From Canon to Nikon. D500 vs D750? Wildlife to begin with....

For many years I have photographed wildlife with the Canon 6D which is a very good camera when it comes to poor lighting conditions. Together with Tamron 150-600 G2, I have taken many pictures.

Now I want to make a change. I think. The wildlife I photograph is usually from a car. Especially during dawn and dusk. I'm used to having a camera that performs well in poor lighting conditions. The problem with the 6D is the autofocus system that feels limited and does not take as many pictures in seconds. A few times a year, I photograph eagles from a hide and would like a faster camera.

It's always talk about APS-C cameras when it comes to this type of photography but since these cameras are worse in poor lighting conditions, I have not chosen APS-C. But it may have changed in the nikon world.

As said. An exchange. I have found two models at Nikon, which I like a little extra. I tried both in store yesterday and brought some pictures home. The models are D500 and D750.

- The D750 is FF. 24 mpx. Double SD. Weather Sealed. WIFI. 6.5fps. Tilting screen. I liked the D750. Sufficient autofocus points. Good autofocus. Good dynamic range. Good iso handling. Tilting screen. The idea is to buy 200-500 with this and then I do not feel as much the need for the crop factor that aps-c offers.

- The D500 is APS-C. 20 mpx. Awesome autofocus system. Many autofocus points. 4k. Weather Sealed. 1/8000. WiFi & BT. 10 FPS. Tilting screen. Double memory card, but only 1 SD. Awesome dynamic range for APS-C. Good iso handling for APS-C. Joystick. Comfortable and sturdy to hold. Many buttons to configure according to taste. More expensive than the D750. The idea is to buy a used Sigma 120-300 / 2.8 OS (for brightness) or 200-500.


What do you think?

I don't think you could go wrong with either option. The D500 is more of a specific sports camera than the D750 and with the 200-500 I think would be a great wildlife combination. Because I've become a bit of an FX snob I'd probably go with the D750 and 200-500 (and use the price as an excuse) but the off centre cross AF points, the XQD and pro body performance, ergonomics and controls are big reasons to consider the DX.

On the other hand, have you considered a 5D4 and sticking with Canon?

Yeah the controls on the D500 is a big advantage over the D750. But FX is FX. Earlier I thought I never go back to APS-C (after I've used the bad and noisy sensor from 7D). But the D500 is in another league.

Which option?

Nikon D500
Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS

or

Nikon D750
Nikon 200-500/5.6

notimetochill wrote in post #18435825
Yeah the controls on the D500 is a big advantage over the D750. But FX is FX. Earlier I thought I never go back to APS-C (after I've used the bad and noisy sensor from 7D). But the D500 is in another league.

Which option?

Nikon D500
Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS

or

Nikon D750
Nikon 200-500/5.6

Just a thought regarding the lens, do you need a zoom? as nikkor 300 f4's are rather nice and reasonable money to buy.


P.

I'm used to a zoom and want one

notimetochill wrote in post #18435825
Yeah the controls on the D500 is a big advantage over the D750. But FX is FX. Earlier I thought I never go back to APS-C (after I've used the bad and noisy sensor from 7D). But the D500 is in another league.

Which option?

Nikon D500
Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS

or

Nikon D750
Nikon 200-500/5.6

Don't let your experience with Canon's APS-C sensors ruin it for you man. Nikon's D500 is very clean and usable clear up to 32,000! 40,000 and 51,200 will even do you good in a pinch. Image quality is as good as ANY full frame Canon,... and I mean ANY! There's never enough AF points when you shoot wildlife,... especially BIF, so between the D750 and D500, I'd do the latter. You're really gonna appreciate the near edge to edge AF coverage and the 3D AF tracking. And I'd match it up with 3 lenses, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2, Nikon's 200-500 f/5.6 and the Nikon 300 f4 PF. The 200-500 is about the sharpest and best rendering zoom out there in the focal range. The Tamron G2 out performs the Nikon 70-200 VR II in my opinion,... don't know about the Nikon's 70-200 2.8E, don't have one of those. Good luck!

EricJrSax wrote in post #18437106
Don't let your experience with Canon's APS-C sensors ruin it for you man. Nikon's D500 is very clean and usable clear up to 32,000! 40,000 and 51,200 will even do you good in a pinch. Image quality is as good as ANY full frame Canon,... and I mean ANY! There's never enough AF points when you shoot wildlife,... especially BIF, so between the D750 and D500, I'd do the latter. You're really gonna appreciate the near edge to edge AF coverage and the 3D AF tracking. And I'd match it up with 3 lenses, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2, Nikon's 200-500 f/5.6 and the Nikon 300 f4 PF. The 200-500 is about the sharpest and best rendering zoom out there in the focal range. The Tamron G2 out performs the Nikon 70-200 VR II in my opinion,... don't know about the Nikon's 70-200 2.8E, don't have one of those. Good luck!

Good words from my fellow musician - the D500 is looking like the Go To camera for just about Anything, and the lens choice is a good one.

P.

For wildlife get the D500 and the 200-500. You'll be thrilled and good to go!

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #18437135
For wildlife get the D500 and the 200-500. You'll be thrilled and good to go!

Depends on what kind of wildlife shooter he is. If he's a percher and pretty much waits for wildlife to venture into sight, then yes I agree,... do the 200-500. If he's more of a mobile shooter and moves around thru brush looking for opportunities, then t, he 300 f4 prime would be a better choice. OR, even a 70-200 with a 1.4 TC in a cargo pocket. If you're on the move a lot, especially thru the woods and brush, that 200-500 can wear you down in a hurry. Besides,... 200-500 could prove to be too much of a reach on the D500 in a lot of cases when lurking thru trees and branches,... perfect from the bank of a lake shooting birds swooping in to feed off the water. Just depends.

I'm impressed by the D500 sensor. Has downloaded different raw files. Everything from landscape to indoors and I'm impressed. The boring of the D500 is that there are not as many options of lenses. I have reserved a 120-300 / 2.8 OS coming next week. An objective I have previously owned but never saved. 120-300 / 2.8 will be perfect for my photography during dawn and dusk and even when I'm in a hide and photograph eagles. The idea is to get 200-500 as my daily telezoom, since the 120-300 / 2.8 OS weighs almost 3kilo.

The D500 has the features I'm looking for (except FF sensor), but then I think the problem is on the lens. Buying lighter lenses and there I start with 120-300 / 2.8 ounces that will be used to my favorite area (wild mammals and big birds).

The problem you have is wanting a wide aperture for golden hour shooting. You won't get a small lens with a wide aperture. PF and DO will only help so much.

If you are willing to forgo the wide aperture, the 300/4 PF or the 200-500 are really good long and light lenses.

The 120-300/2.8 OS will help the D500 sensor more during sunrise and sunset to photograph moose, deer etc. Then for other times at the day my plan is to use the 200-500 zoom, when it's brighter outside. I think I will need the 2.8 for this D500.