Advice needed: Nikon d7200 vs Nikon d750 vs Canon 6D Mark ii

Amitiel · Feb 26, 2018

Hello everyone!

I am literally just starting with photography, so totally a newbie. I was reading a lot of reviews online but somehow, I am having troubles deciding. I am looking into purchasing a camera and would be great if you can share your thoughts in regards to my dilemma.

I can't decide between the Nikon d7200, the Nikon d750 and the Canon 6d mark ii.
I am planning on using my camera mainly for macros as I find them absolutely fascinating! I will be purchasing additionally the Sigma 105mm f2.8 lens, as well as, an extension tube. My main focus will not be insects and bugs, however, but various still life elements. I find it absolutely magical how the macros can make the most ugly object ever so beautiful and turn it into art.
The second thing that I'd love to use my camera for is styled stock photography for my graphic design projects. For that purchase, I've researched and I came to the conclusion that a 55mm f1.8 lens would be the best.
And lastly, I do want to shoot landscapes and portraits, however, if the two above would be taking 75% of my time, I would live about 25% for this category. So ultimately, I would love if my device is not limiting me to shoot all of the above.

I was initially really certain that the Nikon d7200 would be suitable for my needs, however, after more research, that has changed as some people say that a full frame camera is absolutely worth the price increase. Unfortunately, I cannot afford at this point of time the most expensive gear so the Nikon d750 and the Canon 6d mark ii are even slightly above my budged for the camera body but if they are really worth it, I would spend the extra.

And that's about it, thanks for reading and I'd really appreciate your thoughts!

astroNikon · Feb 26, 2018

You'll want to do some more research in respect to a Crop Sensor (d7200) camera versus a Full Frame (D750, 6dm2) sensor camera. The 105 & 55/f1.8 lens will "act" differently between the two types of cameras/sensors.

Also, what is your budget?
I'd probably just recommend the D7200 (or other crop sensor camera) for macro if that is your primary target genre.

Amitiel · Feb 26, 2018

Hey astroNikon

Thanks for your reply!
I've basically read that people's opinions highly vary in regards to a full frame vs a crop sensor camera. Some say that it is not a must esp for macro, however, they do recomend it for styled stock while others are swearing by the full frame. It's literally 50/50 when it comes to people's opinions about the two, hence, why I registered to try to gather some more from you guys as I see it's an awesome forum for photography and since I'm a newbie I could totally use all the advices and opinions I can get

I'm in Europe so my budget would be max 1 800 euro for the body of the camera. I love the Nikon d7200 price (around 900 eu) but it makes me wonder if the d750 and the canon 6d mark ii are really that much better to be worth so much more (both are priced at around 1700 eu).

Braineack · Feb 26, 2018

Amitiel said:
The second thing that I'd love to use my camera for is styled stock photography for my graphic design projects. For that purchase, I've researched and I came to the conclusion that a 55mm f1.8 lens would be the best.
And lastly, I do want to shoot landscapes and portraits, however, if the two above would be taking 75% of my time, I would live about 25% for this category. So ultimately, I would love if my device is not limiting me to shoot all of the above.

you want FF.

Derrel · Feb 26, 2018

The D750 is a very nice camera. Full-frame 24-MP Nikon is extremely good in terms of image quality and file "workability" from the raw format. The D7200 is one of the best quality APS-C cameras that have been made.

Designer · Feb 27, 2018

Amitiel said:
I can't decide between the Nikon d7200, the Nikon d750 and the Canon 6d mark ii.

The second thing that I'd love to use my camera for is styled stock photography for my graphic design projects.

And lastly, I do want to shoot landscapes and portraits,

I was initially really certain that the Nikon d7200 would be suitable for my needs, however, after more research, that has changed as some people say that a full frame camera is absolutely worth the price increase.

And that's about it, thanks for reading and I'd really appreciate your thoughts!

Presumably, you understand that the Nikon line and Canon line are completely different systems, and as such are not cross-compatible. You are shopping for a system, not just the camera.

Start like a fisherman; first decide what you want to photograph, then select the lens, and finally the camera. You said 75% micro, but also landscapes and portraits. Frankly, a "full size" sensor is not necessarily the best for micro, although it is well suited to landscape and portraiture.

So the "full frame" camera is absolutely worth the price increase only if that is what you need. Not just to have.

If you want/need a "full frame" camera, you might consider a used camera.

jaomul · Feb 27, 2018

I say go for the d7200. Why?

You say the d750 and 6dii are above budget for a body, so does this mean you'll spend less on lenses? The d7200 is the best camera I have personally owned. I have a d610 also which is imo a great camera and ultimately that one has the best image quality, but the d7200 does everything well.

If you get a deal on a d7200 with an everyday 18-140 for walk around and add some inexpensive primes such as a 35mm dx f1.8 and /or a 50mm f1.8g along with a nice (almost widely available) second hand macro lens such as a tamron 90mm, you could have a great set up for not crazy money.

Fullframe is nice, but now cameras are so good even pros are using crop and even m43 cameras without issue

dunfly · Feb 27, 2018

In the immortal words of Mick Jagger "You can't always get what you want, but if you try some time, you might find, you get what you need" With that in mind, the D750 is a very nice camera and rates the same or better in almost all categories than the D7200, particularly in sports and low light. Where it doesn't rate better is in cost and weight. For macro, I think the D7200 is better due to angle of view and depth of field. I don't really think you will be able to tell the difference in the image quality between the two unless you really blow them up. You said cost is an issue, so, to me, that makes it a no brainer.

chuasam · Feb 28, 2018

Nikon has better cameras
Canon has better Macro lenses.

Solution: Sony A7II or A7R with adapter.
get the MP-E 65 from Canon

TCampbell · Feb 28, 2018

I thought I replied to this early... apparently not.

Your most important priorities need to be:

1. Lenses and/or extension tubes.
2. Tripod
3. Lighting
4. Macro-focusing rail
5. Camera body (in last place).

We could haggle about the order of a few of those items... but not the camera body. That’s in last place regardless.

Get the first four items and that list... and you can make a great macro photo almost regardless of what camera body you use.

After you win the lottery or rob a bank... pick up the Canon TS-E 135mm f/4 Macro lens (this is a tilt-shift lens).

Amitiel · Mar 1, 2018

Thank you all guys!

And since I won't be wining the lottery any time soon, I will go for the D7200 with the Sigma 105mm lens. I hope that I won't be having compatibility issues whatsoever.

TCampbell · Mar 1, 2018

Amitiel said:
Thank you all guys! And since I won't be wining the lottery any time soon, I will go for the D7200 with the Sigma 105mm lens. I hope that I won't be having compatibility issues whatsoever.

I couldn't help but notice... you dismissed the lottery, but you didn't say you were not planning to rob a bank. :allteeth:

keen.observer · Jul 3, 2018

All of those cameras will be good. The D750 may be the best by a slight margin. The macro aspect will be mostly due to the lens you choose. Be sure it is a 1x (one power) magnification, with a 1:1 (one to one) magnification ratio...so it is a TRUE macro. Many lenses are touted as being "macro" when they are NOT truly a macro lens, but are just a close up lens. The line between close up, and macro type close up, will be noticeable once you compare true macro images with not true macro images. Also, get a macro which is a bit telephoto...90mm, 100mm, 105mm, 135mm, or such This will let you focus on a bug, plant, or such, from a foot away, or a 15 inches away, or such, rather than forcing you to get too close to them...three inches away, or so, which might scare them away. A 40mm, or 55mm, or 60mm, macro lens may require you to get too close to a subject. Being too close will be apt to scare some creatures away, and also may cut off the image from the light source as your camera / lens block the light. A telephoto macro, such as Nikon's 105mm afs 2.8 vr micro lens will also produce nice portraits. To get landscapes from it, you'll have to shoot from far away. A wide angle lens-20mm, 24mm, or such-would be better for landscapes.

photoflyer · Jul 3, 2018

Braineack said:
you want FF.

Totally agree. I have both crop and FF and if I could only have 1 it would be FF.

So many reasons. Tonight I was out shooting a landscape in low light. Both FF and crop were on the table and grabbed the 6D mark II and the 24-105. (Earlier in the day I was out shooting action in full light at a distance and grabbed the crop sensor with the 70-200 2.8.)

Also, FF has great low light performance. If you can afford it, start with a full frame.

I cannot speak to Nikon but I really like the 6D mark II.

Just remember, glass is more important than the body.