Nikon D500 is on the way

[Steen]

Nikon D500 + a tele

(...)
My next Nikkor lens will anyway be a zoom for wildlife - either the 200-500 to the 80-400, which is IMHO the more practical choice anyway.
Only then I would go for a fixed focal length and then the 300mm f/4E PF is high on my wish list.
(...)

Steve Perry has made this new video that compares and reviews the AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4 PF and the AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1obqCxg52Q

 

[Swissblad]

Re: Nikon D500 + AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR

@ Swissblad:
Swiss, have you noticed a slight lack of contrast with the 300mm f/4E PF, or is it just me imagining things, or is it perhaps simply a common thing with tele lenses ?

Hi Sten

no - we have no similar experience. We have found this lens to be super sharp and have great contrast / colours.

Indeed, coupled to the D500 - the 300mmPF , usually in combination with the TC14EIII, has become our favourite rig for birding etc.

We used it extensively on our trip through Lapland, Nord Norge etc

Waxwing portrait, Rondane NP, Norway.

Elk at dusk, 6400ISO on a crop factor body.....!

It is also ideal for spontaneous landscapes......

2 photo stitch, Ronda NP

As well as for insect portraits....

HTH, S

 

[Swissblad]

One more image with the D500, Nikkor 300mm PF and TC14EIII combo...

 

[Swissblad]

Concerning the 300mm PF issue.....

this is pretty much SOC......

Colour and contact seem OK to me....?

 

[Steen]

yes, indeed :thumbup:

and I like the bokeh, it has a very painterly rendering of the background

thank you, Swissblad

 

[Swissblad]

As an absolute fan of this camera, I was very pleased to see it voted camera of the year by CamerastoreTV

:thumbs:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I'm having a renewed look at the D500 and wonder how people feel about the camera after having used it for a year or so. How is image quality holding up? Has anybody experienced the battery life issues that some seem to have seen? Is the build quality as great as anticipated?

The background is that my GX8, in spite of its almost perfect ergonomics, plays to many tricks on me. Some are inherent mirrorless quirks (AF, viewfinder etc.), some are particular to that camera (shutter shock).

I've found that my travel and street photography is often so fast paced that I need a camera that is as responsive as possible, with totally reliable AF and metering, and since the D500 isn't too much larger than the mirrorless candidates (mostly the GH5, G9 and X-H1), it's woth considering. I prefer the crop sensor vs. full frame to save weight and size on telephoto lenses, and the "pro" style viewfinder is a must for me on Nikon, since the square ones don't offer enough diopter adjustment and diopter lenses for those don't allow eye cups.

Oh, and... Nikon image quality is still superior to more or less anything out there, particularly when it comes to reds and purples. I do too prefer optical viewfinders and batteries that will last longer than a couple of hundred frames.

So. What's your take on the D500 now?

 

[Thorkil]

How about the tiny Df, Jørgen (I've just ordered a second body from Japan, its on its way, just for the dirty work (no not that kind of dirty work Jørgen :shocked but for dusty environment on renovating Buildings)
I can only recommend it !
KR thorkil

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

How about the tiny Df, Jørgen (I've just ordered a second body from Japan, its on its way, just for the dirty work (no not that kind of dirty work Jørgen :shocked but for dusty environment on renovating Buildings)
I can only recommend it !
KR thorkil

That is actually an alternative. It's a bit more expensive new, but I suppose there are second hands around.

 

[Thorkil]

That is actually an alternative. It's a bit more expensive new, but I suppose there are second hands around.

I could imagine you would like it, I love it, the first bought from a dane at 1.670$ 4.000 actuations, perfect condition, the japanese one for 1.500$ with 28.000 actuations, fine condition..

 

[ptomsu]

Had the Df and sold it long time ago - wonderful camera, but battery is not what you have in the D500 (or D7xx, D8xx) which is much superior to the Df battery. Also the AV system is by far not up to the D500, that has the same AF as the D5/D850.

If I would go back into DSLR it most probably would be with a D500 - meanwhile the DX lens lineup from Nikon is pretty complete and offers wonderful compact alternatives to most FF FX lenses.

Also the D500 should be available second hand now for good prices and maybe there are also some new offerings like from e-infinity online shop

https://www.e-infin.com/eu/item/295...VdoP3X5tJGU1rmH-qcGvUK6SgKulyCGhoCGr0QAvD_BwE

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I did some checking and found that used D500 and Df bodies mostly sell for just 15-25% less than a new D500 body here in Thailand. In addition, I would have to pay VAT and some other fees on an imported body, so a new D500 is the most likely solution. I see that there are some very good, but reasonably priced WA lenses available for Nikon DX bodies now. The Nikkor 10-20mm VR AF-P, an all-plastic lens, is around $300 and gets great reviews. Then it's the Tamron 10-24mm (new version with VC) for around $500, which also gets good reviews.

 

[ptomsu]

I did some checking and found that used D500 and Df bodies mostly sell for just 15-25% less than a new D500 body here in Thailand. In addition, I would have to pay VAT and some other fees on an imported body, so a new D500 is the most likely solution. I see that there are some very good, but reasonably priced WA lenses available for Nikon DX bodies now. The Nikkor 10-20mm VR AF-P, an all-plastic lens, is around $300 and gets great reviews. Then it's the Tamron 10-24mm (new version with VC) for around $500, which also gets good reviews.

I am sure that you cannot get wrong with a D500. As you say there are lot of cheap used lenses available. I for myself would try to stay almost exclusively with Nikon.

But also for sports and wildlife the D500 is a great camera, just add the wonderful 80-400 VRII and call it a day, this gives wonderful 120-600 and is a stellar lens...

Man - I should stop as I might get intrigued by this camera as well :banghead:

All the best

Peter

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I am sure that you cannot get wrong with a D500. As you say there are lot of cheap used lenses available. I for myself would try to stay almost exclusively with Nikon.

But also for sports and wildlife the D500 is a great camera, just add the wonderful 80-400 VRII and call it a day, this gives wonderful 120-600 and is a stellar lens...

Man - I should stop as I might get intrigued by this camera as well :banghead:

All the best

Peter

If I buy the D500, I might buy the 24-120mm again (that can also be used with my F6), which would give me an eqv. focal length of 36-180mm, perfect for my style of travel photography, plus a WA zoom and a macro that is also suitable for portraits. AF lenses will be 100% Nikon. For manual focus, I already have the excellent Samyang 135mm f/2, and might add another Samyang lens or two.

 

[rayyan]

Jorgen..

Never had a D500. But have tried it many times.

Between the Df, and the D500...As much as I love the Df,

I would recommend the D500 for you and your style of shooting. Faster af, excellent ergonomics ( Nikon at the top of its game ), superb sensor, lenses are readily available.

Best of lucks with whatever you choose.

 

[Thorkil]

Jørgen, give them both 10-20 shots each at a store at your own card, and decide the drawing quality at home, and which to prefer.
My guess is that perhaps the way the Df draw are more subtle and back-leaned, and therefor a bit more exquisite than the D500, but I dont know for sure.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jørgen, give them both 10-20 shots each at a store at your own card, and decide the drawing quality at home, and which to prefer.
My guess is that perhaps the way the Df draw are more subtle and back-leaned, and therefor a bit more exquisite than the D500, but I dont know for sure.

I've already looked a some RAW files from both cameras. They are distinctly different, so different that I can't say that one is better than the other. I should have both probably :ROTFL:

 

[Thorkil]

I've already looked a some RAW files from both cameras. They are distinctly different, so different that I can't say that one is better than the other. I should have both probably :ROTFL:

Yes you better do so Jørgen Its hard to judge from pp-pictures here inside, but my guess is that the Df gives softer and a bit more refined (depend of the eyes who see I know) colours, the colourborders seems softer (not ment as unsharp), the colours present themselves more calm more delicate to my eye - I guess (while one has to have two pictures of the same motive, same light etc. with the same lens off course to be sure), more chalk-like instead of paint-like - perhaps ask Steen for his opinion

 

[Photon42]

Had the Df and sold it long time ago - wonderful camera, but battery is not what you have in the D500 (or D7xx, D8xx) which is much superior to the Df battery.

May I ask what is not to like with the DF battery? Mine lasts for ages.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

May I ask what is not to like with the DF battery? Mine lasts for ages.

At 1230 mAh, the EN-EL14a for the Df is much lower capacity than the EN-EL15a for the D500 which is 1900 mAh.

When that is said, there have been some complaints about battery life with the D500. Does anybody know if that has been solved?