# Upgrade to D7200 or FX Body?



## JoeW (Nov 20, 2016)

Okay, here's the deal....I have two D7000 bodies.  I've got a pretty significant investment in DX lens (10 the last time I counted).  I've got a significant birthday coming up next May and my parents have basically indicated that for next May, they're going to get me a photo trip somewhere exotic (think:  Iceland or Botswana or Yellowstone).  Anyway, that's a push for me to upgrade my body.

Part of me has me thinking about upgrading to a FX body  But realistically, an FX body isn't going to give me FX performance (in terms of color depth and dynamic range) for landscapes or shooting critters from a distance and in poor light if I"m using DX lens.

So now is the time for me to look at a body upgrade decision.  I could upgrade to a D7200 and stay with my DX investment.  Or I can switch to FX recognizing that I'd be adding FX lens gradually (finances are an issue).  

Switching to an FX body and also acquiring several lens isn't an option at this point.  So if I went with the FX body, I'd probably be shooting with DX lens for 6 months or a bit longer and then just adding FX options about one a year.

So...what advice do you give?  Upgrade to a D7200?  Or look at an FX model?

Also, just for background info...I shoot a wide range of subjects from weddings, sports, landscapes, wildlife, people, abstracts.  I don't shoot video.  fps doesn't matter much to me.  Weight and size aren't big factors for me.


----------



## PropilotBW (Nov 20, 2016)

Are you considering the D500 at all?


----------



## DarkShadow (Nov 20, 2016)

From reading everything you said in your post of what you shoot and especially the amount of glass you collected of DX and finances are an issue, I think you would be very happy and better off with the D7200 it just makes more sense  that can enjoy a wide range of glass straight away. Now speaking from experience with D7200 the Image quality is fantastic. sharp,clear with great color and High ISO are amazing with good exposures. Though I think the D750 has the edge in overall performance the price difference unless you are always going to be shooting in really low light and need wider angle and DOF the D7200 is a good choice. I have a lot of images from it the D7200 I can post if you like.


----------



## JoeW (Nov 20, 2016)

Thanks for the comments.  And I figure the first issue is to decide on the D7200 or FX.  And if I opt to go the FX route, I've got plenty of options to look at.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 20, 2016)

An interesting situation you find yourself in. The D7000 was not regarded all that highly by many, and has been surpassed quite a bit in sensor performance by FX-sensored Nikons. And speaking of FX Nikons...there are now a number of them on the market, from older models to brand new, built on low-end bodies, mid-level, and flagship bodies (D600 and D610; Df,D700 and D800 and D810; D3,D3s,D3x,D4,D5) so the term "FX Nikon really is not one, single thing.

It's tough to advise you when you say, "10 DX lenses"...with no information on which ones, or which ones you really like to use. Nikon's own brand of DX lenses has some gaps in it, but their lenses for full-frame cameras are numerous, and date back decades, in multiple lines (Ai-Ai-S,AF,AF-D, AF-S, AFS-G, AF-S E), with the newest E-series having electronic diaphragm operation, so cameras made before about 2007 will not work fully with those.

Like ProPilot asks--have you considered the D500 at all? From sources I trust, it has **amazing** autofocus performance, and a VERY good DX size sensor. How about a D800,D800e, or D810? with a DX lens, you'd still have about a 16-million pixel image in DX crop mode. The D600 is available cheaply,second-hand, but it is a sort of inexpensive body, and the viewfinder system is not all that great on it (compared to say a D3s or a D3x or a D4).


----------



## mauiarcher (Nov 20, 2016)

Far be it from me to tell you what to get.  If it were ME, with subjects you identified (landscape, people, weddings) I would definitely go FX.  Not hard to pair down your glass either (sell on ebay and replace) but to each his own.  FX lenses can be used on both.  There are only a couple DX lenses that I still own (a wide, fish eye, 35mm 1.8) the rest FX covers.

Depends on your budget too.  You can get a used d600 for like 600-700 and get a free shutter replace and basically have a new camera and spend the other 500 saved on glass vs d7200 (There is a lot of great inexpensive "old" film/fx glass).  Or you can almost by a refurbished (lile new) d750 (great camera) for nearly the same.  If you can afford new, even comes with a very grip....I said I never needed one....til I used one.

You also say you shoot sports...hard to say fps doesn't matter.  Like post above suggested, d500 is pretty sick.  Not only fps but low light and focus tracking (same AF as d5).  Probably best value wildlife and sports camera offered right now.  This would be my pick for only 1 camera.

Unfortunately, your question is one only you can answer.  Lots of good stuff out there.  Gotta figure out what works best for you.

Good luck.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## DarkShadow (Nov 20, 2016)

I seen some price drops or maybe specials on the D500 not to far away from the D750 prices. The D500 is awesome,just holding in your hand it's a beast and the body don't feel like a hallow piece of plastic like the D750 does.Feels like a real rugged camera for the outdoorsmen or women.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 20, 2016)

One of the biggest issues you'll find between DX and FX cameras is literally, "How the cameras shoot," in many real-world situations. I started in 1975 with 25x36mm and film; I began digital in 2001 with the Nikon D1 and its APS-C sensor, and six years and several different APS-C cameras later, I added an FX camera in 2007 with the first-generation Canon 5D and used that and the Nikon D2x together, as a pair, until 2013 when I bought a Nikon D3x. There is a HUGE difference in how you actually shoot things with a DX Nikon or an FX Nikon, or with a 1.6x Canon or a FF Caon camera.

Do you want a camera that has an articulated screen on the back, and that shoots great in Live View mode? Do you need a camera that has a BIG, clear, sharp through the lens viewfinder? Have you used a flagship-level camera like a D3 or D4 series? Or the next-best-thing, a D700 or D810?

Do you want REALLY high resolution, like 36 million pixels and a big,croppable image file? Have you had the chance to see what 24 million pixels on FX can actually do, and how good that is?

From what many suggest, the D800 or D810 is the best all-around camera for image quality. For me, the D3x is the best-made, best-shooting, best-handling camera and a good value at its new, lower used market price,and it shoots in 3:2 aspect FX format, 5:4 aspect format, and in 3:2 aspect DX mode. For sheer low price, the D600 is hard to beat, and is built on the same body you are used to. The D500 is probably the best $1995 camera Nikon has ever made. The D7200 is a good choice, sensor wise but it is still an APS-C sensor, so the lenses perform very differently than the full-frame lenses do.

I dunno....maybe you want two bodies, of the same type? Or one Dx and one FX? Might it be time to check out some cameras if you can, in real life?


----------



## DarkShadow (Nov 20, 2016)

Yes its good to have hands on with the cameras,When I seen the D500 on the shelf in the camera shop it was kinda of fun the D7200 sitting next to it looked like a tiny D3300, It was like a tall boy next to little boy.LOL


----------



## coastalconn (Nov 20, 2016)

DarkShadow said:


> I seen some price drops or maybe specials on the D500 not to far away from the D750 prices. The D500 is awesome,just holding in your hand it's a beast and the body don't feel like a hallow piece of plastic like the D750 does.Feels like a real rugged camera for the outdoorsmen or women.


The current "Black Friday" special of the D500 with the grip and a 64 gb Extreme pro for $1800 is one heck of a deal...


----------



## DarkShadow (Nov 20, 2016)

Oh the Temptation.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 20, 2016)

My 2 cents ... If you have a limited budget which it seems like you do then it's about the D7200 vs D600
With the D600 you have everything a D7200 is PLUS a FX camera.  But if you really like the long end (wildlife) then DX is better.  If wedding and people are your thing, FX would be better at that price level.  FYI, you can save a hundred or more with a refurbished D7200.

The D7200 is a great low option for DX.  The D600 is a great option too for FX.  I love it, great camera. yes you can use it in DX mode until your expand your lenses and have the FX read (don't for get about lower cost AF-D lenses, I have many).  The 750 is like a D600 with a few more bells and whistles.  The D500 is all about AF performance and FPS with some good Low Light ability.  I may just buy one, test it for a few indoor soccer games, and return it if the ISO isn't up to par and I can pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

For sports, I find myself needed the close end of the focal length a lot.  So when I was using DX I was stepping back to get close action.  for Indoor I can't really do that.  FX works great for indoor and outdoor, no quelms about it.

BTW, like any Pro body the D500 ONLY has PASM modes.  Nothing else.  So if you like any of the other modes or the Effects things they are not there.

FYI, you'll find the D7200 and D600 slightly larger than your D7000.

I just shot a D500 at all ISO levels in BestBuy.  I have yet to review the images.
I'm trying to decide on a D500 or a D5500 for more astrophotography and astro-video work.  If money were no object I'd get the D500 .. but since it is ...

I'd also try to use it for long distance photography. Think stuff 7 miles up to the international space station and beyond.  I was toying with the idea .. one of my scopes x 2TC plus 1.5crop comes out to roughly 9,000mm equivalent focal length.

So basically .. D500, OEM grip, 64gb extreme pro card, bag from B&H is $1796 this week only. Nikon D500 DSLR Camera (D500 Body) 1559 B&H Photo
D5500 body only $499 or so.
So roughly $1200 difference.

I may have the IR filter removed down the road too so getting a D500 to gut it out makes no sense.
D7200 is considered, but I really need that flippy screen and I wouldn't want to gut it out.
My other cameras are D750, D600 also had D7000.


----------



## JoeW (Nov 21, 2016)

Thanks again for all of the comments and insights on this.  Darrel--I especially appreciate it when you share your insights on gear since you've had to sell all of this stuff.  Some information (FWIW)...the lens that I tend to use the most/a default lens is a Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8, the lens I probably use the next most (if that's a phrase) is a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (I like playing a lot with DoF), I use an 85mm f1.8G for a lot of portrait sessions, and other than a lens baby (I didn't count that in my lens count in the initial post), the one non-Nikkor lens that gets usage is a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8.


----------



## cgw (Nov 21, 2016)

With the strong likelihood of holiday discounts around the corner, the D7200 seems the obvious answer. It's still glued to the price/quality/features sweet spot for DX or FX. Take the savings and put it toward storage/archive media and/or a laptop upgrade. Travel always costs more than anticipated, so extra $$$ comes in handy. You're set for lenses. In the end, experiences matter more than gear with travel.


----------



## gckless (Nov 21, 2016)

Isn't the Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8 an FX lens? I could be mistaken.

While the D500 is no doubt a fantastic camera, it doesn't appear you _need_ it's feature set, and it's also not FX. IMO, you're looking at either a D7200 (the lower price option) or a FX body. The D7200 is a good upgrade from a D7000, I made the same jump. I have a lot of photos on the D7200 if you want some samples.

Another thing you want to think about while travelling is weight. The FX body itself isn't really noticeably heavier in a backpack, but how many lenses are you going to have to take just for that? And will you also have to take the DX body and those lenses? That can add up to a lot, and your trip's not going to be much fun if your shoulders and back are constantly hurting. I've done some longer trips, and even though I consider myself to be in pretty good shape, it starts to wear on you.

If I were you, I'd pick up a D7200, save some cash, and keep the current system. Unless you can live with only taking the FX body and whatever lenses you may have for that at the time. If you think you also need to take the DX, stick with that body solely for now. IMO.


----------



## JonA_CT (Nov 21, 2016)

Yeah, looks like to me that the lenses you use most often are all FX lenses...just comes down to what you shoot and what features you need. I'd probably get whichever FX body I could afford, and then sell off the DX lenses to fill the gap in the wider focal lengths of the lenses you listed above...maybe one of the fast 20mm primes.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 21, 2016)

JoeW said:


> Thanks again for all of the comments and insights on this.  Darrel--I especially appreciate it when you share your insights on gear since you've had to sell all of this stuff.  Some information (FWIW)...the lens that I tend to use the most/a default lens is a Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8, the lens I probably use the next most (if that's a phrase) is a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (I like playing a lot with DoF), I use an 85mm f1.8G for a lot of portrait sessions, and other than a lens baby (I didn't count that in my lens count in the initial post), the one non-Nikkor lens that gets usage is a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8.


I have the 24-85/2.8-4.0 lens too.  It's an FX lens.  I was the first lens after the kit I got when I had my D7000.   I love the range as it fills in up to the 85mm prime.  But I tended to use the 18-105 kit more for the 18mm on DX.  On FX the 24-85 really fits in nicely (my avatar is from the 24-85 in macro mode).

I also have the 50/1.4 G, and a 85/1.8 AF-D.  Really, these lenses are awesome on the FX platform for their price.  I added a 18-35 FX AF-D for UWA on the D600/D750; after that lens I rarely used my D7000, and sold it off.

So you have FX lenses of   24-85/2.8-4; 50/1.4, 85G,  70-2000/2.8 which are all FX lenses.

The only thing you are missing is on the UWA side, 17/18-35 and you'll be all set.


----------



## Dave442 (Nov 21, 2016)

I agree with the others, seems like your top five lenses are all FX models.  While I like the D500, the addition of something like the D610 will really make much better use of that 24-85mm and your 85mm will be an even better lens for portrait on FX. I would then sell all DX only lenses and one of the two D7000 bodies and pick up one more FX lens.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 21, 2016)

Ok, so questions to ask yourself...

Do you really feel like you need better lowlight performance?  Do you find that in a lot of your shooting situations your missing shots because your ISO is going too high?

Do you find in a lot of shooting situations you want more background separation or a wider FOV?

If so then an FX camera might be a good thing to consider.  If not and your happy with APS-C, then APS-C might be a better option.

Both the D7100 and D7200 are great cameras, and a pretty significant upgrade from the D7000.

In full frame the D600 is an incredible value, one that I highly recommend.  Unless you really need the flippy screen of the D750 or the higher resolution of the D800/D810 the D600 is very hard to beat as far as bang for your buck.

The other thing to consider is that you might want to go for the best of both worlds, sell one of your D7000's and keep the other for now.  Get a D600 or maybe a D610 depending on your budget.  Then you have both an APS-C camera on hand as well as full frame so your covered for just about any shooting situation you can imagine.


----------



## DarkShadow (Nov 21, 2016)

The original post sounded to me like you had all DX glass, but since you have FX lenses your options are really great.Get one of each.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 21, 2016)

I can only say: Consider the D500. IQ-wise she is better that many FX-bodies & I get usable shots at 20.000 ISO which is much more than I can say about my D3 and even the D600 lags behind. Fifth Generation means: incredible AF and incredible WB, never seen in the fourth generation.

I had DX for a long time but from the beginning never bought ONE DX-lens, because I knew I want to upgrade to FX some day. I was used to the format because I wans an intense user of film from 1983 till 2004.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 21, 2016)

JoeW said:


> Thanks again for all of the comments and insights on this.  Darrel--I especially appreciate it when you share your insights on gear since you've had to sell all of this stuff.  Some information (FWIW)...the lens that I tend to use the most/a default lens is a Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8, the lens I probably use the next most (if that's a phrase) is a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (I like playing a lot with DoF), I use an 85mm f1.8G for a lot of portrait sessions, and other than a lens baby (I didn't count that in my lens count in the initial post), the one non-Nikkor lens that gets usage is a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8.



All these lenses are FX, the 1.8/85G is a VERY good lens in many respects, the 24-85 has some sample variation, the sample I once used on my D70 was really bad.

Which 1.4/50 ? Ai, Ai-S, AF, Af-D, AF-S???


----------



## JoeW (Nov 22, 2016)

Lots of great pieces of advice here.  I went to visit my favorite bricks and mortar camera store and put my hands on a D500.  Saying it has fast autofocus does not do it justice.  I believe what you said Darrel (not that I doubt you, only saying...I was very impressed).  But given that I've really got some FX glass in a couple of key areas, it's tempting to look at the D600 (in part b/c I could get that now or at least by Christmas while the D500 would probably be 6-9 months away for me).  I see keeping one of the D7000 bodies (and giving the other to my son who has a good eye).  I'd use the DX glass for that body.  And Derrel, your point about the similarity in feel between the D7000 and D600 is a very persuasive point to me--I can see being at an event with two bodies and it's good to be able to shoot without having to think on ergonomics.  I do have one question about the D600...I've heard stories about an internal oil splatter that gets on the sensor and led to a lot of returns.  Does anyone know if that problem has persisted?


----------



## JonA_CT (Nov 22, 2016)

JoeW said:


> I do have one question about the D600...I've heard stories about an internal oil splatter that gets on the sensor and led to a lot of returns.  Does anyone know if that problem has persisted?



Yes, it does. I bought mine used from KEH for around 700 dollars...I think there was a sale on. I had splatter issues, and I sent it to Nikon and they replaced the shutter mechanism and it was returned to me within 10 days.

If it happens again, you can call them and push for a replacement with a D610. Several members here have done so successfully.

The funny part for me is that it took me a little while to notice...most of the photography I do is with my daughter and in low-light situations. It wasn't noticeable until like above F5.6, which I don't as often as others might.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 22, 2016)

The oil splatter problem was probably a bit overblown on the internet to be honest, but it was enough that Nikon decided it would replace the shutter mechanism in any D600's that had the issue for free.

My own D600 had such a shutter replacement before I purchased it, it's never given me any problems since.  So if you purchase a D600 that hasn't had the shutter replaced and the issue arises, you can send it to Nikon and they'll repair it for free.

If the problem persists after the repair they can and sometimes do replace it with a D610.  As for me the 600 has worked flawlessly since the day I got it, and as previously mentioned it's pretty much exactly like the D7100 I was shooting prior to replacing it so almost no learning curve, which was nice.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 22, 2016)

The left buttons are in a different order for a D7000 to a D600.
A d7100 I think has the same button layout.
But they're Nikon prosumer dslrs so they are all very similar in layout, size, shape and weight.

My refurb'd dslr had oil splatter issues and they replaced the shutter.  I never saw a problem after that for me after 5,000 more activations.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 22, 2016)

I use the D500 and D600 in parallel.

The D600 can be had for 800 US$ including grip in Ebay. The D500 is 1800 US$ at B&H and they throw in a fast 64GB card from Sandisk on top. The D600 is a very nice camera. The D500 is a hell of a professional tool.


----------



## JoeW (Nov 22, 2016)

Damnit to hell you folks--you are not making my decision on this any easier.  I now want to get both the D500 and the D600.    I've got to find a way to afford both.  Hmm....I wonder if I really need a car...how much could I get for it?


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 22, 2016)

JoeW said:


> Damnit to hell you folks--you are not making my decision on this any easier.  I now want to get both the D500 and the D600.    I've got to find a way to afford both.  Hmm....I wonder if I really need a car...how much could I get for it?



The D500 is pretty much top of the line in APS-C.  I guess the question is does the better AF performance and higher frame rate really justify the extra cost when compared with the D600?  Really only a question you yourself can answer based on what you shoot.

So yup, it really comes down to what you shoot and what you think is reasonable based on your budget.  Not really a "bad" option here.   Can't really go wrong either way.

That being said, if it were me.. I'd go with the D600.  Keep one of the 7000's for now as a backup.  Then wait for a while and see what else hits the market.  The D500 is top of the line right now so you'll pay top of the line prices for it.  But in a year or two the prices will come down, even more so after a replacement is announced.

For me that's when I start looking at upgrading to that sort of camera.  But hey, I'm cheap.  Er.. thrifty.  Ya, I meant to say thrifty there.. lol


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 22, 2016)

JoeW said:


> Damnit to hell you folks--you are not making my decision on this any easier.  I now want to get both the D500 and the D600.    I've got to find a way to afford both.  Hmm....I wonder if I really need a car...how much could I get for it?


I sold my P7800
then I sold my D600 w/grip
in order to buy a D500 .... but I'm having issues spending that much on a camera
since I also bought a D750 only a few months ago.

so i'm looking at a D5500 which has touchscreen and the 39pt focus system from the D7000.  But it's primary purpose is astro stuff and some long distance photography of which a 1.5x crop would /should /maybe help.  But I need the flippy screen so it's d5500 or d500.

yeah ... too much confusing conflicts ...

who needs a car ?


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 22, 2016)

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 (Nov 22, 2016)

Frank F. said:


> The D600 price will not go much further down.


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


----------



## Peeb (Nov 22, 2016)

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 (Nov 24, 2016)

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 (Nov 24, 2016)

greybeard said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2016)

Peeb said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


Just the way the kits are configured.


----------



## Peeb (Nov 25, 2016)

greybeard said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2016)

Peeb said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Nov 25, 2016)

Peeb said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Peeb said:
> ...


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 (Nov 26, 2016)

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 (Nov 26, 2016)

greybeard said:


> 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 (Nov 26, 2016)

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 (Nov 26, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



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. (Nov 26, 2016)

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


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2016)

cgw said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...


A good used d600 can be had for the same price as a d7200.



Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## greybeard (Nov 26, 2016)

"A good used d600 can be had for the same price as a d7200.

I am most interested in the newer focusing systems on the d7200 and d750.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2016)

greybeard said:


> "A good used d600 can be had for the same price as a d7200.
> 
> I am most interested in the newer focusing systems on the d7200 and d750.


If you shoot a lot of action shots the better af can be nice.  Honestly I haven't had any issues with the d600, the af keeps up just fine for me.




Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Nov 26, 2016)

Consider the viewfinder system of any camera you are considering purchase of. Go to a store, and look through the viewfinder. Consider if there is an articulated rear screen, or not. Evaluate the viewfinder image itself: its size, and its clarity and its quality. There is a real difference between what is seen through the lower-level penta_mirror_ cameras (D3xxx and D5xxx-level models), between the DX-format penta_prism_ cameras, and the FX-format cameras of the consumer-type body level, and the flagship cameras, like the D3,D4,and D5 series.

For some types of photography, the view through the viewfinder when the camera is held at eye level, can be important. If your vision is not really fantastic, the larger, better view through an FX camera can be of some help. Some people are going to be framing and composing on a tripod using Live View and the rear LCD screen, and not making when to shoot or not shoot decisions based on what the viewfinder shows. For these people, the image thru the viewfinder will not be a big deal, really.

On the lower end, the pentamirror models, Nikon has slowly but steadily been increasing the viewfinder magnification over the generations. As far as physical SIZE, the FX cameras have a bigger through the camera image. Look at the eye relief in millimeters specification. But do try to get to an actual store, and compare cameras side-by-side, and see how the viewing system works for you,and your eyesight, user of eyeglasses or not, etc.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 26, 2016)

The D500 viewfinder is worth a look, it is not worse that most of the Fx finders I have used.


----------



## greybeard (Nov 26, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > "A good used d600 can be had for the same price as a d7200.
> ...


I'll keep that in mind.  I'm keep flip flopping  between the d7200, d750, and d610.  I shoot a lot of close up with my 105 macro and macro flash setup.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2016)

greybeard said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...


Honestly you can't really go wrong with any of the above.  Not a bad choice in the bunch.



Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 26, 2016)

greybeard said:


> I'll keep that in mind.  I'm keep flip flopping  between the d7200, d750, and d610.  I shoot a lot of close up with my 105 macro and macro flash setup.


If I was doing mostly macro, I'd probably opt for the d7200.


----------



## greybeard (Nov 27, 2016)

Well, my wife gave me the OK so I just pulled the trigger on a D750 with 24-120 f4.  I'm pumped.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 27, 2016)

greybeard said:


> Well, my wife gave me the OK so I just pulled the trigger on a D750 with 70-120 f4.  I'm pumped.


if you're doing mostly macro, Adorama Flashpoints' Ring Light is on sale for $30 ==> Flashpoint Ring Flash


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 28, 2016)

greybeard said:


> Well, my wife gave me the OK so I just pulled the trigger on a D750 with 70-120 f4.  I'm pumped.




This is a very good choice, especially the lens. One of the best lenses Nikon makes in absolute terms and a bargain for what it is. Have all the fun in the world with that combination! The D750 is also a very good camera, I would have bought one if I not already had the D600.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 28, 2016)

greybeard said:


> Well, my wife gave me the OK so I just pulled the trigger on a D750 with 70-120 f4.  I'm pumped.


70-120?
70-200/4 ?

If you have any setup issues with your d750 PM me .. I've had mine for a few months and a D600 & D7000 before that.  You'll find it fairly similar in setup just with more features and things.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 28, 2016)

greybeard said:


> Well, my wife gave me the OK so I just pulled the trigger on a D750 with 70-120 f4.  I'm pumped.



The D750?  Really?  Wow.. what a waste of money....

Rotfl.. kidding.. just kidding.  Sure you'll be very happy with it, great camera.


----------



## greybeard (Nov 28, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Well, my wife gave me the OK so I just pulled the trigger on a D750 with 70-120 f4.  I'm pumped.
> ...


lol


----------



## greybeard (Nov 28, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Well, my wife gave me the OK so I just pulled the trigger on a D750 with 70-120 f4.  I'm pumped.
> ...


Thanks, I'll keep you in mind.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 29, 2016)

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 (Nov 29, 2016)

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 (Nov 30, 2016)

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


----------



## Derrel (Nov 30, 2016)

Frank F. said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 1, 2016)

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


----------



## Parker219 (Dec 1, 2016)

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. (Dec 2, 2016)

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 (Jan 15, 2017)

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 (Jan 15, 2017)

JoeW said:


> 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 (Jan 15, 2017)

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 (Jan 15, 2017)

JoeW said:


> 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. (Jan 15, 2017)

JoeW said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Jan 16, 2017)

greybeard said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...



Awesome! Welcome to FX!!!


----------

