jupitersolo

Nikon refurbished are good, but you get a much shorter warranty period. Now there are Nikon refurbs, that aren't Nikon refrub. Meaning the repair or cleanup wasn't done by Nikon, but a third party and sold by a retailer.


To be be very honest, don't fall for the full frame need. That D500 has some of the best IQ of any Nikon camera made. And the D750 is a dumbed down D810, with many limits in specs. It's a great IQ and lowlight camera. But for the amount it costs to get you there, is it really worth it??

CCColtsicehockey

Whoops. Here is the link. FS: Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD - $700 delivered + Warranty! - FM Forums

CCColtsicehockey

Yeah headed out this evening to hold them both. I loved the solid build quality of my D300 and am worried as I have heard the dumbed down D750 before and also heard it called a FF D7200. Hopefully that should help some. Such a hard choice it is on something I plan to keep so long again.

jupitersolo

I have heard many great reviews from owners of this lens. They are very happy with it. I would just try and find out more about that warranty. It shows worldwide on a Canadian market lens. Does that mean it can be fixed in the states, or will they have to send out of Country?

jupitersolo

It would be more of a FF D5500.


The D500 is the D5 without FF sensor and 5500 cheaper. I will say that it is going to be just as good as the D300 was for you and as many years. The D750 is long in the tooth and a replacement will soon be announced, 1st quarter next year.

pttl

My D750 is fantastic. I've never felt it's a crippled version of anything.

jupitersolo

Vs what the D300(s) the D750 is limiting. The D500 is a true replacement. Just as the D7xxx series was never a true replacement. D750 lacks, shutter speed, is tapped out at 1/4000th, its buffer is smaller and fps is nearly half. Also a slower AF system with less control points.

srika

Yesterday I found out about the Sigma art series 50-100 1.8 (constant). Rated very well. It's made for crop but I'm very curious about it. Might get one to play with. Wonder if it's mountable on a Canon FF.

pttl

I assume you are comparing the 750 with the 500? I consider them to be for 2 different shooters.

pttl

its a killer lens for crop cameras.

jupitersolo

That is correct. I see so many people say you have to got FF, even when the camera isn't the correct tool for the job. I'll never buy another full frame camera, new, maybe not even used.

The D500 gets the job of a D5 done, with a slight difference. But that slight difference is not worth $4500 to me.

And there's no way I could shoot with a D750, as its too small in my hands.

jupitersolo

Its going to be like a Canon EF-S lens and get hit by the mirror box on a full frame camera. Is what I'm thinking.

Mizouse

it'll mount fine, just the image circle wont cover the full frame sensor until about 85mm (still has bad vignetting)

jupitersolo

CCColtsicehockey

So went to Best Buy tonight and held and played with both cameras. This Best Buy apparently is one of only 100 in the country that have a full display of cameras and lenses. They had the D500 with the 16-80 f2.8-4, the D750 with 24-120mm f4, and D810 with 24-70 f2.8. it was good to be able to see not only the cameras just also the 24-70.

Unfortunately, I don't think I am any closer to making a decision.

D500 - I loved the control layout and feeling in my hands. Felt surprising light compared to the D750 but I think that actually had to do with the glass each had on them. The size seemed a little better in my hands. The grip was a little bit deeper. Sadly the security lock on the camera was blocked king the A/M focus selector and it had been out on with the camera in M focus mode so I couldn't even test the focus.

D750 - Did not like the buttons layout or feeling in my hands compared to the D500. The view through the view of see was great. The added field of view you get was really surprising being the first time I have ever held a FF camera.

Both cameras were in demo mode and I was able to shoot pictures with each. I was really impressed with the low light ability of each. I mean they are 8-9 years improved compared to my D300 so I expected it but was still nice to see I could shoot inside even with decent lighting without a lot of graining in high ISO.

So I can get a new D500 which comes with a free battery grip or I can do a refurbished D750 and get a used Tamron 24-70mm.

One thing I didn't think of that was mentioned to me while I was there is I can shoot the D750 in crop mode and still use my current lenses while make the transition. This I didn't think of but don't know how good it actually functions.

jupitersolo

You're being held back by the decision that you NEED full frame. The D500 is the replacement for your D300, so if you don't need that speed, go with the two year old camera. It is a 27 month old camera.

CCColtsicehockey

I know I was just viewing on the camera screens but I definitely couldn't tell any IQ differences. Did notice some better DOF it seemed out of FF sensor. I would imagine though with the right lens I can probably get just as good DOF though. The D500 package seems to be the better overall deal too.
​​

srika

Thanks for the info and video about the 50-100...... hmmm not that bad, the main factor is that it DOES mount on a FF. Shoot at 30MP and it's not that big a deal.

Sarlacc

of course it mounts.

its just not a 50-100 on FF, duh.

CCColtsicehockey

So something I didnt out much thought into while looking at the D500 at the time was the 16-80 f2.8-4 that it had mounted to it at the store. The range is great and the reviews of it are actually really good. I have found reviews comparing it to the clarity of the 17-55 that I have with the added range. Obviously you lose a stop but having that added range but only losing a stop for an everyday lens seems like a plus to me.

Anyone else had any experience with this ​​this lens?
​​​

srika

There are some lenses that don't clear the mirror, and can't physically be mounted on the camera.

srika

more info here, check it out:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51348105

Sarlacc

Stupid canon designs. Nikon doesn't do that

is300eater

Sony doesn't either... THAT said, I'm curious how that 50-150mm F1.8 would do adapted on a Sony FF

is300eater

oops, I meant 50-100mm F1.8

Sarlacc

itll either vignette and you have crop in. Hence it not being a 50-100 (more like 80-160). Or Sony is like Nikon and has a "crop" mode for using non ff lenses.

jupitersolo

The video shows it vignetting like crazy to just over 80mm.

is300eater

yeah, if I had that lens, it'd be on the a6000, but was curious on FF... probably not even worth the time

CCColtsicehockey

Well I am done. I decided and went with the D500. I even went with the 16-80 lens with it as well. It should be here Thursday sometime and I can't wait to get shooting with it. Thank you everyone for putting up with my endless questions the past weeks or months that this has taken I really appreciate all the input.

Mizouse

asianspec

iTrader: (1)

srika

currently eyeing a 135 2L .... been on my list for all too long .....

Mizouse

It's a good lens.

you heard about the new Sigma 135mm f1.8?

is300eater

I have it and like it a lot... I also have the Sony A-mount Carl Zeiss 135mm F1.8, which IMO is a sharper lens, but the problem is... when I want to adapt it to my mirrorless, the only way to get AF is using the LA EA4 adapter, but that adapter has terrible AF points. If I use the old center-focus-recompose routine, depending on how close I am to the subject (and how wide aperture I'm shooting), the eyes may be out of focus by the time I recompose. WITH the 135L and Sigma MC-11 adapter, I can actually use the AF points off towards the rule-of-third corners.

But I AM actually thinking about selling both the 135L AND the Zeiss 135mm F1.8 for the Sigma 135 ART (mainly because I would get Eye-AF with the MC-11)

SamDoe1

Eye AF is one of my favorite features of the Sony... Just waiting for the Batis 135 to come out so I can get one.



Probably off the used market.

is300eater

yeah, at first I didn't think it was something I'd really care about, but now... it's something I miss when I'm using an unsupported lens. FOR ME, it's only handy when the subject is at a certain (close) distance... once you start to add more space between you and the subject, the DoF starts to increase and at that point, face detection works just fine.

srika

I haven't, but it looks like it costs twice as much as what I could get the Canon for.....

Is it twice as better? Probably not.

SamDoe1

^ Yup agree. I have the switch on the back of mine set to swap between normal AF and eye AF depending on what I'm doing. BBF of course.

brian2

can I do better than this (for equal money or less) for shooting my daughter's soccer outdoors?

is300eater

outdoors with lots of light, yes... I think you'll do fine with this lens.