# D7200 or D800?



## gckless (Apr 17, 2016)

Your opinion: D7200 or D800? 

I've got a D7200 now, and I've borrowed a D800 with the ability to purchase possibly at the same price I could sell my D7200 for. So far, I'm not impressed with the D800. Only thing I'm seeing it does better is noise. I'm finding AF is better and photos are sharper with the D7200, even when photos are taken with the subject the same size. So, I can't really crop in any tighter due to the poor focus, the extra MP do nothing for me there.

I guess I'm slightly biased though, since I need the reach the crop sensor has given me so far. I commonly shoot sports, so that's why the AF is important to me. But even in the still test shots I've been taking, the D7200's photos just look better. So now I'm really reluctant to switch, even beyond the focal length advantage.

I know for most of you that haven't tried both, it probably sounds weird, how can the D800's images look worse? And that's exactly what I thought. Think I'm doing something wrong, or do you think this could be accurate?


----------



## cgw (Apr 17, 2016)

Keep the D7200.


----------



## gckless (Apr 17, 2016)

cgw said:


> Keep the D7200.


Why do you say that?


----------



## Watchful (Apr 17, 2016)

Is the 800 properly calibrated for focus?
The D810 is a nice camera that I really like, I haven't tried an 800 though to be honest.


----------



## gckless (Apr 17, 2016)

Watchful said:


> Is the 800 properly calibrated for focus?
> The D810 is a nice camera that I really like, I haven't tried an 800 though to be honest.


It isn't, so that's one thing. Another is I'm using a 70-300mm VR, so not the best lens. Everything I'm reading about this body says that it will highlight anything that isn't perfect. I may be better off just picking up the 70-200mm VR he has.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 17, 2016)

A great body can not make up for poor glass, it only records what it sees.   Great glass on the other hand can improve the image quality of an average body.  Since you are speaking of sports the 70-200 would be the better choice.


----------



## Watchful (Apr 17, 2016)

I'd start by comparing two well calibrated camera with the same lens so you are comparing apples to apples and go from there.


----------



## gckless (Apr 18, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> A great body can not make up for poor glass, it only records what it sees.   Great glass on the other hand can improve the image quality of an average body.  Since you are speaking of sports the 70-200 would be the better choice.



That's what I originally thought too. But this guy (who I met at the track and took photos of his car) told me to take the D800 home and get back to him in a couple days. Dammit, he knew what he was doing! Lol.

He still hasn't said his price for either. Depending on price, I may have to get both. I'd then have to sell the few shorter DX lenses and D7200 I have and pick up just one FX lens for around the 24-70mm range.



Watchful said:


> I'd start by comparing two well calibrated camera with the same lens so you are comparing apples to apples and go from there.



I agree with you. Without completing the AF fine-tune just yet, what I'm seeing is that the D7200 is sharper to a point, but the D800 has more detail overall and past the D7200's limits. Does that make sense? I also do believe the glass is limiting the D800 here, but the 70-300mm VR has some decent reviews. DXO says it ain't all that hot though, which I trust more. I do like the images from the D800 more overall though, that's for sure. So much more usable in high ISO, even though it only goes up to 6400 native. D7200 I'm hesitant to go above 800! Then again, I seemingly need more exposure for the same shot, generally in the way of higher ISO.

So I dunno yet, it's a big (read: expensive) change. No doubt the D800 is more capable in almost everything I need it for, except for a couple FPS which the larger buffer makes up for in my eyes, and reach, which actually concerns me a bit. That's if I can use it better and support it with better equipment.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 18, 2016)

Not sure why the d800 is worse to you but anyway I'd keep the d7200.

No point in upgrading to a camera that firstly you have doubts about and second that you may have to do a lot of adjusting to sort out. Micro focussing adjustments on lenses,especially zooms is a pain in the backside, and usually ends up putting them out somewhere else along the range


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2016)

gckless said:


> I agree with you. Without completing the AF fine-tune just yet, what I'm seeing is that the D7200 is sharper to a point, but the D800 has more detail overall and past the D7200's limits. Does that make sense? I also do believe the glass is limiting the D800 here, but the 70-300mm VR has some decent reviews. DXO says it ain't all that hot though, which I trust more. I do like the images from the D800 more overall though, that's for sure. So much more usable in high ISO, even though it only goes up to 6400 native. D7200 I'm hesitant to go above 800! Then again, I seemingly need more exposure for the same shot, generally in the way of higher ISO.



Having shot the 70-300mm VR I can tell you that for a telephoto lens it's one of the sharpest you can get in that focal range.  It is definitely not "mediocre" glass by any stretch of the imagination.  Some of the older, non-VR lenses in that focal length were, but the VR version is a very sharp lens.

I shoot a lot of telephoto myself, and recently upgraded my D7100 for the D600 and I can tell you I'm happy with the switch over.  When I really feel like I need that extra "reach" I can very quickly put the camera in DX mode and get the same FOV as the 7100 had, though I don't do that too often to be honest.

Ultimately of course it comes down to shooting situation, if you can get better, more consistent results for what your shooting with the D7200 then best to stay with it.


----------



## gckless (Apr 18, 2016)

Man, that's what I thought about the 70-300! But I've been using it on the DX, so I wasn't sure how it performed on an FX body. Dynamic range is awesome on the D800. At ISO 4000, the D7200's color kinda falls apart. Background of test shots I have that should be subtly colored look B&W, but are rendered properly on the D800. Man do I want it for anything less than telephoto work.

But, at least 50% of what I do seems to be telephoto work, and I'm hesitant to switch because of the extra reach I get due to crop factor. I find myself hitting the end of the 70-300's zoom range sometimes, and that's 150mm more (effectively) than what I'd have on the D800. Here's one shot I would have never gotten:




Moto2 by Gilbert Kless, on Flickr

I think I get good shots with the D7200, I'm happy with them at ISO100. I guess I'm only thinking about it because of the good deal I can get on this body. That, and anytime I need to push the ISO even slightly I'm not super happy. And the DR of the FF. And the look of FF. And MP. My head is spinning right now.

Maybe I'll skip the 70-200, get the D800 body, a good shorter zoom lens and use it for static car shots. Ah, decisions.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 18, 2016)

I think at iso 100 the d7200 had the same dynamic range as the d800, I read that somewhere.

The d800 will still give 15mp on the crop area vs your 24mp from the d7200. Depending on how much more you need to crop that might be enough, many pros using a d3 or d3s manage with 12


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2016)

gckless said:


> Man, that's what I thought about the 70-300! But I've been using it on the DX, so I wasn't sure how it performed on an FX body. Dynamic range is awesome on the D800. At ISO 4000, the D7200's color kinda falls apart. Background of test shots I have that should be subtly colored look B&W, but are rendered properly on the D800. Man do I want it for anything less than telephoto work.



I love the D600 myself, I get better results from it than I did from the D7100 even in better lighting situations.  I will be investing in a better telephoto lens for it though, like you the 70-300 mm sometimes just isn't enough reach.  I'm considering a variety of options in the 400-600 mm range at the moment, though it will be a couple of months before I finally get tot he point where I can start looking seriously. 



> But, at least 50% of what I do seems to be telephoto work, and I'm hesitant to switch because of the extra reach I get due to crop factor. I find myself hitting the end of the 70-300's zoom range sometimes, and that's 150mm more (effectively) than what I'd have on the D800. Here's one shot I would have never gotten:



You can shoot the D800 in DX mode, which will give you the same "reach" as your D7200.  I've done it a couple of times with the D600.  Something you might want to test and see if it will work for you.


----------



## gckless (Apr 18, 2016)

jaomul said:


> I think at iso 100 the d7200 had the same dynamic range as the d800, I read that somewhere.
> 
> The d800 will still give 15mp on the crop area vs your 24mp from the d7200. Depending on how much more you need to crop that might be enough, many pros using a d3 or d3s manage with 12



At base ISO, I think you're right. Above that though, the D800 definitely outshines it. Plus, even at base, there's that FF look, which is largely due to DoF but also a couple other things.

15MP is good enough for things I don't need to crop, I'll give you that. But if I'm in crop mode a decent amount of time, then why don't I just keep the D7200? That's my dillemma.



robbins.photo said:


> gckless said:
> 
> 
> > Man, that's what I thought about the 70-300! But I've been using it on the DX, so I wasn't sure how it performed on an FX body. Dynamic range is awesome on the D800. At ISO 4000, the D7200's color kinda falls apart. Background of test shots I have that should be subtly colored look B&W, but are rendered properly on the D800. Man do I want it for anything less than telephoto work.
> ...



Well that's good to hear about the D600 results. See above for my thoughts on the crop mode. And I know if I make the switch I'll regret it the first time I'm out on track lol. But then in the paddock, the D800 is far better. Ahhhhhhhhh.


----------



## fmw (Apr 18, 2016)

gckless said:


> Your opinion: D7200 or D800?
> 
> I've got a D7200 now, and I've borrowed a D800 with the ability to purchase possibly at the same price I could sell my D7200 for. So far, I'm not impressed with the D800. Only thing I'm seeing it does better is noise. I'm finding AF is better and photos are sharper with the D7200, even when photos are taken with the subject the same size. So, I can't really crop in any tighter due to the poor focus, the extra MP do nothing for me there.
> 
> ...



You want to trade a camera that works for you for one that doesn't.  What kind of sense does that make?  Spend your time making images rather than obsessing about equipment.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2016)

gckless said:


> Well that's good to hear about the D600 results. See above for my thoughts on the crop mode. And I know if I make the switch I'll regret it the first time I'm out on track lol. But then in the paddock, the D800 is far better. Ahhhhhhhhh.



I look at the crop mode as sort of a fallback position, if I can't get the shot I want without it it's a nice extra to have in the bag.  I set it up on the function button so I can switch in and out easily.  Eventually when I get a bit more powerful telephoto in the bag I doubt I'll be using it much at all.

But even when I'm shooting telephoto and lower ISO's I just like the D600 images better, they seem "cleaner" for lack of a better term.  That and I do enough lowlight that for me the switch was a lot easier to justify, a good percentage of my shooting is done in bad lighting conditions so the switchover made too much sense for me.

For you, well again it all comes down to shooting situation.  Maybe the ideal would be to keep the 7200 and get the 800 as well, assuming finances will support that decision.


----------



## shadowlands (Apr 19, 2016)

I'm biased, but I loves me some D800. I came from a D300, so I'm happy.


----------



## gckless (Apr 19, 2016)

Still thinking about it. He still hasn't gotten back to me on prices, so that's going to make a difference.

Right now I have a D7200 with the kit 18-140mm (~$1000 resale), Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (~$100), Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (~$250), and Nikon 70-300mm VR (~$350). Total of $1700, hopefully.

If I'm going to make the jump, I'd need a 24-70 because I love that range, would need 450mm to equal what I saw on the D7200, and would love something in between. The something in between isn't super necessary right now, but this guy is also selling the 70-200, so I won't find a better deal on it. So I was estimating about this:
D800 (~$1000)
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (~$1000)
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 ($750)
Nikon 200-500mm ($1400) or the Sigma 150-600mm Sports ($2k, or $1600 used from KEH) if I wanted to spend a bit more.

Quite a price jump. That alone scares me! I might get the top two a little cheaper, but not by much I'm afraid. I've been playing around with the D800, and it is awesome. Haven't had it out on the track yet, so I'm unsure about the performance there, but I love the thing. Hadn't realized just how small DoF is on FF at the same aperture compared to the crop sensors.

Oooooor, just pick up a couple lenses and keep the crop body for now. Probably won't find a better deal on the D800, but the money might be better spent on lenses.

Thinking out loud here. I'm indecisive, so thanks for bearing with me and opinions


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 19, 2016)

gckless said:


> Still thinking about it. He still hasn't gotten back to me on prices, so that's going to make a difference.
> 
> Right now I have a D7200 with the kit 18-140mm (~$1000 resale), Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (~$100), Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (~$250), and Nikon 70-300 (~$350). Total of $1700, hopefully.
> 
> ...



Ok, well if you think the D800 might be something worth doing, my recommendation to start would be the D800, the 70-200mm 2.8, a 2x TC

Replace the Sigma 24-70 2.8 with a Tamron 28-75 2.8, you can get one a lot cheaper and it's a thumping good lens, sharp as a tack.  Love mine. 

The 70-200 mm with TC will give you great lowlight out to 200 without the TC, or 400 mm at 5.6, which should cover you pretty well.  It's very versatile and a lot easier carrying around that TC than a second lens.  You can always look at getting a longer telephoto later on of course if you see the need.

That is assuming of course you think the lowlight advantages of the D800 are worth it to you.    If not then maybe stay with the 7200 and maybe just look at buying the 70-200 2.8


----------



## gckless (Apr 20, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> gckless said:
> 
> 
> > Still thinking about it. He still hasn't gotten back to me on prices, so that's going to make a difference.
> ...



I really want the lowlight capabilities, and to be honest that's the biggest reason I'm even still thinking about it. But on the track, I think the D7200 would edge it out in overall capabilities, and most of the time I have enough time to bring and setup a tripod to keep ISO low when I'm off the track. Or maybe I'm just reading too many stories about people saying it's mostly a landscape/studio body? Anyway, if I keep the D7200, I might sell the 70-300 VR, get that 70-200 f/2.8, a cheap fisheye (shooting a few car shows this summer and I want a couple creative shots), and either a Sigma 150-600 Sports, the 2x TC, or a Nikon 200-500. I think I know the differences between the two longer zooms, but not sure how the TC on the 70-200 would compare. I'm hesitant to use TCs, especially a 2x, just heard too many bad stories about IQ. But would the 70-200 retain more sharpness and detail over the two longer lenses even with the TC, that's the question. May need another thread.

Ah, the possibilities.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 20, 2016)

Dedicated lenses are definitely a better way to go over tc. The d7200 is a great but of kit. If you jump to d800 you'll need good lenses to benefit from resolution, but crucially you may need lens changes to get lenses to operate same fields of view as current set up.

If it really is the low light performance you want, your likely better off getting a d610 as mentioned. However, it be better to have a great camera like the d7200 and a set of suitable lenses for your type of shooting than an even better one but stuck for your favorite lenses.


----------



## goooner (Apr 20, 2016)

I'm late to the thread but read through the most of it. For me it sounds crazy to sell a working D7200 and get a D800 which has not performed well in your hands. I get the full frame goodness, but it sounds as if a crop sensor is better suited to your needs. One of the best bird photogs on here (coastalconn) also tried the d800 for a while iirc and changed back to his d7100 at the time, because of the reach and frames per second. He now shoots a 7Dmk2 but still crop.

Have you thought about the Sigma 150-600 C, quite a few on here have been getting great results with that lens and it is half the price of the sport version around these parts.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 20, 2016)

gckless said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > gckless said:
> ...


Actually I've shot both the 1.4 and 2x with a sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and it was my experience on a crop sensor like the 7100 you were hard pressed to tell the difference.  I actually sold the 200 before purchasing the d600 so it may be a different story on full frame but my guess is if there is a noticeable IQ loss it will be in the corners, which makes it easy to compensate for by just shooting a tad wide and cropping.

Either way I don't think there is a wrong or bad choice here.  Maybe one other thing to consider, depending on how much your friend will be asking for the d800, I'd hold off for now and stay with the 7200, then look for a deal on a used d600 that's already had the shutter replaced or a d610.  

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## CarlosFrazao (Apr 20, 2016)

Defenetly have a look at the sigma 150-600 c my neighbor had the sport and got rid of it for a 600f4 but he says that my contemporary is definitely much sharper than the sport you can have a look at the wildlife section I have a few shots up there and it's actually lightning fast focus I'm really amazed at the price point why carry the heavy sport around if the contemporary is just as good I'm also using mine on a d7200


----------



## CarlosFrazao (Apr 20, 2016)

Just want to ask a question while we are on the d7200 and d800.. I currently have a d7200 and I'm not happy with anything over say iso 800 will the d800 perform much better if being used for say baby photography and weddings where the light is bad at weddings aswell.. Sorry for the highjack


----------



## gckless (Apr 20, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> gckless said:
> 
> 
> > Still thinking about it. He still hasn't gotten back to me on prices, so that's going to make a difference.
> ...





jaomul said:


> Dedicated lenses are definitely a better way to go over tc. The d7200 is a great but of kit. If you jump to d800 you'll need good lenses to benefit from resolution, but crucially you may need lens changes to get lenses to operate same fields of view as current set up.
> 
> If it really is the low light performance you want, your likely better off getting a d610 as mentioned. However, it be better to have a great camera like the d7200 and a set of suitable lenses for your type of shooting than an even better one but stuck for your favorite lenses.



Yeah, I'm with you here. I would give up a couple lenses that I have for DX to go FX with the proper IQ. I think I would kick myself for giving up the reach I get to get better IQ. On track, it's a bad move. Anywhere else, it makes sense, but the D7200 isn't exactly a bad camera, and is something I can live with. Better glass seems to be my solution right now.



eal76 said:


> We have two D800s and shoot them exclusively for our studio work. They are workhorses, and produce stunning images. If you are not liking how your shots turned out it is quite unlikely that the camera body is to blame. Lenses and camera settings are most likely the issue.
> ETA: my husband (he does all of our pro shooting) does say that our crop sensor D7000 is faster, so that may be why you're preferring the 7200 for sports.



Yep, I agree. I've since gotten some great shots with the D800, so it was user error. But as you mentioned, they're awesome in the studio. I think the D7200 is the better camera for me right now.



goooner said:


> I'm late to the thread but read through the most of it. For me it sounds crazy to sell a working D7200 and get a D800 which has not performed well in your hands. I get the full frame goodness, but it sounds as if a crop sensor is better suited to your needs. One of the best bird photogs on here (coastalconn) also tried the d800 for a while iirc and changed back to his d7100 at the time, because of the reach and frames per second. He now shoots a 7Dmk2 but still crop.
> 
> Have you thought about the Sigma 150-600 C, quite a few on here have been getting great results with that lens and it is half the price of the sport version around these parts.



Funny you mention that camera, because a buddy of mine that has that 7Dmk2 sent me an image yesterday at ISO3200, and I was astounded. Looks better than my D7200 at ISO800! Of course they weren't compared side-by-side, but I was amazed at the lack of noise in there.

I think I've eliminated the Contemporary in my mind. If I'm spending $1k+, I want to get the best one (within the budget of course). The 200-500 and the 150-600 Sports has been shown to edge it out. Might be slightly, and I might not even notice it on my APS-C body, but I'll know! Lol. I'm not saying it's bad, just that the other two might be one or two hairs sharper. I don't get to upgrade all that often, so I try to make things future-proof as much as possible.



robbins.photo said:


> gckless said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



Good to hear about the 1.4x to 2x difference. I guess I'm wondering if the 70-200 with the 2x would be sharper than the 200-500 or 150-600 S. My guess is that it will not be. As mentioned before, I think I would prefer the dedicated lens.

Thanks for helping me out though. Like you're thinking, I think keeping the D7200 for now and picking up some glass is the way to go. Who knows, maybe by the time I'm ready to finally go to an FX body, a D620 or whatever will be out.

Unless he says $500 for the D800. Then I have to pick it up just because of the deal! Lol.



CarlosFrazao said:


> Defenetly have a look at the sigma 150-600 c my neighbor had the sport and got rid of it for a 600f4 but he says that my contemporary is definitely much sharper than the sport you can have a look at the wildlife section I have a few shots up there and it's actually lightning fast focus I'm really amazed at the price point why carry the heavy sport around if the contemporary is just as good I'm also using mine on a d7200



Every lens test I've seen says the Sport is a decent amount sharper than the Contemporary. Question is if I would notice that difference on a D7200.



CarlosFrazao said:


> Just want to ask a question while we are on the d7200 and d800.. I currently have a d7200 and I'm not happy with anything over say iso 800 will the d800 perform much better if being used for say baby photography and weddings where the light is bad at weddings aswell.. Sorry for the highjack



I'm with you, I hesitate to go above ISO800 with the D7200. I can tell you the D800 handles noise much better. It also translates poor user technique much more.


----------



## goooner (Apr 20, 2016)

I like the bokeh on the Sigma more than the Nikon 200-500 (from the examples I see). I will have to make that decision sometime next year, not looking forward to it.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 20, 2016)

I'm guessing most dedicated lenses are going to give you sharper results in most cases versus using a TC.   

Also no harm in waiting to go to FX if the DX you have is doing the job.  Every time they release the next generation of camera, all of the older stuff comes down in price.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 20, 2016)

I'm no fanboy, but I shoot on occasion side by side with a guy who uses a Canon 7d2, me using a d7200. One is no better than the other at high iso. Here the jpeg settings on each camera can give vastly different results, but I've seen both raw files at high iso, it be hard pushed to say one is better than the other


----------



## CarlosFrazao (Apr 20, 2016)

gckless said:


> Every lens test I've seen says the Sport is a decent amount sharper than the Contemporary. Question is if I would notice that difference on a D7200.



well like i said this is from someones mouth who owned the lens and said its not worth the extra money as the contemporary is amazing for its price and we are now comparing the same photos between the contemporary of R14 000 and a 600 F4 of nearly R200 000 and the photos we are seeing the quality is amazing compared to that expensive lens...



gckless said:


> I'm with you, I hesitate to go above ISO800 with the D7200. I can tell you the D800 handles noise much better. It also translates poor user technique much more.



is the difference like night and day between the two cameras as I'm really needing that extra iso performance


----------



## gckless (Apr 20, 2016)

goooner said:


> I like the bokeh on the Sigma more than the Nikon 200-500 (from the examples I see). I will have to make that decision sometime next year, not looking forward to it.



From what I've seen, they're damn close, but I think I agree with you. Good news is, by next year, there should be enough people that have shot with both that the decision shouldn't be as hard. Opinions will be formed, weaknesses will be apparent.



robbins.photo said:


> I'm guessing most dedicated lenses are going to give you sharper results in most cases versus using a TC.
> 
> Also no harm in waiting to go to FX if the DX you have is doing the job.  Every time they release the next generation of camera, all of the older stuff comes down in price.



That is true. Typically when I spend money I try to get the best I can so I spend less often. Or at least that's what I tell myself at the time lol.



jaomul said:


> I'm no fanboy, but I shoot on occasion side by side with a guy who uses a Canon 7d2, me using a d7200. One is no better than the other at high iso. Here the jpeg settings on each camera can give vastly different results, but I've seen both raw files at high iso, it be hard pushed to say one is better than the other



Well, it could have just been the photo he showed me. I'm glad you squashed that idea though 



CarlosFrazao said:


> gckless said:
> 
> 
> > Every lens test I've seen says the Sport is a decent amount sharper than the Contemporary. Question is if I would notice that difference on a D7200.
> ...



I can't tell you if it will be worth it for you, but I can tell you it's clearly visible. Noise is much smoother, and the photo holds together better at high ISO on the D800. Still has nice color and DR in it, where the D7200 (or any crop really) kinda falls apart.




Thanks for the help folks. I went to the local camera shop, and they had both that I'm trying to decide between, the Siggy 150-600 Sports and the Nikkor 200-500. I didn't put them on a camera body, but they were nice enough to unpack them from their boxes and let me hold them. First impressions, just from holding them:

Sigma:
- Big. The thing is heavy, noticeably heavier than the Nikon. This is just at 150mm. As you zoom out, there's a lot of weight at the end of the lens that travels with the extending portion of the lens, and it extends farther than the Nikon. This makes it seem much heavier, as the weight is now farther from where you're holding it. This lens would be tough to handhold for any decent length of time, a monopod is basically mandatory. This is really my only gripe about this lens.
- Built well. Zoom rings were tougher to turn than the Nikon. Not to say it was hard, I just don't know how else to describe it lol. Everything was smooth and had a good range on the zoom ring. Definitely don't have to re-grip going from 150mm to 600mm.
- The lack of a hard lens cap sorta bothers me, but I guess that's how most large lenses are.

Nikon:
- Still big, but feels so much lighter than the Sigma. I could handhold this for a while. Feels good in the hand.
- Zoom ring range is horrid. Going from 200m  to 500mm is a 180* turn of the ring, which basically requires you to turn, shift your hand, then finish. Honestly, besides this issue, the Nikon feels so much better.
- Hard lens cap 

So, both have their pitfalls. The Sigma is heavy and requires a monopod basically at all times. The Nikon's zoom ring range is terrible. Guess I just need to decide which shortcoming I want to accept.


----------



## gckless (Apr 26, 2016)

Well folks, decided to definitely stay with the D7200 for now. With the addition of the D500 to Nikon's lineup, I think I'll be ok staying with APS-C for a while, though I am going to purchase FF glass from now on.

I did also decide on the Nikon 200-500, I picked it up yesterday locally. Nice lens for sure, only thing I am not a fan of is the previously mentioned zoom ring range, but I'll get over it. Also looking at a 70-200mm f/2.8, but that will be later, unfortunately.

Thanks!


----------

