Nikon D500 over the EM1 Mk II - Why I Chose This Option

[gryphon1911]

Hello all just wanted to get out there and throw my thoughts to the masses about my feelings for the 2 cameras above.
 
So, lets get this out of the way up front.  I'm now the owner of a Nikon D500.
 
I thought about this long and hard.  I'm still a 2 camera camp.  I love the m43 for what it does and gives me, and I also love my Nikon kit for the same rationale.
 
I've never been one to care about size or weight.  Performance was always king.  If a camera did what I wanted it to, and had the speed to keep up, it would be a winner in my eyes.  One of the failings that m43 had was in C-AF performance.  While decent, it always seemed to be just a step behind.
 
Then they announced the EM1 Mk II.  From the promises, it seemed that the EM1 Mk II would be the m43 that finally got me where we wanted to be.  Then the reviews started coming out from the early releases.
 
1)  They were all portrait and landscape photographers
2)  Olympus was talking up the AF and speed performance but not proving - putting their money where their mouth is.  This is what is scaring me.  If the AF performance is all you say it is, why am I not seeing the proof of this in the hands of all the early testers?  Robin Wong tried to show some of it, but he admits, he is not a sports shooter and his examples while decent are something that I know I can already get with the EM1.1
3)  The D500 was $300 cheaper and I already have the high performance lenses I need to make the camera sing.
 
My D300 is getting a little long in the tooth.  It still performance decent enough, but I realized that some of the shooting situations, the 70-200/2.8 and ISO 1600(my current usable ceiling for the D300) just are not going to cut it anymore.
 
I was in the camera store the other day and I was test shooting the D500 with an old 80-200/2.8D lens.  Inside I was hand holding at 200mm 1/200, f/2.8, ISO 6400 and the files were clean and the images sharp.  Out the door I spent $1700 and they threw in a second battery to boot.  Right from the store, the battery had less than half charge.  I threw the 70-200/2.8 on it, went out and shot 300 frames with the basic setup(pretty much factory stuff - I still need to dig into the camera manual and fine tune it).
 
The camera is a beast.  Period.  End of story.  It is flat out the best performing camera I have very used.  The AF-S is fast and accurate, the AF-C blew my mind.  I pretty much followed my dogs around the dog park, and shot images of them playing.  Not sure if you are familiar with how fast little Chihuahua dogs are, but the AF-C kept up with them.  The only images that were out of focus were the ones where I just started loosing them from the frame because I physically could not keep up with them.
 
Without having seen/used an EM1 Mk II I won't say that is it not capable of that.  What I will say is that I was willing to save $300 and get a commodity that I was 99% guaranteed would deliver.
 
Again, don't get me wrong, I love and will continue to use both systems.  The EM1 Mk II is not enough of an upgrade to have me hold out for it.  The D500 against the D300 and D700 most certainly is worthy of the upgrade.  I'm hoping to go out and do some more testing soon.  Not sure if I can guarantee more worthy moving targets, but the images I am getting from the camera are spectacular.  So far, no regrets.
 
All sample images here and in the next reply thread were taken with the D500 and the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC
 
Here are the dogs!!

[gryphon1911]

Here are some additional images:

The one image of the rectangular building reflected in the river was taken at ISO 14,400.

[Andrea B.]

Cool work, Andrew!! Isn't it fun to freeze that action? You've added to the consensus that the D500 can perform.

I've got a D500 now meself. And WOW! I do also love this camera. It's like a D4S+D700 combo. I quite like the DX sensor even though I had a few apprehensions initially.

I just put the Nikkor 200-500VR on the D500 with great results. I'd like to also try that 300 PF/VR with the D500.

[Frank Fremerey]

Love your pictures. Always loved them as you know. With the wonderful White balance the D500 can perform you can take them in full color now. Is that not amazing? I just came back from the cold and wet St Martin's parade. Will show pictures later. I only had to stop shooting when Auto ISO maxed out at 20.000. Above that I do not like what I see anymore.

[John G]

Very nice set of images, with a Bus Shelter Selfie thrown in. 

[elsa hoffmann]

me too like the results - so to you and Andrea both - congrats

[MILLIREHM]

It is unusual for me to be an early buyer. Did it two times. The 1V1 was somewhat dissatisfying, buying the D500 early was one of the best decisions i ever made. Being fast and accurate and high fps without grip plus crop factor makes it a perfect tele action camera for me . It replaced the D800E a bit in this function which served as crop camera in DX mode before. I find the D500 a perfect combo with the AF-S 80-400 for travelling and hiking having the lens still fit in a normal shoulder bag. The 200-500 is a good lens, but too heavy and not compact enough for this purpose. The 300 mm PF would be worth trying (less range though) but i dont have, did take the 70-300 before.

[Frank Fremerey]

It is unusual for me to be an early buyer. Got one of the first D500 in Germany in very early May 2016. Did not regret a single moment with her. Great camera!

[Humboldt]

To me small size and low weigth is very important. I have tried the E1 mark II and it si a very fast beast. I cant compare to the D500, but I think the E1 probably shots faster - but I can´t say if the autofocus also is faster. However, I am sure the D500 is not a less capable camera when all pluses and minuses have been summed up. The dealbreaker for me is as I said weight and size, and the Nikon D500 and the 70-200 is way to big for me. If this is important the new Olympus is surely a qualified alternative. My consideration is if I should go for a Fujifilm X1 or X2 instead for the Olympus. I also consider the future for these both systems. The camera industry is declining, and truth is there are to many camera manufacturers at todays market. Olympus is not doing well, and can be one of them who have to leave the market. If this is true for Fujifil to do I nor know, but even Nikon is struggling and losing market shares. I think Nikon will survive, but I think some bigger player will buy the company and restructure their businesses strategy. They seems to be confused.

[DougB]

Great first shots!!

Nice to hear from "happy" cam owners

[Andrea B.]

Nikon D500 = 860g with battery & card
Nikkor 70-200/4G VR = 850g
Total: 1700g

Olympus OMDEM1 MarkII = 574g with battery & card
Olympus M.Zuiko 12-200/4 IS = 561g
Total:  1135g

I had to go look this up because I was curious what the weight difference might be. I chose f/4 zoom lenses though -- because I already have that Nikkor 70-200/4G VR for use on the D500. (That is a very very nice lens, btw. So sharp!)

So yes. The Oly set up is 565g lighter than the Nikon set up. That's about 1.2 pounds for those of us still stuck in the land of imperial or US units of weight. 

*****

Having many frames per second is nice. But I cannot track and shoot action through an EVF with my particular style of action shooting. I've tried and tried. I just can't do it. This is not to say that others can't. I'm sure there are a lot of successful sports shots with mirrorless EVF.
(I use back button focus with constant tracking, panning and resetting of focus. If I can't see thru the viewfinder this does not work.)
 

[MILLIREHM]

To me small size and low weigth is very important. I have tried the E1 mark II and it si a very fast beast. I cant compare to the D500, but I think the E1 probably shots faster - but I can´t say if the autofocus also is faster. However, I am sure the D500 is not a less capable camera when all pluses and minuses have been summed up. The dealbreaker for me is as I said weight and size, and the Nikon D500 and the 70-200 is way to big for me. If this is important the new Olympus is surely a qualified alternative. My consideration is if I should go for a Fujifilm X1 or X2 instead for the Olympus. I also consider the future for these both systems. The camera industry is declining, and truth is there are to many camera manufacturers at todays market. Olympus is not doing well, and can be one of them who have to leave the market. If this is true for Fujifil to do I nor know, but even Nikon is struggling and losing market shares. I think Nikon will survive, but I think some bigger player will buy the company and restructure their businesses strategy. They seems to be confused.

I dont think that the E1 mark II is as fast as the D500, especially when it comes to autofocus
The 1V1 also had 60fps, that does not say anythin about usability

Olympus and Fuji were about to be endangered getting lost years ago - to my surprise they reinvented themselves and managed to keep track somehow

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The camera industry is declining, and truth is there are to many camera manufacturers at todays market. Olympus is not doing well, and can be one of them who have to leave the market. If this is true for Fujifil to do I nor know, but even Nikon is struggling and losing market shares. I think Nikon will survive, but I think some bigger player will buy the company and restructure their businesses strategy. They seems to be confused.

There were many small players in the film camera era. I don't see why there could not be with digital.

Prices will go up and dedicated cameras will be bought mostly by those who are serious about photography. I don't see why this would be a problem. IMO the DSLR craze where everyone bought one was never going to last. Consumers realize they're not really that into photography and the market will decline to similar size as it was in the film era. I am sure that a sustainable business is possible within that scale.

Nikon's camera business remains profitable, as far as I know. They are managing their business froma financial point of view quite well in hard conditions. I think their management of software development and testing needs a major overhaul. Poor software can lead to their demise, I'm afraid.

[Humboldt]

There were many small players in the film camera era. I don't see why there could not be with digital.

Camera sales now (cameras with interchangeable lenses) are about the same as in the eighties and nineties. Then came digital cameras and sales skyrocketed for some years. Then sales have declined. Problem is the cost for research and product development has increased. In the film days the technology was mainly mechanical and to a much lesser degree electrical, and not at all digital. If you bought a camera, say a Nikon FM or F you expected it to last a very long time. If you buy a D something today, it´s lifespan is just some few years. I think it was easier to be a small camera manufacturer in the film era, because the need and cost for development was not the same. Nikon makes profit, but it´s relative market share is declining and sales is not meeting Nikons own expectations. Sony however is growing. I suspect their mirrorless full frame cameras is eating market shares from both Cannon and Nikon. But then Sony is a very huge company compared to Nikon.                       
 

[Hermann]

I dont think that the E1 mark II is as fast as the D500, especially when it comes to autofocus
The 1V1 also had 60fps, that does not say anythin about usability

The main problem with the 1V1 was (and is) the UI. Alright, the 1V1 could do with a better sensor (like the one they used in the J5), but the main problem as far as I'm concerned is the UI. No idea what Nikon thought when they designed it, but it's horrible for a fast camera, and the 1V1 is fast. But no AF-on button, no quick way to change ISO, automatic ISO is a bad joke and so on. And they crippled the FT1 of course. *One* focus point when you use an AFS-Nikkor? They must be joking.

On the EM-1 Mark II - I really wonder how good the AF is. So far I haven't seen a single M4/3 camera with a usable AF-C. They're all awful. My ancient D200 runs circles around them.

Hermann