[RichardJ]

I have been waiting for years for Nikon's upgrade the D300s and had given up. So much that I started looking into replacing my D300 with a mirrorless camera, or switching to Sony or Canon. The smaller body and lens size and great images I have been seeing on this site really appeals to me for day hiking and backpacking. The D7100/7200 are nice cameras, but did not quite cut it for me mostly because of the buffer issue. It looks like this has been finally been resolved with the D500! I will still wait for the user reviews to come in and watch the price drop a little before considering getting it. Still this is one hell of an upgrade from the D300.

[Bedivere]

Holy cow! I never thought they'd do this. The D7200 seemed to fulfill the top-of-the-line spot in their APSC lineup well enough; resolving, for the most part, the deficiencies of the D7000/7100 buffer and offering excellent autofocus and low-light performance. I'm curious as the the D500 nomenclature also as the most recent releases have used Dxxxx for APSC format cameras and Dxxx and Dx nomenclature for full frame. Interesting indeed, and I'm glad I didn't jump on the D7200 bandwagon.

[RichardJ]

The D500 is related to the newly announced D5. It has some of the modern technological advances of the D5. There is a good discussion about this on DPreview titled CES Video: Nikon's Mark Soares talks about the D5 and D500. Very interesting.

[Bedivere]

This is the camera I've been waiting for. I almost made the jump to a D750 but was also seriously considering the D7200. I'll give it awhile to see how the real world reviews look and to see if it has any early production problems like the D600 and D7200 did when they were first released. Also, price tends to come down a little bit about 6 mos. after release.

[Bedivere]

Well, it's a DSLR so yes, large, heavy, and expensive. Such is the nature of the beast. At least this is a DX format camera so more compact and lighter than an FX body. I've always carried a DSLR and am willing to put up with the weight and expense for the performance. Nikon enthusiasts who are into sports and wildlife shooting have long been waiting for this camera. Nikon hasn't produced a truly pro-level DX format camera since the D300. Look at the specs on this camera and you'll see what it is us "camera nuts" are drooling over. One thing that won't stand out from the specs is the incredible low-light performance. I'll stake my fortune (all 37 cents of it) that this sensor will be the best APSC sensor yet for low light performance. The D500 addresses all of the shortcomings of my D7000 which is why I'm interested in it and offers some really incredible performance improvements. I rarely shoot video so that's really a non-issue for me. Maybe someday...

[NacMacFeegle]

The weathersealing, low-light performance, and 4k recording are attractive indeed, though probably not enough to get me to switch from Canon. An expanded ISO range of nearly 2 million is especially impressive to me, especially since my camera tops out at 6400!

[Bedivere]

If you're already invested in the Canon system I don't see this camera being enough of a leap over the 7Dii to cause you to switch systems. The 7Dii *was* enough of an improvement over anything Nikon produced up to that time to make me consider going Canon. Especially since no one really saw the D500 coming- Everyone assumed Nikon had given up on the top end of the APSC market and was shepherding everyone to FX since it had been so long. I do a fair amount of indoor shooting - friends bands and such. Being able to shoot without a flash has been a revelation. The D7000 does okay at iso3200 but the images are definitely getting grainy and losing dynamic range at that point. My guess is that this new camera will perform as well at iso6400 as the D7000 does at 3200, maybe even better.

[ranger rock]

Lack of an on board flash turns me off. I'm a semi pro and I do use the on camera flash from time to time. I don't always like to take my big exeternal flash out in the rain or out wading in the puget sound. I like the D7100 in spite of the buffer issue. I don't need to shoot in burst mode, my hard drives are already getting full.

[Bedivere]

I can understand that. The onboard flash is useful for fill-flash on occasion. Thing is, with the really outstanding high ISO performance these days you almost never actually need a flash except in the abovementioned situation where it would be nice to have some fill flash for a strongly backlit object. The workaround is shoot in 14 bit RAW and over-expose the bright background by about 2 stops. You'll be able to recover the highlights and tons of shadow detail in post. Or, if highlight detail isn't a big deal, just use spot metering and expose for the dark subject and let the highlights blow out.

[Sore Feet]

The Sony sensors that Nikon uses are infinitely better at recovering shadows than they are at recovering highlights. My experience is its much better to underexpose with them than to overexpose.

[Bedivere]

The technique I outlined above will allow an amazing amount of highlight recovery. I know this from experience with my D7000 which has a much older sensor than the D500. Time will tell how well that sensor handles highlights but I'll bet a dollar it won't be any worse. As long as you don't have a full height line at the far right of the histogram you'll be able to get details back. Also, I'm not sure who will be manufacturing the new sensor for the D500, it may well be Sony, but the sensor was designed by Nikon.

[Sore Feet]

I shoot nothing but 14-bit raw with a D600, I'm well aware of what can be recovered. But that doesn't change my statement - I've found it's much easier to retain proper detail in the highlights by underexposing slightly and then pushing the shadows, rather than overexposing and pulling the highlights back. When I switched from Canon to Nikon, I had to re-teach myself where the cut-off was, because initially I was still exposing further right and I was seeing portions of my sunsets getting too blown out to recover very easily because of how I was used to shooting with a Canon sensor. Obviously it depends on your subject though.

[Gil]

This is a curious body. ISO, processor, buffer, frame rate, weather sealing advantages over the D7200, but size, flash disadvantages. For the hiker/backpacker/landscape person, I don't see an overall advantage (at least on paper). Plus the D500 is expensive in comparison. That said, my D300 is still going strong despite some severe abuse. I haven't owned a D7000 series, so can't speak to the longevity. If the D500 is as tough, that might tip the scale.

[mike]

Not going to be switching from µ43 anytime soon... comparison

[Bedivere]

Gil - yes, it is a little bigger than current DX offerings and even slightly bigger than FX offerings like the D750, but IMO the difference isn't enough to offset its other advantages. It's right about the same size as my old D200 and nearly identical to your D300 and frankly I liked the way the D200 fit in my hands better. If, like Mike, you prefer the smaller form factor of 4/3 then yes, of course it is bigger and heavier. This camera is a sports and wildlife photographer's dream. The essentially unlimited buffer, 10 fps frame rate, and incredible autofocus system, not to mention a sensor that will be far better at higher iso address all of the technical shortcomings of my D7000 and the other D7xxx series cameras. It also has some other really nice features that improve upon the ergonomics. The biggest in my mind is the relocation of the AF-on button and the addition of the joystick for selecting focus points. This is a huge step up over the D300 in terms of performance as it should be given how old the D300 is. My D7000 has been serving me well in all weather conditions, from really cold and snowy to hot and dusty and everything in between. It's proven to be a very rugged camera. It appears they've improved even further on the weather sealing for this camera so I expect no durability issues. Nikon is also marketing this as a pro-level camera so it should have an even more durable shutter. Still, my D7000 is rated for 150,000 clicks and after over 4 years of continuous use I'm still not even 1/3 the way there. For backpackers who are primarily doing landscape/flowers/etc. photography, you're right, it doesn't have any real advantages over smaller cameras other than sensor size/noise performance. Which leads me to mention the really great nighttime pics Radka has been posting in her TRs lately. Those are shot with a D600 (full frame body) with a 20mm/f1.8. Her results are so good I'm considering going to a D750 rather than the D500 but other drawbacks to full frame for my personal use (size/bulk, lower frame rate, and loss of the crop factor) have me on the fence. AFAICT there is no lens comparable to the 20/f1.8 for DX sensors. For a Nikon DX you'd need a focal length of 12-14 to achieve the same field of view and there aren't any lenses available for Nikon with that short of a focal length at f1.8 I'm a little disappointed about the loss of the flash but it's not really that big of a deal. I very rarely use the pop-up flash. For event photography it's basically useless and I use my SB-600. I don't think I've ever used the pop up flash, or any flash, in an outdoor setting. I've done some wildlife shooting and regularly shoot skiing and for that this camera is perfect. I'm hoping to be able to do more birds-in-flight and insect shooting with this camera. It's a good thing there are so many options out there these days - a camera for every need!