Upgrade to D7200 or FX Body?

[Frank F.]

Robbin is right, both cameras are very nice. I spent 2700 Euro for the D500 in May, now it is 1800 US$ and I am still happy. That says a lot about many things.

I love the D600 but I love the D500 more in most situations.

At ISO below 3200 the D600 has a certain magic analogue feel and I can shoot her in a style I cannot with the D500.

The D600 price will not go much further down. The D500 will go down over time, I guess we will see 1500 next year...

 

[astroNikon]

The D600 price will not go much further down.

I heard that same thing when it was at $1100 ...

 

[Peeb]

I love my D610 but am STRONGLY considering a D7200 for birding and other long-distance shooting. This would be an addition, not a replacement....

 

[greybeard]

I am in the exact same situation, stay with aps-c or go full frame. I have a D7000 and it has been a good one. If I stay with APS-C I'll go with a D7200 body. I have most all the lenses both FX and DX I need. If I go full frame I'll get a D610 with a 24-85 3.5-5.6 zoom. or D750 with a 24-120 zoom.

 

[Peeb]

I am in the exact same situation, stay with aps-c or go full frame. I have a D7000 and it has been a good one. If I stay with APS-C I'll go with a D7200 body. I have most all the lenses both FX and DX I need. If I go full frame I'll get a D610 with a 24-85 3.5-5.6 zoom. or D750 with a 24-120 zoom.

Why different zooms on the two FX options?

 

[greybeard]

I am in the exact same situation, stay with aps-c or go full frame. I have a D7000 and it has been a good one. If I stay with APS-C I'll go with a D7200 body. I have most all the lenses both FX and DX I need. If I go full frame I'll get a D610 with a 24-85 3.5-5.6 zoom. or D750 with a 24-120 zoom.

Why different zooms on the two FX options?

Just the way the kits are configured.

 

[Peeb]

Just the way the kits are configured.

I get it.

I think the D750 is the better camera and the 24-85 is the sharper lens (tho the 24-120 certainly has better reach).

 

[astroNikon]

I love my D610 but am STRONGLY considering a D7200 for birding and other long-distance shooting. This would be an addition, not a replacement....

I was looking at adding a D5500 for a few long distance things. Since on my tamron 150-600 I'm always at f/8 having the 2nd control wheel seems not needed (and high fps is not needed, the 39pt 3500DX AF module is the same as the D7000 so I'm used to it). And attached to my telescope (where the flippy screen is required) the 1.5x crop vs FF would technically take it from 6,000 to 9,000mm FOV

But if I was doing BIF the D500 would be my first choice just becz of the advanced AF system, and then the D7200.

 

[Peeb]

I love my D610 but am STRONGLY considering a D7200 for birding and other long-distance shooting. This would be an addition, not a replacement....

I was looking at adding a D5500 for a few long distance things. Since on my tamron 150-600 I'm always at f/8 having the 2nd control wheel seems not needed (and high fps is not needed, the 39pt 3500DX AF module is the same as the D7000 so I'm used to it). And attached to my telescope (where the flippy screen is required) the 1.5x crop vs FF would technically take it from 6,000 to 9,000mm FOV

But if I was doing BIF the D500 would be my first choice just becz of the advanced AF system, and then the D7200.

I borrowed the D5500 I'd previously give to my daughter and WOW was that thing small and light! Another family member has a D5300 with a sigma 18-300 zoom, and it would be the ULTIMATE travel walk-around rig! FX equivalent of 27-450.

Mind. Blown. Fun times to be into photography.

 

[astroNikon]

I love my D610 but am STRONGLY considering a D7200 for birding and other long-distance shooting. This would be an addition, not a replacement....

I was looking at adding a D5500 for a few long distance things. Since on my tamron 150-600 I'm always at f/8 having the 2nd control wheel seems not needed (and high fps is not needed, the 39pt 3500DX AF module is the same as the D7000 so I'm used to it). And attached to my telescope (where the flippy screen is required) the 1.5x crop vs FF would technically take it from 6,000 to 9,000mm FOV

But if I was doing BIF the D500 would be my first choice just becz of the advanced AF system, and then the D7200.

I borrowed the D5500 I'd previously give to my daughter and WOW was that thing small and light! Another family member has a D5300 with a sigma 18-300 zoom, and it would be the ULTIMATE travel walk-around rig! FX equivalent of 27-450.

Mind. Blown. Fun times to be into photography.

Yes, I like the d5500 is so small and lighter even more so than the d5300. I plan on going full spectrum on my main telescope with various blocking filters, and I'm going to add a smaller 1,000mm scope to the main one for moon/larger view shots with the FF camera.

Also, for ppl looking at mirrorless, just stepping down the camera range you get a small and light fully capable APS-C camera that can use lenses that you already have an investment in. And those walkaround lenses. I've been looking at those too. ... though money is the only problem ..

 

[greybeard]

I am so conflicted over this decision. My old D7000 (after I fine tuned the auto focus to -17) is working just fine. I know this camera like the back of my hand and it does what I need. How much better is the D7200? or to see a real improvement do I need to look at the D750? I can't make up my mind!

 

[astroNikon]

I am so conflicted over this decision. My old D7000 (after I fine tuned the auto focus to -17) is working just fine. I know this camera like the back of my hand and it does what I need. How much better is the D7200? or to see a real improvement do I need to look at the D750? I can't make up my mind!

I had a D7000.
With the D7200 or D750 you'll find a similar camera in features and layout. A few differences of the left buttons variation, menu options, etc which is quite obvious if you keep the D7000 and add the D7200/D750.

The biggest difference between the D7200 and D750 is DX vs FX. If you find yourself missing photos due to low light then the D750 is the better choice.

When I bought my D600 I kept my D7000. So I used them side by side for a while. The low light, 2 stops faster, ability is quite astounding once you get used to it. DX is good, but FX is that much better. You gain more low light flexibility, and if you have or had FX you understand.

If you use them in a studio environment it really doesn't matter. Daytime sports didn't matter too much, evening sports the FX started shining in waning light. If you do long distance shooting then the DX will help maintain detail (for 24mp DX vs 24mp FX, for 16mp DX and 24mp FX the FX actually was a bit better for me for long distance).

One of the main issue is lenses. With DX many people have variable focal length lenses. If you use the kit lenses you are handicapping the cameras flexibility. If you use a fixed aperture lens then you are allowing the camera more flexibility. Just look at an 18-200 which is f/5.6 @ 200mm versus a 70-200 which is f/2.8 @200mm. 1 stop of light variance right there, a further handicap to a DX sensor. You can also compare that to a AF-D 28-200 FX lens which is also f/5.6 @200mm. Basically losing a stop of light versus a better lens.

So just by lens choice you can easily gain 1 stop of light on DX
or 3 stops improvement moving to FX with a f/2.8 lens; or just 2 stops by using a variable FX lens.

If you make sure you have good lenses to begin with then that lowers the variance. When I bought my D7000 I only had the kit 18-105 lens, all other lenses I bought were FX AF-D. The D7000 body focus motor allowed me to buy AF-D lenses, versus having to buy more expensive AF-S lenses if I bought a D5x00 or D3x00 camera. It was much cheaper getting a better body, and then FX AF-D lenses, than a lower DX with more costly lenses.

So moving to FX vs DX the main issue is how many low light shots have you not been able to make due to low light ability. Then could a better lens of helped? Or does the move to FX become more feasible. It is about 2x the price for d7200/d750.

But moving to the d7000 to the d7200 (no AA filter) you'll gain IQ and croppability. a 24mp image vs 16mp image, and i think 1/2 or 1 stop better ISO control. Max ISO I used on the d7000 was 1600. So the d7200 is better at low light than the d7000, but less so than a FX camera.

FYI, I still miss my d7000 and d600. Sold both of them. I found myself never using the d7000 and the newer features of the d750 made the d600 were enough to sell that.

 

[jaomul]

I'm late to the post here so OP may already have purchased. I am not saying whether you need dx or fx, but the d7200 is the first camera that I have bought that made me pretty much stop looking at upgrade paths. Sure the d500 does 2000 frames per second, but 6 is enough for me in most situations. The picture quality and focus are very good.

Obviously everyones needs are different and FX has its obvious advantages also. Maybe a question to ask is what your current cameras don't do for you, where you would like to see improvements. A list should help make that decision more relevant

 

[cgw]

I am so conflicted over this decision. My old D7000 (after I fine tuned the auto focus to -17) is working just fine. I know this camera like the back of my hand and it does what I need. How much better is the D7200? or to see a real improvement do I need to look at the D750? I can't make up my mind!

I had a D7000.
With the D7200 or D750 you'll find a similar camera in features and layout. A few differences of the left buttons variation, menu options, etc which is quite obvious if you keep the D7000 and add the D7200/D750.

The biggest difference between the D7200 and D750 is DX vs FX. If you find yourself missing photos due to low light then the D750 is the better choice.

When I bought my D600 I kept my D7000. So I used them side by side for a while. The low light, 2 stops faster, ability is quite astounding once you get used to it. DX is good, but FX is that much better. You gain more low light flexibility, and if you have or had FX you understand.

If you use them in a studio environment it really doesn't matter. Daytime sports didn't matter too much, evening sports the FX started shining in waning light. If you do long distance shooting then the DX will help maintain detail (for 24mp DX vs 24mp FX, for 16mp DX and 24mp FX the FX actually was a bit better for me for long distance).

One of the main issue is lenses. With DX many people have variable focal length lenses. If you use the kit lenses you are handicapping the cameras flexibility. If you use a fixed aperture lens then you are allowing the camera more flexibility. Just look at an 18-200 which is f/5.6 @ 200mm versus a 70-200 which is f/2.8 @200mm. 1 stop of light variance right there, a further handicap to a DX sensor. You can also compare that to a AF-D 28-200 FX lens which is also f/5.6 @200mm. Basically losing a stop of light versus a better lens.

So just by lens choice you can easily gain 1 stop of light on DX
or 3 stops improvement moving to FX with a f/2.8 lens; or just 2 stops by using a variable FX lens.

If you make sure you have good lenses to begin with then that lowers the variance. When I bought my D7000 I only had the kit 18-105 lens, all other lenses I bought were FX AF-D. The D7000 body focus motor allowed me to buy AF-D lenses, versus having to buy more expensive AF-S lenses if I bought a D5x00 or D3x00 camera. It was much cheaper getting a better body, and then FX AF-D lenses, than a lower DX with more costly lenses.

So moving to FX vs DX the main issue is how many low light shots have you not been able to make due to low light ability. Then could a better lens of helped? Or does the move to FX become more feasible. It is about 2x the price for d7200/d750.

But moving to the d7000 to the d7200 (no AA filter) you'll gain IQ and croppability. a 24mp image vs 16mp image, and i think 1/2 or 1 stop better ISO control. Max ISO I used on the d7000 was 1600. So the d7200 is better at low light than the d7000, but less so than a FX camera.

FYI, I still miss my d7000 and d600. Sold both of them. I found myself never using the d7000 and the newer features of the d750 made the d600 were enough to sell that.

What blunts this argument is whether or how often one finds it necessary to pull images from the murk of under-exposure. If you're not dredging up such files constantly, a DX like the D7200 just isn't axiomatically inferior to a prosumer Nikon FX--certainly not enough to warrant the price spread between current comparable DX/FX bodies.

 

[Frank F.]

There is a lot of truth in what astro says. I always shot low light also in film days.

That is why I use fast primes.

A 1.4/50 is 4 stops faster than a f=5.6 lens. Plus I pushed the 100 ASA film to 1600.

With the D500 I shoot at 20.000 ISO and still use my 1.4 and 1.8 line of primes.

With the D5 shooting goes up to 100.000.

I doubt my D600 delivers 20.000 as clean as the D500, esp in the WB department