Changing my Nikon D750 FX for a Nikon D500 DX...

[Richdog]

Well, I just sold my D750 and my 24-120 and will look to pick up a D500 shortly. I like to shoot animals and sports as well as people and landscapes and also want to do a safari trip next year, so I think the D500 is a better fit for me as with the right lenses it will do pretty much any kind of photography very well. I certainly think the advantage of having FX is now pretty negligible for my own personal uses, and the weight savings from some of the lenses is really appealing (eg:16-80mm is 480g and 24-120mm is 708g).

Where I live I can get the D500 for £1360, and the DX system has the Nikon 16-80mm f2.8-f4 (£672), Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (£245), Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 (£450), Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 (£310) and the Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX (£120) and between those I don't think I could want for too much more in terms of IQ and flexibility when combined with the champion AF and ISO performance of the D500. They are comparatively inexpensive lenses too.

Anyone else planning on doing the same?

 

[Richdog]

No. I intend to keep my D750 for a good few years to come.

I agree that the difference between FX and DX is not that big anymore, but when I fianlly change mine D750 I'd be looking for a much bigger upgrade.

Good luck though, D500 does look to be a fantastic camera.

The D750 is amazing there is no doubting that, however for fast-action it has been less than ideal due to the low fps and buffer size (and the time taken to process them when it's full), and I have missed some good moments as a result. This is a chance to get D5-esque specs for a third of the price in DX format with little compromise in the other areas I like to take photos.

 

[Richdog]

D900 would be nice but would likely cost a bomb, and if the 54MP sensor was used I wouldn't expect FPS to be any higher than the current D810, albeit with a decent sized buffer. Plus with 54MP the file sizes would be pretty damn insane as a D810 is already around 55MB per RAW uncompressed 12-bit file. Eek.

 

[Richdog]

Memory is no concern nowadays but HD space is always an issue (combined with all other media requirements) unless you have a large capacity NAS, and online backup is a further pain. Even 50mb files would start taking a lot of GB per shoot. Anyway it's all relative to funds and equipment I guess, but 54MP is certainly overkill and uneconomical for my own non-professional uses.

I hope local stores start getting demo kits in soon so I can play with one.

 

[Richdog]

Let's just agree to disagree on the HD space issue and cost, I have enough experience to form a good opinion in that regard so I think it's down to different requirements and expectations.

I agree a 54MP crop would be nice but only if cost weren't a factor and ultimately it's a luxury that you have to be willing to pay the wongas for, which I at this stage I'm admittedly not. I'm really leaning towards a DX lens system to take full advantage of the format, and I like how comparatively cheap the lenses are despite the good reputation fpr performance that they have. It strikes a good overall balance I think.

 

[Richdog]

just remember the more practice you get and skill the frames per second extra the d500 does is less of an issues as you will get better at shooting the exact shot you want in frame and pre empting say an incoming flight shot or take off shot, but yes agree the d500 is the way to go, i'll be trading my d70 for a d500 but keeping my d810.

I had a lot of practise with my D750 but it is still not going to be as good as the D500 in that area. I got 70% of what I wanted, but the rest was the issue. It's not like I just stood there like I was holding the DSLR equivalent of a Kalashnikov, spraying photons everywhere, I was selective, but the D750 ran out of buffer incredibly fast and sometimes that really was the difference between capturing the peak of a moment and not doing so.

Sports of wildlife it's a no brainer. I pretty much shoot 100% portraits, the D750 is staying

I still think people and portraits will be fine with the appropriate lens, so I hopefully shouldn't miss my D750 too much. I think the advantages of having a mini D5 will be worth the FX sacrifices.

Thom Hogan did a good DX vs FX back in 2013 http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-full-frame-debate.html, and then another comparison taking the newest bodies into account http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/consumer-pro-dx-or-fx.html and it seems many of the negatives have been much reduced since the original article.

 

[Richdog]

As you say, you shoot many different subjects, so the pros out weigh the cons.

I shoot one maybe two images in burst, pretty much always use a single centre point of focus and work in tight studios. The D500 offers zero advantages to the type of photography I do, even if it is a beast

Different bodies for different jobs

Agreed, but I'm trying to find one body that will do all jobs, if not perfectly, then enough for me not to notice too much. My livelihood (thankfully, heh) doesn't depend on my photography so a jack of all trades is really what I am looking for. Two bodies is just unnecessary for me and much better spent on decent lenses and accessories, of which I can buy a good amount given the pricing I listed in the OP. Hell, even selling my 70-200 VRII will get me 3 good lenses.

 

[Richdog]

Holy crap, I had no idea that Sigma had released a 50-100mm f1/8... http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=473

A D500, a Sigma 18-35 and a Sigma 50-100 (£1150 for both lenses) is looking like a really tempting proposition... I have to admit that the Sigma Art 35mm turned me into a bit of a Sigma fanboy, and if these two lenses can give prime-esque levels of quality throughout those entire ranges (and reviews say they do) then that's a pretty awesome thing...

EDIT - Also a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM which has now been discontinued yet got very good feedback... though very likely not anywhere near the comparable levels of image quality of the 50-100 Art http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/836-sigmaex5015028dcos?start=2

 

[Richdog]

The 1.8 sigma lenses certainly make the difference between FF and DX far smaller. You get the same low light ability and DoF as using the pro f/2.8 zooms. Trade off is smaller zoom range.

Smaller zoom range is indeed a trade off, but the question is how much of one? I also still have my Nikon 70-200 VRII that could fill in that gap and I lose nothing by keeping it as the value doesn't seem to be going anywhere but up at the moment and has in fact increased by around 20% since I bought it.

EDIT - However, there is always the obscene weight of these lenses as the trade-off...

 

[Richdog]

my d500 is waiting at home atm , got it from a place in china beginning with P and ending in Z delivery was 2 days ordered 30th may turned up today 11:30

will be testing it against the d750 / d810 for focus acuracy and speed mainly, the crop factors no real issue to me as the d810 36mp 100% is like having another 0.5 zoom anyway its just slow.

i'll update it this sunday with similar shots but with the d500 https://www.flickr.com/photos/hammyuk/

Cool, looking forward to hearing your thoughts and seeing your photos!

 

[Richdog]

weird been messing around with it my en-el15's from all my previous body's d750 / d810 are rated at 7v this d500 en-e15 is 8.4v but the manual states 7v and the 7v ones show battery dead in the lcd only the 8.4 will turn it on

Yeah it has a known battery issue, will only work with first-party batteries I believe?

 

[Richdog]

right just had an update of nikon support

https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com.../AvMyhQqCDv8S~bCHGrRS~yKX1UEqZy75Mv_U~zj~PP9d

basically nikon will exchange all your older batteries

Annoying, but at least they have achknowledged and will replace.

 

[Richdog]

Just to provide some closure on this thread for anyone who cares...

In the end, I sold all my Nikon stuff and have gone with Fuji based on a lot of research and playing with my friends cameras. I really wanted the Fuji X-T2 but couldn't wait until September and thought it would be a good idea to get to know the system beforehand, so bought the "lowly" X-E2 from 2013 which with the latest firmware updates is damn decent. I am now really falling in love with the Fuji system with all its quirks and it's aperture rings and dials, and when I see the quality of the files (now that I have figured out how to get the most from the AF etc) vs my Nikon D750 in similar scenarios I do not think I am losing anything in the situations I have been shooting in. In fact, not only do I find the IQ more pleasing (especially the great out of camera JPEGs and the awesome Fujifilm colour profiles) but the sheer weight savings when lugging things around for a day of hiking (even with the need for a couple of extra batteries) are such that I cannot see myself going back to a DSLR for the forseeable future. I find that I am considering and framing my shots much more carefully than before, probably because the AF fast-motion tracking is not the best on the X-E2 to say the least, heh. The Nikon completely smokes it there and I didn't even try to do any comparisons, I am just accepting it as a fact of life until the X-T2 is released.

I have just been for a weekend away in Ticino (Italian part of Switzerland). Prior to going I purchased the 16mm f1.4 WR lens for my Fuji X-E2. Holy friggin crap, this thing is crazy sharp... easily a match for my old Sigma Art 35mm 1.4, and actually much sharper when opened up at f1.4. I used the one lens for the entire trip around the mountains and castles and the size and weight, being an APS-C lens designed for the slim X-mount, is just perfect and the quality to size ratio is just phenomenal. The difference in weight when carrying it all day simply cannot be understated, I left it around my neck most of the time ready for action whereas with my Nikon it would have been in the bag while hiking until needed.

Of course I am not saying Fuji is better than Nikon for everyone, but for my uses it sure seems to be preferable so far. When I get my X-T2 in September and have used it a while I will report back on the switch.

 

[Richdog]

So you've changed your entire system to save some size and weight?

Why's that so important to you? I have a D750 and don't think it's that large or heavy. When I have my 50mm on I hand hold it all day long and don't even have the neck strap attached.

It's a truely awesome camera and personally there's no way i'd trade it for an X-E2 because of size and weight.

I didn't "sell all my gear to buy an X-E2", I sold it to buy into the Fuji system, and namely to get the about-to-be-released Fuji X-T2. As that isn't released for another month, I bought an X-E2 to play with and get to know the menu system and how the Fuji's handle.

Size and weight are clearly important to many people, regardless of whether they are enthusiasts or professionals, and if you don't understand that basic concept (which is well publicised online) and taking into account the clear rationale I wrote above then I don't think there is much point continuing this discussion with you.

Enjoy your D750, it's a great camera.

 

[Richdog]

I do understand the basic concept of size and weight, which is why i made the point that the D750 isnt that big or heavy..

It's also well publicised online that once you fashion in the lenses and extra batteries, there's not much in it, hence my question. Why is size and weight that much of an issue to YOU (not what others say online) that you'd change all your gear because of it?

It is explained in my post #26 above, which you clearly have not read in any detail.