D750 or D500

[Gera]

Hello people!

I've been wanting to buy a D750 for a while now (it's taking long due to financial reasons). But now with the D500 I am expecting to get more out of it than from the D750. Would there be any particular reason to wait for the D500? It is a cropped sensor and has a smaller megapixel count, I understand; but it is considered to be a "professional" grade camera. And the ISO performance looks incredible (from the little info that is out there).

 

Thank you for taking time to respond!

 

Edit: Update! Here are some sample pictures  http://www.nikon-image.com/products/slr/lineup/d500/sample.html  

That ISO performance though!!!

Edited January 29, 2016 by Gera

[Brian]

Are you interested in going full frame? What does your lens lineup currently look like? What is your primary thing that you shoot?

[Gera]

Hi @Brian,

Currently I own only DX lenses. I am doing mainly portraits and family gatherings. I really don't think I will be doing big events like weddings and stuff like ever. Or at least not any time soon. 

Edited January 30, 2016 by Gera

[Brian]

3 minutes ago, Gera said:

Hi @Brian,

Quote

Currently I own only DX lenses.

Throw me a bone here, which lenses specifically?

Oh, what camera body are you shooting with now?

 

[Gera]

A D5200... LOL... 

 

[Gera]

I guess it's worth to mention that I find myself constantly taking pictures in low light... and being the noob that I am, I didn't know much when I go it about a year ago. 

[Gera]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

Throw me a bone here, which lenses specifically?

I have the lame 18-55mm, 55-200mm, 50mm 1.8, 35mm 1.8 (which I'm about to throw to the garbage... )

Edited January 30, 2016 by Gera

[Brian]

Ok. The D750 is kinda off the table. All of your lenses are really meant for DX bodies, except for the 50 1.8. So if you could live with just one lens, then a D750 is fine for what you shoot. While it's true that you can use a DX lens on a FX camera, you will essentially cripple the full frame body. What happens is the image you see in the viewfinder will go dark around the edges and the camera's resolution will be cut, since the image circle formed on the sensor is smaller by using the DX lens. Believe me, it's no fun seeing what you are "missing" in the viewfinder when you use a DX lens on a Full Frame body. It's one of those things...just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. That said, you could use Live View on the newer camera bodies, which does show you the image on the LCD, without the dark edges. There are pros and cons to using this method, as using Live View can drain your battery a little quicker and if you are really shooting fast moving objects, ideally...you want to be using the viewfinder for that sort of subject. But Live View is useful in a pinch and some even prefer it, especially when shooting video.

The D500 might be overkill. Honestly, you need better lenses than a new camera body. If you really want to improve your image quality, start with lenses. What don't you like about the 35 1.8? Is that the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX lens? If so, I love mine. What problems are you having with it? 

Oh, one thought. Be careful with believing the marketing hype with the sample images. I have a friend who had a image used by Nikon for a commercial. It was to promote the then new D3300. Guess what her image was taken with? A Nikon D3s and 24-70. The ad actor said, "You could take this image with a Nikon camera..." So they weren't "lying," but not telling the whole story. Don't think for a minute that those D500 sample images were taken with a 18-55 kit lens.  

[Gera]

On 1/31/2016 at 7:57 PM, Brian said:

What don't you like about the 35 1.8? Is that the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX lens? If so, I love mine. What problems are you having with it? 

I really like it. It is just that the focus has been very inconsistent lately. I have the focusing square on where I want to to be, focus... and then realize the thing didn't focused properly. If it does, it's very slow. I tried it with my wife's D5300 and sent it to repair twice already and the problem is the same. 

 

Quote

Oh, one thought. Be careful with believing the marketing hype with the sample images. I have a friend who had a image used by Nikon for a commercial. It was to promote the then new D3300. Guess what her image was taken with? A Nikon D3s and 24-70. The ad actor said, "You could take this image with a Nikon camera..." So they weren't "lying," but not telling the whole story. Don't think for a minute that those sample images were taken with a 18-55 kit lens.  

Well s**t... and of course they weren't taken with a kit lens... I'm not that green anymore (yay!)

 

Quote

 If you really want to improve your image quality, start with lenses. 

Do lenses improve ISO performance? Doesn't that have to do more with the body's sensor???

[Brian]

Lenses will improve the ability to let light hit the sensor. Which means you won't have to crank your ISO as much in "typical" situations. So indirectly, yes...it does help with ISO. Having the option to zoom out to 200mm @ f/2.8 is two whole stops of light. Which means if you are shooting at ISO 1600 with your current 55-200VR, if you use a 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, you could shoot at ISO 400, because you are gaining two stops of brightness. In reality, the two go hand in hand.

So to really recap, here are my thoughts.

Both the D750 and D500 are excellent choices, but I feel that you are so used to the limitations of the consumer-grade kit lenses, you think that buying a bigger body will solve your problems. Of course, that's what the camera manufactures want you to believe; keeps you thinking that a new camera body will make you a better photographer, produce better images. While that is true to some degree, as newer technology will almost always trump older technology, nothing can replace good technique and having the best lenses as one can afford. There is a huge difference between the glass you are used to and the professional-grade stuff. Here is a lens that I routinely shoot with, it's much bigger and heavier than your 18-55, but the images from that lens are so much better:

Nikon 17-55 f/2.8G

Seriously, it will blow your 18-55 out of the water. Here is one of my favorite photo taken with my D300s and 17-55 f/2.8G. My D300s dates from 2009 and I'm about to make the switch to Full Frame:

Kristen & Benjamin

(I'm in the process of redoing my website, so FB will have to do for now.)

The 17-55 is the "24-70" for crop bodies. It's a pro-grade lens, released when the Nikon D1 and D2 eras were new. Up until the Nikon D3, the "Professional Grade Bodies" were crop sensors. It wasn't until the Nikon D3 did we have affordable Full Frame Sensors. (Yes...for most people, $6000 isn't "affordable," but for the photographers that were forking out $10,000-$20,000+ for the 1st digital cameras, it WAS affordable at $6000.)

Anyway...

Back to the D750 vs. the D500.

D750: You will get Full Frame. Low ISO capabilities, but the only lens that will make the D750 work as intended is the 50mm f/1.8. All of your DX lenses will throw it in "crop mode" which really cripples things. You could purchase a AF-S 85mm f/1.8, which will perform how your 50mm does with the D5300. With a crop sensor, your angle of view changes due to the smaller sensor. So a 50mm f/1.8 performs like a "Portrait Lens," even though optically it's still 50mm. With a full frame body, 50mm is 50mm and 85mm is 85mm. With a FF body, the angle of view is more "normal." 

Bottom Line with D750: Great camera. Highly recommended. I recommend spending the little extra in getting the D750 vs a Nikon D610, which is a ENTRY LEVEL FX body. Downside, you are going to need glass and even though you saved up, you are going to need to save more. The average cost to switch to Full Frame is around $4000-$4500.

D500: Brand new. Hasn't hit the shelves yet. Has a lot of technology from the new Flagship Model: The Nikon D5. Weather sealing is better than what comes with the D750. It's built better, AF system is more robust. Basically, it's the "Professional Grade" DX body. I've shot plenty of gigs with my D300s and am now just starting to long for something better. That said, I've been buying pro-lenses the last few years in order to prep me to switch to Full Frame. Cost should be $1999 and it will work with all of your current lenses.

Bottom Line with D500: For your situation, it is more affordable. Though I really would HIGHLY recommend upgrading your lenses. You could even rent them to see what I'm talking about.
 

[Gera]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

Seriously, it will blow your 18-55 out of the water. Here is one of my favorite photo taken with my D300s and 17-55 f/2.8G. My D300s dates from 2009 and I'm about to make the switch to Full Frame:

Kristen & Benjamin
 

GTFO...  what a pic! 

 

Quote

I really would HIGHLY recommend upgrading your lenses. You could even rent them to see what I'm talking about.

We'll do. I'll post pictures whenever I get a change to rent. I've been wanting to put my hands on a Sigma Art 50mm. 

 

Thank you for your time @Brian

[Gera]

Hey @Brian

What do you think of the sigma 24-70 2.8... worth $680 new? 

[Brian]

"Eh." I'm probably the last person that will recommend 3rd party lenses. I'm saving up and will buy the original Nikon 24-70. Not the version II, the one for $1799. 

Sigma can be hit or miss. If you get a good copy, you will sing praises and question why would anyone spend close to $2000 for the OEM equivalent. If you are one of the lucky ones that goes through 3-5 lenses to get a good copy, you'll be mad at yourself on why you wasted so much time and energy. 

Then there is that whole pesky resale value thing. You'll be lucky if you get $500 if you sell it. There were a few different models of that Sigma 24-70, and believe it or not...the older version was better. The new one sucked and they can't give them away. I'm thinking for a 24-70 that's new AND that cheap, it's one of the sucky ones. 

Personally, I'd get the Nikon one for $1799. 

[Brian]

Photography, like most other things, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. 

Now I'm sure you are wondering why spend $1800 on a lens. That's a lot of money for people who are on limited budgets.

I say to to you: Why not? 

That $1800 lens will last you 10 years or more, if taken care of. Sure it has its quirks around the 4 year mark if it's heavily used, but it's nice having a 5 year warranty. Just think of how many $1000-$2000 camera bodies you will go through in 10-20 years? I'm thinking somewhere around 4-6. So let's say 5 to split the difference. Five bodies at $2000 a pop is $10,000. Could be more, could be less, and we haven't included shipping and tax. 

So after $10,000...$1799 doesn't seem so bad with something lasting a decade or more. Camera bodies only last you about 3-4 years...they plan it that way, gets you in the market quicker.

Gone are the days of inheritaning Grandpa's Nikon F2 and some lenses that get you through college and beyond. Today's camera bodies are computers that think they are cameras. People are looking for their "Forever Camera," the manufacturers want you to buy the latest and greatest every 12-18 months. That's why marketing pushes so hard about the new features of the latest camera body. It's easy to sell. Easy to convince you that ISO 51200 is what you need to be a good photographer. 

It's such a vicious cycle.