My previous note 'Not again, but again', about the downgrade of cameras in the amateur segment, found a great response among readers. Therefore, I will add one more similar note, which concerns downgrade in the advanced amateur segment, namely in Nikon D7500.
Niko Camera View D7500 body
Compared to the previous model Nikon D7200 with the new Nikon model D7500 The following functions have been simplified:
- Removed diaphragm rheostatallowing conveniently work with non-chip optics (all AI, AI-S lenses and any third-party lenses without a microprocessor that can be mounted on the camera).
- Removed the ability to use additional battery grip, which not only allows you to use multiple batteries or one more powerful battery, but also allows you to conveniently shoot with a vertical orientation of the camera.
- The number of frames per battery charge has decreased (not by much, but still).
- Removed NFC.
- Removed second slot for memory cards, and in a single slot, only cards with UHS-I high-speed tire.
- Decreased Resolution display from 1.222.800 to 922.000 points.
- The number of MP decreased from 24 to 20 (a very rare phenomenon in the world of photographic equipment).
- Perhaps there are others, you can tell in the comments.
However, in his article "Choosing an amateur Nikon camera and a lens for it”I position Nikon D7500 as the best solution for advanced amateurs (not counting the full frame).
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Just about three weeks ago I was faced with a choice between 7200 and 7500. And such little things as a diaphragm rheostat and the presence of 2 slots + price (in my case, 7500 are more expensive than 7200 by 400 ye) and influenced the choice towards 7200
I would not call it trifles. For the price difference alone, you can buy a great one. native portrait portrait 85 / 1.8. It is reasonable to buy d7500 only at a price lower than d7200.
I, too, did not like my 7000th, looked if it was time to switch to 7500, and yes, I would also choose 7500 + 85 / 1,8 precisely because of the price, if that made sense to me.
The only plus duck is the reduced megapixels, the soap Schaub was less, and the rest do not need to lovers by and large
Well this is not true, one should not deny such advantages as: a matrix with better sensitivity, an enlarged buffer, a rotary screen, etc. But this is exactly what was expected in the new model. But along with the expected, received a blow below the belt. And this is not only a matter of this particular model. It is alarming that they can completely merge the 7xxx line, which was used and used not only by amateurs.
It is all this and idet.Slit 7 *** series, leaving only the most basic amateur SLR. And maybe get rid of them too, replacing them without mirrors. Who needs advanced amateurs, welcome to FF. Even if you look at the lenses for crop, you can already see that Nikon is not very interested in crop ... All crop lenses are made as disposable, solid plastic ... Even the bayonet is plastic ...
Well, not so long ago Nikon released a “professional” new lens under the crop. Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 16-80mm 1: 2.8-4E N ED VR Nano Crystal Coat SWM IF Aspherical. The first crop with nano-enlightenment, E-diaphragm. I don’t think they scored directly on this segment.
In addition, after the decommissioning of the D300s and the release of the D500, it became clear that the crop will live among the professional / semi-professional segment for some time to come. I myself was sure that between the discontinuation of the D300s and the release of the D500, Nikon will not have more professional crop. I was wrong.
Also, under a full frame, there are also a lot of lenses with a plastic mount - this does not tell us about anything serious in the prosphere (for example, a large telephoto lens, Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1: 4-5.6G and they don’t worry that the long lever of the lens can break off the plastic mount).
And if you say “all lenses are made as disposable”, then feel the wonderful metal super-fast Nikon 17-55 / 2.8 or the same native 10.5 / 2.8 fisheye.
Well what can I say. I held Nikon 17-55 / 2.8 in my hands, I shot a little on it, the lens was not mine, I took it for use. When I wanted to buy it, as I wrote earlier, I could not buy it, it was discontinued. Instead, it was suggested 16-80 / 2.8-4, as well as 16-85 ... If we compare the design of 17-55 and these two of its substitutes, then there is even aversion from such a design! What kind of Prof. lens with a sliding trunk? Dust sucked not weak because of such a structure, light and power is not constant, the plastic case, and the most interesting is that the price of these two approaches to the price of 17-55! To pay so much money for such lack of wealth? No, thank you! It is better to switch to FF and the top of the glass. Yes, I know, FF is worth not small, but the crop is also not so cheap !!! And most importantly, there is a portrait lens on a crop! If you use glass ff, it is not very convenient due to the crop factor. Anyway, you Arkady and yourself in your articles have repeatedly said that one way or another, sooner or later an advanced photographer will come to ff and all its advantages.
Yes that's right. But the facts that I point out, too, do not need to close our eyes, bringing everything under one line. I have pointed out good counterexamples to you; if they are incorrect somewhere, indicate yours. All is fair.
Regarding the D500, it seems to me a failure. Not much then it is in demand. And why is it for ordinary lovers? If it's a crop! Fans for such a price will rather buy the D610 and a decent lens for it. For pros, if only, and even then, it is difficult to imagine what tasks.
Well, that just seems. I can’t understand who is talking about the d500 and ordinary lovers here? In my opinion, I clearly wrote in my previous message that the d500 is for the professional segment.
No, well, actually, up to half the number of frames was for stereo or like Agates for poor / greedy and children like me. Single-class optics are not so much cheaper or less to produce an intermediate segment between 35mm and 4/3. Previously, everything rested on obtaining a large crystal of sufficient purity and spraying stability, therefore, it affected the price, but now crop production is purely marketing, possibly somehow justifying itself in the amateur segment. No wonder there are rumors about a change in the bayonet mount and the working length by Nikon in the future and reports are published on unsatisfactory sales revenues, with the exception of 850 matches.
D500 a very good camera, its main drawback - the price of a horse. If the price was the same as the d7500 is being sold nowadays, they would have taken it very well. And not only professionals, but also advanced amateurs, but ordinary amateurs, yes, it is useless.
Regarding the dispute, which was higher, about the number of slots for memory cards. Have you ever wondered why CF cards (CompactFlash) are used in all professional cameras ???
Yes, they are very expensive, especially if of a large volume, one of the fastest. But at the same time and most importantly, they are the most reliable! Have you ever had loss of footage in the D700 ???
3 days ago, Lexar Professional 1066x, 64 GB died, I was in very unloaded amateur use for only a couple of years, the volume was honest, the speed was excellent, but not for long. Maybe a Chinese fake.
Perhaps a fake. Although it is difficult to say what it covered up with, there are many factors that influence it.
If you really fast - so original. And there are many factors.
Yes, everything happened with CF. Nobody is insured and CF is also not a panacea. As for expensive / not expensive - look at XQD, following your logic, they should then surpass CF.
I think my position is this: two cheap cards are more likely to save data than one expensive one. In the general case, the probability of two simultaneous cheap SD coming out will be tender, than the probability of one CF coming out on some day. Practically I did not check it, I can be mistaken.
The service life of memory cards determines the number of rewriting cycles. However, the number of memory card reading cycles is unlimited, and theoretically a memory card can be read an infinite number of times. When I used CF, I periodically tested them with a special program. Which shows how worn the card is.
About the expensive, not expensive. As a rule, quality is always more expensive.
Quite right, two cards are already a data backup, and a backup is always better than no one.
Largely agree with you! At first they killed the d200, d300, d300s series, now they cut down the D7xxx, and the only suitable crop D500 was priced as full frames.
How people take pictures without help Onotole is nasty. That's what a person knows, even how to increase or decrease contrast.
The number of comments in an article about a big pip has been surpassed by a small one)))
An unpleasant joke was with this diaphragm rheostat. I bought Samyang 14 / 3.1 vdslr, where you set the diaphragm from the ring. I turned the ring, but you see the viewfinder in the open, at the time of the picture it closes to the set value. So this ill-fated camera rheostat pushed this ring to the open value. That is, I put 8, release the ring, and the rheostat pulls 3.1 back. I had to drag the lens to the master and reduce the smoothness of the ring, so that the rheostat did not have enough strength to pull the ring.
Interesting observation ...
Nikon already boasts a teaser with a new mirrorless.
Hello, Arkady! Agree, in relation to the degradation of D7500 D7200 passed on those characteristics that are unlikely to make the D7500 a more professional compared to the D7200. Of course, we can embark on a polemic of abstract assumptions, such as “maybe they put a super-focusing system in there (then they would have indicated this in the press), maybe they included a cool sensor from the D500 (although it is worse than the D7200 according to the DxO test) and because of this had to sacrifice something because stupidly everything does not fit into the body. But most likely, the owners' greed led to the fact that economists defeated engineers and had to reduce the price of the D7500.
I do not have your extensive EXPERIENCE, I had only 2 SLRs: D90 and D3200. From my own experience, I realized that the D3200 is much more productive. Yes, it is less professional (the viewfinder is especially bad), but especially in difficult conditions I will get better pictures than on the D90. I’m not talking about BB anymore. And all theories about the big and small pixels do not work here, because IMHO the D3200 sensor is stupidly better.
Of course, I would like you to comment on the above aspects, but I have a little question from another opera (although the topic is better or worse):
doesn't it seem to you Arkady that professional cameras like D8xx have better colors (richer and softer semitones) than cameras like D6xx and D7xx? Looking through the pictures, for example, the D610 is not the feeling that the color "cut eye". I do not exclude that I am faced with the crooked / and straight-handedness of the owners, respectively, D6xx and D8xx. I understand that you cannot measure the difference with a “ruler”, but perhaps the eye sees this difference?
Dxo did not measure, there are many unobvious subtleties. If you measure only parrots with dxo, then the experience is really not enough.
As for D8xx and D610 and D600 and D750, it’s hard to say, it’s more important that you will like it more psychologically. D850 is generally the vinice of creation. D700 in color loses to everyone.
Wine? How is Three Axes?
It was possible to compare once my D90 with 6D. I watched with horror the 6D celestial failures (it wasn’t me shooting) and how old D90 pulled out the heavens. Otherwise, of course, the devices are incomparable.
2 Serge:
How many pictures I have seen from the D610 / D600 they seemed to me somehow faded or slightly overexposed (+ 0,3EV - + 0,7EV).
Photos from the D810 are somewhat similar to the pictures with Sonya A7 - very similar to the transfer of orange, yellow and red hues. This is probably where people use the default color profiles.
For example, I really like pictures with 5DMk4 and 1DX, 1DXmk2. It is the color rendering (if I see that there are not thousands of filters).
Photos with D750 for example like more than with D810 and especially D800.
Everything is very individual - to each his own.
Thanks for the answer.
And if on the subject - if Nikon releases a camera with a new bayonet mount and does not sell an adapter analog of the Sonivsky LA-EA4 (albeit for the same $ 300), then let them roll in the ass.
I’ll buy a used D4 for an old glass park, and then I’ll move on to the fourth nickle.
In short, 7000 must be changed to the D500.
If the price tag suits, then yes. If it doesn’t work, then D7100-7200 :)