# Next Nikon Body after D7000



## emb (Mar 2, 2020)

Hello everyone, 

similar questions have likely already been asked, but let me try to outline my di(tri?)lemma

I own a D7000 since 2011 (shutter count at 50k+)  and by and large I am very happy with it. I own quite a few lenses, several of which are also FX compatible (50mm/1.8, 85/1.8, 70-300, all Nikkor) but also a few DX lenses (18-105, 10.5 Fisheye, 35/1.8)
I do start to feel that the D7000 is becoming a bit limited in terms of performance even if when I bought it, it was very good compared to others. 
Thus I am now looking towards potentially buying a new Nikon body and I am torn between various options

A very easy one would be to go for a D7500, very similar to what I have, very good sensor identical to the D500 iirc, built-in flash (sth I use sometimes to control off-camera flashes). The D500 would also be an option, clearly stepping up in size and build but e.g. losing the on-camera flash (while gaining performance elsewhere obviously). 

Then the other big question of course is DX vs FX. As I outlined I have quite a few lenses but apart from the Fisheye, the others were cheap or came with the camera. Thus I am thinking whether the D750 (a bit aged, but obviously still a very nice camera) with very good image quality could be an option. 

Last but not least, when considering to spend ~1.5 k€ on a camera, the other item that came to my attention is the Z6 (it's at the edge of what I am willing to spend). The low number of shots with a single battery charge seems a bit off-putting, though I do not shy away from carrying multiple batteries, I already do this today. I do very much like the idea of in-camera stabilization, e.g. for my 85/1.8 which I find a great lens, but would not mind stabilization with it. 

Quite a lengthy question, but any considerations you might have would be gladly appreciated.


----------



## weepete (Mar 3, 2020)

I don't have any spesific advice, however I changed to full frame last year. At first I thought I was a bit mental for laying out so much money on a new camera and lens, but after having shot with it for a few months I'm rather unexpectedly really enjoying the switch in a way that I didn't think I would.

It may very well be placebo effect, but I think there's something about full frame sensors with the traditional focal lengths. Maybe it's less distortion that I'm picking up in the better quality lenses, maybe it's better colour rendition with a newer gen of tech, maybe it's just the increased resolution or the cleaner raw files, I dunno. I just see more realism in the final images, and though it's subtle I've been a lot happier with the results. So I'd say go for the full frame.


----------



## RVT1K (Mar 3, 2020)

Go for a nice, used D4.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 3, 2020)

D610...built upon basically the D7000 chassis, but FX, and low- cost. Or the D750.

I think a used camera body is the best way to go.


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 3, 2020)

I (re)started out on a D7000 years ago with the kit 18-105 (up from a D70 years before).  It served me well.
From that I added a D600 FX as a DX/FX pair.  or newer D610 which resolved much of the oil splatter issues.
I then migrated to a D500/D750 DX/FX pair.

A few things.
If you have the old 70-300 AF push-pull, which I also had, on the d7000 it gave good results.  On denser sensors such as the D600 etc it was mush.  So I sold the 70-300 AF.  I did get a 300/2.8 AF-D but it was a bit limiting so I sold that too.

You haven't really mentioned what and how you shoot so it's hard to tell you to go the DX or FX route.
The D7000 / D600 was really a great combo.  The FX was so handy in low light and other situations but had it's limitations really around the small area of focus points.  One can work around this though.  The button layouts were slightly different which was maddening.  The D600's body was slightly larger than the D7000.

The D500 is awesome in all regards.  But if you are not doing sports, or birding and such one has to ask why have such a heavy duty camera.

The D750 is a great all around camera.  Once again, if you need the FX then you'll need it.
Doing sports I found myself needed either the FX for short field work or DX for further out, they both did well in normal indoor.  Also 2nd shooting weddings a few years back I also had both.  I used a 80-200/2.8 AF-D on the D500 and my 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D on the D750.

I also had all the 50mm lenses 1.4 & 1.8 AF-S and 1.4 & 1.8 AF-D and I kept the 50/1.8 AF-D as I also had the Nikon screw on macro "lenses".  I sold the 85/1.8 and 1.4 AF-D that I had.  The 85/1.8 was really a poor performer compared to the newer 85/1.8 AF-S lens.

I haven't done much photography in recent years but I'm looking at the D50 (no IBIS if I recall) for DX work as I want to get away from the slap of the mirror for astrophotography work.  That's been the one thing I've been trying to get away from, and the lower Nikon DSLR bodies had some deficiencies for astro work.

So the question kinda gets bounced back into what do you photograph, how and what are you looking for.   The switch to FX can drive some people batty as they lose the reach.  But they can the up close shots.


----------



## emb (Mar 3, 2020)

Thanks everyone already for the replies. I do note that nobody so far said anything about the Z6, but I guess it's still rather new and might be a _very_ steep step from where I am right now especially for future lenses

The question as to what I shoot is a fair one but not easy to answer, it's a bit of everything. I do like to go out in nature and shoot what is there and for that I indeed like the additional factor 1.5 on the 70-300 (the AF-S VR version). I also find that whenever there is festive occasion (family or other) I like to sneak around and snap portraits of the guests. Often this happens in poor light and flashes obviously only carry so far.

I took note of the recommendation of a used D4, but I feel that that would probably be too heavy for me to carry around often, so I would not really consider that. The D500 and D750 are obviously also a step up in size compared to the D7000, but less so; I guess the form factor is sth that also makes the Z6 seem attractive

Just to make matters worse  I also do a tiny bit of astrophotography even if much less than I want to and I guess any of the listed options would be an improvement for that compared to the D7000. 

I'll be happy to answer other questions if they can help with recommending things, but already now I appreciate all your thoughts


----------



## Derrel (Mar 3, 2020)

I was looking at the MPB used inventory last night.   All have shutter counts....


----------



## Braineack (Mar 3, 2020)

Almost anything better than a d7000.

D750 prices good.

You're misjudging the size increase: Compact Camera Meter


----------



## emb (Mar 3, 2020)

I stand corrected for the size of the D750 and D500, thanks Braineack, didn't know that site. 

I do see the point that I can hardly _really_ make a terrible mistake here as indeed, any of the options I listed will be a lot better than what I have currently


----------



## Derrel (Mar 3, 2020)

The Nikon D7000 was not really a great camera. You are correct, almost anything else is a better option. The D7100 or the d7200 are quite nice and the D600  d610, and the d750 or the D800 would all be better. the problem with a D7000 was that it was a transitional camera, and there was only one generation of the 16-megapixel DX camera sensor.


----------



## Designer (Mar 4, 2020)

emb said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> similar questions have likely already been asked, but let me try to outline my di(tri?)lemma
> 
> ...


Skip right over the D7500, as it will probably disappoint you.  Nikon should have named it the D5700 to keep the lines consistent.

Why not a D7100?  That would be an upgrade, and you could get one for about half your proposed budget.  I bought mine new for around $700, as I recall. 

If you can afford a D500, then do that.  It is one of the better offerings from Nikon. 

Don't stress over DX vs. FX, as that really doesn't mean your existing lenses will not fit, because they will.  Only the 10,5mm fisheye would not throw a large enough image circle. 

Incidentally, why are you asking about in-camera image stabilization?  Nikon doesn't do that, and the lenses with VR will take care of normal hand-holding movement.  I take it that your 85/1.8 does not have VR.  I thought they all did, at least in the G series. 

So my recommendation is; either the D7100 or the D500, both of which are about the same size, even though the D500 is more advanced, and will cost more than the D7100.  Incidentally, how comfortable would you be with a used camera?  If you don't mind getting a used camera, then your budget magically buys lots more camera.  (or a camera and a lens)

Good luck!


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 4, 2020)

Having had the D7000 and seriously considered going to a D7100 when it was released I would skip the D7100 and get the D7200.  The D7100 had the same buffer as the D7000 while having the more dense sensor of 24 vs 16 mp.  So the D7100 could only take 6 to 9 continuous shots to the D7000's  10  to 15 before all would stop due to the buffer.   Plus it seemed to take longer to clear the buffer.   Everything else was a step up.

Many people on this board complained about that one buffer shortcoming of the D7100, which was resolved with the D7200.

The D500 is significantly larger in (my hands at least) the hands when compared.
Granted the D500 is awesome.

btw, I like the Z6 but I have a FullFrame camera and need to get that extra "reach" in a sense with a Crop camera for astro work.  Although the high density Z7 at 45mp gives me both, as well as the D8x0 dslr.  But when attached off of my Meade LX200 telescope the lighter, no mirror Z camera makes more sense when you can spend hours outside as I have to do a slow count to "5" so that I would get no slight distortion from DSLR mirror slap when pixel peeping.


----------



## emb (Mar 4, 2020)

Designer said:


> Incidentally, why are you asking about in-camera image stabilization? Nikon doesn't do that, and the lenses with VR will take care of normal hand-holding movement. I take it that your 85/1.8 does not have VR. I thought they all did, at least in the G series.



The Z6 as mirrorless model features built-in stabilization. Not a DSLR and thus in many respects a step in a different direction, but one that intrigued me nonetheless


----------



## ac12 (Mar 4, 2020)

TOUGH choice.
My options would be:

DX  D7200/D7500, D500

FX  D750, Z6
D7200/7500

The D7500 has one feature that I really wish my D7200 had, the tilting rear screen.  To shoot LOW angle images, I have had to literally be belly down in the dirt.  Dirt is bad enough, I would hate to do that in mud.
Lenses
There are only a couple FAST affordable DX/FX lenses, the DX 35/1.8 (normal) and FX 50/1.8 (short tele).  After than you are into expensive FX primes, for FAST lenses.
Certain lenses are available ONLY in FX, not DX.  Example there is no DX equivalent to the FX 70-200/2.8 on a FX camera.  The closest is the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 (a FF/FX lens), but it is not f/2.8 at the long end.

D500

To me it is a specialist action/sports camera.  Do you shoot enough action to justify it.
The D750 is still a GOOD FX camera. 

This is a good low light camera.

And as people move to the Z system, there will be more F lenses on the used market.  

If I went FX, this would be the dSLR I would get.   (If I did not go with a Z6)

FX lenses tend to be more expensive and bigger than DX lenses.
A D750 + 24-120 is 300 grams heavier than a D7200 + 18-140.  The D810 even heavier.
The D810 is 130 grams heavier than the D750.
The Z6 + FTZ adapter

Would be over your budget.  Especially as you will then want the Z lenses.  

But the future is headed that way, so do you go Z now or later?  

Because it is new, used Z lenses will be few, compared to used F lenses.

As for short battery life, get used to it, ALL mirrorless cameras SUCK power.  Some are worse than others, and some depends on which lens you use.  

My D7200 will shoot all weekend and Monday.
My Olympus will poop out after 4 hours (continuously ON), or only 2-1/2 hours with another lens.  

Mirrorless battery run time depends more on power ON time, than number of shots taken.

It has IBIS, so that is a benefit for older lenses.
As I see it, everything has pros/cons.
YOU have to evaluate the pros/cons of the various options and determine which option works best for YOU.

My own dilema is D750 vs. Z6.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 4, 2020)

If you were to buy a good used camera you could buy what used to be a $3,700 model for as little as $429 if you were to accept an older d700. There are quite a few places that have good inventory of used Nikon digital single-lens reflex bodies for around $600 or less. Once again I'm talking about buying what used to be a $3,700 camera like a D800, for a really reasonable price.$775 will get you a D800.

I really do not see the value in buying a brand new camera body when you can buy a used one for one fifth of the selling price of a new one.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 4, 2020)

ac12 said:


> Lenses
> 
> There are only a couple FAST affordable DX/FX lenses, the DX 35/1.8 (normal) and FX 50/1.8 (short tele). After than you are into expensive FX primes, for FAST lenses.
> Certain lenses are available ONLY in FX, not DX. Example there is no DX equivalent to the FX 70-200/2.8 on a FX camera. The closest is the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 (a FF/FX lens), but it is not f/2.8 at the long end.



DX-only lenses aren't usually good, just use the good FX glass -- even on a DX body.


----------



## JBPhotog (Mar 4, 2020)

The D810 is a worthy upgrade too for @$1200. It is pro level quality and with it's base ISO of 64 it competes with medium format. 36 MP files won't clog up your hard drives, meets and or exceeds the resolution of current FX lenses and has virtually the same DR as a D850, bonus: you get the pop up flash. 

For Astro work you get Mirror Up+Electronic Shutter+Exposure delay.


----------



## ac12 (Mar 4, 2020)

Braineack said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > Lenses
> ...



Agree
There are only a FEW good DX lenses.
If you want a large choice of GOOD lenses, then you have to go to FX.
Just understand that the size and cost will go UP.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 4, 2020)

99% of F mount designs, dating back to 1959, were designed to be shot on a 24 by 36 mm Imaging area. There is no such thing as an FX Nikkor lens,and any F-mount lens that does not say DX Nikkor is of course full-frame-capable. In common shorthand though, we often use the term "FX lens" even though that has never once been imprinted or engraved on an actual lens itself.


----------



## JBPhotog (Mar 5, 2020)

Derrel said:


> 99% of F mount designs, dating back to 1959, were designed to be shot on a 24 by 36 mm Imaging area. There is no such thing as an FX Nikkor lens,and any F-mount lens that does not say DX Nikkor is of course full-frame-capable. In common shorthand though, we often use the term "FX lens" even though that has never once been imprinted or engraved on an actual lens itself.



And of course the reverse is not true. Lenses for DX bodies *do* have the monicker "DX" printed on them for the obvious reason the projected image circle of the lens will not adequately cover an FX frame. So to future proof your lens collection one may be best to avoid DX lenses if your budget permits.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 5, 2020)

As far as I am concerned there have only been two really high quality DX lenses: the 17-55 mm / 2.8 and the 12 to 24 mm...the 10.5 fisheye might also make the grade. Other than those models the majority of DX lenses are consumer or economy grade in optics and build. As we move into higher and higher megapixel count lens quality and fitness becomes a bigger and bigger concern. Back when we were shooting on 6 megapixel and 12 megapixel aps-c cameras, Optical quality was not nearly such a big factor as it is today.

Although the build quality is not that high the new DX 70-300 AF-P VR performs quite well, well above what its price might indicate. It does in fact perform better than the older full frame 70 to 300 mm VR-G.


----------



## ac12 (Mar 5, 2020)

When I put the 70-200/4 on my D7200, I was surprised at how much better the IQ was.
I knew it would be better, but it was BETTER.
So the DX limitation is not the camera/sensor, it is the lenses are not able to deliver up to what the sensor can do.

I think the 16-80/2.8-4 is another good DX lens.

As you said with the DX 70-300 AF-P lens, technology is slowly making better DX lenses, at affordable prices.  But I think that is more the exception than the rule.  Most of the DX lenses are "good enough" consumer lenses, which matches the market they seem to be targeting.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 5, 2020)

As megapixel counts have gone up,the manufacturers have been forced to redesign lenses to form better images on high density sensors. THE 28-200  is a good example. The first generation was quite good actually when we were using 6 megapixel cameras and it wasn't too bad on 12 megapixel, But the lens is inadequate on 16 to 24 megapixels on aps-c. 

And even though it was FX-capable the first generation Nikon 70-200 / 2.8 VR G was designed to perform best in the center and by extension did quite well on DX sensors, but back in 2012 this decade-old lens design did not perform that well for me on the D3x,which was only 24 million pixels. Even stopped down to F / 7.1, the corners showed signs of softness that was quite unacceptable on landscape photos. Even though the lens was designed in the digital era, it was really designed as a DX- optimized design, with really high Central sharpness. I found that the late film era 80-200 F 2.8 AFS was actually a superior lens on full frame digital,and so I sold the 70-200 and bought the 80- 200 AFS, which was actually quite a good lens.

I would agree that the 16 to 80 2.8-4 is a good lens. I think it is safe to say that there are four really good DX lenses. LOL.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 5, 2020)

I was considering the 70-200 f/4 a couple of years ago when i was reasonably cash- positive. I have actually been quite impressed looking at the MTF charts for that lens. As with many things optical, newer is often better. 30 and 40 years ago the slower F /4-type lenses were often inferior to the wider aperture models of similar specification. But in the last decade both Canon and Nikon have released a series of f/4 lenses which are smaller, and lighter, and better than earlier lenses of f / 2.8... this corresponds with the arrival of higher megapixel sensors in both the aps-c and the FX formats.


----------



## emb (Mar 5, 2020)

the thread seems to diverge slightly from the original question, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate all the input.



Derrel said:


> If you were to buy a good used camera you could buy what used to be a $3,700 model for as little as $429 if you were to accept an older d700


I do see your point of course, I guess I am suspicious of used cameras even if there is probably really no reason to. If I were to sell my D7000, it is not because it is not working. It has been around the block a few times and looks a bit beaten in some places, but otherwise works quite well. The D700 is probably not for me because it really is quite a bit bigger still than any of the other models I considered and...



astroNikon said:


> The D500 is significantly larger in (my hands at least) the hands when compared.



...I think I might share this sentiment as I did have a D8XX model in hand a while back and it felt genuinely huge (I know it's larger still than the 700, but sizewise the D7000 is right up my street, so I am not really aiming for anything much bigger. 

It seems that 


ac12 said:


> My own dilema is D750 vs. Z6.



this might also be my dilemma. 
The D500 sounds awesome on some level, but I really don't do anything like sports photography and the times that I miss 10fps bursts or a longer buffer are few and far between

To randomly answer other bits



ac12 said:


> The Z6 + FTZ adapter
> 
> Would be over your budget. Especially as you will then want the Z lenses.


I guess it wouldn't be as the only way to sensibly buy a Z6 at this point would be with an adapter as otherwise all my existing glass would be wasted. The budget limit is not a hard one, it just becomes harder to justify (towards myself and also others maybe)


----------



## JBPhotog (Mar 5, 2020)

I think you have talked yourself into a Z6 since you don't want anything larger than your D7000.

At the moment the FTZ adapter is only $50 US ($250 MSRP) so its a good choice to pick one up, you may buy some F mount lenses down the road anyway.

Here's some side by side comparisons to get your wallet ready.


----------



## emb (Mar 5, 2020)

JBPhotog said:


> I think you have talked yourself into a Z6 since you don't want anything larger than your D7000.



well, I am a bit wary of things a lot bigger. I haven't really given up on the D750 yet... I can say that I've been eyeing it for a long time and was at some point waiting for the D780 to come along  so that either that would be an ever more attractive camera for me to buy or the prices for the D750 would go down. 

The Z6 is a completely new paradigm that I somehow haven't really bought into fully, but I am clearly intrigued. I don't really like the idea of an electronic viewfinder, but I guess that's also because I haven't looked through one in a long while, so I am sure they are nothing like that what I remember. I do like the idea of having similar focus speed in viewfinder mode and live view. The live view focus -- as is a very badly kept secret -- has really not been great on the D7000 but neither very good on most other Nikon DSLRs from all I read. 

So I maintain: D750 or Z6 seems to be my dilemma  Will have to get my wallet ready in either case though...


----------



## JBPhotog (Mar 5, 2020)

FYI, D7000 vs D750 size comparison.


----------



## ac12 (Mar 5, 2020)

For me the best thing about the EVF is that I can adjust the exposure in real time, without doing the (shoot, chimp, adjust) cycle until I get the exposure right.  This is really useful when the lighting is challenging and the camera's meter cannot handle it.

Caution, the Z6 + FTZ will only autofocus the AF-S and AF-P lenses.  It will NOT autofocus the mechanical AF lenses.
If you have a significant number of good AF lenses, that you still want to use (with autofocus), then the D750 would be the only way to go.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 5, 2020)

I think if you look at it this way you might change your mind about used cameras: for about $1,600 you could purchase 3 used bodies which were at one time around $3,500 apiece. Or you can spend $1,599 on one brand new camera body which is now $1,599,but in 5 years will be worth $250 at most.


----------



## brett304 (Apr 11, 2020)

Five years ago I left behind my D7000 and got a D500... The lack of flash contributes to better weather sealing and overall I am noticing that I've had much less problems with dust than in my crop cameras before...  It's helped me tremendously as most of my work is landscape, shot outside and often using narrow apertures (that show the dust more)... I am not the target market for the d500, but there have been a couple benefits that made it worth the extra money I paid way back when it first came out... I've more recently paired it with a used D800 as Derrel mentioned above and I was able to pay less than $600 for a camera that once cost $3000 plus and has a sensor that is still competitive with anything on the market... I also have quite a few lenses that are good on my DX camera, but are much better on the FX... I read the thread and I don't recall a huge difference in size or weight when I jumped from D7000 to D500... It may be a tad bigger, but the grip is much much better and way more comfortable... Same applies when comparing the D500 to my D800... I'm sure there are some differences, but I feel like its mostly overblown and not that noticeable in the field (this coming from a person who has done mostly landscape and travel photography)... I would say that if size/weight is the main concern, you may want to look at the Z6, but make sure that you check the size and weight of the lenses you plan on using as well because sometimes the Z lenses are bigger than F lenses and may negate the differences in the body... Just something to look at... As people said earlier everything has a tradeoff and its about making informed decisions and as some people said earlier it depends ALOT on what you're going to be shooting... If astrophotography is important to you, then you will want to look at the gear that works best for that...  I.e. crop vs FF and lenses, etc...   My suggestion would be to look at the D7200, D500 (not the D7500) or almost any FF camera on the market if you'd like to be able to keep using the lenses you currently own... I think if you get a Z6 then you're gonna want to get native lenses at some point and will definitely eat your budget... I would suggest buying one more SLR to last another 5 years or so and wait for advances in the mirrorless market to iron out any problems and to drive down the prices...  Anyway, just a few thoughts and hope it helps!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 11, 2020)

Good post Brett!


----------



## Timppa (Apr 18, 2020)

I currently own and love the D7500.
It was a great step up from my old D7100.
I actually made the mistake of using similar settings and same mindset when I got the D7500 for a long time. I only recently figured it out this camera is so much more powerful and better in every way.
If you only do wildlife, please, go for the d500.
But if you do a bit of everything, like me, the D7500 is a better,smaller and cheaper option (stil 8fps!! So much more than many high end cameras just a few years back).
I also find that when I had the D7100, anything above 3200 ISO was worthless.
Now I feel I can shoot at 8000 ISO, and I wouldn't be scared to bump it up to 12800 if needed.
So I can highly recommend!
And owning the sigma 18-35 f1.8... I feel I might never take the step to Full frame xD. Incredible camera-lens combo!


----------



## greybeard (Oct 21, 2020)

I've owned a D7000, D7500, D750, and now a D850.  I went to the D7500 for the bigger buffer but the biggest jump in quality came with the D750.  B&H has a Referb for around 1100.  That is better than a lot of used prices.
Nikon D750 DSLR Camera (Body Only, Refurbished by Nikon USA)


----------



## ntz (Dec 16, 2020)

I'm 100% happy with my D7200 and not going to change it .. it's considered as best DX camera in the market .. if I will be buying next camera, so the D7200 will became a secondary/backup then, I will go for nikon F-mount, DX and I will want more than 24MP for prints (say 36MP is next step) .. buying another 24MP camera when I have 24MP DX with great performance makes no sense ... and after looking on Nikon cameras, there's not such a camera (If I don't count superexpensive z7 or d850) .. only theoretical option for me would be d800 but this camera is relatively old and there are not avail these cameras used in good shape

this is how I am thinking ... so I hope that my D7200 will work loooong


----------



## mjcmt (Dec 16, 2020)

Lot's of good info in this thread. I only have have a few additional points so I may as well chime in w/ my 2¢.
Next year D500 is being upgraded to D550 so prices will come down if you can wait.
I bought D750 refurbished because I feel it's the best bang for the buck in Nikon FF cameras. If you can swing the cost, the D780 has been compared to a Z6 in DSLR form by many.
Z6 is impressive but the lens adaptor adds weight and size to your lenses so it didn't make sense for me. Furthermore coming from a mirrorless camera to a DSLR, a DSLR viewfinder is so nice to use I prefer it to a mirrorless viewfinder. Not to mention horrible battery life of mirrorless cameras and Z lens prices.


----------



## ac12 (Dec 16, 2020)

ntz said:


> I'm 100% happy with my D7200 and not going to change it .. it's considered as best DX camera in the market .. if I will be buying next camera, so the D7200 will became a secondary/backup then, I will go for nikon F-mount, DX and I will want more than 24MP for prints (say 36MP is next step) .. buying another 24MP camera when I have 24MP DX with great performance makes no sense ... and after looking on Nikon cameras, there's not such a camera (If I don't count superexpensive z7 or d850) .. only theoretical option for me would be d800 but this camera is relatively old and there are not avail these cameras used in good shape
> 
> this is how I am thinking ... so I hope that my D7200 will work loooong



Unlike the Canon 90D at 32.5MP, Nikon does not have a DX camera over 24MP.
The only Nikon options are the FX D810/850 and Z7.  You might be able to find an affordable D810.


----------



## LWW (Jan 3, 2021)

ac12 said:


> ntz said:
> 
> 
> > I'm 100% happy with my D7200 and not going to change it .. it's considered as best DX camera in the market .. if I will be buying next camera, so the D7200 will became a secondary/backup then, I will go for nikon F-mount, DX and I will want more than 24MP for prints (say 36MP is next step) .. buying another 24MP camera when I have 24MP DX with great performance makes no sense ... and after looking on Nikon cameras, there's not such a camera (If I don't count superexpensive z7 or d850) .. only theoretical option for me would be d800 but this camera is relatively old and there are not avail these cameras used in good shape
> ...


True ... but 24 MP is plenty for almost all needs.

Megapixels are, IMHO, the most overrated stat in DSLR bodies.


----------



## ntz (Jan 3, 2021)

LWW said:


> ...
> True ... but 24 MP is plenty for almost all needs.
> 
> Megapixels are, IMHO, the most overrated stat in DSLR bodies.



yeah, they are, no doubt ... I was only saying that I wanna to keep with my mainline for example because of lenses (nikon f-mount - I am using some FX lens on DX and I am planning to buy some other lens FX lens for my DX now - the highest rank in my todo list is great nikon 16-35mm f/4) .. so my current plan now is to buy ~manana used d850 .. price matters for me so this plan is forecast of years, not months


----------



## ac12 (Jan 3, 2021)

LWW said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > ntz said:
> ...



Agree, for 99+% of most peoples needs.

But for the tail of the bell curve, the people that really want/need the resolution, you can do it with the Canon 90D.  Nikon does not have a 30+MP APS-C dSLR.

By tail of the bell curve, I mean something like, shooting a 500+ student class, in a single frame.  I did the class shot on my 24MP D7200 by shooting half the class at a time, left side and right side, then stitching it together.  Until that shot, I NEVER had a need for such resolution, and I doubt I will in the future.  And BTW, the lens has to be up to the resolution task.  So no cheap kit lens.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 26, 2021)

I shot a D7000 for several years.  When I updated, I went with a D750 with a 24-120 f/4.  and then I ended up going with a D850.  Looking back on things, the D750 was a really great camera.


----------



## ac12 (Feb 26, 2021)

greybeard said:


> I shot a D7000 for several years.  When I updated, I went with a D750 with a 24-120 f/4.  and then I ended up going with a D850.  Looking back on things, the D750 was a really great camera.



I was planning a similar path, from my D7200 to a D750.
But old age and injuries caused me to prioritize weight reduction, and I did not pull the FX trigger.


----------



## ntz (Feb 27, 2021)

ac12 said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > I shot a D7000 for several years.  When I updated, I went with a D750 with a 24-120 f/4.  and then I ended up going with a D850.  Looking back on things, the D750 was a really great camera.
> ...



When I joined this forum few months ago I was about to follow exactly this path (d7200 -> d750), thanks to ppl here and my additional study and thinking about that I decided that upgrading d7200 -> D750 is nonsense for me .. d7200 is great camera itself, aaa-enthusiast class Vs another semi semi-pro camera, there's literally not much improvement at least for me ISO 100 (to occasionally up to 400) landscape shooter .. what matters for me however is resolution because of print size and crops .. so buying another 24MP camera is not a way to go ... my current plan is to sometimes in the future upgrade to D850 (no thanks, not planning Nikon Z mirrorless) because of awesome 45MP resolution

ad.old age and weight) I don't wanna be smart, I am not that old - just forty, but I crashed myself severely 2 years ago on the ski .. ruined my leg, I am after several surgeries, had ruined knee, broken leg, broken ankle, in the months after accident I've got +25kg weight (85kg -> 110kg) and it was and it is tough now to convince myself to wake up early in stupid hours, take my photobag, go to car and drive somewhere, there hike around the forests and hills to back home for a lunch (because you're going out at 4-5 am) .. but yeah, it saved my life, just walking and moving let me put down 10+ kg already and I feel it's improving further


----------



## LoveMyDaughter (Mar 6, 2021)

From reading this, some love the 7500, others hate it. Was leaning towards a new 7500 for my daughter, partly because it is smaller and lighter than a D500, she is petite, so are her hands. Also thought she would miss the built in flash, for quick shots. So why do you 7500 haters, dislike it? Thanks


----------



## ac12 (Mar 6, 2021)

LoveMyDaughter said:


> From reading this, some love the 7500, others hate it. Was leaning towards a new 7500 for my daughter, partly because it is smaller and lighter than a D500, she is petite, so are her hands. Also thought she would miss the built in flash, for quick shots. So why do you 7500 haters, dislike it? Thanks



Have you looked at the D5600 for her?
As a D7200 owner, I don't care for the D5600.  I REALLY miss the 2nd control dial, cuz I use both dials.  But , if she does not use M mode, she may not miss the 2nd control dial.  And the viewfinder info display is not as visible as the D7200.
But the D5600 is smaller and lighter, and for some, size and weight makes a difference.


----------



## LoveMyDaughter (Mar 6, 2021)

ac12 said:


> LoveMyDaughter said:
> 
> 
> > From reading this, some love the 7500, others hate it. Was leaning towards a new 7500 for my daughter, partly because it is smaller and lighter than a D500, she is petite, so are her hands. Also thought she would miss the built in flash, for quick shots. So why do you 7500 haters, dislike it? Thanks
> ...



She frequently uses manual mode, so would miss the 2nd dial. I was looking at the D500 originally. The more I read, videos watched, and quick trip to the store to hold both, the 7500 seems nicer than the 500 in some ways, and has the same sensors almost. With so many great online reviews of the 7500, it made me curious why some of the forum people don't like it is all.


----------



## ac12 (Mar 6, 2021)

LoveMyDaughter said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > LoveMyDaughter said:
> ...



Yeah, I used the school's D5600, and after years of using a 2 dial camera, I just did not like the 1 dial  setup.
It is fairly easy to use, press a button then turn the dial.   
I reconfigured the record button so I press [rec] + turn back dial, to adjust the ISO.  So I suppose one can get used to a 1 dial setup.
But it is so much easier to just turn the dial and not deal with the button.  

I don't remember what, but there were things in the D7200 that were deleted in the D7500.
You may have to do a functional/feature comparison matrix to wring out the differences.
Here are a few from a quick search of the internet, with my comments.

+ Tilting rear screen on the D7500.
I do like the tilting rear screen on the D7500.  I've been belly down on the floor, to get low angle shots with the D7200, and that can be really dirty out in the dirt or mud.  This is the one feature that really made me think about upgrading to the D7500.

+ Higher high ISO, 51200 (D7500) vs 25600 (D7200)
I shoot low light sports, so this would definitely benefit me.
With a higher high ISO level, there is less need to use a FAST lens when shooting in low light.  You might be able to get away with the 18-140 kit lens, rather than needing a big expensive f/2.8 lens.

+ Faster burst rate: 8fps (D7500), vs 6fps (D7200)
IMHO, while it is 33% faster, the additional 2 fps is not enough increase to make a practical difference, at least to me.

- The sensor went down from 24MP (D7200) to 20MP (D7500), same as on the D500.
I doubt 99.99% of the people will be able to tell the difference in resolution.

- No mic input jack on the D7500.
I don't do video, so it does not affect me.
If you do video, I think this is a big negative.  There are situations were you want to use an external mic (usually to limit ambient noise) rather than the one built into the camera.  But with no mic jack, you cannot use a external mic.
At school we use the Canon T7i for video and not the Canon T5, because the T5 does not have a mic input jack.

- Only ONE SD card slot on the D7500.
I have only used the 2nd card slot once, so for ME it isn't a big deal to not have it.
If you use the 2nd card slot, this could be a big negative.  Some people use the 2nd slot as backup, where the camera records each frame to both cards.


----------



## LoveMyDaughter (Mar 6, 2021)

Thank you very much.


----------



## ntz (Mar 7, 2021)

Let me throw my 2 cents into the discussion ..

a lot of Nikon shooters simply consider a d7500 as a regression .. Mostly because lower sensor resolution (20.5MP Vs 24 on D7200), one slot for SD card instead of two, lower LCD display resolution .. D7500 brought tiling display and faster serial shooting, but everything else is slightly worse (see this) ..

from things above mentioned by @ac12 let me comment this:

+ Higher high ISO, 51200 (D7500) vs 25600 (D7200) - I don't have any shots above ISO 8000, ISO 52000 is useless for me .. 97% of my all shots are ISO 100-500
+ Faster burst rate: 8fps (D7500), vs 6fps (D7200) - For avid sport and wildlife shooters could be this slight improvement but not for anybody else

benefits are tiling screen (however with lower resolution), I'd love it when shooting something from low height on tripod and iirc D7500 can display the histogram during LiveView shooting (correct me somebody if I am wrong) ..

conclusion:

as an update from d7100 or d7200 makes d7500 not a big sense .. for others it's very decent camera and certainly in top 5 in ~$1000 enthusiasts cameras ..


----------

