whatever difference you're trying to point out here is worth poorer focusing, frame rate, buffer, high ISO noise performance, build quality, and controls, then I guess the D7200 is for you.

Or better yet a D820 ;^)

We can agree on that. But only at about 48MP or higher. And providing the frame rate, and buffer are improved appropriately.

I will edit to add that the D500 will no doubt produce a nice print for those who still do.

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

 

[DB White]

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/

If you like shooting with the D200 you'll like the feel of the D500; D500 has similar sized body with rear AF-on button. The D500 autofocus, frame rate, and low light ability are light years beyond the D200.

You'll get more birds in flight with the D500 than with the D7200. A refurbished D7200 is relatively inexpensive right now and has the same (or better?) image quality as the D500 in daylight conditions. The D500 has many high tech features and controls; D7200 is a little more basic, but still a very sophisticated camera with more options than most photographers can take advantage of. You can't go wrong with either camera. My D7200 is now my second/backup camera to use alongside the D500 for shooting sports.

 

[ASR45]

I would choose the D500 over the D7200 any day.

 

[n057]

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/

D500. It is the perfect upgrade for those like us (look at my gear list).

The D7200 is not even on the same planet.


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 

[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.

 

[iwannabesedated]

We all want to know where D500 places in Nikon line up DSLR and see it is truly better than D7200 or not in terms of IQ and low light performance.

Patience! New owners are just now getting their D500s and figuring out how to use them. I believe we are all on the verge of being amazed by what the D500 can do. -iwbs

 

[FrankG]

.....

A hobbyist 2 cents. I only shoot birds (seldom BIF) and crop almost all of my images. A 24mp DSLR is the minimum resolution I would consider, whether DX or FX. I sold my D4s for such reason. The D7200 has served (my needs) well. I'm contented with its high ISO performance. The only feature I'll be buying the D500 is the fps. But, if it came with a 24mp, it's a different story and I'll probably would have it now.

Here's some of my humble D7200 shots.


Nikon d7200 + Nikon 200-500 / ISO 3200


Nikon D7200 + Nikon 200-500 / ISO 2200


Nikon D7200 + Nikon 200-500


Nikon D7200 + Nikon 200-500

Very nice work. Your first sample at ISO3200 is very low noise and renders very fine and sharp feather detail with nice colours. That Eagle shot is very well caught!

On this evidence I'd say your D7200 is doing fine!

Frank

 

[seahawk]

I have the D7200 and handled the final series version of the D500 recently, it is no comparison. One is a quite capable consumer camera, the other is a highly reliable pro camera with an AF that is nothing but amazing.

The D500 is clearly better at high ISO and I prefer the colours at low ISO as well.

--
hobby aviation photographer

 

[Anjitha]

I have the D7200 and handled the final series version of the D500 recently, it is no comparison. One is a quite capable consumer camera, the other is a highly reliable pro camera with an AF that is nothing but amazing.

The D500 is clearly better at high ISO and I prefer the colours at low ISO as well.

 

[Anjitha]

We all want to know where D500 places in Nikon line up DSLR and see it is truly better than D7200 or not in terms of IQ and low light performance.

Patience! New owners are just now getting their D500s and figuring out how to use them. I believe we are all on the verge of being amazed by what the D500 can do. -iwbs

Nikon released D500 specification upfront. So nothing to be amazed. We knew everything except ISO performance and IQ. We need to find out that D500 sensor is truly better than D7200 or not. If not then it is a problem for some of the people who are thinking about IQ is most important to their work next to reach in DX. for others they can sacrifice IQ for other features like FPS /AF and pro-body configuration etc...


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

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

 

[rhlpetrus]

I have the D7200 and handled the final series version of the D500 recently, it is no comparison. One is a quite capable consumer camera, the other is a highly reliable pro camera with an AF that is nothing but amazing.

The D500 is clearly better at high ISO and I prefer the colours at low ISO as well.

 

[Anjitha]

I have the D7200 and handled the final series version of the D500 recently, it is no comparison. One is a quite capable consumer camera, the other is a highly reliable pro camera with an AF that is nothing but amazing.

The D500 is clearly better at high ISO and I prefer the colours at low ISO as well.

--
hobby aviation photographer

Look and feel and AF is unbeatable with D500 sofar I agree with you. It is not concern in this topic. This is not D500 vs D7200 camera comparison yet focus on IQ and Low light performance of both cameras. We just need to find out D500 has better sensor than D7200 or not.

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

And what is exactly the source of your doubts about D500's IQ? Do you have it and have performed controlled comparisons with D7200? Can you show the difference you think is there?

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

I said: " We just need to find out D500 has better sensor than D7200 or not."

someone has both camera can control compare side by side and post it here for better understanding for all of us. I haven't seen so far any better IQ & ISO performance compare to D7200 directly from camera (with out PP or Noise reduction) . Also color contrast is different in D500 . I am not defending D7200 is better but I wanted to know where D500 stand in compare to D7200. Is it little above D7200 or little behind ?

See below noise level and color contrast (yellow and red)

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

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

 

[Tuonov2]

We all want to know where D500 places in Nikon line up DSLR and see it is truly better than D7200 or not in terms of IQ and low light performance.

Patience! New owners are just now getting their D500s and figuring out how to use them. I believe we are all on the verge of being amazed by what the D500 can do. -iwbs

Nikon released D500 specification upfront. So nothing to be amazed. We knew everything except ISO performance and IQ. We need to find out that D500 sensor is truly better than D7200 or not. If not then it is a problem for some of the people who are thinking about IQ is most important to their work next to reach in DX. for others they can sacrifice IQ for other features like FPS /AF and pro-body configuration etc...

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

I really cannot see what your problem is, if your goal is ultimate IQ and you don't care about reach, pro controls, AF etc then buy a D750? It's the same price, gives you what you want, in this case I can't see why you would even be considering a D500.

 

[Anjitha]

We all want to know where D500 places in Nikon line up DSLR and see it is truly better than D7200 or not in terms of IQ and low light performance.

Patience! New owners are just now getting their D500s and figuring out how to use them. I believe we are all on the verge of being amazed by what the D500 can do. -iwbs

Nikon released D500 specification upfront. So nothing to be amazed. We knew everything except ISO performance and IQ. We need to find out that D500 sensor is truly better than D7200 or not. If not then it is a problem for some of the people who are thinking about IQ is most important to their work next to reach in DX. for others they can sacrifice IQ for other features like FPS /AF and pro-body configuration etc...

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

I really cannot see what your problem is, if your goal is ultimate IQ and you don't care about reach, pro controls, AF etc then buy a D750? It's the same price, gives you what you want, in this case I can't see why you would even be considering a D500.

I have no problems. We all trying to find out D500's IQ & low light capabilities over D7200. I will go for D810 as FX but I also need DX as second camera. If I focus only on ISO performance and higher IQ from DX .. which one I should select ?

I hope I am not only person in this question. There is nothing personal or disrespect. I feel Nikon has not delivered better sensor with D500 over D7200 which is not nice from Nikon for a pro -level camera. ( I wish I am wrong and I also want to see D500 has better sensor than D7200)

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

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

 

[Tyr-Sog]

I know there's the argument of OOC results and pixel peeping results but it's essentially null in void. Personally I think we are at a point in photography where the hardware is maxed and IQ between cameras is splitting hairs. IQ is more or less determined on ones PP abilities or the in camera jpeg engine if going that route.

I still see jaw dropping images from the d300/d700/d3 era and on the flipside absolute garbage from d500/d5/d810 era. If that says anything.

 

[Tuonov2]

We all want to know where D500 places in Nikon line up DSLR and see it is truly better than D7200 or not in terms of IQ and low light performance.

Patience! New owners are just now getting their D500s and figuring out how to use them. I believe we are all on the verge of being amazed by what the D500 can do. -iwbs

Nikon released D500 specification upfront. So nothing to be amazed. We knew everything except ISO performance and IQ. We need to find out that D500 sensor is truly better than D7200 or not. If not then it is a problem for some of the people who are thinking about IQ is most important to their work next to reach in DX. for others they can sacrifice IQ for other features like FPS /AF and pro-body configuration etc...

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

I really cannot see what your problem is, if your goal is ultimate IQ and you don't care about reach, pro controls, AF etc then buy a D750? It's the same price, gives you what you want, in this case I can't see why you would even be considering a D500.

I have no problems. We all trying to find out D500's IQ & low light capabilities over D7200. I will go for D810 as FX but I also need DX as second camera. If I focus only on ISO performance and higher IQ from DX .. which one I should select ?

I hope I am not only person in this question. There is nothing personal or disrespect. I feel Nikon has not delivered better sensor with D500 over D7200 which is not nice from Nikon for a pro -level camera. ( I wish I am wrong and I also want to see D500 has better sensor than D7200)

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

I still can't see the logic in what you are assessing, why do you need DX as a second camera, why not have FX as a second camera when ultimate IQ is your goal?

If you're picking hairs about IQ differences at base ISO's between D500 and D7200 then the D500 is the wrong tool for you.

 

[Nicholas128]

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

 

[Anjitha]

I know there's the argument of OOC results and pixel peeping results but it's essentially null in void. Personally I think we are at a point in photography where the hardware is maxed and IQ between cameras is splitting hairs. IQ is more or less determined on ones PP abilities or the in camera jpeg engine if going that route.

I still see jaw dropping images from the d300/d700/d3 era and on the flipside absolute garbage from d500/d5/d810 era. If that says anything.

I agree with you .. man behind the camera is driving everything. However chances are getting better of getting good shots with modern cameras. However it is not concern in this topic.

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