- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 11,518
- Reaction score
- 4,788
- Location
- Louisville, Nebraksa - United States
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
A good used d600 can be had for the same price as a d7200.I had a D7000.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!
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.
Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
