arrghhhh Nikon d750 or d500

yup new camera time and im really torn which way to go, on a d5100 at the mo which has done well but well its old and as im off to Tokyo end of the year i want a new toy that can handle low light better.

so anyone used both of these and got any thoughts as im changing my mind daily it seems from one to the other.

Very much depends on what you shoot, what lenses you have, what budget you have.

E.g., if you shoot wildlife or sport and can't afford exotic telephoto lenses like a 600mm f/4.0 then the D500 will serve you much better.
Shooting landscapes or the night sky? Then the D750.
Natural light portraits? The D750
Macro? Not a big difference, D500 will give longer workings distance less liekly to scare insects, but contrary t popular belief the D750 will actually give a DEEPER DoF due to the different circle of confusion.
Hiking/backpacking? D500, smaller, lighter lenses, more reach, better build quality.
Sports? D500, better frame rate, more reach.
Architecture: D750 so you can use PC lenses
Children Playing: D500 continuous AF make this an easy win for D500.
Birds in Flight: D500, tracking AF, reach, pixel density.
Wafer thin DoF fad: D750.

get all that D.P. just wanted to know if anyone had used both and their view. im not exactly tied in one direction so will end up using it for all sorts of stuff, hence i was after more of a users view than what is either cameras strong point. thanks for the info though

I have a D600 which is considered worse than a D750 with regards to AF,etc but shares the same sensor. The AF on the D750 and D500 is indeed better if you do action shots,but again you would need a decent lens in the first place too - I have used my D600 at airshows with a 10 year old Sigma 100-300MM/F4 with a 1.4X TC and it is still mostly fine. I tried one of the new Nikon lenses and that seemed to make the most difference for that kind of work IMHO,but the advantage of using an APS-C camera is simply higher pixel density too,which is higher on the D500 than even a D810.

However,for more general purpose stuff,and for landscape,architectural,portraiture,long exposure,night and astro stuff full frame has advantages IMHO.

I also find that you can use older generation lenses perfectly fine which tend to be smaller and more compact than some of the newer equivalents. For instance I am using a 23 year old Nikon AF-D 28-70MM/F3.5-4.5 and it is tack sharp,and very resistant to flare too. It is also very compact.

A lot of these lenses were ignored with DX due to the 1.5X magnification factor - but on FX they are the same as on film.

It does lack things like VR and AFS but I have found it is not an issue,and the F number is less of a concern with FF cameras. Remember you need to take digital equivalence into consideration too. Some of the wide aperture DX lenses are not really that smaller than their equivalent FX versions.

Unless you are really into tele work,I would go with the D750.

GAC said:

get all that D.P. just wanted to know if anyone had used both and their view. im not exactly tied in one direction so will end up using it for all sorts of stuff, hence i was after more of a users view than what is either cameras strong point. thanks for the info though

Click to expand...

Well, what a user prefers will come down to what they shoot. If they don't shoot the same stuff as you then their opinion has little value.

Really, only you can decide what you will shoot the most. The D500 is superior in almost every way, the only difference being the sensor size and thus the pros and cons i listed above are the only real deciding factors.

D.P. said:

Well, what a user prefers will come down to what they shoot. If they don't shoot the same stuff as you then their opinion has little value.

Really, only you can decide what you will shoot the most. The D500 is superior in almost every way, the only difference being the sensor size and thus the pros and cons i listed above are the only real deciding factors.

Click to expand...

For a trip to Tokyo, and the sort of things you are likely to shoot there, I'm inclined to say go with a D750. What lenses do you currently have, though ? I presume they are DX lenses. For the D750 you'll be wanting full-frame lenses for optimal quality, so that cost needs to be factored in to any potential upgrade. The D500 is a DX format camera at least, so will probably be more compatible with your existing lenses ... however, in my opinion the D500 is a specialist camera designed for very fast action, and has some limitations for other uses.

ps. If you can, you may want to wait until the end of September when Nikon will likely announce some new camera models ( eg. successor to the D810 ). You could benefit from a price reduction on the existing models as people sell off their "older" cameras.

I hear so much praise for the D500, it almost seems to do it all damn well, only thing I think I read was that it still had the AA filter (which something like a D810 doesnt) so isnt as good for landscapes( but still more than acceptable just not "quite" as good).

But everything else it does it does almost perfectly.

stulid said:

I hear so much praise for the D500, it almost seems to do it all damn well, only thing I think I read was that it still had the AA filter (which something like a D810 doesnt) so isnt as good for landscapes( but still more than acceptable just not "quite" as good).

But everything else it does it does almost perfectly.

Click to expand...

The D500 doesn't have an AA filter.

DPreview recently did an article on the D750 V D500

https://www.dpreview.com/news/1419516967/nikon-d500-versus-d750-which-one-is-right-for-you

Their final verdict? The D500 if you're shooting sport or fast moving subjects - the crop factor + AF system are brilliant for those types of photography. The 1.5x crop factor is also useful.

If I was going to spend D500 money, TBH I'd want to get a FF body.

The Mad Rapper said:

If I was going to spend D500 money, TBH I'd want to get a FF body.

Click to expand...

If I was Spending D750 kind of money i would want the D500 AF and metering. Works both ways you see.

A FF sensor is only going to be a benefit if you can make sue of it, which may not be the case depending on what you shoot and what your budget for lenses is.

Unless your shooting sports or wildlife you don't need the D500.
7200 may be just as good for you and much cheaper.

If you don't have full frame lenses then the 750 may be quite a bit more expensive as you will need new glass.

What is wrong with the 5100?
What lenses do you have?

D.P. said:

If I was Spending D750 kind of money i would want the D500 AF and metering. Works both ways you see.

A FF sensor is only going to be a benefit if you can make sue of it, which may not be the case depending on what you shoot and what your budget for lenses is.

Click to expand...

That's one way to state the obvious...

The Mad Rapper said:

That's one way to state the obvious...

Click to expand...

It may be obvious but it is surprising how many people don't realize it, or don't have the budget to rectify the issues of a larger sensor.

Holst1981 said:

What is wrong with the 5100?
What lenses do you have?

Click to expand...

My initial thoughts too upon reading the OP. The sensor in the D5100 is still perfectly capable.

For a trip to Tokyo, a small light DSLR is exactly what I'd want to take, not some massive FF body and the requisite lenses, or even a prosumer body like the D500 which is total overkill.

In a city environment I'd want the ff sensor myself.

It totally comes down to what you shoot, if your answer is "everything" you haven't thought hard enough or shot for long enough to find your style (in which case I'd hold off spending £1.5k or there abouts on a body)

They are both excellent cameras but they are built to different design briefs.

If not for the cost, then something like the Leica Q would be perfect for the OP. Full frame. Really small and unobtrusive, cracking kens, good AF and good tech options generally. Perhaps a more affordable offering from a competitor?

first up had the 5100 for over 4 years now, not a bad body but wanted a upgrade also wanted something weather sealed and a bit more robust.

on what i shoot alone im probably more leaning to the d500, but was looking at a d750 for the better low light capability. this is why i was after some general thoughts on if anyone had used both.

What is it you normally shoot?

Landscapes? Fast moving objects? Portraits? Product? Weddings?

Holst1981 said:

Unless your shooting sports or wildlife you don't need the D500.
7200 may be just as good for you and much cheaper.

If you don't have full frame lenses then the 750 may be quite a bit more expensive as you will need new glass.

What is wrong with the 5100?
What lenses do you have?

Click to expand...

I agree 100% with getting the D7200 as the OP doesn't seem to know his arse from his elbow in terms of his requirements so I think a D500 would be overkill and wasted when a D7200 has a lot of that functionality and image quality and with the money saved he could put that into lenses.

If low light is important (guessing it is as it's the only thing the Op has told us is important to him) then the D750 can also be had cheaper, especially used.