D7200 or D800?

[robbins.photo]

Well that's good to hear about the D600 results. See above for my thoughts on the crop mode. And I know if I make the switch I'll regret it the first time I'm out on track lol. But then in the paddock, the D800 is far better. Ahhhhhhhhh.

I look at the crop mode as sort of a fallback position, if I can't get the shot I want without it it's a nice extra to have in the bag. I set it up on the function button so I can switch in and out easily. Eventually when I get a bit more powerful telephoto in the bag I doubt I'll be using it much at all.

But even when I'm shooting telephoto and lower ISO's I just like the D600 images better, they seem "cleaner" for lack of a better term. That and I do enough lowlight that for me the switch was a lot easier to justify, a good percentage of my shooting is done in bad lighting conditions so the switchover made too much sense for me.

For you, well again it all comes down to shooting situation. Maybe the ideal would be to keep the 7200 and get the 800 as well, assuming finances will support that decision.

 

[shadowlands]

I'm biased, but I loves me some D800. I came from a D300, so I'm happy.

 

[gckless]

Still thinking about it. He still hasn't gotten back to me on prices, so that's going to make a difference.

Right now I have a D7200 with the kit 18-140mm (~$1000 resale), Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (~$100), Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (~$250), and Nikon 70-300mm VR (~$350). Total of $1700, hopefully.

If I'm going to make the jump, I'd need a 24-70 because I love that range, would need 450mm to equal what I saw on the D7200, and would love something in between. The something in between isn't super necessary right now, but this guy is also selling the 70-200, so I won't find a better deal on it. So I was estimating about this:
D800 (~$1000)
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (~$1000)
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 ($750)
Nikon 200-500mm ($1400) or the Sigma 150-600mm Sports ($2k, or $1600 used from KEH) if I wanted to spend a bit more.

Quite a price jump. That alone scares me! I might get the top two a little cheaper, but not by much I'm afraid. I've been playing around with the D800, and it is awesome. Haven't had it out on the track yet, so I'm unsure about the performance there, but I love the thing. Hadn't realized just how small DoF is on FF at the same aperture compared to the crop sensors.

Oooooor, just pick up a couple lenses and keep the crop body for now. Probably won't find a better deal on the D800, but the money might be better spent on lenses.

Thinking out loud here. I'm indecisive, so thanks for bearing with me and opinions

 

[robbins.photo]

Still thinking about it. He still hasn't gotten back to me on prices, so that's going to make a difference.

Right now I have a D7200 with the kit 18-140mm (~$1000 resale), Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (~$100), Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (~$250), and Nikon 70-300 (~$350). Total of $1700, hopefully.

If I'm going to make the jump, I'd need a 24-70 because I love that range, would need 450mm to equal what I saw on the D7200, and would love something in between. the something in between isn't super necessary right now, but this guy is also selling the 70-200, so I won't find a better deal on it. So I was estimating about this:
D800 (~$1000)
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (~$1000)
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 ($750)
Nikon 200-500mm ($1400) or the Sigma 150-600mm Sports ($2k) if I wanted to spend a bit more.

Quite a price jump. That alone scares me! I might get the top two a little cheaper, but not by much I'm afraid. I've been playing around with the D800, and it is awesome. Haven't had it out on the track yet, so I'm unsure about the performance there, but I love the thing. Hadn't realized just how small DoF is at the same aperture compared to the crop sensors.

Oooooor, just pick up a couple lenses and keep the crop body for now. Probably won't find a better deal on the D800, but the money might be better spent on lenses.

Thinking out loud here. I'm indecisive, so thanks for bearing with me and opinions

Ok, well if you think the D800 might be something worth doing, my recommendation to start would be the D800, the 70-200mm 2.8, a 2x TC

Replace the Sigma 24-70 2.8 with a Tamron 28-75 2.8, you can get one a lot cheaper and it's a thumping good lens, sharp as a tack. Love mine.

The 70-200 mm with TC will give you great lowlight out to 200 without the TC, or 400 mm at 5.6, which should cover you pretty well. It's very versatile and a lot easier carrying around that TC than a second lens. You can always look at getting a longer telephoto later on of course if you see the need.

That is assuming of course you think the lowlight advantages of the D800 are worth it to you. If not then maybe stay with the 7200 and maybe just look at buying the 70-200 2.8

 

[gckless]

Still thinking about it. He still hasn't gotten back to me on prices, so that's going to make a difference.

Right now I have a D7200 with the kit 18-140mm (~$1000 resale), Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (~$100), Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (~$250), and Nikon 70-300 (~$350). Total of $1700, hopefully.

If I'm going to make the jump, I'd need a 24-70 because I love that range, would need 450mm to equal what I saw on the D7200, and would love something in between. the something in between isn't super necessary right now, but this guy is also selling the 70-200, so I won't find a better deal on it. So I was estimating about this:
D800 (~$1000)
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (~$1000)
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 ($750)
Nikon 200-500mm ($1400) or the Sigma 150-600mm Sports ($2k) if I wanted to spend a bit more.

Quite a price jump. That alone scares me! I might get the top two a little cheaper, but not by much I'm afraid. I've been playing around with the D800, and it is awesome. Haven't had it out on the track yet, so I'm unsure about the performance there, but I love the thing. Hadn't realized just how small DoF is at the same aperture compared to the crop sensors.

Oooooor, just pick up a couple lenses and keep the crop body for now. Probably won't find a better deal on the D800, but the money might be better spent on lenses.

Thinking out loud here. I'm indecisive, so thanks for bearing with me and opinions

Ok, well if you think the D800 might be something worth doing, my recommendation to start would be the D800, the 70-200mm 2.8, a 2x TC

Replace the Sigma 24-70 2.8 with a Tamron 28-75 2.8, you can get one a lot cheaper and it's a thumping good lens, sharp as a tack. Love mine.

The 70-200 mm with TC will give you great lowlight out to 200 without the TC, or 400 mm at 5.6, which should cover you pretty well. It's very versatile and a lot easier carrying around that TC than a second lens. You can always look at getting a longer telephoto later on of course if you see the need.

That is assuming of course you think the lowlight advantages of the D800 are worth it to you. If not then maybe stay with the 7200 and maybe just look at buying the 70-200 2.8

I really want the lowlight capabilities, and to be honest that's the biggest reason I'm even still thinking about it. But on the track, I think the D7200 would edge it out in overall capabilities, and most of the time I have enough time to bring and setup a tripod to keep ISO low when I'm off the track. Or maybe I'm just reading too many stories about people saying it's mostly a landscape/studio body? Anyway, if I keep the D7200, I might sell the 70-300 VR, get that 70-200 f/2.8, a cheap fisheye (shooting a few car shows this summer and I want a couple creative shots), and either a Sigma 150-600 Sports, the 2x TC, or a Nikon 200-500. I think I know the differences between the two longer zooms, but not sure how the TC on the 70-200 would compare. I'm hesitant to use TCs, especially a 2x, just heard too many bad stories about IQ. But would the 70-200 retain more sharpness and detail over the two longer lenses even with the TC, that's the question. May need another thread.

Ah, the possibilities.

 

[jaomul]

Dedicated lenses are definitely a better way to go over tc. The d7200 is a great but of kit. If you jump to d800 you'll need good lenses to benefit from resolution, but crucially you may need lens changes to get lenses to operate same fields of view as current set up.

If it really is the low light performance you want, your likely better off getting a d610 as mentioned. However, it be better to have a great camera like the d7200 and a set of suitable lenses for your type of shooting than an even better one but stuck for your favorite lenses.

 

[goooner]

I'm late to the thread but read through the most of it. For me it sounds crazy to sell a working D7200 and get a D800 which has not performed well in your hands. I get the full frame goodness, but it sounds as if a crop sensor is better suited to your needs. One of the best bird photogs on here (coastalconn) also tried the d800 for a while iirc and changed back to his d7100 at the time, because of the reach and frames per second. He now shoots a 7Dmk2 but still crop.

Have you thought about the Sigma 150-600 C, quite a few on here have been getting great results with that lens and it is half the price of the sport version around these parts.

 

[robbins.photo]

Still thinking about it. He still hasn't gotten back to me on prices, so that's going to make a difference.

Right now I have a D7200 with the kit 18-140mm (~$1000 resale), Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (~$100), Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (~$250), and Nikon 70-300 (~$350). Total of $1700, hopefully.

If I'm going to make the jump, I'd need a 24-70 because I love that range, would need 450mm to equal what I saw on the D7200, and would love something in between. the something in between isn't super necessary right now, but this guy is also selling the 70-200, so I won't find a better deal on it. So I was estimating about this:
D800 (~$1000)
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (~$1000)
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 ($750)
Nikon 200-500mm ($1400) or the Sigma 150-600mm Sports ($2k) if I wanted to spend a bit more.

Quite a price jump. That alone scares me! I might get the top two a little cheaper, but not by much I'm afraid. I've been playing around with the D800, and it is awesome. Haven't had it out on the track yet, so I'm unsure about the performance there, but I love the thing. Hadn't realized just how small DoF is at the same aperture compared to the crop sensors.

Oooooor, just pick up a couple lenses and keep the crop body for now. Probably won't find a better deal on the D800, but the money might be better spent on lenses.

Thinking out loud here. I'm indecisive, so thanks for bearing with me and opinions

Ok, well if you think the D800 might be something worth doing, my recommendation to start would be the D800, the 70-200mm 2.8, a 2x TC

Replace the Sigma 24-70 2.8 with a Tamron 28-75 2.8, you can get one a lot cheaper and it's a thumping good lens, sharp as a tack. Love mine.

The 70-200 mm with TC will give you great lowlight out to 200 without the TC, or 400 mm at 5.6, which should cover you pretty well. It's very versatile and a lot easier carrying around that TC than a second lens. You can always look at getting a longer telephoto later on of course if you see the need.

That is assuming of course you think the lowlight advantages of the D800 are worth it to you. If not then maybe stay with the 7200 and maybe just look at buying the 70-200 2.8

I really want the lowlight capabilities, and to be honest that's the biggest reason I'm even still thinking about it. But on the track, I think the D7200 would edge it out in overall capabilities, and most of the time I have enough time to bring and setup a tripod to keep ISO low when I'm off the track. Or maybe I'm just reading too many stories about people saying it's mostly a landscape/studio body? Anyway, if I keep the D7200, I might sell the 70-300 VR, get that 70-200 f/2.8, a cheap fisheye (shooting a few car shows this summer and I want a couple creative shots), and either a Sigma 150-600 Sports, the 2x TC, or a Nikon 200-500. I think I know the differences between the two longer zooms, but not sure how the TC on the 70-200 would compare. I'm hesitant to use TCs, especially a 2x, just heard too many bad stories about IQ. But would the 70-200 retain more sharpness and detail over the two longer lenses even with the TC, that's the question. May need another thread.

Ah, the possibilities.

Actually I've shot both the 1.4 and 2x with a sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and it was my experience on a crop sensor like the 7100 you were hard pressed to tell the difference. I actually sold the 200 before purchasing the d600 so it may be a different story on full frame but my guess is if there is a noticeable IQ loss it will be in the corners, which makes it easy to compensate for by just shooting a tad wide and cropping.

Either way I don't think there is a wrong or bad choice here. Maybe one other thing to consider, depending on how much your friend will be asking for the d800, I'd hold off for now and stay with the 7200, then look for a deal on a used d600 that's already had the shutter replaced or a d610.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[CarlosFrazao]

Defenetly have a look at the sigma 150-600 c my neighbor had the sport and got rid of it for a 600f4 but he says that my contemporary is definitely much sharper than the sport you can have a look at the wildlife section I have a few shots up there and it's actually lightning fast focus I'm really amazed at the price point why carry the heavy sport around if the contemporary is just as good I'm also using mine on a d7200

 

[CarlosFrazao]

Just want to ask a question while we are on the d7200 and d800.. I currently have a d7200 and I'm not happy with anything over say iso 800 will the d800 perform much better if being used for say baby photography and weddings where the light is bad at weddings aswell.. Sorry for the highjack

 

[gckless]

Still thinking about it. He still hasn't gotten back to me on prices, so that's going to make a difference.

Right now I have a D7200 with the kit 18-140mm (~$1000 resale), Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (~$100), Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (~$250), and Nikon 70-300 (~$350). Total of $1700, hopefully.

If I'm going to make the jump, I'd need a 24-70 because I love that range, would need 450mm to equal what I saw on the D7200, and would love something in between. the something in between isn't super necessary right now, but this guy is also selling the 70-200, so I won't find a better deal on it. So I was estimating about this:
D800 (~$1000)
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (~$1000)
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 ($750)
Nikon 200-500mm ($1400) or the Sigma 150-600mm Sports ($2k) if I wanted to spend a bit more.

Quite a price jump. That alone scares me! I might get the top two a little cheaper, but not by much I'm afraid. I've been playing around with the D800, and it is awesome. Haven't had it out on the track yet, so I'm unsure about the performance there, but I love the thing. Hadn't realized just how small DoF is at the same aperture compared to the crop sensors.

Oooooor, just pick up a couple lenses and keep the crop body for now. Probably won't find a better deal on the D800, but the money might be better spent on lenses.

Thinking out loud here. I'm indecisive, so thanks for bearing with me and opinions

Ok, well if you think the D800 might be something worth doing, my recommendation to start would be the D800, the 70-200mm 2.8, a 2x TC

Replace the Sigma 24-70 2.8 with a Tamron 28-75 2.8, you can get one a lot cheaper and it's a thumping good lens, sharp as a tack. Love mine.

The 70-200 mm with TC will give you great lowlight out to 200 without the TC, or 400 mm at 5.6, which should cover you pretty well. It's very versatile and a lot easier carrying around that TC than a second lens. You can always look at getting a longer telephoto later on of course if you see the need.

That is assuming of course you think the lowlight advantages of the D800 are worth it to you. If not then maybe stay with the 7200 and maybe just look at buying the 70-200 2.8

Dedicated lenses are definitely a better way to go over tc. The d7200 is a great but of kit. If you jump to d800 you'll need good lenses to benefit from resolution, but crucially you may need lens changes to get lenses to operate same fields of view as current set up.

If it really is the low light performance you want, your likely better off getting a d610 as mentioned. However, it be better to have a great camera like the d7200 and a set of suitable lenses for your type of shooting than an even better one but stuck for your favorite lenses.

Yeah, I'm with you here. I would give up a couple lenses that I have for DX to go FX with the proper IQ. I think I would kick myself for giving up the reach I get to get better IQ. On track, it's a bad move. Anywhere else, it makes sense, but the D7200 isn't exactly a bad camera, and is something I can live with. Better glass seems to be my solution right now.

We have two D800s and shoot them exclusively for our studio work. They are workhorses, and produce stunning images. If you are not liking how your shots turned out it is quite unlikely that the camera body is to blame. Lenses and camera settings are most likely the issue.
ETA: my husband (he does all of our pro shooting) does say that our crop sensor D7000 is faster, so that may be why you're preferring the 7200 for sports.

Yep, I agree. I've since gotten some great shots with the D800, so it was user error. But as you mentioned, they're awesome in the studio. I think the D7200 is the better camera for me right now.

I'm late to the thread but read through the most of it. For me it sounds crazy to sell a working D7200 and get a D800 which has not performed well in your hands. I get the full frame goodness, but it sounds as if a crop sensor is better suited to your needs. One of the best bird photogs on here (coastalconn) also tried the d800 for a while iirc and changed back to his d7100 at the time, because of the reach and frames per second. He now shoots a 7Dmk2 but still crop.

Have you thought about the Sigma 150-600 C, quite a few on here have been getting great results with that lens and it is half the price of the sport version around these parts.

Funny you mention that camera, because a buddy of mine that has that 7Dmk2 sent me an image yesterday at ISO3200, and I was astounded. Looks better than my D7200 at ISO800! Of course they weren't compared side-by-side, but I was amazed at the lack of noise in there.

I think I've eliminated the Contemporary in my mind. If I'm spending $1k+, I want to get the best one (within the budget of course). The 200-500 and the 150-600 Sports has been shown to edge it out. Might be slightly, and I might not even notice it on my APS-C body, but I'll know! Lol. I'm not saying it's bad, just that the other two might be one or two hairs sharper. I don't get to upgrade all that often, so I try to make things future-proof as much as possible.

Still thinking about it. He still hasn't gotten back to me on prices, so that's going to make a difference.

Right now I have a D7200 with the kit 18-140mm (~$1000 resale), Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (~$100), Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (~$250), and Nikon 70-300 (~$350). Total of $1700, hopefully.

If I'm going to make the jump, I'd need a 24-70 because I love that range, would need 450mm to equal what I saw on the D7200, and would love something in between. the something in between isn't super necessary right now, but this guy is also selling the 70-200, so I won't find a better deal on it. So I was estimating about this:
D800 (~$1000)
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (~$1000)
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 ($750)
Nikon 200-500mm ($1400) or the Sigma 150-600mm Sports ($2k) if I wanted to spend a bit more.

Quite a price jump. That alone scares me! I might get the top two a little cheaper, but not by much I'm afraid. I've been playing around with the D800, and it is awesome. Haven't had it out on the track yet, so I'm unsure about the performance there, but I love the thing. Hadn't realized just how small DoF is at the same aperture compared to the crop sensors.

Oooooor, just pick up a couple lenses and keep the crop body for now. Probably won't find a better deal on the D800, but the money might be better spent on lenses.

Thinking out loud here. I'm indecisive, so thanks for bearing with me and opinions

Ok, well if you think the D800 might be something worth doing, my recommendation to start would be the D800, the 70-200mm 2.8, a 2x TC

Replace the Sigma 24-70 2.8 with a Tamron 28-75 2.8, you can get one a lot cheaper and it's a thumping good lens, sharp as a tack. Love mine.

The 70-200 mm with TC will give you great lowlight out to 200 without the TC, or 400 mm at 5.6, which should cover you pretty well. It's very versatile and a lot easier carrying around that TC than a second lens. You can always look at getting a longer telephoto later on of course if you see the need.

That is assuming of course you think the lowlight advantages of the D800 are worth it to you. If not then maybe stay with the 7200 and maybe just look at buying the 70-200 2.8

I really want the lowlight capabilities, and to be honest that's the biggest reason I'm even still thinking about it. But on the track, I think the D7200 would edge it out in overall capabilities, and most of the time I have enough time to bring and setup a tripod to keep ISO low when I'm off the track. Or maybe I'm just reading too many stories about people saying it's mostly a landscape/studio body? Anyway, if I keep the D7200, I might sell the 70-300 VR, get that 70-200 f/2.8, a cheap fisheye (shooting a few car shows this summer and I want a couple creative shots), and either a Sigma 150-600 Sports, the 2x TC, or a Nikon 200-500. I think I know the differences between the two longer zooms, but not sure how the TC on the 70-200 would compare. I'm hesitant to use TCs, especially a 2x, just heard too many bad stories about IQ. But would the 70-200 retain more sharpness and detail over the two longer lenses even with the TC, that's the question. May need another thread.

Ah, the possibilities.

Actually I've shot both the 1.4 and 2x with a sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and it was my experience on a crop sensor like the 7100 you were hard pressed to tell the difference. I actually sold the 200 before purchasing the d600 so it may be a different story on full frame but my guess is if there is a noticeable IQ loss it will be in the corners, which makes it easy to compensate for by just shooting a tad wide and cropping.

Either way I don't think there is a wrong or bad choice here. Maybe one other thing to consider, depending on how much your friend will be asking for the d800, I'd hold off for now and stay with the 7200, then look for a deal on a used d600 that's already had the shutter replaced or a d610.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

Good to hear about the 1.4x to 2x difference. I guess I'm wondering if the 70-200 with the 2x would be sharper than the 200-500 or 150-600 S. My guess is that it will not be. As mentioned before, I think I would prefer the dedicated lens.

Thanks for helping me out though. Like you're thinking, I think keeping the D7200 for now and picking up some glass is the way to go. Who knows, maybe by the time I'm ready to finally go to an FX body, a D620 or whatever will be out.

Unless he says $500 for the D800. Then I have to pick it up just because of the deal! Lol.

Defenetly have a look at the sigma 150-600 c my neighbor had the sport and got rid of it for a 600f4 but he says that my contemporary is definitely much sharper than the sport you can have a look at the wildlife section I have a few shots up there and it's actually lightning fast focus I'm really amazed at the price point why carry the heavy sport around if the contemporary is just as good I'm also using mine on a d7200

Every lens test I've seen says the Sport is a decent amount sharper than the Contemporary. Question is if I would notice that difference on a D7200.

Just want to ask a question while we are on the d7200 and d800.. I currently have a d7200 and I'm not happy with anything over say iso 800 will the d800 perform much better if being used for say baby photography and weddings where the light is bad at weddings aswell.. Sorry for the highjack

I'm with you, I hesitate to go above ISO800 with the D7200. I can tell you the D800 handles noise much better. It also translates poor user technique much more.

 

[goooner]

I like the bokeh on the Sigma more than the Nikon 200-500 (from the examples I see). I will have to make that decision sometime next year, not looking forward to it.

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm guessing most dedicated lenses are going to give you sharper results in most cases versus using a TC.

Also no harm in waiting to go to FX if the DX you have is doing the job. Every time they release the next generation of camera, all of the older stuff comes down in price.

 

[jaomul]

I'm no fanboy, but I shoot on occasion side by side with a guy who uses a Canon 7d2, me using a d7200. One is no better than the other at high iso. Here the jpeg settings on each camera can give vastly different results, but I've seen both raw files at high iso, it be hard pushed to say one is better than the other

 

[CarlosFrazao]

Every lens test I've seen says the Sport is a decent amount sharper than the Contemporary. Question is if I would notice that difference on a D7200.

well like i said this is from someones mouth who owned the lens and said its not worth the extra money as the contemporary is amazing for its price and we are now comparing the same photos between the contemporary of R14 000 and a 600 F4 of nearly R200 000 and the photos we are seeing the quality is amazing compared to that expensive lens...

I'm with you, I hesitate to go above ISO800 with the D7200. I can tell you the D800 handles noise much better. It also translates poor user technique much more.

is the difference like night and day between the two cameras as I'm really needing that extra iso performance