Next Nikon Body after D7000

[Braineack]

Lenses

• There are only a couple FAST affordable DX/FX lenses, the DX 35/1.8 (normal) and FX 50/1.8 (short tele). After than you are into expensive FX primes, for FAST lenses.
• Certain lenses are available ONLY in FX, not DX. Example there is no DX equivalent to the FX 70-200/2.8 on a FX camera. The closest is the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 (a FF/FX lens), but it is not f/2.8 at the long end.

DX-only lenses aren't usually good, just use the good FX glass -- even on a DX body.

 

[JBPhotog]

The D810 is a worthy upgrade too for @$1200. It is pro level quality and with it's base ISO of 64 it competes with medium format. 36 MP files won't clog up your hard drives, meets and or exceeds the resolution of current FX lenses and has virtually the same DR as a D850, bonus: you get the pop up flash.

For Astro work you get Mirror Up+Electronic Shutter+Exposure delay.

 

[ac12]

Lenses

• There are only a couple FAST affordable DX/FX lenses, the DX 35/1.8 (normal) and FX 50/1.8 (short tele). After than you are into expensive FX primes, for FAST lenses.
• Certain lenses are available ONLY in FX, not DX. Example there is no DX equivalent to the FX 70-200/2.8 on a FX camera. The closest is the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 (a FF/FX lens), but it is not f/2.8 at the long end.

Dx only lenses aren't usually good, just use the good fx glass.

Agree
There are only a FEW good DX lenses.
If you want a large choice of GOOD lenses, then you have to go to FX.
Just understand that the size and cost will go UP.

 

[Derrel]

99% of F mount designs, dating back to 1959, were designed to be shot on a 24 by 36 mm Imaging area. There is no such thing as an FX Nikkor lens,and any F-mount lens that does not say DX Nikkor is of course full-frame-capable. In common shorthand though, we often use the term "FX lens" even though that has never once been imprinted or engraved on an actual lens itself.

 

[JBPhotog]

99% of F mount designs, dating back to 1959, were designed to be shot on a 24 by 36 mm Imaging area. There is no such thing as an FX Nikkor lens,and any F-mount lens that does not say DX Nikkor is of course full-frame-capable. In common shorthand though, we often use the term "FX lens" even though that has never once been imprinted or engraved on an actual lens itself.

And of course the reverse is not true. Lenses for DX bodies do have the monicker "DX" printed on them for the obvious reason the projected image circle of the lens will not adequately cover an FX frame. So to future proof your lens collection one may be best to avoid DX lenses if your budget permits.

 

[Derrel]

As far as I am concerned there have only been two really high quality DX lenses: the 17-55 mm / 2.8 and the 12 to 24 mm...the 10.5 fisheye might also make the grade. Other than those models the majority of DX lenses are consumer or economy grade in optics and build. As we move into higher and higher megapixel count lens quality and fitness becomes a bigger and bigger concern. Back when we were shooting on 6 megapixel and 12 megapixel aps-c cameras, Optical quality was not nearly such a big factor as it is today.

Although the build quality is not that high the new DX 70-300 AF-P VR performs quite well, well above what its price might indicate. It does in fact perform better than the older full frame 70 to 300 mm VR-G.

 

[ac12]

When I put the 70-200/4 on my D7200, I was surprised at how much better the IQ was.
I knew it would be better, but it was BETTER.
So the DX limitation is not the camera/sensor, it is the lenses are not able to deliver up to what the sensor can do.

I think the 16-80/2.8-4 is another good DX lens.

As you said with the DX 70-300 AF-P lens, technology is slowly making better DX lenses, at affordable prices. But I think that is more the exception than the rule. Most of the DX lenses are "good enough" consumer lenses, which matches the market they seem to be targeting.

 

[Derrel]

As megapixel counts have gone up,the manufacturers have been forced to redesign lenses to form better images on high density sensors. THE 28-200 is a good example. The first generation was quite good actually when we were using 6 megapixel cameras and it wasn't too bad on 12 megapixel, But the lens is inadequate on 16 to 24 megapixels on aps-c.

And even though it was FX-capable the first generation Nikon 70-200 / 2.8 VR G was designed to perform best in the center and by extension did quite well on DX sensors, but back in 2012 this decade-old lens design did not perform that well for me on the D3x,which was only 24 million pixels. Even stopped down to F / 7.1, the corners showed signs of softness that was quite unacceptable on landscape photos. Even though the lens was designed in the digital era, it was really designed as a DX- optimized design, with really high Central sharpness. I found that the late film era 80-200 F 2.8 AFS was actually a superior lens on full frame digital,and so I sold the 70-200 and bought the 80- 200 AFS, which was actually quite a good lens.

I would agree that the 16 to 80 2.8-4 is a good lens. I think it is safe to say that there are four really good DX lenses. LOL.

 

[Derrel]

I was considering the 70-200 f/4 a couple of years ago when i was reasonably cash- positive. I have actually been quite impressed looking at the MTF charts for that lens. As with many things optical, newer is often better. 30 and 40 years ago the slower F /4-type lenses were often inferior to the wider aperture models of similar specification. But in the last decade both Canon and Nikon have released a series of f/4 lenses which are smaller, and lighter, and better than earlier lenses of f / 2.8... this corresponds with the arrival of higher megapixel sensors in both the aps-c and the FX formats.

 

[emb]

the thread seems to diverge slightly from the original question, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate all the input.

If you were to buy a good used camera you could buy what used to be a $3,700 model for as little as $429 if you were to accept an older d700

I do see your point of course, I guess I am suspicious of used cameras even if there is probably really no reason to. If I were to sell my D7000, it is not because it is not working. It has been around the block a few times and looks a bit beaten in some places, but otherwise works quite well. The D700 is probably not for me because it really is quite a bit bigger still than any of the other models I considered and...

The D500 is significantly larger in (my hands at least) the hands when compared.

...I think I might share this sentiment as I did have a D8XX model in hand a while back and it felt genuinely huge (I know it's larger still than the 700, but sizewise the D7000 is right up my street, so I am not really aiming for anything much bigger.

It seems that

My own dilema is D750 vs. Z6.

this might also be my dilemma.
The D500 sounds awesome on some level, but I really don't do anything like sports photography and the times that I miss 10fps bursts or a longer buffer are few and far between

To randomly answer other bits

The Z6 + FTZ adapter

• Would be over your budget. Especially as you will then want the Z lenses.

I guess it wouldn't be as the only way to sensibly buy a Z6 at this point would be with an adapter as otherwise all my existing glass would be wasted. The budget limit is not a hard one, it just becomes harder to justify (towards myself and also others maybe)

 

[JBPhotog]

I think you have talked yourself into a Z6 since you don't want anything larger than your D7000.

At the moment the FTZ adapter is only $50 US ($250 MSRP) so its a good choice to pick one up, you may buy some F mount lenses down the road anyway.

Here's some side by side comparisons to get your wallet ready.

 

[emb]

I think you have talked yourself into a Z6 since you don't want anything larger than your D7000.

well, I am a bit wary of things a lot bigger. I haven't really given up on the D750 yet... I can say that I've been eyeing it for a long time and was at some point waiting for the D780 to come along so that either that would be an ever more attractive camera for me to buy or the prices for the D750 would go down.

The Z6 is a completely new paradigm that I somehow haven't really bought into fully, but I am clearly intrigued. I don't really like the idea of an electronic viewfinder, but I guess that's also because I haven't looked through one in a long while, so I am sure they are nothing like that what I remember. I do like the idea of having similar focus speed in viewfinder mode and live view. The live view focus -- as is a very badly kept secret -- has really not been great on the D7000 but neither very good on most other Nikon DSLRs from all I read.

So I maintain: D750 or Z6 seems to be my dilemma Will have to get my wallet ready in either case though...

 

[JBPhotog]

FYI, D7000 vs D750 size comparison.

 

[ac12]

For me the best thing about the EVF is that I can adjust the exposure in real time, without doing the (shoot, chimp, adjust) cycle until I get the exposure right. This is really useful when the lighting is challenging and the camera's meter cannot handle it.

Caution, the Z6 + FTZ will only autofocus the AF-S and AF-P lenses. It will NOT autofocus the mechanical AF lenses.
If you have a significant number of good AF lenses, that you still want to use (with autofocus), then the D750 would be the only way to go.

 

[Derrel]

I think if you look at it this way you might change your mind about used cameras: for about $1,600 you could purchase 3 used bodies which were at one time around $3,500 apiece. Or you can spend $1,599 on one brand new camera body which is now $1,599,but in 5 years will be worth $250 at most.