Assuming all this is true (I have no reason to doubt it, but I don't shoot Nikon nor do I yet have a 1DxII), I guess I have to wonder how much it even matters today? I mean, I've shot highly regarded, awarded, images with an old Sony NEX7 and the plastic, consumer grade Sony 18-200. I've shot award-winning images with a Canon 5DII and a freaking *lensbaby* (go figure??).
Hi James,
The issue of being a good photographer is a separate issue from which of today's tools are the best, as well as the most cost-friendly for what you're getting.
If you're already invested in the Nikon system, this new piece of equipment is undoubtedly top-notch, and is capable of providing what might be the very best delivered image possible. But if you're NOT already invested in Nikon, I guess my question is, what are you losing by not switching to Nikon?
I was moderately-invested into the Canon system.
What was I losing by staying with Canon?
Going back to my Reply #15, I was losing $5000 if I wanted to upgrade from the 7D to the 7D II, and if I wanted to purchase their vaulted 200-400 lens. As stated, these two purchases would have cost me $12,800 combined.
By going with Nikon, that $5,000 difference purchased me a Nikon D810, a RRS tripod + ballhead, a 2x extender, and a Cotton Carrier ... and it gave me better image quality from one end to the next ... so that was a helluva deal IMO.
For the same $12,800, I'd be shooting the 200-400, hand-held, and would have to spend still more money to get a nice tripod, etc.
I considered that a
significant cost, by getting the range I wanted and staying with the Canon system.
You're losing some spec on paper, and I guess you might be losing some acuity with certain outlying areas of extreme autofocus usage, but on the whole, I think, at this point, arguing image quality is largely useless. I can pick up just about any current camera, and most latest-gen lenses, and, if I have the understanding of composition and a basic technical grasp of what's in my hand, the final result, in most usage cases (excepting extremes like 60" prints etc.) is going to be not just usable, but excellent (and probably largely indistinguishable from something shot with a competing system).
It's more than "specs on paper," James, it's legitimate usefulness.
With the D500 and especially the D810, I can pull details out of the shadows that I never could with a 7D II (or even a 1Dx). With the AF of the new D500, I can nail erratic movements that I might have missed with the 7D II. Etc.
If you really look at the value of what I would have got, staying with Canon, it was actually a $5,000
unnecessary expense to have inferior capabilities across the board.
I am sure, in optimal conditions, there might not be much of a difference ... but in sub-optimal conditions, it's nice to have the better tools.
It is always better to have something, and not need it, than it is to need something and not have it ... especially when the latter, under-equipped proposition actually costs more money than being better-equipped.
All that said, I think you're right to be excited about the value proposition that the D500 represents. While I can't speak to them directly, obviously factors like durability, manufacturer support, and quality/quantity of expected updates, fixes and problems would also play a role in the true value of the purchase. Hopefully Nikon has those areas locked down as well...
They do. Nikon just upgraded the D5 firmware, and the D500 files work wonderfully in Lightroom.
Not trying to make anyone feel bad about Canon, but I am quite pleased with the direction I took, and feel I have much higher quality equipment (and a full roster of equipment) by going the direction I did, rather than purchasing the 7D II + 200-400 lens.
Having a D500 plus D810 ... a 300mm VR II ... a 2x extender ... a top notch tripod + ballhead ... and an integrated holstering system with the Cotton Carrier
for the same money was a much better move IMO.