Upgrade to D7200 or FX Body?

[Frank F.]

Here ist the super power of this recording chip. In the embedded JPEG the triangle was next to 100% white. ACR-CC2017 recovered every little thing. I could have fully recovered the dark parts too, but this is banal. Five stops from the shadows in low ISO are normal.

A test I loved: Nikon D750 Review | Destination Wedding Photographer

 

[greybeard]

It's a 24-120 and not a 70-120, typo. I already have a few FX lenses, a 70-300 4.5-5.6, a 400 mm sigma, a 105 2.8 macro and a 50mm 1.8 and I've read that my Tokina 12-24 DX will work FF from about 18mm on. So, with the 24-120 I'm in good shape for FX glass.

 

[greybeard]

Got the email from UPS, "Package will be delivered by the end of the day tomorrow"

 

[Derrel]

Here is the super power of this recording chip. In the embedded JPEG the triangle was next to 100% white. ACR-CC2017 recovered every little thing. I could have fully recovered the dark parts too, but this is banal. Five stops from the shadows in low ISO are normal.

A test I loved: Nikon D750 Review | Destination Wedding Photographer


View attachment 130950

This is where Nikon was at in 2014 (when the D750 was announced), using Sony-made sensors, and modern Lightroom software...we've gone from digital SLR cameras that had a 7-stop EV range, to over 14 stops' worth of scene dynamic range that can be turned into usable photographic images. It is now very possible to manipulate captures that have been made with wild exposure settings. The review you link to sold a lot of people on the power of the D750 as a wedding shooter's camera--the camera that basically destroyed the then-current Canon 5D-III's value proposition at $3,499. We're really getting to the point now where the Sony-designed sensors are opening up new ways to shoot things.

 

[greybeard]

Well, it's here but the wife won't let me play with it until Christmas View attachment 131072

 

[Parker219]

When I bought my sigma 18-35 art lens, I had it on my camera for 6 months before my girlfriend was like...is that a new lens?

By then I didn't consider it "new", so I confidently said...no it is not.

She was like oh ok...good.

 

[Frank F.]

Expectation is a strong force, gets your brain chemicals working.

I hear there are people entering shops with very expensive good, running through the whole buying process including standing in line at the chashier and then !tata! do not by.

After buying the expectation chemical stream to your brain breaks down. If you do not buy you get all the chemicals in your brain without wasting your money.

It is a bit like the olden tantric art of orgasm without ejaculation...

 

[JoeW]

I just wanted to provide some closure. I ended up getting a D600 body off of Amazon for $760, less than 7,000 actuations and no scratches on any of the glass. I'm still testing to see if I get any spotting (I just took it out for a spin yesterday). While I was incredibly tempted by the D500, I don't shoot enough sports to justify it and what I do shoot, the D600 is a great fit. Thanks to all of you who contributed to this thread, shared your experiences, offered advice. Darrel--you in particular--just offered some outstanding advice. I'm very happy. Even if I have to send it in to Nikon for repair work (and so far, I don't see any spots), I'm a very happy camper. It may not be the newest technology or the "latest and greatest" but it's a major upgrade for me and a perfect fit.

 

[Peeb]

I just wanted to provide some closure. I ended up getting a D600 body off of Amazon for $760, less than 7,000 actuations and no scratches on any of the glass. I'm still testing to see if I get any spotting (I just took it out for a spin yesterday). While I was incredibly tempted by the D500, I don't shoot enough sports to justify it and what I do shoot, the D600 is a great fit. Thanks to all of you who contributed to this thread, shared your experiences, offered advice. Darrel--you in particular--just offered some outstanding advice. I'm very happy. Even if I have to send it in to Nikon for repair work (and so far, I don't see any spots), I'm a very happy camper. It may not be the newest technology or the "latest and greatest" but it's a major upgrade for me and a perfect fit.

Great get!

I had the D600 and got some (in the words of Tony Northrup) stunning digital images out of it!

 

[Derrel]

GREAT NEWS, JOE! Thank you for the mention. I know you'll be impressed by that full-frame sensor, and what it does for your lenses, in real-world shooting environments. In terms of the human body, now you'll be able to use a 24mm or 28mm focal length to make legs or arms longer, in a very subtle way! You'l'l be able to use the 35mm and 45mm and 50mm and 60mm primes, even old clunkers from Nikon's 1977-2013 manual focus lens era, as what they were meant to be! The primes in 85,105,135,180,and 200mm will now become what they were originally intended to be...and not what they became in 1998 with the APS-C Nikon D1 size sensor.

Glad to hear you've got something VERY revolutionary to use now!

 

[astroNikon]

I just wanted to provide some closure. I ended up getting a D600 body off of Amazon for $760, less than 7,000 actuations and no scratches on any of the glass. I'm still testing to see if I get any spotting (I just took it out for a spin yesterday). While I was incredibly tempted by the D500, I don't shoot enough sports to justify it and what I do shoot, the D600 is a great fit. Thanks to all of you who contributed to this thread, shared your experiences, offered advice. Darrel--you in particular--just offered some outstanding advice. I'm very happy. Even if I have to send it in to Nikon for repair work (and so far, I don't see any spots), I'm a very happy camper. It may not be the newest technology or the "latest and greatest" but it's a major upgrade for me and a perfect fit.

D600 is an excellent camera. I miss mine all the time. It was very sturdy in the hands which alludes confidence in your shooting demeanor.

 

[Frank F.]

I just wanted to provide some closure. I ended up getting a D600 body off of Amazon for $760, less than 7,000 actuations and no scratches on any of the glass. I'm still testing to see if I get any spotting (I just took it out for a spin yesterday). While I was incredibly tempted by the D500, I don't shoot enough sports to justify it and what I do shoot, the D600 is a great fit. Thanks to all of you who contributed to this thread, shared your experiences, offered advice. Darrel--you in particular--just offered some outstanding advice. I'm very happy. Even if I have to send it in to Nikon for repair work (and so far, I don't see any spots), I'm a very happy camper. It may not be the newest technology or the "latest and greatest" but it's a major upgrade for me and a perfect fit.

I love & shoot my D600 a lot, although I own and use the D500 a lot!

 

[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!

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.

I ended up going with the D750/24-120mm kit. As astro wrote, the biggest difference is with low light performance. The D750 will focus and capture acceptable to great pictures in just about any light. As far a moving from the D7000 to the D750, very easy.

 

[shadowlands]

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.

I ended up going with the D750/24-120mm kit. As astro wrote, the biggest difference is with low light performance. The D750 will focus and capture acceptable to great pictures in just about any light. As far a moving from the D7000 to the D750, very easy.

Awesome! Welcome to FX!!!