$1500.. what piece of kit to buy?

Destin

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Sep 11, 2010
Messages
3,860
Reaction score
1,377
Location
Western New York
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hey guys so I just sold my motorcycle with the intention of investing the money into photography equipment. I've got about $1500 to spend. Could stretch a few hundred more if needed.

Currently have:
D500
D7100
Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC
Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS
50 1.8G
Tokina 12-24 f/4

Things I'm considering
- upgrade 7100 to a second D500. This is my #1 option because I find the D7100 slow and difficult to use since getting the 500, and I like shooting with two bodies.
-get a D750... would be nice to have a full frame body for portraitureto compliment the D500
-purchase a several generation old used 300 2.8 af-s for sports
-Get a birding/wildlife lens.. 200-500, 150-600, etc

I primarily shoot sports and portraits. But I'd really like to get into wildlife...

I'm just hung up on what direction to go, but I wanna invest the $ into camera gear before I use it to pay bills
 
"pay bills" ?
wildlife doesn't pay too many bills.
Pick an option that helps pay bills, then you can buy a wildlife lens with more money that you are going to earn.

I'd get a D750 myself. But then I have the D750 and D500.
 
"pay bills" ?
wildlife doesn't pay too many bills.
Pick an option that helps pay bills, then you can buy a wildlife lens with more money that you are going to earn.

I'd get a D750 myself. But then I have the D750 and D500.

I meant before I use the money I have on hand to just pay bills haha

I don't care too terribly much if the gear I buy pays bills.
 
@Destin Just say no, once you start you won't be able to quit!!! $1500 will require another, then another, its a vicious cycle of gratification without end!!!! (or at least it is with me):02.47-tranquillity:

Personally I would go for good glass. It never goes out of style, and it holds it's value relatively well. There is so much going on in technology right now that the camera body you buy today, could likely be old news tomorrow. The glass on the other hand is mostly backwards compatible.
 
I vote dy50. I love shooting full frame and that camera is a great combination of features for overall photography. After that I say whatever lenses, tripods,etc. You need. But you'll love the d750. Coild get a d610 and save a few bucks. Worse af, but u1 and u2 modes are really nice

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk
 
"pay bills" ?
wildlife doesn't pay too many bills.
Pick an option that helps pay bills, then you can buy a wildlife lens with more money that you are going to earn.

I'd get a D750 myself. But then I have the D750 and D500.
Another vote for the D750
 
I'd probably buy the D750 myself...I think @astroNikon did a nice write-up on what it's like to use both the 750 and the 500, especially indoors.

That being said though...you'd probably end up wanting to add a fast normal zoom to your order. At least a 24-70mm, probably, and that pushes you past your budget.
 
I'd buy a used prime lens with some reach like a 300mm f2.8 ED IF or even the 300mm f2.8 D ED IF AF-I
 
How are you for lighting gear/grip/modifier stuff? That could possibly help on the portrait side of things.
 
How are you for lighting gear/grip/modifier stuff? That could possibly help on the portrait side of things.

I have pretty much everything I want at this point for lighting gear... not that much but I've yet to find a scenario where I've wanted more.

I really don't find myself lacking as far as lenses go for what I currently shoot, except for in reach. Shooting sports my 70-200 is definitely not long enough all the time, and I'd really like a 300 2.8.

I think I'm leaning towards some longer glass... either a:

-used 300 2.8 af-s (pre VR model.. some are going on eBay for $1500-1800)

-or-

-Nikon 200-500 or Tamron 150-600 G2.

Sort of wanna go with the super long zoom option.. that way I could use it for daytime sports outdoors as well as wildlife..

I live 5 miles from one of the largest protected marshlands in the country, and it's a huge migration stop. Bird photography has long been something I've wanted to do, but I've been reach limited. My trip to the zoo the other day really fueled my desire to get more into wildlife.

Going to my local camera shop today to check out both super zooms.
 
The 750 is a great camera - I have one and love it - but I really don't see how it improves your capabilities all that much. You have two excellent cameras that would do extremely well with any of the current Nikon Tamron or Sigma telephoto lenses. If you are going to get more into wildlife you're going to end up getting something like that anyway - I'd do it now.

Also I'm curious when you say the 7100 is slow and difficult to use compared to the 500. Are you referring only to frame rate, or are there issues with the button layout/configuration of the 7100 that you feel make it difficult to use?
 
The 750 is a great camera - I have one and love it - but I really don't see how it improves your capabilities all that much. You have two excellent cameras that would do extremely well with any of the current Nikon Tamron or Sigma telephoto lenses. If you are going to get more into wildlife you're going to end up getting something like that anyway - I'd do it now.

Also I'm curious when you say the 7100 is slow and difficult to use compared to the 500. Are you referring only to frame rate, or are there issues with the button layout/configuration of the 7100 that you feel make it difficult to use?

Honestly, everything about the D7100 seems ancient and slow compared to the D500. The frame rate, the buffer, the shutter lag, the accessibility of controls, speed of menus loading, etc. Everything about the D500 is just faster. It's also hard to work with two cameras when one is so much better in low light than the other.. having to use different settings and settle for lower shutter speeds with one is difficult for sports because the quality of your images varies greatly from one camera to the other at that point.

Before I got the D500, only the buffer on the 7100 bothered me. But now, it all seems much slower than what I've become used to.

Specifically, the placement of the ISO button bugs me.
 
+ you just made the investment of not having to buying yourself an early grave by selling the bike
- thats I more person off the organ donation list.

+Since you have some FX lenses, I assume they are! maybe the 750
- I have a 750 and its very good but there have been a few issues with it, that nikon have solved for now.
+/-/= Isn't the 500 more expensive then the 750

If you could get a good second hand or a Nikon refurbished model some savings could be made to get auxiliary equip such as what Derrel suggested.
 
The 750 is a great camera - I have one and love it - but I really don't see how it improves your capabilities all that much. You have two excellent cameras that would do extremely well with any of the current Nikon Tamron or Sigma telephoto lenses. If you are going to get more into wildlife you're going to end up getting something like that anyway - I'd do it now.

Also I'm curious when you say the 7100 is slow and difficult to use compared to the 500. Are you referring only to frame rate, or are there issues with the button layout/configuration of the 7100 that you feel make it difficult to use?

Honestly, everything about the D7100 seems ancient and slow compared to the D500. The frame rate, the buffer, the shutter lag, the accessibility of controls, speed of menus loading, etc. Everything about the D500 is just faster. It's also hard to work with two cameras when one is so much better in low light than the other.. having to use different settings and settle for lower shutter speeds with one is difficult for sports because the quality of your images varies greatly from one camera to the other at that point.

Before I got the D500, only the buffer on the 7100 bothered me. But now, it all seems much slower than what I've become used to.

Specifically, the placement of the ISO button bugs me.

Thanks for that explanation. I was curious because I'm thinking of getting either a 7200 or a 500 for macro/telephoto use, and am still trying to decide which suits my needs best.
 
The 750 is a great camera - I have one and love it - but I really don't see how it improves your capabilities all that much. You have two excellent cameras that would do extremely well with any of the current Nikon Tamron or Sigma telephoto lenses. If you are going to get more into wildlife you're going to end up getting something like that anyway - I'd do it now.

Also I'm curious when you say the 7100 is slow and difficult to use compared to the 500. Are you referring only to frame rate, or are there issues with the button layout/configuration of the 7100 that you feel make it difficult to use?

Honestly, everything about the D7100 seems ancient and slow compared to the D500. The frame rate, the buffer, the shutter lag, the accessibility of controls, speed of menus loading, etc. Everything about the D500 is just faster. It's also hard to work with two cameras when one is so much better in low light than the other.. having to use different settings and settle for lower shutter speeds with one is difficult for sports because the quality of your images varies greatly from one camera to the other at that point.

Before I got the D500, only the buffer on the 7100 bothered me. But now, it all seems much slower than what I've become used to.

Specifically, the placement of the ISO button bugs me.

Thanks for that explanation. I was curious because I'm thinking of getting either a 7200 or a 500 for macro/telephoto use, and am still trying to decide which suits my needs best.

Just a thought, you could get a Sony Full Frame (A7) mirrorless new for around 800-900 new or used for 600 and if you already have a macro lens, just add an adapter.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top