• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Nikon D500/d7200 or Canon 7D mk2? (1 Viewer)

Tenuki

Member
Hi,

I've been trying to use my swaro scope for digiscoping. The results, however, are quite disappointing. Image quality is low and the out-of-focus pictures are counted in hundreds. I got a second-hand panasonic G6 camera and tested also a GH4, with unpleasing results. On the other hand, I use a sony nex 5 for my family-travelling pictures.

I want to turn all my gear into photography. I'll start by renting some stuff to see if it fits my needs or not before getting rid of everything else.

Options:
-Nikon D500: around 1900€. Awesome AF system, awesome iso tolerance. A little bit too expensive.
-Nikon D7200: around 800-900€. Worse AF system, good iso handling. Cheapest. 24 Mpx. Lighter. Less fps.
-Canon 7d Mark II: worse sensor, great lenses. Price around 1500€.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I'm very restrictive when it comes to image quality. On the other hand, I'm used to the "minimum" 1000mm focal length of my scope.

So, I've rented a nikon d500 + a 300 prime and a 1.4x teleconverter, to test it out. Would you recommend otherwise? Would it be enough if I just got the nikon d7200?

Thank you
 

nikonmike

Well-known member
I wonder what lens you had on the G4 to give unpleasing results,just playing with a new editing program so ime doing silly things,the sample below is from a Panasonic G80 using a cheap Olympus 40-150mm lens at iso 2000 with a 100% crop in poor light.

To get back to your other question the D500 would possibly be the best but ime not sure it will crop as well as the D7200.
The D500 does show noise if your not very careful at the higher ISOs.
 

Attachments

  • P1080090_DxO.jpg
    P1080090_DxO.jpg
    358.1 KB · Views: 60

Tenuki

Member
I wonder what lens you had on the G4 to give unpleasing results,just playing with a new editing program so ime doing silly things,the sample below is from a Panasonic G80 using a cheap Olympus 40-150mm lens at iso 2000 with a 100% crop in poor light.
I was using a 30 mm TLS APO through a Swarovski ATX 85. Tried with both the panasonic G6 and the GH4, the quality and amount of good pictures is disappointing (for me).

To get back to your other question the D500 would possibly be the best but ime not sure it will crop as well as the D7200. The D500 does show noise if your not very careful at the higher ISOs.
There is a 4 Mpx difference between the d500 and the d7200. And I didn't know about the D500 ISO issue with low light conditions... just reading about it thanks to your comment...
 
Last edited:

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
TenuAFIN3641214 said:
Hi,

I've been trying to use my swaro scope for digiscoping. The results, however, are quite disappointing. Image quality is low and the out-of-focus pictures are counted in hundreds. I got a second-hand panasonic G6 camera and tested also a GH4, with unpleasing results. On the other hand, I use a sony nex 5 for my family-travelling pictures.

I want to turn all my gear into photography. I'll start by renting some stuff to see if it fits my needs or not before getting rid of everything else.

Options:
-Nikon D500: around 1900€. Awesome AF system, awesome iso tolerance. A little bit too expensive.
-Nikon D7200: around 800-900€. Worse AF system, good iso handling. Cheapest. 24 Mpx. Lighter. Less fps.
-Canon 7d Mark II: worse sensor, great lenses. Price around 1500€.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I'm very restrictive when it comes to image quality. On the other hand, I'm used to the "minimum" 1000mm focal length of my scope.

So, I've rented a nikon d500 + a 300 prime and a 1.4x teleconverter, to test it out. Would you recommend otherwise? Would it be enough if I just got the nikon d7200?

Thank you
The D7200 Sensor will out perform the D500 up to ISO 200, 400, and is higher resolution. It won't AF in tracking quite as well as the D500, but does perfectly fine with centre point. I think it would be a perfectly fine choice. If you shoot it in 1.3x in-camera crop mode when reach is needed you can get nearly twice the focal length, and 7fps - pretty good. It might not be 10fps, but then it is less than half price too :t:

Is the 300mm lens you hired the PF? That + 1.4x TC in 1.3x in-camera crop mode will get you 820mm f5.6 and really good AF performance on the D7200 - nice and light too at ~1.7kg .... hard to go past if compactness and weight matter in an APS-C :t:


Chosun :gh:
 

Zackiedawg

Well-known member
Another option to consider would be to pick up the Tamron 150-600mm lens - it's big, but not crazy heavy (I use it handheld all the time) - and that will give you a 900mm equivalent reach optically on an APS-C camera. Focus should be good (more dependent on camera than lens), and image quality is solid even at the long end, plus it's quite a bargain at under $1,000 US for the lens...and no TCs needed...you can put all 24MP at 900mm equivalent, leaving even more room for cropping to get tighter as needed.
The Tamron lens is available in Canon mount, Nikon mount, and Sony mount. Sigma also makes two 150-600mm lens options - my experience is only with the Tamron version though.
 

PeteQuad

Well-known member
When I was faced with this choice, I went with the Canon 80D. The Nikon D500 is tempting (but was not out when I made my purchase), as was the D7200. The 7D2 does not tempt me over the 80D though. I ended up going Canon more for the lens choices than the camera, long term. I am extremely happy with my choices. The Canon is so intuitive for me to use and fits me extremely well - I can't actually say anything bad about it. For birding, I bought the Sigma 150-600 C, which is an amazing lens for the price in my opinion.

There are many other good lens choices out there. Others I would consider are the Canon 400mm 5.6L and the Canon 100-400L II. At the end of the day, I don't think I would want to give up my reach, but those are much lighter. Tamron and Sigma both make cheaper versions of the 100-400 as well.

Making the call between Canon and Nikon is hard. I think at the end of the day, if you can get them in your hands and judge ergonomics, that would be ideal as the rest is not that much different (despite what the spec people will tell you). That said, if the D500 had been out when I made my choice it would have made things much more difficult. But please don't forget about lenses, which will outlast any camera body by many times over!
 
Last edited:

Tenuki

Member
The D7200 Sensor will out perform the D500 up to ISO 200, 400, and is higher resolution. It won't AF in tracking quite as well as the D500, but does perfectly fine with centre point. I think it would be a perfectly fine choice. If you shoot it in 1.3x in-camera crop mode when reach is needed you can get nearly twice the focal length, and 7fps - pretty good. It might not be 10fps, but then it is less than half price too :t:

Is the 300mm lens you hired the PF? That + 1.4x TC in 1.3x in-camera crop mode will get you 820mm f5.6 and really good AF performance on the D7200 - nice and light too at ~1.7kg .... hard to go past if compactness and weight matter in an APS-C :t:


Chosun :gh:

But according to Dpreview test, I can see better image quality in D500 than d7200 in most ISO settings...
Is is easily feasible to do BIF with the D7200? Digiscoping was supposed to be capable to do so... but it's not unless investing long hours to get a single picture.


@Petequad
I've already considered Canon cameras. However, the current image quality in Canon cameras is a step below Nikon's. It's all due to Sony's sensor, used in most recent Nikon cameras, performing better: less noise, more dynamic range...
So, though Canon glass may have been better in the past, I think Nikon has the upper hand this time. But I'm not 100% convinced, therefore I created this thread, to see if I can make up my mind somehow.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
But according to Dpreview test, I can see better image quality in D500 than d7200 in most ISO settings...
Is is easily feasible to do BIF with the D7200? Digiscoping was supposed to be capable to do so... but it's not unless investing long hours to get a single picture .....
Tenuki, Have a look at this DXOMark comparison between the two https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D500-versus-Nikon-D7200___1061_1020

At ISO 100 and 200 it's D7200 all the way. From ISO 400 it's D500 from then on .....

Yes BIF with the D7200 is straightforward. I mostly use the 1.3x in-camera crop for extra reach ~ 1.95x @15.4MP, but importantly it also gives you 7fps vs 6. Use Centre point AF, or a group around that. I don't think many people use Nikon's excellent 3D tracking AF unless they're using a D5 ....

For the price and weight (both light! :) the 24MP D7200 offers fantastic value. :t:



Chosun :gh:
 

Vespobuteo

Well-known member
But according to Dpreview test, I can see better image quality in D500 than d7200 in most ISO settings...
Is is easily feasible to do BIF with the D7200? Digiscoping was supposed to be capable to do so... but it's not unless investing long hours to get a single picture.


@Petequad
I've already considered Canon cameras. However, the current image quality in Canon cameras is a step below Nikon's. It's all due to Sony's sensor, used in most recent Nikon cameras, performing better: less noise, more dynamic range...
So, though Canon glass may have been better in the past, I think Nikon has the upper hand this time. But I'm not 100% convinced, therefore I created this thread, to see if I can make up my mind somehow.

I would choose D500 mostly because of the better AF, viewfinder and ergonomics. The D7200 is a good camera but the uncomfortable grip put me off from buying it. Especially evident when using heavier lenses.

From ISO 6400 and up, the noise is definitely lower in the D500 vs D7200, but if you don't shoot at high ISO regularly the IQ difference is probably not that relevant.

If the D500 is worth twice the cost, only you can decide.
 

PeteQuad

Well-known member
I assure you that any difference in image quality will depend much more on the circumstances of the shoot, the photographer, and the lens, before the camera body itself (probably in that order, given a relatively recent camera). These camera companies constantly leapfrog each other, and in a year or two a different camera body will be on top. But a camera from 5 years ago will still be able to give you a great photo, assuming you have good glass in front of it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top