What made me decide to remain a photography conservative and stick to DSLR?
I’m not one of those guys who buy a new camera every season, and have a personal museum of old cameras. When I buy a camera, it’s “for good” (or lets say, the next 10 years, or at least until a revolutionary technological breakthrough occurs). So when I choose a camera, I want to be absolutely sure it’s something that can perfectly blend into my photography habits, and have everything I need in order not to wish for an upgrade next season already. I’m also not one of those guys who spend enormous amounts of money on top class professional cameras and lenses – I rather tend to search for my product of choice in the mid range amateur enthusiast market.
For several years already I’ve been thinking of replacing my aging Nikon D90, but every season saying “no, it still makes great pictures”. And it really is so, no matter that this is a 10 year old model, surpassed in terms of features, autofocus quality and precision, dynamics and ISO sensitivity by the recent cameras. Even in 2017 you can still use it to make some great photos which the viewer might not even be aware were taken using last decade’s technology. So what made me believe it’s finally time to upgrade and start a new era in personal photography?
The main excuse I had was a dire need for an upgrade in videography options. Being the first generation of video enabled DSLRs, D90 had a rather basic, very spartan capability of recording video, far inferior to contemporary models. With a maximum resolution of 1280×720 at 24 fps, a very crude codec with exagerated contrast and inadequate light metering, absolutely no capability of automatic refocusing on demand while recording videos and a limitation to maximum length of single clips of only 5 minutes, using the D90 for recording videos is quite painful and frustrating. So I definitely needed something to bring my video recordings to an entirely new level.
Some would say I could have just bought a cheap, fullHD video camera instead, but I just can’t imagine carrying two devices in my hands all the time while I’m in the wild and switching them dependent on whether I want to film or photograph – it’s much more convenient to choose your action by only a flick of a button. But, while upgrading my videography capability, I wasn’t ready to make any compromises about photography. In fact, I was quite looking forward to improving those capabilities too.
So as I have set myself a clear goal, I started examining the options, and contemplating some more courageous conceptual changes too (like a possible switch from classic DSLR form to mirrorless cameras – which are certainly superior when it comes to videography). The mirrorless cameras have another advantage – they’re half the size and weight of comparable DSLR systems, which adds to comfort when you need to move around lightweight, on foot or on mountain bike.
Since I’m not really a brand fetishist, I was ready to move away from Nikon if that would give me a clear advantage in what I was interested in, and both Canon and Sony have strong qualities when it comes to recording video (after all, these companies are traditionally world’s leading producers of video cameras). Everyone’s talking about Nikon’s inferiority when it comes to video, and at first I was even ready to accept that for granted, and to rule out a possible upgrade to a newer Nikon model.
Changing habbits?
For a passionate photographer the habbits that have been built over time are an important thing, and getting used to a completely different user interface, adapting to a new logic of operating the camera, can be quite frustrating. And every manufacturer has his own approach to what they think is important for their users. When I’ve chosen the D90 a long time ago, I’ve been working as a camera reviewer and tester, lots of cameras of all manufacturers have been passing through my hands, so I was in a very good position to compare the user interfaces. But I thought at the time that Nikon had by far the most logical, ergonomical and user friendly DLSR interface, offering the widest customization possibities to the user, so I’ve chosen the D90 deeply convinced that it is THE user interface that i’d feel most comfortable with (and I never regreted that decision since). The thought of developing a completely new photographic routine in adapting to the philosophy of a different manufacturer made me quite anxious, but I thought that is the price I have to pay in order to gain some extra functionality or practicality (that especially stands for switching to mirrorless cameras). Nevertheless, the thought of a possibility to retain my comfortable and well known Nikon operational routine made me give Nikon also a chance…
The contestants
After some research and narrowing of the choices, I came up with 3-4 possible models:
Canon 80D – as a very popular, highly praised videographers choice nowadays
Sony A6300 – as a cheaper alternative to the very capable mirrorless APS-C model Sony A6500 (but A6500 was also an option)
Nikon D7200 – as a direct, third generation DSLR successor to the D90, offering significantly better video recording than D90
In terms of price, the A6300 and 80D kits were in more or less the same range, and D7200 seemed to be the much more budget friendly choice (especially concerning the lens compatibility with what I already have).
The mirrorless dilemma
Should I, or should I not make the “leap” from DSLR to mirrorless? What do I get, and what do I lose by it? That was the main question in contemplating the possible switch to Sony A6300.
The gain in having a much more compact sized system is quite obvious. DSLR cameras are a bit oversized to take them on a mountain bike ride, for example, impractical to handle, no matter whether you carry them in a bag strapped to your body, or in some kind of a handlebar bag. The mirrorless cameras are just about smaller enough to be acceptable for that activity. And when walking, the halved weight is also a benefit.
When it comes to the ease of focusing, mirrorless cameras have made some significant leaps lately, and it seems that they caught up with DSLRs, both in speed and precision. So that would probably not be something that I’d feel handicaped with on a mirrorless camera.
However, while performance and dimensions were certainly not a concern, I wasn’t so sure about the ergonomics and ease of use. A completely different set of controls, organizing them all under the right hand thumb, would certainly be something that takes some time to get used to and switch your logic of operations. Or maybe I’m just being a bit too conservative, who knows?
The one factor that is certainly against mirrorless cameras is their battery autonomy, which is small no matter whether you shoot pictures or videos (surpassed some 3-4 times in shooting pictures by DSLRs). But that is something easily solved by owning several extra batteries and always having a full one ready to slide in.
A plan changer – an offer to try the D500
The offer by Nikon Serbia to let me test the D500 for a while certainly disrupted the course of my thinking. At first I said “I’m not looking for a camera as expensive as that one, please give me a D7200 to try”, but they said “we want you to try this camera and see how it works – no strings attached, and we’ll give you a D7200 later to compare if you wish so”. As I’ve had previous quite satisfactory experience with the D7100 (which the D7200 succeeded), I suddenly became curious to find out what the experience of using a top class APS-C DSLR, featuring the most advanced autofocusing system known today (the same one used in their top pro D5 model), looks like. After all, it was the highest rated camera of all times on the DPreview.com site (91% and Gold award), and I really wanted to find out how the camera that came closest to perfection felt like in my hands, so I accepted the offer. It also tickled my curiosity to see how one of the rare 4k video capable DSLRs works, especially due to having a tiltable, extremely high resolution touchscreen. I just wanted to find out how much Nikon is really capable of when recording video, knowing that it has a rather unfortunate live video autofocusing system – slow and prone to “hunting” focus before it settles.
Almost perfect
My first contact with the D500 was really awe inspiring. From the first moment I was absolutely amazed by the speed, precision and versatility of the 153-point autofocus system, featured only in Nikon’s top of the line pro camera D5, and D500. It was hard to belive that a camera can focus almost instantly and with perfect precision in any situation that had just like a tiny amount of light to detect contrast. Believe it or not, but this focusing system is so sensitive, that it can even autofocus on a starry sky! And it does so no matter whether you choose one of the three single, or seven continous autofocus modes.
And fast it is too… Being able to shoot 10 shots per second in RAW in a virtually endless burst, combined with the lightning fast autofocus, there’s no fast moving object that you can’t capture in a perfecty sharp sequence. But, do I really need that kind of speed as a (most of the time) landscape and nature photographer? Probably not, but it can come in handy for situations when I want to capture the right moment in some offroad action of 4×4 vehicles, or maybe mountain bikers in full speed. And it certainly helps when photographing birds in flight or fast moving wild animals. So it sure can be a welcome feature.
The thing that I like very much about D90 has been further refined and brought to perfection in D500 – the ergonomy of the camera and customization options. Some people think that Canon DSLRs have a far superior ergonomy, but I never managed to adjust to their logic, priorities and command layout (and I’ve tested quite a number of them while working as a camera tester). I never really cared about the predefined sets of custom modes on the dial, but having several perfectly placed function buttons that you can customize, and the possibility to change the behaviour of the standard buttons and construct an entire user menu from the commands that you use most, really is something that pleases me. And I always thought the positions of the two control dials on Nikon cameras are far more logical and handy than those on Canon.
Another addition that I liked very much on the D500 was the little joystick for controlling the focus point (serving also as an exposure lock button when pressed down – and the function can be customized), and the fact that the video start/stop button is right next to the main shutter button and not on the backside of the camera also made me smile. So for ergonomy, customization and control options, the D500 received a 10/10 from me – it simply doesn’t get any better than that.
So why did I title this section ALMOST perfect? Well, as a pro level camera, it doesn’t feature a built in flash. Saving the space on top obviously helped put in a smashing, 100% magnification optical viewfinder, but the habbit of just popping out the built in flash for a light help is obviously something that a D500 user has to drop (and I did use it quite a lot on the D90).
The marvelous LCD display
D500 features the very same, 2,3 million pixel 3.2″ touchscreen display like the one on the pro D5 model, and in addition – it’s tiltable 90 degrees up and down. So it has by far the highest resolution in the camera market at the moment (even compared to those of similarly priced cameras), and it’s simply perfect for movie recordings. But I was hardly aware just how handy the touchscreen option would be, and how much that really makes a difference. The thing that I liked most about it was the ease of refocusing during the live video recording using the display – it’s enough just to touch the object on the display that you want your focus on, and the camera refocuses instantly! And there are other interesting features of the touchscreen. For example, if you use it for photo shooting, you just touch the desired focusing point and the camera focuses and shoots instantly, without the need to press the shutter. So I was obviously wrong in thinking the display on D7200 is just good enough – the extra features of this touchscreen display really make a huge difference when it comes to usage comfort, and even the operational effectiveness.
What about the videos?
I was prepared to Nikon being inferior in video quality and features to the rest of the pack, so the question was – does it meet my minimum requirements to get a “pass” mark? Will it enable me to record the videos I need without getting frustrated and thinking of buying an extra dedicated video camera?
As I expected, the AF-F mode (continuous live view focusing) is crap and virtually unusable – it keeps “hunting” for focus when you least expect it, and it’s slow and noisy. But almost everything else concerning video operation was more or less a pleasent surprise. Some say that Nikon video codecs are less than perfect, but I really find nothing wrong with them – the recorded .mov files feature broadcast quality, and on top of that are remarkably compact in size, so they don’t take up much storage space. But what I really liked was the quality of recorded video in low light conditions – almost no visible noise up to ISO 12800, which is remarkable for a APS-C sized sensor. And quite easy to manage the depth of view focusing, as expected from the APS-C format. The touchscreen live refocusing during video recording works quite nicely, being a more than adequate compensation for the lack of reliable continuous autofocus. Pressing the “i” button brings up an on-screen sidebar menu with the most important settings for controlling the video recording (including the possibility to change the resolution and fps, mic sensitivity, etc.), and the “info” button cycles through display modes, offering a very handy inclinometer mode for leveling the camera.
Video right out of the camera – perfect low light recording with crisp sound from the built in stereo mic (this clip is unedited)
The overall recorded video quality is very high – nicely saturated colors, precise white balance, good contrast, very fine dynamic range and not oversharpened, for a natural look. And a possiblity to finely control the output by choosing the desired colour profile. Sound recording from the built in stereo mic is surprisingly crisp, and if that is not enough, there is a connector for external microphones (which is very important for recording professional quality video with sound). In full HD it records video with up to 60 fps, and in 4K it records up to 30 fps. More than adequate, I’d say. It may not be what pro film makers are looking for, but for my video needs, the D500 certainly passed the test.
Image quality
APS-C sensors have really tremendously evolved from the times of D90. Their low light performance is now better than what even full frame sensors offered in those times, and I kind of like the fact that the sensor of D500 has “only” 21 MP, less than the nowadays widely adopted APS-C standard of 24 MP. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind even if it had as little as 12 MP which is, in my opinion, quite enough for professional class photographs (and it would certainly help achieve even better low light performance). D500 low light images may not be on par with today’s top full frame cameras, but they’re certainly not lagging behind much. And, if we take into account the sensor’s pixel density, having 21 MP on a APS-C format sensor gives just the same values as the top of the line 42 MP full frame cameras (such as the Sony A7R II).
The images taken by D500 are sharp (especially when paired with the marvelous Nikkor AF 16-80 mm VR lens which is sold as a kit lens for the D500), precisely exposed, nicely saturated, with a good dynamic range and remarkably precise white balance (a huge leap compared to the time of D90). They don’t have glitches that require overprocessing the images in software, in fact, most of the images are just perfect as they come out of the camera, and you almost don’t feel the need to shoot RAW at all. Of course, a passionate Lightroom user never misses a chance to make great pictures even better, but the material to work with is certainly top quality when it comes out of a D500.
Well, it is expensive, but it’s worth it
After a few weeks of working with D500, I actually had the impression that I want to own that camera. It offered so much more than I expected, and every shot, every recorded clip, was a pleasure to take. I could get over the fact that it is big and heavy (certainly not “pocketable”). In fact, the solid magnesium body with top quality rubber grip and contact surfaces, where attention was given to every detail, gives you an unmistakable feeling that you’re really working with a pro, no compromise camera. Combining it with a few more carefully selected lenses, it can take my photography (as well as videography) to a completely new level. So investing that kind of money once every 10 years certainly makes sense.
What about the D750?
Before I decided to take the D500, I hesitated for a moment, thinking that, perhaps, going for the D750 full framer might give me an edge when it comes to image quality. And it would certainly mean finally taking the full frame leap. But is it something that I really need?
Pricewise, D750 costs even less then D500. Except for being a full framer, it lacks many of the D500 pro features – it has an inferior autofocus and metering system, a smaller buffer, it is slower, and it doesn’t record 4k video (not that I really need it, but…), has a lower resolution display, etc. It’s still a top camera, scoring just 1% less than D500 on DPreview.com, so it’s definitely a great buy. However, opting to go full frame also has it’s downsides (at least for me). Depth of view that full frame brings can make it much more complicated to retain focus on moving objects while recording video, and full frame optics are always bulkier, and more expensive. And, in case of zooming in distant objects, I have advantage with APS-C optics because of the 1,5x focal range multiplier (can do much more with cheaper and lighter lenses). So is the slight increase in dynamic range and low light performance that the full frame sensor brings worth giving up other features of D500? After thinking for a moment about all the situations where I’d benefit from one or the other, the scales clearly tipped in favour of the D500. After all, even some very critical full frame camera owners, upon seeing the low light images from the D500, described them as “unbelievable output from a crop sensor”. So the image quality gap between APS-C and full frame cameras has obviously been closing in recent years.
This was not a classic camera review. I had no intention to cover all aspects of operation of any camera. I just wanted to share my own experience in choosing the camera, and the things that I’ve noticed and felt were important. As such, this blogpost is quite subjective. I’m glad if I helped anyone having similar dilemmas as I’ve had, resolve those. You’re welcome to comment below – if you have any questions, I’ll do my best to answer them.
One Reply to “My photography upgrade”