Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="spb_stan" data-source="post: 647573" data-attributes="member: 43545">A lot of people subscribe to the  skip-a-step view of there being not enough improvement to warrant replacing the predecessor of any of these great cameras. If one just feels their wallet calling a new camera's name, spend it on glass or lighting until there is a significant change for the type of shooting one does.  The D500 was a substantial upgrade for those who need its design features...sports and moving wildlife but not needed for those doing other general shooting. The D7200 or 7500 would probably never be outgrown as a tool for great images in general photography, so upgrading is more a matter of wanting a new toy than it is a matter of image improvement. For most scenes, there has not been that big of difference between any of the cameras dating to about the time of the D90 which was a very competent general purpose camera that had 90% of the features and functions that anyone would need if they did not have some specialty that demanded other qualities such as those of the D500 related to speed and AF performance. I am asked frequently whether someone should upgrade and my first reply is usually not unless they can point to some specific camera related shortcoming that would be corrected. Instead of getting better images, upgrading often slows down the learning process by derailing the progress made with  a current camera. Show me an image that it is assumed would have been better if done with a newer camera and I can usually find the real problem was technique or concept, not capture related. Some people just like the idea of features on a camera so are more camera hobbyists than image hobbyists. So figure out your goal ad whether keeper rate change is worth the price. A lower than desired capture rate usually is due to technique problems rather than camera problems.</blockquote>

Verification