Self help psyc help about D500 / D750 choice ( DX / FX )

Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,958
Location
Collecchio, northern Italy
Hello everyone.

I'd like to start from this thread without hijacking it to see if anything useful can come out.. as a kind of self - help psychiatric group well, I'm in... talk about obsession ..and let's see if there's a CURE !!! :LOL::LOL::LOL:

This will be a long and motivated thread, so take your time before reading and mumbling about it. I'm really trying to eviscerate it all for myself first, but I guess this might be helpful for you too.

I've never been SO torn between two cameras as I'm now. Let me explain. As you can see I have the D600 and while - on a mere noise thing - I basically can't complain (it's still one of those performing better beyond a certain range) I've always had a couple (or three) of "issues" that honestly bothered me while using it.

The two biggest nuisances I had with the D600 were related to "focus" and speed of operations. I'm not talking about AF vs MF, although we all know that each of these has its own advantages in certain situations and disadvantages in other. For sure, having I always played in the "close distance" with people or subject moving at a reasonable speed, most of my lenses were chosen consequently. No need for a longer lens than 180mm, I could even cope with almost no need at all for autofocus beyond 70/105 mm so far, in fact my only af lens is the (otherwise excellent) Tamron 24-70. Besides, among my fixed primes, I discovered enjoying the 18mm for close fast action subjects (running kids) where there's no need at all to fiddle with focus. Set it 1-2 m away, 1/60, f/8 with bounced flash @ 1600 iso and you have everything you want in focus without even framing by eye.

However, for whatever concerned sport and a little faster activity than just walking, I've always fallen short - again this is not an AF / MF debate per se, rather my biggest problems were with the relatively small area covered by AF points on the D600 AND the fact it's basically much less sensitive than D750/D500 when it comes to lock focus on something. This means every time there's less than perfect light, I (almost always) have to focus with the central af point and then reframe quickly til the edge, losing time and accuracy (especially if the subject moves). Besides, the command layout and the lack of certain functions readily available also limits its use to a very amateurish and slow-paced level. Honestly, for this kind of work, price aside I've always thought the Df to be a better camera - you know what you're looking for there, right?
Another thing that I've always loved in cameras is the absence of OLPF - at times I simply realize that while my lenses could resolve enough, when enlarging an image some details simply remain unresolved and blurred because of the AA filter. About this topic, extremely revealing has been this site and the image I'm going to show you in a minute. Look at this.

D600vsD810.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


As you can see, and this is readily apparent on the blue towel more than anywhere else, pixel aside, there's something that's spoiled by the filter. Look how much the camera without OLPF reveals of the texture. D810, however, has always been told to be a lens-killer (and much more so for those with even more MP coming), that is too many MP and too much detail might make them unpractical on the field and limit its use to tripod / live view and very expensive equipment and time-consuming shooting setups, that's something I don't need at all (despite the D810 will always be the *body* that screams to be my favorite for handling, viewing etc)

Besides, as some of you might have heard, recently one of the local soccer teams I follow is now competing for the playoff series to reach the major league, something that would have totally impossible until a few years ago. Think of a hard-work miracle from a humble and unknown team representing a small town in Italy where many realities put together their efforts to make it working and winning.

So, when D5 and D500 came out, I immediately hinted that next year a new D8xx or D7xx would have come out, plus there's Nikon 100th anniversary and this means even more possibilities to get something new and/or revolutionary that I'd have considered to replace my D600. Keep in mind while I'm not that short on money, I basically *don't* earn my living with photography that still remains an (expensive) passion.

On a mere theoretical basis I started saying myself: I don't need D500 (DX), let's wait for next year when a new FX model will come out but:
- actual D500 is already priced equal or more than D750 (at least here), thus I expect the new FX at a higher price than D810 (which is already a lot)
- actual D500 has both:
1) a reasonable pixel number, no need for huge files - never had.
2) absence of OLPF and
3) enough high-iso performance (I am ready to bet on this) for what I need (hey, weren't us all shooting
D200/D300 just a few years ago? Who of us has never done a wedding with them?), not to forget
4) pro-body or something as close to a pro-body can be. And 10 fps, WOW ! Again, super-performances,
this will be a camera built to last and be an absolute best seller, although I hope Nikon won't wait for so
long next time... (and of course assuming that NONE of the early sample issues that bothered all of the
previous models - D600, D800, D750... will be present here otherwise Nikon will have a HUGE problem
to deal with, this time, given users expectations)

However, there are also a few cons that should be evaluated - it's not a brain vs heart thing, but comes very close to it.

1) D750 would have adequate performances at a littler price (here it equates 200€ less than D500),
but above all
2) this would NOT scramble my lens set up at all. I'd probably need a fast telephoto lens to deal with sporty
events; in the end also D750 is a bestseller itself

In fact, while I'd have no problem at all seeing my 24-70 "suddenly converted" into a 35-105 f/2.8 kind of lens, the problem of getting a fast telephoto (this means spending a lot of other money) remains (but I might even end up with a 70-300 to start with, in the end soccer matches over here occur during late morning or early afternoon, this means in ideal light conditions) but even more so, my "widest" lens would become the 18/3.5, which would let me totally uncovered on the wide side. Plus, among my many mf lenses, they would suddenly become a bit awkward: while 25 > 37 and 50 > 75 might be fine, 35 > 52 and 100 > 150 would be a bit strange to deal with, or so I think. The good side, my 180 would become a 270/2.8 (or even a 360/2.8 on D500 with 1.3x although mf)
This is probably where it hurts most, because on one hand I realize next FF will be too late and expensive for me, whatever it is, on the other side, this would mean getting rid of some expensive lenses or not using at their best, while still having to solve both the tele and the wide compartment problem.

Let's see the wide options. As I told you, I wouldn't like having a DX lens, unless it was a pro 17-55 (or newer) which can cover and ensure adequate performance on a D500. Forget all those 10-xx or 12-xx which would only lose value and become useless once I'd ever come to FF again. So at the moment I see only three options:

1) Nikon 14-24 > equating to a nice 21-36 ( or 28-48 in 1.3x crop mode, yet very expensive )
2) Tamron 15-30 for street would be equally good, equating to 22-45 (or 30-60), basically the same as Nikon
and even a bit more for much less price; otherwise I might consider, once validated its effective value and
performance,
3) Irix 15 f/2.4 that would become an even faster lens and by cropping it would become kind of 22 - 30 f/2.4
zoom; later on - but this only adds speculation, the Irix 11/4 would become my widest option always if all
the preliminary checks about performance and value are ticked.

At this point, I'm not even sure to have examined everything - may be or may be not - but I'd like to know from you if anyone of you is going through the same doubts and eventually providing some food for thoughts.
I want to add that I'd be anyway leaning toward the D500, everything considered, but it's more an instinctual thing rather a rational one.

Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
1,650
Location
Bothell, WA
Real Name
Tim
Next Friday I'll own both.... :p I love my D750 - its a fantastic all around camera - but my D7100 is lacking somewhat and the D500 was announced just as I was deciding what to do about it....so I think between the two whats in my bag will be sufficient... :D (minus the new sigma 50-100 1.8)...if I wanted wide on DX I'd probably opt for the tokina 11-18 (I have the nikon 14-24) but I generally take out the 750 for any shooting where I want to go that wide....just rambling but those are my thoughts around the two...
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,958
Location
Collecchio, northern Italy
Well, this is really good, Tim, so you'll have best of two worlds. Actually - should I go down that path, the only "FX" camera that I'll owe for a while will be the F6.. Go figure why ?! I'm interested to hear from you however your experience so you'll be able to compare apples to apples and maybe operating cameras will give us other "food for thoughts" that isn't only mere tech specs, figures and numbers.
For example, I wonder how large and bright is the D500 viewfinder compared to FF / D750 or whatever else. So far - in my case - the best viewfinder I have ever had is still on my F6 where focusing with mf lenses is definitely a breeze and the only shortcoming is basically the lesser sensitivity (a bit more than D600 but not by much) compared to D750 and D500 that can lock focus and meter down to -3 or -4 EV which is something extraordinary.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
918
Location
Skewen -S. Wales -UK
Interesting. I have a similar dilemma at the moment. Its hard to balance what you "Want" with what you NEED ?
Being a Uk wedding photographer, good light is a scarce product. I was looking back at some D2x wedding photos the other day, and at iso 100 or 200, they match anything. But iso 100 or 200 days are not common in wales lol !!
So its either I have to use a lot of fill flash or rely on the Iso bumping up not spoiling things too much and creating to much post wedding flow work!

My trusty D7000 is on its last legs so at some point this year a replacement is needed. Generally its used for a few House shots and candids of guests etc. Does the Job perfectly well for my needs. Another cheap d7000 would be a fine replacement, but I am tending to look more at the D7200? Of course the d500 would be the best choice (Higher Iso plus Dx reach on 300 @ F4) but do I need it?
I may temporary retire the d7000 and use the D2hs this weekend on candids? In the past D2hs has produced superb images (we only print albums to 11 x 14, mostly 10 x 10), but only to iso 800!
Since going back to the pro body D3s I really like the build and feel of it and I realise how much I have missed my old d2x plus I am enjoying Fx after years of Dx. I was thinking of finally going for a D750, but again the "issues" are an issue for me. Plus with a rumoured D750 x/s or whatever not too far away, maybe next year for the d750 is a better idea price wise?
Now the D500 ticks a lot of boxes for me, Hi Iso being number 1. But to replace the D7000 with the d500 I would have to be sure none of the Nikon New camera problems are going to be there. So a D500 is probably on next years cards?? I wont buy a D5 till the D6 is out!
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,958
Location
Collecchio, northern Italy
Wow, 700 weddings ??? Congrats, Simon, I can't even think of that ! This means 14 yrs every week or so (in the rare event you have to cover only one per week) ? Since you're relying much on DX cameras, I see you have the Sigma 15-30; do you find it adequate for close quarters (field of view wise) ? When I had the D200 I worked with 17-35 + 28-75 now a similar approach should be kept if I choose the DX camera (15-30 + 24-70)
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
918
Location
Skewen -S. Wales -UK
Yes its been a busy 20 years. Once did 4 weddings in a day, bit younger and fitter then lol!
Smallest wedding was 3 people, I was 4th person and a witness, biggest over 400. Average for here is 75 people per wedding.
I think the 15-30 for the rare occasions I have to use it (Small Church Vestry) is ok. One thing I leant many years ago was most customers cant recognise a bad photo and indeed I have often been left bemused when the most popular photo in a wedding set is one I thought I should have deleted!
Just take a look at the (phone) rubbish people post on Fb at a "friends" wedding! So although this lens wont stand up to nikon 12-24 from a photographers point of view, from a business side it does. I did think the Tamron 15-30 would be a nice choice but then this came up at just £120 so I thought at that price it was worth a go! Don't really need F2.8 at these wide angles and the D3s has the speed. This is the 2nd one I have had and this one is better than the 1st.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,958
Location
Collecchio, northern Italy
Thanks Simon,
So i guess you go to weddings with D7100 and D3s and this - while it's of course a bit "heavy" to lug around the whole day - covers you in every aspect of the ceremony. But if you had to keep only one, say D7100 (now D500) for weddings, do you agree it would be a bit unpractical having to swap from 15-30 to 24-120 ? I did it in the past but I really wish I had two bodies.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
918
Location
Skewen -S. Wales -UK
Yes, Done weddings with various sorts over the years, D80, D200, D2hs, D2x, D2x3, D7000, D700, d7100,D800, D3s!
Not really ever noticed the weight too much, I think the pressure of the day makes you forget about the weight, least as a younger man though I don't suppose I am that old yet, 48 on Monday!
I am not a fan of swapping lens due to dust, usually try and keep one lens to one body and have always worked like that since going Digital. I`m looking for a FX Host for the 15 -30. Really for what I need it should be the D3s and I should move onto a D750 as main, testing one Sunday and a d610.
Currently if I had to keep just one, it would be D3s and 24-120.
But of course as a wedding Pro I have at least two combinations of most things.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2021
Messages
124
I have both, along with a D850. I use the D750 as my FF back up and the D500 for wildlife, for it's higher framing speed and the crop factor (you can't beat a 900mm f/4!)

I have found the D500 to be a little bit noisier than the D750 all else being equal. I really cannot speak for the AF performance because all of my 31 Nikkors are manual focus AI/AIS. If you already have a D600 I am assuming your have FF lenses. Keep in mind the crop factor if you choose the D500. For shooting in close quarters as you will at weddings, it might be a handicap.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom