D500: Nikon admits defeat, but takes the title!

[dwswager]

As a former D300 shooter, few people have been as critical of Nikon as I have been concerning the lack of an upgrade in the DX format.  Nikon's FX for Pros and DX for consumers strategy was proven wrong almost as soon as they implemented it.  It took some 6 years to upgrade from the D300s, and they didn't start development on the D500 until 2014, but Holy Crap!  Most of us would have been more than happy with a 8fps, Pro bodied D7200.  Dropping a DX camera with more functionality than the D5 and the same performance level in most areas at this price point just rocks.

Assuming the D500 performs to spec and we get a reasonable bump in high ISO performance from the sensor over the D7200 (beyond just the lower pixel count advantage), this thing will fly off the shelves. My favorite Nikon comment was "AF performs better than the D4s and the same as the D5"

Sorry, I'm just beside myself giddy over this.  Been waiting forever. I'll regret the lack of a pop up flash, but the D500 has massively upgraded performance and functionality over the D300 with a list price $500 less.
 

[Scott Hein]

I have to say that the announcement of the D500 is a really pleasant surprise - I had given up hope that Nikon would ever release a real follow-on to the D300.  I first bought a D7000 to tide me over until the "D400" was released.  However, I am not a fan of the consumer bodies.  Last year I finally gave up and purchased a D810, which in DX crop mode is a decent wildlife camera.  However, I will probably end up rewarding their bad behavior by purchasing a D500 for wildlife and continue to use the D810 (which I love) for landscape.

[dwswager]

I have to say that the announcement of the D500 is a really pleasant surprise - I had given up hope that Nikon would ever release a real follow-on to the D300.  I first bought a D7000 to tide me over until the "D400" was released.  However, I am not a fan of the consumer bodies.  Last year I finally gave up and purchased a D810, which in DX crop mode is a decent wildlife camera.  However, I will probably end up rewarding their bad behavior by purchasing a D500 for wildlife and continue to use the D810 (which I love) for landscape.

Same here.  Side graded to the D7100, but never was comfortable with the Dial interface of the Ethusiast line.  (Why create an upgrade barriar for you users to buy a more expensive camera?)  I also have the D810 and shoot sports and wildlife in 1.2X mode to get that extra fps.

I am just stunned that they decided to give it the same processing capabiliy as the D5.  They ususally use the same CAM, but not the processing capability for it.  To give the D500 the same dedicated AF processing as the D5 is just awesome. 

[Telecaster]

I'm done with SLRs, but if something like this camera had come out in 2010–12 I likely would've bought one.

-Dave-

[Scott Hein]

I'm done with SLRs, but if something like this camera had come out in 2010–12 I likely would've bought one.

If I didn't shoot wildlife and some sports, I would seriously be considering switching to a smaller, lighter weight mirrorless system (I already have an Olympus E-M1 that I use for hiking).

[Alan Goldhammer]

I too moved up to a D810 when they offered the decent discount last month.

[BernardLanguillier]

I haven't used a DX body for quite a few years, but I have to confess that the D500 is tempting for some applications. It's a bit like the F6, even if you don't shoot film much, it's the last body in a line and an incredibly refined tool that is pretty much a must have.

Costing hardly more than a Phaseone lens cap it seems to be excellent value.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dwswager]

I haven't used a DX body for quite a few years, but I have to confess that the D500 is tempting for some applications. It's a bit like the F6, even if you don't shoot film much, it's the last body in a line and an incredibly refined tool that is pretty much a must have.

Costing hardly more than a Phaseone lens cap it seems to be excellent value.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sensor performance for me will be the other half of the tale.  I am already assuming excellent AF peformance.  I just hope comments like below pan out in real testing of production units.

"The high ISO performance of the D500 blew me away. Not only does this camera have an astounding native range – ISO 100 to 51200 — but the quality in this range is just tremendous. What Nikon has done is basically made a DX sensor that shoots in the dark like a full-frame sensor. That’s how good the high ISO image quality is."

--Todd Owyoung

[Colorado David]

I like to buy after a new product has been out for a few months so I hopefully miss out on the bugs. I'm Afraid this time I will have to preorder either the D5 or the D500 and hope for the best.

[armand]

I get the feeling Nikon will not upgrade their DX lenses as they see this more of a professional fast action long reach camera where there are plenty of primes and telephoto zooms and where making a DX version will not give a significant size advantage.

If you do want to use the D500 as the only system, Nikon needs better DX wide and normal lenses, primes and zooms. This was the reason I moved to Fuji for APS-C, lack of really good DX lenses not the bodies (my D90 remains a very good camera).
The 16-80 F2.8-4 seems a touch better than the older 16-85 but not by much.
Their only pro lens 17-55 F2.8 is slightly dated, VR at least would be nice and an updated corner performance.
DX wide and normal primes are missing in action, I only know of 35 F1.8. You could use the 24 F1.8 as it's not that big and maybe the 20 F1.8 (slightly awkward 30 mm equivalent).
Third party offers are covering more.

Right now you could have a full frame set of lenses and use the D500 as the body for action/reach and a D750/D810 as wide/normal angle and landscape body.

[Zorki5]

I am just stunned that they decided to give it the same processing capabiliy as the D5.  They ususally use the same CAM, but not the processing capability for it.  To give the D500 the same dedicated AF processing as the D5 is just awesome.

Maybe that's just an indication of how cheap respective circuitry has become.

[kers]

Maybe that's just an indication of how cheap respective circuitry has become.

No, i don't think so. If you make a pro-DX-body you go all the way or not do it.
It has to last for three years and the competition may outclass you otherwise a moment from now.
I suspect Nikon thinks that not every pro having a D4(s) is willing/capable to upgrade to the D5 but maybe will be tempted to buy the d500.

[John Koerner]

No, i don't think so. If you make a pro-DX-body you go all the way or not do it.
It has to last for three years and the competition may outclass you otherwise a moment from now.
I suspect Nikon thinks that not every pro having a D4(s) is willing/capable to upgrade to the D5 but maybe will be tempted to buy the d500.

I agree.

Nikon has made a habit of making serious advents that stand the test of time.

I have been a Canon 7D shooter since I started, and I have been waiting for something to come out from Canon that appeared to be the "perfect" successor to upgrade to.

The 7DII was founded on an outdated sensor, and despite all its strengths, at the end of the day it was founded on an outdated sensor.

I have been mulling the 5DSr, but wanted 4K. (There was no reason to omit 4K, but Canon did.) I even considered the Samsung, for their 4K, but it (and others like it) were too limited.

The Nikon D500 has (literally) everything I wanted to see in a DSLR for nature photography. (Articulating/touch screen, high ISO capability, 4K, low noise, etc.)

There simply is no limitation to the D500 (like there is the Samsungs, etc.).

It is not very convenient to have to sell lenses, switch mounts, etc.

But that is exactly what I will be doing by this spring ...

Jack

[Borealis]

Half the prints I sold are wildlife although I'm not really a 'wildlife shooter'. I have all the Nikon long glass I need, mostly use a D800e. A D500 would be paid for in no time just for it's autofocus and automatic focus fine tuning just to start the list of features. The last DX body I owned was a D200 and the next one will be the D500. For my typical FX applications I don't need some of those features that much.

[dwswager]

I have been a Canon 7D shooter since I started, and I have been waiting for something to come out from Canon that appeared to be the "perfect" successor to upgrade to.

There simply is no limitation to the D500 (like there is the Samsungs, etc.).

It is not very convenient to have to sell lenses, switch mounts, etc.

But that is exactly what I will be doing by this spring ...

Welcome to Nikon.  I am a semi-pro (ametuer that reluctantly does some paid jobs) and all the sports guys I roam sidelines with in the daytime shoot the 7D/7DmkII.  At night, they disappear due to the poor sensor performance.  They tell me it just isn't worth the effort.

I've been arguing to Nikon (and everyone else) that the lack of a 7D/7DmkII competitor has kept a significant number of Canon shooters from changing to Nikon costing sales of FX bodies, lenses and accessories.

I actually wish the D500 had a pop up flash.  It is nice to have for a little fill when all else is impractical, to set off studio lights and to allow it to be used as a family snapshot camera.  I just think a lot of people might have upgraded to D500 from D7200, but won't because they just can't give up the built in flash.

[dwswager]

If you do want to use the D500 as the only system, Nikon needs better DX wide and normal lenses, primes and zooms.

I've shot DX up until I bought the D810 and the ONLY DX lens I ever owned was the relatively inexpensive 18-200mm VRII as a walk around lens.

While I agree that a superwide DX lens would be worthwhile, I can't ever understand buying DX lenses which closes off use on FX cameras.  Especially considering using FX lenses on DX bodies means using only the best part of the lens (the center).

[armand]

I've shot DX up until I bought the D810 and the ONLY DX lens I ever owned was the relatively inexpensive 18-200mm VRII as a walk around lens.

While I agree that a superwide DX lens would be worthwhile, I can't ever understand buying DX lenses which closes off use on FX cameras.  Especially considering using FX lenses on DX bodies means using only the best part of the lens (the center).

If you want to stay just DX then it doesn't make sense to use the bigger FX lenses if you could get similar performance but smaller DX lenses. Not everybody wants to go full frame.

[dwswager]

If you want to stay just DX then it doesn't make sense to use the bigger FX lenses if you could get similar performance but smaller DX lenses. Not everybody wants to go full frame.

I get that.  If this thing is as good as some comments at high ISO, which is the big inherent weakness of smaller sensors (along with too much DOF - Did I just write that?), then more users would be able to forgo larger sensors altogether.

I will just say it took Nikon 7 years to figure out "FX for Pros/DX for consumers" was bad thinking.  We shall see if D500 is just capitulation or a change in thinking by what follows.

[kers]

If you want to stay just DX then it doesn't make sense to use the bigger FX lenses if you could get similar performance but smaller DX lenses. Not everybody wants to go full frame.

I do not agree; in general FF lenses are usually better at the sides and corners of the DX format; also there is far less vignetting.
the 20mm 1.4G nikkor will give you an excellent DX image @1.4 ( becoming a 30mm F1.4)
But I agree the weight and size is a factor.

[NancyP]

I am a bit jealous now. I have a Canon system, the cost to switch would be considerable and I would be leaving some favorite lenses behind. But, I will wait until further testing to see exactly how jealous I should be.      I would like to travel, too.