Suggestions for an upgrade?

[GaryCascio]

I'm new to this forum but thought I would jump right in.
Currently, I have a Nikon D7500. I focus primarily on nature photography, including birds and night sky photos. I would like to upgrade to a better Nikon, especially one suited for night sky photography.
My dilemma is this:
Do I stay in the DX format and if so, what would be the best Nikon DX camera to get the best night sky imagery?
Should I step up to full frame (FX), and if so, what cameras under $4k would be best and also, I understand I will be able to use my lenses purchased for the DX camera with an FX camera, but what are the pros and cons with that?

Thanking you in advance for any advice you might provide.

Gary Cascio

 

[NS: Nikon Shooter]

-

Welcome to the forum!

I focus primarily on nature photography, including birds and night sky photos. I would like to upgrade to a better Nikon, especially one suited for night sky photography.

The way I see it, FX is the next door for you endeavour — possibly
between the D800E, the D810, or the D850.

I understand I will be able to use my lenses purchased for the DX camera with an FX camera, but what are the pros and cons with that?

Technically feasible but I would vote against it. The D8xx series will
require optically better FX lenses to take advantage of the full sensor.

 

[Space Face]

Welcome.

You could of course try Canon

 

[GaryCascio]

I could but having had only Nikons since 1976, I probably won't.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Lenses made for DX generally won't perform well across the frame on FF cameras most will vignette. Just how vested are you in DX glass? Is it pro level? If so that $4K will be eaten up rather fast. If you stay DX the only upgrade is a D500. Not too shabby if ya ask me.

Full frame...what do you seek by going there? That is a major contributor to the answer of yes or no.

 

[GaryCascio]

Lenses made for DX generally won't perform well across the frame on FF cameras most will vignette. Just how vested are you in DX glass? Is it pro level? If so that $4K will be eaten up rather fast. If you stay DX the only upgrade is a D500. Not too shabby if ya ask me.

Full frame...what do you seek by going there? That is a major contributor to the answer of yes or no.

I would say I am pretty vested in DX. Aside from the D7500, I have a D7000 and about 7-8 lenses. I guess I am thinking about FX because you always think "maybe I should step up to bigger and better." But in reality, I think the DX path serves me well and given what I have invested in it already, should probably stay in that product line. So, with that in mind, would the D500 be a good choice for night sky photography.

Thanks
Gary

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I cannot give an honest answer 'cause I've no experience with one in that discipline. I can reference a website (no affiliation) to help. Also renting one for a weekend and trying it out is an option. A good one.

Spencer's Camera & Photo

 

[ac12]

For you, the primary benefit for going to FX is LOW light photography, which FX is better than DX.
At one point I was considering the D750 to replace my D7200, for primarily that reason, night and gym sports.
While I have not done night sky photography, I think it would be LOW light photography.

As for D780 vs D850, you have to check the specs on how LOW light the sensor can detect. I think the D780 beats the D850 for LOW light use.
I do not know how the Z6ii or Z7ii match up. Again you have to check the specs.

 

[photoflyer]

I can't advise for Nikon but I do shoot full frame and crop simultaneously at sporting events and for wildlife on pro grade bodies. There is just something about the performance of a bigger sensor. In the simplest and most generalized terms: more light = better photo. I say that as I plan to buy a pro-grade Canon crop sensor mirrorless if they ever make one.

 

[Strodav]

My passion is nature and wildlife and I am invested in Nikon. I use a D850 FX whenever I can fill the frame with my subject and when I can't I switch to a D500 DX where the 1.5x crop factor gets you in a bit closer. The D7500 has the same sensor as the D500 so similar IQ. The D500 might have a better AF system, but not enough to justify the move. I'd keep the D7500. For astrophotography and landscapes/seascapes/cityscapes you want a higher mp sensor. As someone else mentioned the D800E, D810 or D850 are excellent general purpose cameras, but the D850 has the best AF system and can be used for wildlife / birding as well. So I'd add one of those 3 to your kit. In any case, the glass is just as important. I use a Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 for birding along with a 600mm f/4G. Both work very well on FX and DX bodies. For astrophotography, you'll want to look at a sharp FX 14mm or 24mm prime then something like a 50mm f/1.4 FX lens for general purpose photography. The wide angle and nifty fifty will be good starts to your FX glass collection.

 

[greybeard]

Your D7500 has exactly the same sensor and processing engine as the D500. If you were to go with a D500 would you see an appreciable differences in your shots? hmmmm The D500 is 2 frames per second faster than the D7500 but it is only 8 vs 10. How important is that? So in my humble opinion, shooting telephoto nature like birds in flight etc., I don't think you'll see much if any difference with the D500. As for night sky the D500 does have a higher extended iso over the D7500 but I doubt if shots taken in that range would be all that usable. As a rule, FX will do better in low light than DX. I have owned a D7500, a D750, and a D850. Of those the D750 did the best in low light. You can get a like new D750 body with a very low shutter count for right around 1K. Used Nikon D750 Digital SLR Camera - mpb.com . That body with what ever lens you need could serve your night photography needs while keeping the D7500 for you tele wildlife needs.

 

[cgw]

Zombie thread...