Possible upgrade suggestions?

[cgleockler]

I've been into nature photography for years now, I'm currently using a D7200 and Tamron 150-600. I'm traveling across the country this summer and thinking about upgrading my kit. I'll be taking pictures of grizzly bears, eagles, moose, and some scenery but I'll be far away from most of my targets. Any suggestions for ways to upgrade my kit? My budget is probably around 3k. I'm not necessarily attached to any particular brand or style. What do you all think is the best use of my money?

 

[dasmith232]

That's actually a pretty good setup for wildlife already! Anything in particular that you don't like about your kit? You don't have anything listed in the "normal" or wide-angle range. Do you have something there? The wide-angle for scenery is possibly one area, but it won't take nearly 3K to cover that.

 

[dasmith232]

With 3K you could cover your travel costs to places like Alaska or Africa.

 

[cgleockler]

With 3K you could cover your travel costs to places like Alaska or Africa.

I have up to 3k on top of my northern travel expenses really wondering if an upgrade to full frame is worth it for what I'll be doing or any suggestions for lenses ect.

 

[cgleockler]

That's actually a pretty good setup for wildlife already! Anything in particular that you don't like about your kit? You don't have anything listed in the "normal" or wide-angle range. Do you have something there? The wide-angle for scenery is possibly one area, but it won't take nearly 3K to cover that.

I have a sigma 17-70 that I normally use for everything other than super telephoto, it's a pretty nice lens but no wide angle or true macro in my kit. I may have to check those out

 

[dasmith232]

...really wondering if an upgrade to full frame is worth it for what I'll be doing or any suggestions for lenses ect.

Upgrade is an interesting term. We hear it all the time. For example, "I want to upgrade from my point-and-shoot or camera-phone to a 'real' camera." (And this isn't you, by the way.) The thing is, that kind of a switch isn't an upgrade. A DSLR (or similar) camera is an entirely different system.

Now someone else is buying FX lenses because when they upgrade to a full-frame camera, they'll be set with lenses. (And this one might fit for you.) In this case, the thing is that FX lenses aren't at all the same lenses. An FX lens on a full-frame body has an entirely different feel than on the DX body. As obvious as this is, some people find that they'll miss the feeling that they had previously and "need" to buy more lenses. So the point is: be ready for a full-frame camera to cost more than the cost of the body, even if you already have the lenses. For some, it's unavoidable.

So anyway, I shoot full-frames most of the time. And I'm Canon by the way, but for this discussion it doesn't really matter. I have a 17-40 which is a "wide angle". And I don't really like it all that much. Yeah, it's decently wide and okay on length, but nothing really special. For my wide-angle stuff, I like my 14mm a lot. I also have a 24mm tilt-shift lens, but that's a whole different animal.

Would you like the same things? Who knows. But for most people I run into, getting into the "low teens" for focal length seems to be an enjoyable place for wide angle scenic work. But some people do great stuff with a much more narrow angle of view with scenic work.

I know a few Nikon people that like the Tamron 11-16mm lens for scenic/landscape work on a crop-sensor body, and that's less than $500. Probably a cheap way to get into wide angle stuff without spending much. But if you're heart's set on jumping into full-frame, that lens won't migrate.

On a crop-sensor, one of my favorite lenses for landscape work was 10-22mm.

 

[greybeard]

hmmm. I'm sure that you are aware of this but here goes anyway. If you go full frame you will be giving up some reach that you currently have with your crop frame setup. Specifically, your current lens on crop frame at 600mm has an angle of view of 2.3 degrees. When used with a full frame body it has an angle of view of 3.4 degrees. To illustrate this, set your lens to 400mm and compare it to 600mm, that is what you will be giving up. Look at the Metadata for your keepers and see how many of them are over or under 400mm. This will tell you if you will miss the extra reach of the D7200. As for IQ quality, you will notice a difference once you start pushing the ISO above 1600. FF bodies like the D600-D750, etc. can handle low light about 2 stops better than crop frame. It is a tradeoff. If you are currently having trouble with high ISO noise and you are dissatisfied with your shadow detail, then FX might be an improvement but, if you are presently getting good results with the D7200, you know the saying. "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

 

[cgleockler]

...really wondering if an upgrade to full frame is worth it for what I'll be doing or any suggestions for lenses ect.

Upgrade is an interesting term. We hear it all the time. For example, "I want to upgrade from my point-and-shoot or camera-phone to a 'real' camera." (And this isn't you, by the way.) The thing is, that kind of a switch isn't an upgrade. A DSLR (or similar) camera is an entirely different system.

Now someone else is buying FX lenses because when they upgrade to a full-frame camera, they'll be set with lenses. (And this one might fit for you.) In this case, the thing is that FX lenses aren't at all the same lenses. An FX lens on a full-frame body has an entirely different feel than on the DX body. As obvious as this is, some people find that they'll miss the feeling that they had previously and "need" to buy more lenses. So the point is: be ready for a full-frame camera to cost more than the cost of the body, even if you already have the lenses. For some, it's unavoidable.

So anyway, I shoot full-frames most of the time. And I'm Canon by the way, but for this discussion it doesn't really matter. I have a 17-40 which is a "wide angle". And I don't really like it all that much. Yeah, it's decently wide and okay on length, but nothing really special. For my wide-angle stuff, I like my 14mm a lot. I also have a 24mm tilt-shift lens, but that's a whole different animal.

Would you like the same things? Who knows. But for most people I run into, getting into the "low teens" for focal length seems to be an enjoyable place for wide angle scenic work. But some people do great stuff with a much more narrow angle of view with scenic work.

I know a few Nikon people that like the Tamron 11-16mm lens for scenic/landscape work on a crop-sensor body, and that's less than $500. Probably a cheap way to get into wide angle stuff without spending much. But if you're heart's set on jumping into full-frame, that lens won't migrate.

On a crop-sensor, one of my favorite lenses for landscape work was 10-22mm.

Thanks for the reply! I probably could use a lower mm lens for allot of this stuff. Where I'm from we really don't have allot of impressive landscapes to photograph so I've found the most enjoyment in wildlife shots and my kit more or less reflects that. That 11-16 looks pretty interesting and if I save a little here I can spend a little more on my travels (I know a guy who'll take me to swim with whale sharks but it isn't cheap ) anyway I'm hoping to get into different kinds of photography and something like a wide angle could really help. Really appreciate the input!

 

[cgleockler]

hmmm. I'm sure that you are aware of this but here goes anyway. If you go full frame you will be giving up some reach that you currently have with your crop frame setup. Specifically, your current lens on crop frame at 600mm has an angle of view of 2.3 degrees. When used with a full frame body it has an angle of view of 3.4 degrees. To illustrate this, set your lens to 400mm and compare it to 600mm, that is what you will be giving up. Look at the Metadata for your keepers and see how many of them are over or under 400mm. This will tell you if you will miss the extra reach of the D7200. As for IQ quality, you will notice a difference once you start pushing the ISO above 1600. FF bodies like the D600-D750, etc. can handle low light about 2 stops better than crop frame. It is a tradeoff. If you are currently having trouble with high ISO noise and you are dissatisfied with your shadow detail, then FX might be an improvement but, if you are presently getting good results with the D7200, you know the saying. "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

Thanks for the reply! I am aware that I would loose some reach with FX but I've been told most people that go FX generally don't go back. I expect to need the reach so maybe DX gives me an edge now but I've always wanted to try a new DX... Maybe I'll try to rent one for a week or something

 

[DaveAndHolly219]

If you decide to sell that 7200, shoot me a PM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[greybeard]

hmmm. I'm sure that you are aware of this but here goes anyway. If you go full frame you will be giving up some reach that you currently have with your crop frame setup. Specifically, your current lens on crop frame at 600mm has an angle of view of 2.3 degrees. When used with a full frame body it has an angle of view of 3.4 degrees. To illustrate this, set your lens to 400mm and compare it to 600mm, that is what you will be giving up. Look at the Metadata for your keepers and see how many of them are over or under 400mm. This will tell you if you will miss the extra reach of the D7200. As for IQ quality, you will notice a difference once you start pushing the ISO above 1600. FF bodies like the D600-D750, etc. can handle low light about 2 stops better than crop frame. It is a tradeoff. If you are currently having trouble with high ISO noise and you are dissatisfied with your shadow detail, then FX might be an improvement but, if you are presently getting good results with the D7200, you know the saying. "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

Thanks for the reply! I am aware that I would loose some reach with FX but I've been told most people that go FX generally don't go back. I expect to need the reach so maybe DX gives me an edge now but I've always wanted to try a new DX... Maybe I'll try to rent one for a week or something

Nothing wrong with getting a FF body but, keep your d7200 as well. You'll have the best of both worlds. I would think that with were you are going and what you will be shooting, an ultrawide could come in very handy.

 

[Solarflare]

Hmm:

- Sturdy professional tripod
- 1.4x extender
- D500 for more fps / better lowlight performance / better AF
- Nikkor AI or AI-S 600mm f/5.6 (*)
- Nikkor-Reflex AI 1000mm f/11 mirror lens

(*) Thats an improvement because these zooms tend to be soft at the long end.

 

[cgleockler]

Hmm:

- Sturdy professional tripod
- 1.4x extender
- D500 for more fps / better lowlight performance / better AF
- Nikkor AI or AI-S 600mm f/5.6 (*)
- Nikkor-Reflex AI 1000mm f/11 mirror lens

(*) Thats an improvement because these zooms tend to be soft at the long end.

I could probably sell my kit and get a D500 with a Nikkor AF-I 600mm and stay around my 3k (out of pocket) budget. Do you think I could expect to see a noticable difference between the two kits? Would you think the AF-I is worth the added cost or does AI-s basically get the same results? Thanks for the feedback, it's much appreciated.