Olympus in-camera focus stacking

[robert3985]

The Nikon 7200 is more of a prosumer body.  Take a look at the 500 and you'll get 4K video (though Canon does video better on their DSLRs), second card slot and an auto white balance that the pros are raving about.  I used to do a custom white balance for every basketball game I shoot due to each gym having vastly different lightings.  Now I don't bother.

I run a Nikon D7200 and my pro photography is an adjunct to my art business.  I use it for shooting nude models, from which I draw my large portraits, and also for digitizing the original art for producing 100% art prints, matching the fine lines and cross-hatching of my pencil drawings as well as the texture and color of the board the original drawing was rendered on.

I'm also called upon periodically to do group shoots, parties, model portfolios, boudoir portraits, industrial, real estate, and outdoor cycling events.

For my own pleasure, I also use it extensively for my model railroad photography and shooting landscapes, wildlife, the kids, grandkids and family pets.

Although I am planning on a D500 body & battery grip in the near future, as far as my professional work is concerned, it will add little to either the quality of my photos or make it easier to capture them.  The 10fps is overkill for me, as I don't shoot sports or any other high-speed action photography.  6 or 7 fps is fast enough.

However, for my model railroad photography, the articulating screen on the D500 will be a real asset in the close quarters of my layout room, and will make composing my photo stacks for later combining with Helicon Focus Pro much easier.

I'll miss not having a built-in flash on top of the camera, as the one on my D7200 is certainly handy and works exceptionally well with a Gary Fong "Puffer" on-camera light diffuser when I need a fill flash for extreme close-ups, and the added size of the D500, although nice at a model shoot, will not be an asset for getting close for model railroad photography.  Also, I do not look forward to having to replace my two SB 900 flashes, or buy adapters for them to work using the D500's new radio frequency signalling rather than the tried and true light from an on-camera flash as my D7200 has. 

My D7200 has two card slots, and takes cards of the same type, as opposed to the D500, which has an SD card slot and a XQD slot, which reminds me of a transition car with a Rapido coupler on one end and a MTL coupler on the other.  I would have preferred it to have two XQD slots, so it could shoot at 10 fps using both slots.

I also don't like the lack of U-1 and U-2 custom settings on the D500.  These two customizable settings allow me to effortlessly, by selecting either one on the dial on top of my D7200, switch from a complete array of pre-set settings for available light portraiture, to another complete array of settings for 5,000K close-up model railroad photography...or any other two setting arrays I program into them.  This is a real minus point with the D500, and I am at a loss as to why Nikon thought this feature was not a "pro" feature.

When digitizing my artwork, the D500's 20.7 MP resolution is noticeably smaller than the D7200's 24 MP...but that is a rather specialized application which is necessary for me, but not for many others.

Yeah, Nikon and the reviewers out there may consider the D500 to be a "pro" camera because it doesn't have a built-in flash and its body is all magnesium and it tears it up at 10fps, but for my pro applications, my D7200 is simply better...with features and resolution the D500 does not have.

But, I'll get one just for the articulated screen! 

Sorry for the thread drift...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[MK]

Bob, you don't have to replace your SB-900's.  Slap one on top of the D500 and it can serve as the master in a CLS system.  That's what I plan to do with my SB-800.

You also forgot to mention the big price difference between the 7200 and 500.    Get what your needs dictate.  I would love to get a D5 but that would be overkill. 

[MK]

I can't help asking a question, given this preamble:

The camera blogs all seem to make a big deal about 4K.  And having a 4K TV, I know that it does produce amazing video during those limited times when my satellite dish produces a 4K signal.  It is noticeably better than 1080.

But for producing home video, like videos of our trains, is it really worth the extra cost?  This is an open question; I'm looking for others' opinions.

(Maybe I should start another thread with this question.  I will if the moderators think I should.)

At his time in technology I think 4K is mostly a marketing tool.  The content is just not there unless you film your own.  And once content is there, the delivery infrastructure just doesn't support it at this time (like you said with your satellite dish producing 4K signal at limited times).  You'll be shocked at how many people in the country don't even have broad band internet!

And if you do want to be an early adopter I would get a 4K camcorder than a camera that can also shoot video.  Just like you rather have a camera to take stills than a camcorder than can take pictures.  It's like your old shop teacher yelling "For heaven's sake, don't use a screwdriver as a pry bar!"