Next Nikon Body after D7000

[emb]

Hello everyone,

similar questions have likely already been asked, but let me try to outline my di(tri?)lemma

I own a D7000 since 2011 (shutter count at 50k+) and by and large I am very happy with it. I own quite a few lenses, several of which are also FX compatible (50mm/1.8, 85/1.8, 70-300, all Nikkor) but also a few DX lenses (18-105, 10.5 Fisheye, 35/1.8)
I do start to feel that the D7000 is becoming a bit limited in terms of performance even if when I bought it, it was very good compared to others.
Thus I am now looking towards potentially buying a new Nikon body and I am torn between various options

A very easy one would be to go for a D7500, very similar to what I have, very good sensor identical to the D500 iirc, built-in flash (sth I use sometimes to control off-camera flashes). The D500 would also be an option, clearly stepping up in size and build but e.g. losing the on-camera flash (while gaining performance elsewhere obviously).

Then the other big question of course is DX vs FX. As I outlined I have quite a few lenses but apart from the Fisheye, the others were cheap or came with the camera. Thus I am thinking whether the D750 (a bit aged, but obviously still a very nice camera) with very good image quality could be an option.

Last but not least, when considering to spend ~1.5 k€ on a camera, the other item that came to my attention is the Z6 (it's at the edge of what I am willing to spend). The low number of shots with a single battery charge seems a bit off-putting, though I do not shy away from carrying multiple batteries, I already do this today. I do very much like the idea of in-camera stabilization, e.g. for my 85/1.8 which I find a great lens, but would not mind stabilization with it.

Quite a lengthy question, but any considerations you might have would be gladly appreciated.

 

[weepete]

I don't have any spesific advice, however I changed to full frame last year. At first I thought I was a bit mental for laying out so much money on a new camera and lens, but after having shot with it for a few months I'm rather unexpectedly really enjoying the switch in a way that I didn't think I would.

It may very well be placebo effect, but I think there's something about full frame sensors with the traditional focal lengths. Maybe it's less distortion that I'm picking up in the better quality lenses, maybe it's better colour rendition with a newer gen of tech, maybe it's just the increased resolution or the cleaner raw files, I dunno. I just see more realism in the final images, and though it's subtle I've been a lot happier with the results. So I'd say go for the full frame.

 

[RVT1K]

Go for a nice, used D4.

 

[Derrel]

D610...built upon basically the D7000 chassis, but FX, and low- cost. Or the D750.

I think a used camera body is the best way to go.

 

[astroNikon]

I (re)started out on a D7000 years ago with the kit 18-105 (up from a D70 years before). It served me well.
From that I added a D600 FX as a DX/FX pair. or newer D610 which resolved much of the oil splatter issues.
I then migrated to a D500/D750 DX/FX pair.

A few things.
If you have the old 70-300 AF push-pull, which I also had, on the d7000 it gave good results. On denser sensors such as the D600 etc it was mush. So I sold the 70-300 AF. I did get a 300/2.8 AF-D but it was a bit limiting so I sold that too.

You haven't really mentioned what and how you shoot so it's hard to tell you to go the DX or FX route.
The D7000 / D600 was really a great combo. The FX was so handy in low light and other situations but had it's limitations really around the small area of focus points. One can work around this though. The button layouts were slightly different which was maddening. The D600's body was slightly larger than the D7000.

The D500 is awesome in all regards. But if you are not doing sports, or birding and such one has to ask why have such a heavy duty camera.

The D750 is a great all around camera. Once again, if you need the FX then you'll need it.
Doing sports I found myself needed either the FX for short field work or DX for further out, they both did well in normal indoor. Also 2nd shooting weddings a few years back I also had both. I used a 80-200/2.8 AF-D on the D500 and my 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D on the D750.

I also had all the 50mm lenses 1.4 & 1.8 AF-S and 1.4 & 1.8 AF-D and I kept the 50/1.8 AF-D as I also had the Nikon screw on macro "lenses". I sold the 85/1.8 and 1.4 AF-D that I had. The 85/1.8 was really a poor performer compared to the newer 85/1.8 AF-S lens.

I haven't done much photography in recent years but I'm looking at the D50 (no IBIS if I recall) for DX work as I want to get away from the slap of the mirror for astrophotography work. That's been the one thing I've been trying to get away from, and the lower Nikon DSLR bodies had some deficiencies for astro work.

So the question kinda gets bounced back into what do you photograph, how and what are you looking for. The switch to FX can drive some people batty as they lose the reach. But they can the up close shots.

 

[emb]

Thanks everyone already for the replies. I do note that nobody so far said anything about the Z6, but I guess it's still rather new and might be a _very_ steep step from where I am right now especially for future lenses

The question as to what I shoot is a fair one but not easy to answer, it's a bit of everything. I do like to go out in nature and shoot what is there and for that I indeed like the additional factor 1.5 on the 70-300 (the AF-S VR version). I also find that whenever there is festive occasion (family or other) I like to sneak around and snap portraits of the guests. Often this happens in poor light and flashes obviously only carry so far.

I took note of the recommendation of a used D4, but I feel that that would probably be too heavy for me to carry around often, so I would not really consider that. The D500 and D750 are obviously also a step up in size compared to the D7000, but less so; I guess the form factor is sth that also makes the Z6 seem attractive

Just to make matters worse I also do a tiny bit of astrophotography even if much less than I want to and I guess any of the listed options would be an improvement for that compared to the D7000.

I'll be happy to answer other questions if they can help with recommending things, but already now I appreciate all your thoughts

 

[Derrel]

I was looking at the MPB used inventory last night. All have shutter counts....

 

[Braineack]

Almost anything better than a d7000.

D750 prices good.

You're misjudging the size increase: Compact Camera Meter

 

[emb]

I stand corrected for the size of the D750 and D500, thanks Braineack, didn't know that site.

I do see the point that I can hardly really make a terrible mistake here as indeed, any of the options I listed will be a lot better than what I have currently

 

[Derrel]

The Nikon D7000 was not really a great camera. You are correct, almost anything else is a better option. The D7100 or the d7200 are quite nice and the D600 d610, and the d750 or the D800 would all be better. the problem with a D7000 was that it was a transitional camera, and there was only one generation of the 16-megapixel DX camera sensor.

 

[Designer]

Hello everyone,

similar questions have likely already been asked, but let me try to outline my di(tri?)lemma

I own a D7000 since 2011 (shutter count at 50k+) and by and large I am very happy with it. I own quite a few lenses, several of which are also FX compatible (50mm/1.8, 85/1.8, 70-300, all Nikkor) but also a few DX lenses (18-105, 10.5 Fisheye, 35/1.8)
I do start to feel that the D7000 is becoming a bit limited in terms of performance even if when I bought it, it was very good compared to others.
Thus I am now looking towards potentially buying a new Nikon body and I am torn between various options

A very easy one would be to go for a D7500, very similar to what I have, very good sensor identical to the D500 iirc, built-in flash (sth I use sometimes to control off-camera flashes). The D500 would also be an option, clearly stepping up in size and build but e.g. losing the on-camera flash (while gaining performance elsewhere obviously).

Then the other big question of course is DX vs FX. As I outlined I have quite a few lenses but apart from the Fisheye, the others were cheap or came with the camera. Thus I am thinking whether the D750 (a bit aged, but obviously still a very nice camera) with very good image quality could be an option.

Last but not least, when considering to spend ~1.5 k€ on a camera, the other item that came to my attention is the Z6 (it's at the edge of what I am willing to spend). The low number of shots with a single battery charge seems a bit off-putting, though I do not shy away from carrying multiple batteries, I already do this today. I do very much like the idea of in-camera stabilization, e.g. for my 85/1.8 which I find a great lens, but would not mind stabilization with it.

Quite a lengthy question, but any considerations you might have would be gladly appreciated.

Skip right over the D7500, as it will probably disappoint you. Nikon should have named it the D5700 to keep the lines consistent.

Why not a D7100? That would be an upgrade, and you could get one for about half your proposed budget. I bought mine new for around $700, as I recall.

If you can afford a D500, then do that. It is one of the better offerings from Nikon.

Don't stress over DX vs. FX, as that really doesn't mean your existing lenses will not fit, because they will. Only the 10,5mm fisheye would not throw a large enough image circle.

Incidentally, why are you asking about in-camera image stabilization? Nikon doesn't do that, and the lenses with VR will take care of normal hand-holding movement. I take it that your 85/1.8 does not have VR. I thought they all did, at least in the G series.

So my recommendation is; either the D7100 or the D500, both of which are about the same size, even though the D500 is more advanced, and will cost more than the D7100. Incidentally, how comfortable would you be with a used camera? If you don't mind getting a used camera, then your budget magically buys lots more camera. (or a camera and a lens)

Good luck!

 

[astroNikon]

Having had the D7000 and seriously considered going to a D7100 when it was released I would skip the D7100 and get the D7200. The D7100 had the same buffer as the D7000 while having the more dense sensor of 24 vs 16 mp. So the D7100 could only take 6 to 9 continuous shots to the D7000's 10 to 15 before all would stop due to the buffer. Plus it seemed to take longer to clear the buffer. Everything else was a step up.

Many people on this board complained about that one buffer shortcoming of the D7100, which was resolved with the D7200.

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

btw, I like the Z6 but I have a FullFrame camera and need to get that extra "reach" in a sense with a Crop camera for astro work. Although the high density Z7 at 45mp gives me both, as well as the D8x0 dslr. But when attached off of my Meade LX200 telescope the lighter, no mirror Z camera makes more sense when you can spend hours outside as I have to do a slow count to "5" so that I would get no slight distortion from DSLR mirror slap when pixel peeping.

 

[emb]

Incidentally, why are you asking about in-camera image stabilization? Nikon doesn't do that, and the lenses with VR will take care of normal hand-holding movement. I take it that your 85/1.8 does not have VR. I thought they all did, at least in the G series.

The Z6 as mirrorless model features built-in stabilization. Not a DSLR and thus in many respects a step in a different direction, but one that intrigued me nonetheless

 

[ac12]

TOUGH choice.
My options would be:

• DX D7200/D7500, D500
  
• FX D750, Z6

D7200/7500

• The D7500 has one feature that I really wish my D7200 had, the tilting rear screen. To shoot LOW angle images, I have had to literally be belly down in the dirt. Dirt is bad enough, I would hate to do that in mud.
• 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.

D500

• To me it is a specialist action/sports camera. Do you shoot enough action to justify it.

The D750 is still a GOOD FX camera.

• This is a good low light camera.
  
• And as people move to the Z system, there will be more F lenses on the used market.
  
• If I went FX, this would be the dSLR I would get. (If I did not go with a Z6)
  
• FX lenses tend to be more expensive and bigger than DX lenses.
• A D750 + 24-120 is 300 grams heavier than a D7200 + 18-140. The D810 even heavier.
• The D810 is 130 grams heavier than the D750.

The Z6 + FTZ adapter

• Would be over your budget. Especially as you will then want the Z lenses.
  
• But the future is headed that way, so do you go Z now or later?
  
• Because it is new, used Z lenses will be few, compared to used F lenses.
  
• As for short battery life, get used to it, ALL mirrorless cameras SUCK power. Some are worse than others, and some depends on which lens you use.
  
  • My D7200 will shoot all weekend and Monday.
  • My Olympus will poop out after 4 hours (continuously ON), or only 2-1/2 hours with another lens.
    
  • Mirrorless battery run time depends more on power ON time, than number of shots taken.
• It has IBIS, so that is a benefit for older lenses.

As I see it, everything has pros/cons.
YOU have to evaluate the pros/cons of the various options and determine which option works best for YOU.

My own dilema is D750 vs. Z6.

 

[Derrel]

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. There are quite a few places that have good inventory of used Nikon digital single-lens reflex bodies for around $600 or less. Once again I'm talking about buying what used to be a $3,700 camera like a D800, for a really reasonable price.$775 will get you a D800.

I really do not see the value in buying a brand new camera body when you can buy a used one for one fifth of the selling price of a new one.