NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: marco on April 18, 2017, 21:05:41
-
These are completely diferent camera's but what i would like to know is wich one i should buy :) I love the fact of the Fuji that it is small with great lenses and that i take it easier with me then lets say my beloved D810.
The D500 is on the other hand very welcome with all the lenses that are allready in my bag and the 1.5 crop factor is also great for wildlife and action sport photography, i have always wanted a second body but over the years i found out that lurking with a backpack full of lenses just to get the shot isn't my thing, i love the look and the ergonomics the Fuji camera has, but how do others who own it enjoy this camera compared to the Nikons they maybe have or still use?
I will visit my local camera dealer next week to see how big a difference they are size/weight feel etc.
Are there members out here who own 1 or maybe both camera's and could help me out where they use it for? my kids are growing fast and my wife has a SonyA6000 i see that when i want to take a photo i find it quicker and easier to pick up the small camera when the D810 is lying next to it :|
When i read these sort of questions i always think to myself come on try it out and you know wich one suits you best, but i feel that i am maybe prepared to sell a lot of my lenses to get a smaller system.
looking forward in good advice,
Marco.
-
Except for the advice of going to a photo store and try each candidate first to ascertain its handling, I find it very difficult to advise for a camera purchase on such a general basis. In my opinion, we would more be interested later in learning why you chose one over the other :D
-
I use a D500 and a couple of zoom (16-85 f3.5-5.6, and 10-24 f3.5-4.5) as my travel kit, does not weigh to much, fit in a small bag, and the ergonomics are equal to my other Nikons. Used to use a Nikon V1 and some lenses, smaller but not as fast to work with, start-up time etc.
I guess the compactness af the Fuji and other mirrorless systems may be oversold, if you get f2.8 lenses, the difference may not be so big after all.
One in my photoclub have changed completely from Canon to Fuji, the Fuji lenses reminds og the old manual Nikons, and the weight is accordingly ;)
The XY-2 can be used for sport, but the D500 will beat it on really fast action, the OVF may also be better when following action, but try it at a photo store.
-
I have had Fuji for three years, Nikon for much longer. Specifically, I have had the X-T2 since last September. I have shot with a rented D500.
Both are excellent cameras. It is a matter of personal preference.
The D500 has the edge, but not by much, for action photography. Fuji has only one really long lens, the 100-400, which is competitive with the Nikon 80-400; but Nikon has a much better lens set for telephoto work.
The Fuji 50-140 is competitive in quality with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 (I have both lenses). The X-T2 has a better lens set for everyday photography. Fuji lenses are very high quality, and are better than Nikon DX lenses and many Nikon FX lenses, in my experience. An X-T2 kit will tend to be lighter to carry, potentially by quite a lot. The X-T2 and the 18-55 make for a very high quality combination, and are light enough to carry in a day bag with hardly any thought. The Fuji 16 mm is a standout.
The Nikon flash system is much better; that may or may not matter to you.
If you are hooked on Lightroom, Fuji may not be your best choice (Adobe conversion of rafs is sub-optimal), but some would disagree.
The EVF gives a better preview, and a better review in bright light, but the OVF is somewhat better for tracking action.
Best that you handle both and see which you enjoy using most. Personally, I get more pleasure out of shooting Fuji, but others prefer the D500.
-
...but i feel that i am maybe prepared to sell a lot of my lenses to get a smaller system.
I'd worry about cannibalizing one system to start another. You might be chasing a silver bullet when perhaps you should be dodging that silver bullet?
Dave Hartman
-
I voted with my feet! and went from a D810 and a bagful of Nikkors to an X-T2 also in September via an X-T1 bought in January 2016 as a stopgap until the X-T2 was on sale. My problem with the Nikon system I had was an increasing need to use software to fettle my efforts at Nikon photography, another big factor was the Nikon awful viewfinders(in my eyes) and mostly weight of the Nikon gear which because of that weight tended to get left at home!
Going the Fuji way is not the cheap option by any means, but the quality is there in spades! The Fujifilm X system is still a newcomer and is developing all the time, but yes the Nikon system is vast if you shoot FX if you hanker after DX then the Nikon Dx system especially lenses is at best sparse, yes I know it is possible to use FX lenses as well.
I pondered long and hard in the choice of a D500 or the X-T2, I would have to had to wait for both to appear. In the end it came down to opting for the Fuji X system over the Nikons because of weight and viewfinder eye relief, and the plastic build of Nikon gear especially the lenses.
Fuji has produced a very capable flashgun in the EF-X500, not cheap and i don't have one but I've seen the results of others on a different forum and the HSS results were excellent, but again Nikon has had much more experience in this field, but as a non professional that's not important to me.
In the end Marco there is only one person who can make the decision - you, good luck!
-
I'd worry about cannibalizing one system to start another. You might be chasing a silver bullet when perhaps you should be dodging that silver bullet?
Dave Hartman
I certainly cannibalized my former Nikon system when I moved to Sony, and I have no regrets. Finally a EVF viewfinder that works for me, instead of Nikon's awful OVF viewfinder. As a bonus the camera body is the size of a 1970'ies film SLR and a few of the lenses are smaller too, but not all of them. AF adjustment and front/back focus issues are history too.
-
The 23.6 x 15.6 mm or APS-C is not one I favor for photographing people. I can't have the perspective I want and the background blurring I want in one photograph. I'm not talking about DoF here but background blurring. They are not one and the same. The D800 gave me back my 105/2.5 AIS.
I would not be considering the either the Nikon D500 or Fuji XT2 for photographing people.
Dave
-
Blanket statements are less useful. People have so *very* different experiences with the Sony A7-series or the Fuji for that matter. I purchased a Sony A7 and tried my best to make it work for me, but sold it off after a few months. Couldn't get proper focus with a lot of various lenses. Handling was bad and the EVF a big let-down. The Fuji handles better, but I still cannot get the EVF to work to satisfaction. It really strains my eyes.
Only personal experience can tell the prospective buyer whether the model is worth her or his while. These days, most cameras are "better" than their users anyway, so it boils down to the user experience in handling the gear.
-
The 23.6 x 15.6 mm or APS-C is not one I favor for photographing people. I can't have the perspective I want and the background blurring I want in one photograph. I'm not talking about DoF here but background blurring. They are not one and the same. The D800 gave me back my 105/2.5 AIS.
I would not be considering the either the Nikon D500 or Fuji XT2 for photographing people.
Dave
Background blur can easily be achieved with APS-C sensors.
D70 + 85/1.4 shot at f/2.8.
Examples with statements are always welcome.
-
Only personal experience can tell the prospective buyer whether the model is worth her or his while. These days, most cameras are "better" than their users anyway, so it boils down to the user experience in handling the gear.
Quite right Bjorn!
-
Background blur can easily be achieved with APS-C sensors.
D70 + 85/1.4 shot at f/2.8.
Examples with statements are always welcome.
Now try that with a 70/2.8. I did note with the perspective I prefer. On DX I resorted to my 85/2.0 but it's a longer lens on DX than I would like and requires a greater shooting distance for the same subject framing compared to 105mm lens on FX.
Dave
-
The 23.6 x 15.6 mm or APS-C is not one I favor for photographing people. I can't have the perspective I want and the background blurring I want in one photograph. I'm not talking about DoF here but background blurring. They are not one and the same. The D800 gave me back my 105/2.5 AIS.
I would not be considering the either the Nikon D500 or Fuji XT2 for photographing people.
My experience with Fuji mostly is with their X100s fixed-lens camera; I have not used their ILC system except for occasionally trying it briefly.
Check out photos made with the 56mm f/1.2 APD (the latter part is important); e.g. there is a flickr group where you can find some examples. I think it looks quite nice in terms of out of focus rendering. I realize that light is lost due to the apodisation element and autofocus is limited to contrast detect but to me the results seem very nice.
Fuji also have 16/1.4, 23/1.4 etc. so there are plenty of fast wide angles, though not quite the equivalent of 24/1.4 on 35mm full frame.
Other advantages pertinent to photographing people is that you can take photos silently if you need/want to. I don't know what disadvantages there are (rolling shutter? maybe additional delay?) but for some situations this would be invaluable.
While the X-T2 has nice eyepoint and EVF, and indeed I can see the whole viewfinder image with glasses on, with the X-Pro2 I wasn't able to comfortably see the whole viewfinder image (neither optical nor EVF). If they improved the optical viewfinder by increasing its eyepoint and reduced the distortion, I would be very interested in this camera. Mostly for situations requiring that the camera be quieter than my DSLRs, and also to use the 56mm APD lens. I liked the OVF on the X100s but missed a convenient way of moving the focus point (the buttons are so small, and one has to first initiate AF point selection then move it and finish; with Nikons I just use the multi selector or thumbstick without having to go to a "focus point selection mode"). I understand this is now easier with the newest Fuji models.
However, I also disliked the way high ISO images were smeared by the X100s, the people looked a bit like wax models and there didn't seem to be a way to avoid it as far as I could see. This lead me to sell the X100s after half a year's use. At mid ISO the image quality was fine and I liked the quietness and lack of reaction from people when shooting street.
I would like to give the X-Pro2 a try, but I'm unconvinced by its viewfinder, and so I wait. Leica M would be another quiet option with optical viewfinder but it's out of my price range (with the fast lenses I would want to go with it). For now, for quietness I turn on Qc in my Nikon D5 or use the D810 (which is a bit slower and quieter) and hope that it's quiet enough. Usually it is. The high fps feature of the D5 is very loud though, but the remarkable autofocus performance makes it the appropriate tool for some situations. The D500 is much quieter than the D5 and of course the Fuji X-T2 is, as there is no mirror movement sound. Still, I stick to my Nikons as I prefer their viewfinders and work around the sound noise by trying to time shots carefully and use Qc on the D5 when appropriate. If I were to use the D500, I don't think I'd have much issue in terms of the sound from the camera, but I tend to go with the larger viewfinder and better image quality of FX in low light. Still, the camera sound noise is a consideration for me and maybe at some point I will buy a Fuji for silent shooting situations. Sony also have that capability but there is no optical viewfinder available.
-
I'd like a camera like the X-Pro2 from Sony. The rangefinder OVF works much better for me than those in the DSLRs. I don't know how a hybrid RF/EVF would work though.
-
Except for the advice of going to a photo store and try each candidate first to ascertain its handling, I find it very difficult to advise for a camera purchase on such a general basis. In my opinion, we would more be interested later in learning why you chose one over the other :D
Absolutely! There are just too many variables between camera systems, and between people, to make definitive remarks about what somebody else should do. IMO, the best advice so far has come from Marco himself when he said that he was going to his camera dealer to handle various models. Bodies like the Nikon D3000, D5000, and D7000 series are not comfortable to me, they're too small. But Nikon has a lot of satisfied customers that have a different opinion. I do not advocate switching brands will nilly, but we are not talking about me here. Nor do I have to pay for the choices that others make.
Of course there's more to consider than how the models feel in your hands. How easy is the system to use? Does it have a stable of lenses and accessories that fill your wants or needs? As I got older I found that weight plays a more prominent role than it used to, YMMV. What pleases me has no bearing on what will please somebody else. I like hot chilis and cannot abide anchovies, but I would not expect everyone to agree about either. ;)
-
I use a D500 and a couple of zoom (16-85 f3.5-5.6, and 10-24 f3.5-4.5) as my travel kit, does not weigh to much, fit in a small bag, and the ergonomics are equal to my other Nikons. Used to use a Nikon V1 and some lenses, smaller but not as fast to work with, start-up time etc.
I guess the compactness af the Fuji and other mirrorless systems may be oversold, if you get f2.8 lenses, the difference may not be so big after all.
One in my photoclub have changed completely from Canon to Fuji, the Fuji lenses reminds og the old manual Nikons, and the weight is accordingly ;)
The XY-2 can be used for sport, but the D500 will beat it on really fast action, the OVF may also be better when following action, but try it at a photo store.
I hear you Bjørn i will let my experience and handling on the new camera know #Nikongear :)
-
I'd worry about cannibalizing one system to start another. You might be chasing a silver bullet when perhaps you should be dodging that silver bullet?
Dave Hartman
True Dave but over the years i have purchased lenses that at the time i barrely use anymore the nikon 28-300 the old 70-200 and i was even thinking of selling my 200/f2 because of the size and weight.
-
I have had Fuji for three years, Nikon for much longer. Specifically, I have had the X-T2 since last September. I have shot with a rented D500.
Both are excellent cameras. It is a matter of personal preference.
The D500 has the edge, but not by much, for action photography. Fuji has only one really long lens, the 100-400, which is competitive with the Nikon 80-400; but Nikon has a much better lens set for telephoto work.
The Fuji 50-140 is competitive in quality with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 (I have both lenses). The X-T2 has a better lens set for everyday photography. Fuji lenses are very high quality, and are better than Nikon DX lenses and many Nikon FX lenses, in my experience. An X-T2 kit will tend to be lighter to carry, potentially by quite a lot. The X-T2 and the 18-55 make for a very high quality combination, and are light enough to carry in a day bag with hardly any thought. The Fuji 16 mm is a standout.
The Nikon flash system is much better; that may or may not matter to you.
If you are hooked on Lightroom, Fuji may not be your best choice (Adobe conversion of rafs is sub-optimal), but some would disagree.
The EVF gives a better preview, and a better review in bright light, but the OVF is somewhat better for tracking action.
Best that you handle both and see which you enjoy using most. Personally, I get more pleasure out of shooting Fuji, but others prefer the D500.
Thank you Anthony for this reply and advice! i will let you know what my decision will be.
-
I certainly cannibalized my former Nikon system when I moved to Sony, and I have no regrets. Finally a EVF viewfinder that works for me, instead of Nikon's awful OVF viewfinder. As a bonus the camera body is the size of a 1970'ies film SLR and a few of the lenses are smaller too, but not all of them. AF adjustment and front/back focus issues are history too.
Did you even concidered in buying a fuji system Bjornthun?
-
I bought the Fuji x100f zilver edition, have to wait when it is in stock, my main reason was to have a compact that i can take with me on a day to day basis.
Thx for all the comments and advice! i will keep my D810 for landscapes.
cheers, Marco.
-
I read with interest that you have a 200/2. That brings up an interesting point - why did you buy that beast?
If you got it because of the quality of the output but hated the weight then there is a dichotomy that cannot be breached. For the Fuji X system I have only gone as far as the X-E1 and so take this with a pinch of salt - I cannot handle the EVF, especially for manual focus, but I love my Df OVF for manual focus.
For wildlife I settled on the D500 for its handling and speed, along with the old AFS 300/4D + TC-14EII. Heavy but satisfying.
For the limited funds I put out on my Fuji system, I get up to 230mm (XC 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7 OIS, not a fair comparison) but could never live with the slow AF. Two minuses - awful EVF and slow AF. the awful EVF is a deal breaker - going to abandon the Fuji system soon.
To each his own. When I shoot with the Df I use mostly old Nikkors, some non-Ai, some Ai, deliberate, slow MF photography. When I reach out for my D500, it is 8-10 fps, fast AF that I am looking for, mostly for birds.
YMMV.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02EqV1YQKmY
:o :o :o
-
After over one year of heavy usage I am still floored every time I develop these wonderful shots from the D500. A plethora of details even at high ISO. Great colours. Superb Autofocus. Next to no technically troubled shots. Speed without limit with the XQD. I really think about getting a second one.
-
PS ... Although I love my X100T I hate manual focus by wire.
That is why I do not use more than the X100T, a superb camera.
-
I'm in the same spot, trying to make the same decusion. Downsizing is something I consider mainly to keep enjoying photography, while at the same time allowing my girlfriend to do the same. The two cameras I consider are indeed the D500 and the Fuji. The Fuji has the benefit of weight and size, but the D500 has the benefit of not needing an adapter to mount my Nikkor lenses. Since I'm not considering buying Fuji lenses, the deciding factors will be handling and post processing (which is, in a sense, also a part of handling)
Frank, I also hate focus by wire in the widest sense, which is why I really prefer full mechanical manual lenses over anything with AF. My one and only AF lens will be the 85mm f1,4 AF-D, which I would never want to get rid of because of it's rather unique rendering.
-
Oh Buddy, how I agree about the 85/1.4 AF-D and its unique rendering:)
(if i ever downsize it will be to my mobile phone)
What is the size and weight difference if you mount the 85/1.4 AF-D on a D500 and an XT-2?
What about handling? It maybe heavier in numbers, but it will be heavier over a certain period of time without a probably better grip?
Heavy lenses on small and light cameras, like the Df that I have been using extensively for over 2 years, have put a lot of strain on my right wrist.
However, I loved using the Df with smaller and lighter lenses, the 45P included :)
So perhaps, that is the way forward. If you use petite lenses, buy XT-2, if you like using chunky ones, then the D500 :)
With your know-how you can't go wrong, they are both capable cameras!
-
Jakov, compared to my D3, the D500 saves half in weight on the body with battery. The space savings are less impressive, with only a 5mm space saving in depth of the camera body, 10mm in width and 40mm in height. The Fuji is the obvious winner there, using just half of the depth of the D3 and D500 with only 40mm. The width and height are similar to the D500, and the weight difference of 200 grams is not really worth mentioning.
As you say though, without a grip of any kind (might have to make my own, Pentax 6x7 style) the strain of carrying bigger lenses might become a nuiscance, so one of the things I'd like to try is mount a lens, similar in size to the 85 f1,4, which will be the biggest lens I'll likely mount (the 80-200 f4 Ai-S is a different story as it's ergonomics dictate that you carry the combination by the lens as much as the camera)
-
Today I met a photographer who uses the Fuji X-T2 for his work (journalism on a small scale and events with some product and portraiture as topping) and was willing to discuss with me (and demonstrate) some of the advantages of the Fuji over Nikon cameras he used before (D7100 being the last of his Nikons)
We spent almost 2 hours chatting, reviewing files and settings and discussing the merits and flaws of the design, as well as peripheral equipment.
In the exchange I got a bit of a view on the X-T2, was able to test 2 very important things to me, and got some answers.
1) When switching off the camera, it takes a while to shut down. In this time it is not adviseable to restart the camera, because it will take longer then starting up from a full shutdown. In this time, the viewfinder is fully dark. To me, this is a flaw.
I'm already glad the viewfinder image is only minimally distorted (pillow) and it's brightness can be adjusted. Might still have to go to a store to find out how much adjustment is possible. I will need real dim rather then bright.
2) In order to use my adapted Nikkor lenses, I will have to set the camera to "shoot without lens" just like a Sony NEX.
3) I have still not found an ideal Lightroom replacement (tried, and was unimpressed by Photoninja, Rawtherapee, UFRAW and now trying CaptureOne) to process the RAF files, so might actually upgrade to LR6.6 and live with it's deficiencies
4) Some might say the Vpb-XT2 booster grip is the ideal companion to the X-T2. For my intended use, the Mhg-XT2 looks to be just perfect, and I did not even know of it's existence before today
There is still a lot of thoughts coursing through my head as I type this, because the transition back from full 135 equivalent to a crop sensor on my main digital camera body is not lightly made. As of today however, I am fairly confident that the Fuji is a very real possibility
-
Buddy: IIRC my gripped D500 is bigger and heavier that my D3 but the pictures have even more charme and are perfectly usable up to ISO20.000.
She has much better ergonomics and for fast action she leads with superb AF. I know that might not matter to you now, because you love the MF optics so much. For me, having invested in some decent AF glass, it matters very much!
For MF the D500 ground glass is much better suited to precisely focus with lenses like the 1.2/55 and 1.4/35 which are hard to focus on both the D3 and D600 without a replacement screen.
-
That's one contra and two pro for the D500. Foto Koch didn't have a D500 in stock, so I did not have the chance yet to compare both cameras side by side.
I did like the intuitive controls on the Fuji enough to have me look at Capture One for RAF file processing
-
2) In order to use my adapted Nikkor lenses, I will have to set the camera to "shoot without lens" just like a Sony NEX.
Plus with an adapter all the advantages with 'size' are gone. I notice that with the Panasonic GF1. And it makes an 'ugly' set-up. But that's just personal aesthetics ;)
-
D500, ISO 20.000. Art repro, no added light in a dark crypta of the church, very bad spectral distribution light source, and still:
http://zentralkraft.com/smalledit_KO7_4732_.JPG
(looks like 400 ASA Fujichrome, no, much better!)
PS: Developed in NXD, setting (NR=0%):
-
D500, ISO 20.000. Art repro, no added light in a dark crypta of the church, very bad spectral distribution light source, and still:
http://zentralkraft.com/smalledit_KO7_4732_.JPG
(looks like 400 ASA Fujichrome, no, much better!)
PS: Developed in NXD, setting (NR=0%):
That is more then just decent. That's pretty darn impressive in my book!
-
Plus with an adapter all the advantages with 'size' are gone. I notice that with the Panasonic GF1. And it makes an 'ugly' set-up. But that's just personal aesthetics ;)
John, I thought long and hard on that bit, and the thing that bothers me most os losing the Aperture linkage. Other then that, the size of the Fuji with ARCA plate and a small grip is very close to that of a Nikon F3. A bit narrower still. With that, I do gain a considerable amount of bag space compared to one of the modern ergonomic dSLR Nikons. Even if the register distance of the camera with adapter does not differ from that of a Nikon solution, the X-T2 would be an overall smaller setup, and with a Metabones F to X adapter, it doesn't look too bad.
Another benefit would be that I could add a tilt/shift adapter from Nikon F to Fuji X and add that functionality to all my Nikon lenses. So other then the silly "shoot without lens" tag in the menu, it's not as bad as I initially thought it might be
-
Thanks for the explanation, Buddy !
That's pretty impressive, Frank.
-
That is more then just decent. That's pretty darn impressive in my book!
The D500 pushes the envelope in many respects. If I imagine her with FX chip in BSI technology, she will sure produce similar results at ISO100.000 like the D5 does.
ISO 100 >>> ISO 1.000 (3 stops)
ISO 1.000 >>> ISO 10.000 (3 stops)
ISO 10.000 >>> ISO 100.000 (3 stops)
-
ISO 100 > 200 (+1) > 400(+2) > 800(+3) > 1600(+4) > 3200(+5) > 6400 (+6) > 12800(+7) > 25600 (+8) > 51200(+9) > 102400(+10)
Thus even more impressive were a D500 to span that entire range.
-
Frank,
I see a color color moiré in your D500 sample that I'm sure could be removed in CaptureNX-D's Camera and Lens Corrections pallet. I see this in my D800 files at a lower ISO. The C&LC pallet is bottom, second to left in the Edit section on the right side. I think if you try it your high ISO sample with be even more impressive. I'm jealous.
Dave
-
Frank, I see a color color moiré in your D500 sample that I'm sure could be removed in CaptureNX-D's Camera and Lens Corrections pallet. I see this in my D800 files at a lower ISO. The C&LC pallet is bottom, second to left in the Edit section on the right side. I think if you try it your high ISO sample with be even more impressive. I'm jealous. Dave
Thank you very much, Dave, for the hint. In the beginning it was very difficult for me to do proper edits of the D500 files. I come from the relatively soft D600 files which can bear a lot of abuse in post and the D3 files which are relatively low res anyway. The Pixel Density of the D500 would be roughly 45 Megapixels on FX.
So to retain the super rich details I can get from the D500 with good light, good glass and good technique, I have to apply all contrast and sharpening very sensitively.
If I run in fast mode editing a lot of pictures in a short time, I sometimes tend to not zoom into 100% but edit for the impression I see in the downsampled, resulting in oversharpend pics with too much contrast.
The D600 files at high ISO are worse than the D500 files!
At low ISO I still like the tonality of the D600 better esp when it comes to flowers and human skin
-
Frank,
The color moiré control is not noise control. I don't know how it works. I suggest simply trying it set to, low or medium v. off to see if there are any negative effects to using it.
Myself I'm more accepting of noise than mush and banding. In days of old they used to say, "Grain is an armature obsession." I think that might be because enthusiast were more likely to shoot 35mm only where professional would frequently shoot at least 6x6 or 6x7. Today I'm not as bothered by noise as other image defects.
Although I prefer full frame I'd have a fair amount of use for a D500 and wish I could afford one.
Dave Hartman
-
Impressive, Frank!
ISO 100 > 200 (+1) > 400(+2) > 800(+3) > 1600(+4) > 3200(+5) > 6400 (+6) > 12800(+7) > 25600 (+8) > 51200(+9) > 102400(+10)
Thus even more impressive were a D500 to span that entire range.
Easy shorthand for folks to remember: 210 = 1024 ~ 103. This comes in handy for quickly considering large dynamic ranges, large changes in exposure settings, or strong ND filters. For instance, 8 stops slower than 1/1000 sec. would be down to 1 sec. (down 10 stops) then back up two stops to 1/4 second.
-
the D7500 is a very capable contender by the way. sorry if I have to mention this :o :o :o
-
the D7500 is a very capable contender by the way. sorry if I have to mention this :o :o :o
After chipping all my manual focus Nikkors it would be. Up until there, I need my non-CPU registry and the Ai feeler
-
the D7500 is a very capable contender by the way. sorry if I have to mention this :o :o :o
The modern AF is missing. It is a world away from anything Nikon built before, at least with most of my lenses
-
Dave: the D500 is sub 2000 Dollars now in new. When I was short on money as an amateur I always bought used which should lower asking price even more.
-
The Brits have a saying “Spoiled For Choice”. I had an old D7000 which I used for years as my walk-around camera on vacations, etc. It was for ‘Happy Snaps’ when out with the wife; who didn’t like to wait and couldn’t abide the slow deliberate method of my landscape work with the D800.
The time finally came to get rid of the 7000. I was determined to get something small, portable and yet with good Image quality. I narrowed it down to Sony, Fuji and Nikon. They were all excellent cameras. I liked the way that Fuji rendered its images, I was intrigued with the Sony A7rII high resolution, and The Nikon D 7500 seemed a good unit. Choices Galore…
The Sony, by the time I added new glass wasn’t much lighter than my D800! This was not a walkabout vacation camera and more expensive than I desired. Goodbye Sony.
The Fuji was loved by every Fuji owner I talked to. It was light, efficient and the company really listened to its users (unlike Nikon) and even updated cameras that had been out for several years. Also, there was something really attractive about the way Fuji rendered its images. The problems with Lightroom weren’t a deal killer, yet. The first crack in my love affair with Fuji came from the EVF. There was just something that seemed unnatural about it. The more I looked the more I strained and wound up using live view on the back. This would not work for fast vacation snaps especially in bright conditions. Then came the final blow from Lightroom. That is what I would have to use. We used it in school and I was married to it. The Fuji users told me I would not be happy. Sayonara Fuji.
I was really down on Nikon because of its lack of manufacturing quality control. My D800 had to go back to the factory and every high end camera they introduced came with its own set of problems. It seemed that Nikon didn’t even like its customers. They were just a necessary evil that stood in the way of greater profitability. So I did nothing. My iPhone grew into my most used camera.
Then Nikon introduced the D7500. It was no longer just a rumor. I waited but didn’t hear of any manufacturing faux pas. Then I made the mistake of actually going to the camera store. It was light. It was small. It was good. But (there is always a but before the bad news comes), it wasn’t weather sealed, it used a lot of plastic, and it only had one card slot. I’m a belt and suspenders kind of guy. When I go on vacation I want my images backed up just in case. The X-Pro 2 had two slots!! Damn Fuji, she makes it hard not to love her! Then the store tech (whom I had known for years) dropped the BOMB. The D500 was on sale.
The D500 was bigger and heavier than I wanted but it was weather proofed. It was sturdy and used a lot of metal, it had the new autofocus system, it offers an uncompressed raw file in 12 or 14 bits, a deeper buffer and higher frame rate, and the controls are set up very similarly to the D800. It also offered a tilting monitor so I will not have to lay on the ground to get those low shots. Can you sense that I am talking myself into the D500? Yep. I bought her. But I’m still not entirely happy with Nikon. Just for spite I determined not to read the Nikon manual. So, I bought Thom Hogan's manual even though it has over 900 pages that I have to wade through;)
So, as you can see - what Bjørn said “it boils down to the user experience in handling the gear”.
I haven’t forgotten Fuji entirely. I want to replace my D800. Some of the images I print really big (4 to 5 feet) for school or exhibits. Now I’m looking at the GFX 50S. I’ll probably need everyone’s help again soon.
This was a really long post just to agree with Bjørn. But I found it very cathartic.
Thanks for your forbearance.
-
Muyweard Eadbridge: What a strange & nice & long introductary post. Welcome. I tried the GFX and it is still focus by wire and I did not like it. Tethered in the Studio: OK! Very much so.
But on the road?
I want to always be able to couple mechanically to focussing and focus maually! Yes, the D500 AF is very very good. But sometimes it just does not do what I want and I can just do it manually. That is my baby.
And I want the same in FX. I tried the D5 but it is a speciality camera with many features I do not need and I am not paid for by my customers, so I wait for a D500 with an FX chip, preferrably a BSI!
-
Muyweard, thank you for sharing your experiences. I'm still on the fence, or was still on the fence about the X-T2.
As you mentioned, Lightroom doesn't convert the RAF files well, with native glass there isn't much in weight savings and the one thing that kept nagging at me in the back of my mind was that without power, the EVF will remain.... black.
So I gave it a lot of thought, and decided to go about this smart. I talked two hours to a professional using the X-T2 in his daily line of work. What I'll do now is go to a photo store (as soon as they have a D500 in stock. Calling them every day to confirm) and compare the D500 with the Fuji X-Pro 2 which does not suffer from EVF blackness.
Added bonus on the X-Pro 2 is the one button ISO/shutter speed dial, like on the Nikon FM series cameras.
A disadvantage becomes an advantage, at longer focal lengths, I still get to use the EVF, but at shorter ones, I can actually view through the OVF without switching on the camera, saving quite a bit of battery life (I constantly view life through the viewfinder of at least one of my cameras)
-
I think I'd have real trouble with any rangefinder because of the degree to which lenses obstruct the bottom right corner of the optical viewfinder. Had my hands briefly on an X-Pro2 last weekend and that was the first thing I noticed--and that's with a longer standoff between the rangefinder and the lens mount than you see on Leica M. Pity because it's light and it fits in the hands....probably be OK with 50mm and longer though. But with the 28 with which I tried it out, it was annoying.
-
Daniel, I just had a look at the lens dimensions on Fuji native lenses vs. the lenses I expect to use with the OVF and to my surprise, even with an apapter, the lens with the widest girth, the 55mm f1,2 Nikkor-S.C, appears to be close to identical in dimensions, so I guess the only worry will be the 20mm UD Nikkor which has a 72mm filter thread. Having to rely on EVF for that lens would be something I would survive though, and the EVF would have to be used for anything longer then the 55mm anyways. Again, no big loss there for what I intend to use the camera for.
I will however bring the lenses I expect to cause problems on to the store when comparing X-T2, X-Pro2 and D500 against each other.
-
If you want to test the D500 extensively, feel free to meet me for a photo tour.
-
Frank, there is an offer I can't refuse. We only need to decide where and when, but I would be up for that idea alright
-
Let's talk about it on the phone later today
-
Apologies Frank, I just read your reply right now. Been on the road all day, had a spontanious photo assignment and a bunch of other stuff to do. Can I give you a ring tomorrow?
-
Apologies Frank, I just read your reply right now. Been on the road all day, had a spontanious photo assignment and a bunch of other stuff to do. Can I give you a ring tomorrow?
Just call me and we will meet
-
Choosing a camera is a very individual matter, involving such intangible factors as feel and aesthetics as well as technical aspects.
I went from Nikon D700 to Fuji XT-1 and am happy with the Fuji system. The Fuji lenses are very good.
-
My 2 cents worth..i have Nikons D4s , D810 and D500 . i had a D800 and the D4s previous to the d500 and 810..sold the d800 and bought the xt2 with 56mm f1.2 apd ,16mm f1.4 and 35mm f2 . Its taken me a year to get to love the xt2 and its quirks, some discussed here, the lenses are great, the weight is not too diff to the d500 and small prime, i travelled extensively in europe and Arctic , this year ,with all but D4s(thats a beast) with my 600mm FL4 and 200mm f2 and a couple of other nikon/sigma lenses..i used all to cover the eclectic work i do, street, landscape, wildlife and festivals. I had about 15kg of gear to hike , lug and negotiate through airports. Im going on 50 yrs old, so im no young buck able to leap tall buildings etc... so it was a strain at times..im heading to SE Asia for a month and guess whos staying home? the xt2! I cant seem to justify her (apart from low weight and light capabilities for street work)when i get same from my Nikons at the flick of a button...not going to go into details of pixels and lens stats..i have pin sharp zeiss and nikon lenses, although fuji colours are delicious. :) comes down to what you want, and how you wish to get it! The fuji x pro 2 looks nice..;)