Posted by Jay Levin on December 22, 2016 at 7:31 PM
My Nikon D300 is now eight years old. It is a 12mp camera that in my opinion has produced fine image quality. I also have a backup D300, and both are in excellent condition.. I wish to continue using a DX camera, primarily for landscape and macro, and perhaps occasionally some wildlife. At my age my back could not support full frame gear. Also I do not wish to start investing in FX lenses.
I have read that sensor technology has improved so much over the past 8 years that perhaps I should consider a newer DX camera. The only two that seem to be possibilities are the Nikon D7200 (24 mp) and the Nikon D500 (20.9 mp). For my purposes there is no advantage to more megapixels (for me 12 are enough for printing) except perhaps for cropping. Also, for what it is worth, according to Dx0 Mark, the dynamic range of the D300 is 12 stops; for the D7200 14.6 stops; and for the D500 14 stops.
The D7200 receives some highly regarded reviews. Thom Hogan, for example, calls it a great camera. However, I have seen it at Costco of all places, and compared to the D300 it is on the small side and doesn't have the latter's excellent build in my opinion. Still many amateur photographers rave about it.
I see the D500 as a specialty wildlife and sports camera. Nikon turned it into an action machine. However, I see no reason that it could not also be used for landscape photography, given its greater dynamic range than the D300. Also, compared to the D7200, it has more of a professional build and control layout.
So I am wondering if anyone has used the D500 for landscape photography. Also, if you were in my position, based on your knowledge of these cameras, would you simply stay with the D300 or move to one of the other two? Thank you immeasurably for your advice!
Jay Levin
Posted by Tom Falley on December 23, 2016 at 12:46 AM
Back in the "film" days we just had a couple of sensors. Kodak, Agfa, Fuji etc, Personally I have gone the megapixil route, Hasselblad 50 MP back and Canon 5D Sr. Yes more pixels do make a difference, the same toneality that comes from at 4x5.
Good luck!
Posted by Greg Vaughn on December 23, 2016 at 2:24 AM
Jay,
Like you, the D300 was my camera for quite a few years. Great camera, but the newer sensors are definitely better. When Nikon hadn't come out with a successor for quite some time, I went with the D7100 (predecessor to the D7200). I've been really happy with that camera and still choose it over my newer D750 when I want (1) more reach with telephoto lenses, or (2) a light, versatile, carry-all-day kit for general travel photography (with 12-24 & 18-200mm lenses).
Does the D7100/D7200 have the image quality for landscape photography? I sold a 40x60" print from Canyonlands NP taken with the D7100 + 12-24mm zoom. With good technique and processing, it is a fully capable landscape camera.
That said, for strictly landscape work, I think the D750 is second only to the D810, and it is not a big, heavy body. It is FX, however, and you stated you didn't want to go that route.
As the D500 is Nikon's latest, and is intended as an all-around pro workhorse, it is probably your best bet as a rugged, multi-purpose camera. Like the D300, it will probably be around for a long time and have good resale value if/when you decide to sell. If smaller/lighter is a factor and you're willing to sacrifice a little (very little I think), in body strength, you really can't go wrong with the D7200.
Whichever you choose, I think you'll be very pleased with the increased image quality potential compared to the D300.
- Greg
Posted by Louis Pattis on December 23, 2016 at 2:25 PM
Jay,
I kept my DX lenses from the D2X days and handled the D500 at the B&H Optics in the spring, bought one recently and love it. Deals with the grip SD card and camera bag, for $1800.00, you hardly can go wrong at this price. Touch screen the little joy stick and the articulated screen are very useful. Auto focus is very fast, beats my D3s and the focus sensors cover most of the picture area. For landscape I use the D800e, but this little gem will play a part for these images taken as well, very fast for focus stacking in live view and I always can increase the pixel count by stitching images. For panoramas I use the D7000 also a great camera, the D7200 should be much improved, but is not as sturdy as the D500.
Louis
Posted by Richard Ditch on December 23, 2016 at 4:31 PM
Jay:
I relied on a pair of D300 bodies for many years, waiting a long time for the mythical "D400" to come along. I gave up waiting and bought a new D7200 a few months before the D500 was announced. Yes, the D300 had more of a professional feel to it and none of the "Beginner" mode stuff, but I like the smaller lighter body. The performance is much improved over the D300, with faster better AF (great for birds), twice the pixels, and better noise performance as well. I liked the D7200 enough that I bought a refurbished D7200 body to go with it. And before this month's visit to Bosque del Apache I bought a very clean low mileage D7000 body (16MP) as well so I wouldn't have to swap lenses in all the dust at Bosque.
These bodies are rugged enough for anything I'll do with them. And I've even embraced the U1 and U2 settings on the controls so I can quickly switch between two configurations.
If the D500 had been available I'd have gone for it, but I don't regret buying the D7200's plus the D7000.
When I made the switch from 4x5 to a DSLR, I went with the D7100, primarily for financial reasons. I was not disappointed. It is a fine, fairly light in weight camera, and it certainly gets the job done for landscapes. The camera, three lenses and other goodies fit in a small LowePro Mini Trekker pack, so my old back is happier at the end of the day. The prices on them are pretty decent since the D7200 came out, so that might be one route to take. The D7200 does make some improvements over the 7100. I have made gorgeous 12' wide prints (@360 dpi on my Epson printer) from D7100 files. I certainly agree with the comments Richard made, above.
--P
Posted by Basil Greber on December 30, 2016 at 12:54 AM
Personally, I would go with a D7200 if I were to go the DX route for landscapes. Lighter, and more dynamic range (though not much). And more pixels (even though you say you already have plenty). I don't see a need for blazingly fast AF, huge buffer, or fast frame rates for landscapes - and that's where the D500 excels.
Disclaimer - I've switched to FX (D610) a few years ago after using the D300 and D90 for quite some time. Image quality is excellent, and I think that camera has made a big contribution to my progress as a photographer (though I cannot say if a D7200 would or would not have done the same). One thing I miss is having a lens like the 12-24/4 DX that is both very flare resistant and creates great sun stars. So, enjoy that one. ;)
The D7100 or D7200 has a sensor with a wider dynamic range (14 stops) than the D500 (12 stops). Also the D500 has fewer megapixels (20.9 MP) than the D7100/7200 (24 MP). The major advantages of the D500 seem to be its larger buffer which allows capture of more images in one burst (up to 200 vs 6-24) and its advertised more robust construction.
Unless the construction of the D500 is noticeably more robust (rather than merely advertised so) than the D7100/7200, I would go with the D7100/7200) for landscape images (for which burst shooting/multiple images are not needed).
Both D500 and D7100/7200 use the smaller APS-C DX sensor. Either D500 or D7100/7200 would be better than D300/300S for numerous reasons including more megapixels, Expeed 4 or 5 processing, and more (51) focus points.
I am hanging on to my D7100 (which replaced D300) until exhaustion or death (of the camera).
Discussion
7 repliesI have read that sensor technology has improved so much over the past 8 years that perhaps I should consider a newer DX camera. The only two that seem to be possibilities are the Nikon D7200 (24 mp) and the Nikon D500 (20.9 mp). For my purposes there is no advantage to more megapixels (for me 12 are enough for printing) except perhaps for cropping. Also, for what it is worth, according to Dx0 Mark, the dynamic range of the D300 is 12 stops; for the D7200 14.6 stops; and for the D500 14 stops.
The D7200 receives some highly regarded reviews. Thom Hogan, for example, calls it a great camera. However, I have seen it at Costco of all places, and compared to the D300 it is on the small side and doesn't have the latter's excellent build in my opinion. Still many amateur photographers rave about it.
I see the D500 as a specialty wildlife and sports camera. Nikon turned it into an action machine. However, I see no reason that it could not also be used for landscape photography, given its greater dynamic range than the D300. Also, compared to the D7200, it has more of a professional build and control layout.
So I am wondering if anyone has used the D500 for landscape photography. Also, if you were in my position, based on your knowledge of these cameras, would you simply stay with the D300 or move to one of the other two? Thank you immeasurably for your advice!
Jay Levin
Good luck!
Like you, the D300 was my camera for quite a few years. Great camera, but the newer sensors are definitely better. When Nikon hadn't come out with a successor for quite some time, I went with the D7100 (predecessor to the D7200). I've been really happy with that camera and still choose it over my newer D750 when I want (1) more reach with telephoto lenses, or (2) a light, versatile, carry-all-day kit for general travel photography (with 12-24 & 18-200mm lenses).
Does the D7100/D7200 have the image quality for landscape photography? I sold a 40x60" print from Canyonlands NP taken with the D7100 + 12-24mm zoom. With good technique and processing, it is a fully capable landscape camera.
That said, for strictly landscape work, I think the D750 is second only to the D810, and it is not a big, heavy body. It is FX, however, and you stated you didn't want to go that route.
As the D500 is Nikon's latest, and is intended as an all-around pro workhorse, it is probably your best bet as a rugged, multi-purpose camera. Like the D300, it will probably be around for a long time and have good resale value if/when you decide to sell. If smaller/lighter is a factor and you're willing to sacrifice a little (very little I think), in body strength, you really can't go wrong with the D7200.
Whichever you choose, I think you'll be very pleased with the increased image quality potential compared to the D300.
- Greg
I kept my DX lenses from the D2X days and handled the D500 at the B&H Optics in the spring, bought one recently and love it. Deals with the grip SD card and camera bag, for $1800.00, you hardly can go wrong at this price. Touch screen the little joy stick and the articulated screen are very useful. Auto focus is very fast, beats my D3s and the focus sensors cover most of the picture area. For landscape I use the D800e, but this little gem will play a part for these images taken as well, very fast for focus stacking in live view and I always can increase the pixel count by stitching images. For panoramas I use the D7000 also a great camera, the D7200 should be much improved, but is not as sturdy as the D500.
Louis
I relied on a pair of D300 bodies for many years, waiting a long time for the mythical "D400" to come along. I gave up waiting and bought a new D7200 a few months before the D500 was announced. Yes, the D300 had more of a professional feel to it and none of the "Beginner" mode stuff, but I like the smaller lighter body. The performance is much improved over the D300, with faster better AF (great for birds), twice the pixels, and better noise performance as well. I liked the D7200 enough that I bought a refurbished D7200 body to go with it. And before this month's visit to Bosque del Apache I bought a very clean low mileage D7000 body (16MP) as well so I wouldn't have to swap lenses in all the dust at Bosque.
These bodies are rugged enough for anything I'll do with them. And I've even embraced the U1 and U2 settings on the controls so I can quickly switch between two configurations.
If the D500 had been available I'd have gone for it, but I don't regret buying the D7200's plus the D7000.
When I made the switch from 4x5 to a DSLR, I went with the D7100, primarily for financial reasons. I was not disappointed. It is a fine, fairly light in weight camera, and it certainly gets the job done for landscapes. The camera, three lenses and other goodies fit in a small LowePro Mini Trekker pack, so my old back is happier at the end of the day. The prices on them are pretty decent since the D7200 came out, so that might be one route to take. The D7200 does make some improvements over the 7100. I have made gorgeous 12' wide prints (@360 dpi on my Epson printer) from D7100 files. I certainly agree with the comments Richard made, above.
--P
Disclaimer - I've switched to FX (D610) a few years ago after using the D300 and D90 for quite some time. Image quality is excellent, and I think that camera has made a big contribution to my progress as a photographer (though I cannot say if a D7200 would or would not have done the same). One thing I miss is having a lens like the 12-24/4 DX that is both very flare resistant and creates great sun stars. So, enjoy that one. ;)
Unless the construction of the D500 is noticeably more robust (rather than merely advertised so) than the D7100/7200, I would go with the D7100/7200) for landscape images (for which burst shooting/multiple images are not needed).
Both D500 and D7100/7200 use the smaller APS-C DX sensor. Either D500 or D7100/7200 would be better than D300/300S for numerous reasons including more megapixels, Expeed 4 or 5 processing, and more (51) focus points.
I am hanging on to my D7100 (which replaced D300) until exhaustion or death (of the camera).