Should I swap my full frame D750 for a Crop sensor D500 for wildlife photography

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

I would welcome your views and suggestions. Two years ago I bought a friend’s Nikon D750 to go full frame from DX. My photography was general landscapes, village architecture and travel. I don't do events or portraiture but through Covid I got into wildlife photography and bought a Sigma 150 - 600mm. I find that the AF on the D750 seems slow for wildlife but understand that the D500 is much better. I also end up cropping in too much and losing resolution, so the 1.5 extra reach is attractive. If I swap the D750 for a D500 is there a downside? Most of my photography is shared on Facebook and I don't print or sell my photos.
 
For your use I think the D500 is a good fit. As you say you are regularly cropping the full frame so the D500 should ultimately give you better resolution. The AF system is well ahead of the D750.
The down side, you’ll lose a bit of dynamic range and may have slightly more noise to deal with.
You will likely get many comments about going mirrorless. I’m not going to say it’s not an option but make sure that the Sigma will play with the FTZ adapter.
You should also check out one of Steve’s videos where he discusses the impact of cropping on image quality.
 
Thanks, Steve W, the noise issue is one to consider but I find Topaz Denoise pleasingly effective in managing noise and subtle sharpening. I think this screenshot is from the video you mention and is quite persuasive in favour of the D500. I've been quite happy to buy low shutter count used Nikons and I don't think I need to go mirrorless, except for the silent shutter.

IMG_8858.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
IMG_8858.jpeg
 
Being a user of mirrorless cameras, I'd strongly suggest that you borrow or rent a mirrorless camera and give it a try. The generally lighter weight, silent shutter, lack of shutter shake and other benefits mean I'd never even consider dealing with the slam-bam of a mirror again.
 
Between the D750 and the D500, the D500 is a much better camera for wildlife (AF, Buffer, FPS, edge to edge AF points etc.) but the only thing i didn't like about the D500 was the way it clipped the highlights quickly and is a bit difficult to deal with in post...The D750/D850 has better tones/ way to manage highlights than the D500.
 
Between the D750 and the D500, the D500 is a much better camera for wildlife (AF, Buffer, FPS, edge to edge AF points etc.) but the only thing i didn't like about the D500 was the way it clipped the highlights quickly and is a bit difficult to deal with in post...The D750/D850 has better tones/ way to manage highlights than the D500.

Thanks for that insight.
 
The downside will be for your other photography. If you want a no-compromise option, get the D850 and shoot in DX mode for wildlife (or crop in post to DX size as needed.) If you have switched to almost entirely wildlife, the D500 is a terrific camera. If you still mostly shoot landscapes, architecture, and travel, and the D850 is too rich for your blood, I would stay with the D750. If you are shooting BIF or the like, try out Group focus mode if you haven't already, and one of the dynamic modes for general wildlife work. BBF is pretty much a must with wildlife photography IME. Steve has some helpful books about settings for Nikon cameras. I would make sure that I've used my current equipment optimally before throwing money at the problem anyway. What was optimal for landscape is a very different setup than what is optimal for wildlife -- Just my $0.02.
 
Thanks tclune. I guess that's where I'm at - I know the D750 is a good all rounder and perhaps I'll try and push it (and my skills) a bit harder for wildlife before I decide, but there's no doubt I'm getting a lot of pleasure from bird photography, except when I miss a shot! I have most of Steve's e-books and use BBF in either single or group mode most of the time.
 
It depends on what type of wildlife you're shooting. In Africa shooting large animals like buffalo, elephants, etc. the FF sensor is great. Shooting small subjects like birds the D500 will be better.

D500 has a great sensor if you're shooting under 400 ISO, but above that it's not very good. The 10fps and 1.5x crop factor helps a lot with small subjects and it has better AF than the D750, but the D750 imo has a much better sensor, superior low light ISO performance, but slower fps.
 
It depends on what type of wildlife you're shooting. In Africa shooting large animals like buffalo, elephants, etc. the FF sensor is great. Shooting small subjects like birds the D500 will be better.

D500 has a great sensor if you're shooting under 400 ISO, but above that it's not very good. The 10fps and 1.5x crop factor helps a lot with small subjects and it has better AF than the D750, but the D750 imo has a much better sensor, superior low light ISO performance, but slower fps.

Johan, Thanks for that input. As the Sigma 150 - 600mm is at F6.3 at full stretch, with a fast shutter speed I'm usually shooting at much higher than ISO 400 unless the light is good. 6 FPS is OK for me - I'll take that if the subject is in focus. As ever, photography is about compromise unless you have a big budget and kit bag.
 
I use both a D500 and Z6 II with a 500 f5.6 pf, 300 f4 pf, TC 14 III, and a Z 24-70 f4 in my travel kit. I find this handles about every situation that I have come across. D500 for long range and action in good light, and Z6 II for low light and slower action. Just got back from Alaska and my kit didn't disappoint.
 
I think folks have summarized it very well - I own D500, D750 and D850 and my experience aligns very well with the comments here.
The D500 is the most performance / $ you can buy for active wildlife photography of any system (even today, something like 6+ years after launch). For the price you get top fps, top AF performance and top resolution (as in pixel density, not MPx) - you simply cannot go wrong with the D500 for wildlife, and you can find great ones gently used for $1250.

That said, the limitations mentioned are real - it is more noisy than the D750 and it clips highlights more brutally, so it's not a great all-rounder. The do-it-all in Nikon's line is the D850 and to this day it is Nikon's best high resolution sensor (I would expect the Z9 to best it, it's about time).

The real question then is what do you want to be the main focus (pun intended) for your photography. If it's just wildlife then D500, if it's the best of all worlds then D850, if it is an affordable all-rounder that's ok to great at everything, then the D750 or the Z6ii (the Z6ii will outperform the D750 on about every aspect but it will not systematically outperform a D500 for pure wildlife applications)

If you look at mirrorless for wildlife, do yourself a favor though and do not start with the Z7. Try at least a Z6ii or Z7ii - the first gen camera will not give you a good sense of what's possible. Of course one can make it work and get shots, folks used to shoot wildlife with Leica manual focus cameras when I was shooting a Canon Eos 1v and they got amazing shots, but not as reliably and the critter had better be immobile. Same applies to the Z7.
 
I use both a D500 and Z6 II with a 500 f5.6 pf, 300 f4 pf, TC 14 III, and a Z 24-70 f4 in my travel kit. I find this handles about every situation that I have come across. D500 for long range and action in good light, and Z6 II for low light and slower action. Just got back from Alaska and my kit didn't disappoint.
Thanks, That's very informative!
 
Johan, Thanks for that input. As the Sigma 150 - 600mm is at F6.3 at full stretch, with a fast shutter speed I'm usually shooting at much higher than ISO 400 unless the light is good. 6 FPS is OK for me - I'll take that if the subject is in focus. As ever, photography is about compromise unless you have a big budget and kit bag.
We're very lucky here in Perth, Western Australia with very bright light - I'm often shooting at 1/4000s, f4 @100ISO - international cricket players say Perth has the best light to bat in.

Some of the noise removal software out there is simply amazing, together with LR's 'photo enhance' feature which doubles the length and width of an image are wonderful tools to get around some limitations gear have on images - and they're much cheaper than e.g. upgrading to a 600 f4 lens:)
 
I agree with what the others are saying. Strictly wildlife related, the D500 provides a lot of performance for the money. I previously bought a used D750 for wildlife and also found it slow. I didn’t see much difference between it and the Z6. Before a trip to Yellowstone, I bought a used D500 and used it along with the Z6. It was a fantastic combination and so much faster at everything. It’s not as good at high iso and the files not as forgiving with highlights and shadows, but it excels at fast moving subjects.

Do you have the option to add a used D500 instead of replacing the D750? If so, this is what I’d recommend. I paid $1100 for mine in 2019 in like new condition from Adorama. This would probably be similar or even cheaper than replacing with something like the D850 and give you a backup camera. If not, I’d probably wait things out until sometime next year and you should have some more options in mirrorless.
 
Do you have the option to add a used D500 instead of replacing the D750? If so, this is what I’d recommend.
I'd second that recommendation. There are definite advantages to shooting full frame when you can actually fill the frame and there are advantages to a great crop body camera like the D500 (really the best crop body camera that Nikon has ever produced and all their early flagship DSLRs were crop body) for wildlife work. If it's financially possible to have both in your kit you'll have a lot of versatility for different shooting situations.
 
I have a D500 and it is an excellent wildlife camera. After a LOT of research I recently purchased a Z6 II largely for it low light capabilities over the Z7 II. Like you I don't do large prints, mostly web posts and my website and the megapixel range of the Z6 II made more sense for the $$.

You can buy a used D500 for a very reasonable price, and with the money you saved you can justify the Z6 II later!!!
 
I have a D500 and it is an excellent wildlife camera. After a LOT of research I recently purchased a Z6 II largely for it low light capabilities over the Z7 II. Like you I don't do large prints, mostly web posts and my website and the megapixel range of the Z6 II made more sense for the $$.

I have a D500, and I am strongly considering doing exactly this.
 
The D500 has been an excellent body in my collection for BIF photography Eagles, Ospreys, and Hawks. Also own the D750 but it has been shelved since the purchase of the D850. The D850 does it all with the DX option at the turn of a dial.
I’m out photographing Raptors / Wildlife several times a week and that D500 goes along for the ride. You can’t go wrong with the purchase of D500 and I see them often for sale with low shutter counts due to many switching to Mirrorless.
 
Hey everyone, thanks for some great input. My first thought was to add a D500 to my D750, then I thought - well if I'm only publishing on the web, perhaps a d500 could handle my landscape photography as well as wildlife - but it's clear tha the D750 has many fans for it's low light performance, and the D500 has some critics for its range but fans of it's fast AF and continuous shooting for wildlife. So I'm going to look for a used D500 and keep both. I'll keep the D500 on my Sigma 150 - 600mm to give 225 - 900mm and the D750 on my Nikkor 24 - 120mm, which will mean that I will hardly ever have to swap lenses. :) I'm in the UK but perhaps one day I too will get to Yellowstone.
 
Back
Top