04-14-2017, 04:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-14-2017, 04:09 PM by toni-a.)
If I were starting from scratch as i said before,D500 would be my obvious choice, IMHO it's the best camera on the market now.
Nikon wants more customers with a cheaper camera with less specs, like the 10D/300D at the time, what's the problem?
If I were in Nikon land or if I didn't own all the canon gear I had, I would surely get it.
Best AF system of all cameras, best AF coverage, decent image quality, other cameras have more megapixels and slightly better high ISO performance good for them, however this one will always have the job done every time
do you use the more expensive XQD cards?
Yes I bought a Lexar 64Gb XQD......and a reader....not cheap either!!
My guess is that the F7500 will sell pretty well for Nikon!
Just to refresh people's memory about the frame rate of the D7200/D7100:
They both have a somewhat average frame rate...(RAW)
in 14 bit lossless compressed mode..5 Fps..... D7100 6 shot buffer....D7200 I think it's 18 shots
in 12 bit compressed mode.................6Fps D7100 8 shots... D7200 around 22+ shots
7 Fps only comes in crop mode (1.3 X)
5 Fps in quality mode is pretty pedestrian and not exactly sportive. (many remember the headline 7 Fps figure only)
Even the FF D750 does better.. 6.5 Fps 14 bit lossless compressed for 14 images.
The D7500's 8 Fps for 50 shots in RAW 14 bit lossless compressed is a huge improvement over the two predecessors.
with so much disadvantages towards the D500, but also to the predecessors, who cares about +2 fps? Would YOU buy it?
I think the camera is aimed at non D500 owners JoJu!
Doesn't answer my question, dave ^_^ No matter to who it's aimed, there's by far less value in it than the D7000 had when it first arrived the market. Compared to it's predecessors, Nikon took as much functions out as they put new ones in, AF is far less advanced than D500's. What is the reason to prefer this offer over a D5xxx or a still available D7200? Attention, rhetorical question: I actually don't want to know.
Great shot, dave! After all that patience and consistency an earned reward. I know how fast that goes, the one with the crayfish from me was in a burst of less than a second and I didn't even know what was going on - all went so fast, I saw the prey at home on the screen first.
Now there are two parts of my question: If you would not already have the D500, would he D7500 be a valid choice for you? Apparently for shots like yours one cannot have enough buffer and fps? The AF was less important since the scene happened on a static spot. So you could prepare nearly all settings to optimal values and just wait until it happens. Could it have been you'd be running out of buffer?
And now you have the D500 and maybe want a second body. How likely you would go for a D7500, because it saves some money?
Well, we both can save time from now on and leave it the way it is. I guess neither I nor me will buy the D7500. From all my owned Nikons, the most expensive still is with me and in use. I will never make this mistake again and get another second body with different concept of use like the D750. If a second body is a safety must, it is also a must to have two of the same model. If it's different purposes - another story. And if I'm already at the end of the range, going lower in specs needs a very good reason.