What body next?

[hark]

HARK..+9 sharp will give you no problems at all.

And I happen to disagree. Like [MENTION=13090]Horoscope Fish[/MENTION] mentioned, sharpening too much in camera (as well as during post processing) creates a halo effect. Been there, done that. Perhaps I am not as tolerant of the effect when pixel peeping as you. But then, I tend to shoot RAW as I found the dynamic range of shooting jpegs just didn't cut it for me plus RAW editing allows me more latitude during post processing than jpegs.

BUT the OP should try it out and see what works for him/her.

 

[Camera Fun]

Without getting into too deep a technical discussion, Full Frame FX sensors typically have better (less) noise performance... They also closely replicate the original 35mm film format focal length... which, if you've never shot film, might not mean a lot... it also frees your brain from continually doing a focal length calculation every time you put a lens on the camera or talk to somebody... A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens...

Is the better noise performance of FX that noticeable for general photography or does it mainly show up when cropping or enlarging? In other words, when looking at moving up from the D7000, is the extra cost of a D750 justified for its improved performance OR is the improved performance of the D7200 a better buy based on the lower cost?

 

[J-see]

The D750 is about a stop of light better than the D7200 which implies you can shoot it at half the available light as the D7200 while having a similar quality.

But it's mostly relevant when light is an issue. If you do photography where light isn't that much of a problem, the differences between both are not phenomenal.

There are pros and cons to both depending upon what type of photography.

 

[Fred Kingston_RIP]

As J-see says, there are a lot of variables, and the biggest is low-light... The difference is attributed to noise. Noise is a result of heat. Without getting too technical, sensors are arrays of (for lack of a better word) little light bulbs. The longer the little bulb is receiving current, the more heat the little bulb generates, and subsequently more noise... jamming the same little bulbs into a smaller (DX) package causes that heat to bleed over to the next little bulb, and generate more heat... Spacing the bulbs further apart on the FX sensor, means less heat and less noise... Low-light means longer times, means more noise... (the above uses an analogy for non-technical folks to understand the process)

There are a brazzillion web site/videos that demonstrate this phenomenon with comparisons...

As J-see points out, there's almost a full stop light difference between the two cameras... and of course, that single fact, I hope wouldn't be the sole criteria for making the change... there are several other factors involved with making the change between DX and FX...

 

[singlerosa_RIP]

I used the 18-200 VRII model for about 3 years with my D7000 and liked it as an all-in-one lens. It's relatively small, decent IQ and available used for under $500.

 

[Vincent]

... I enjoy textures, colors, birds, nature in general, not too much into portraits, sunsets, some HDRI, Panos....

In what way did the D7000 help or block you for your photography?
DX (D7X00) will be good if cropping was limiting; D500 mainly seems for AF/FPS (I`m sorry to say that ISO is better but insufficient from what I saw).
FX will be more for clean high ISO and wider view.

It seems that D7200 seems good for you, but do think in what you want to reach and try not to overspend (lately I have seen a lot of D4 cameras for sale with 20k actuations in 4 years)

 

[aroy]

Is the better noise performance of FX that noticeable for general photography or does it mainly show up when cropping or enlarging? In other words, when looking at moving up from the D7000, is the extra cost of a D750 justified for its improved performance OR is the improved performance of the D7200 a better buy based on the lower cost?

Better DR also translates to better noise, especially when shooting low light or recovering shadows. I shoot a lot in high DR situations - harsh light deep shadows, and find that the amount of information you can get from the shadows depends largely on the DR of the sensor. Just remember that as you increase ISO, you are decreasing the DR, which means you will have less latitude in recovering shadows. That is why I rarely go beyond ISO 400 in D3300, while with D750 I could get the same latitude in shadow recovery at ISO 1600 or more. That is a great improvement. If you do not want to recover shadows then ISO 12500 will give clean images in well exposed regions, difficult to match in D7xxx bodies.

Another reason for going FX is that the wide lenses will have a wider FOV, so the FOV of a 16mm on DX will be matched by 24mm in FX, and 14mm on FX will just not be there in DX (9.3mm) short of fisheye lenses.

 

[Allen]

In what way did the D7000 help or block you for your photography?
DX (D7X00) will be good if cropping was limiting; D500 mainly seems for AF/FPS (I`m sorry to say that ISO is better but insufficient from what I saw).
FX will be more for clean high ISO and wider view.

It seems that D7200 seems good for you, but do think in what you want to reach and try not to overspend (lately I have seen a lot of D4 cameras for sale with 20k actuations in 4 years)

Thanks for the reply, Vincent,

I was very pleased with the D7000, but as I noted I gave it to my son.....thereby creating the need for replacement. The reason for the post is that I have not really kept up with features, tradeoffs, etc on Nikon bodies....and figured that there was considerable knowledge and experience here not only with bodies but walk around lenses as well.

cheers.

 

[Vincent]

I was very pleased with the D7000, ...I have not really kept up with features, tradeoffs, etc on Nikon bodies....

Just to be clear, you can do well with a D7100/D7200, but you might be tempted by something more, .. aaaah temptation.

Honestly Nikon impressed me with the latest releases:
D810: Seems like the top for your kind of use, but it is a high budget and thus you should take quite some pictures to justify it. + you need to master it
D750: The allrounder with the low light AF. I honestly was very attracted to it, I believe a very nice step up from the D7000, but also not that much that you would see it immediatly with the day to day pictures.
D5500: I would not go down from the D7X00 series, but it is difficult to deny that the sensor outperforms the D7000 in almost all domains.
D7200: Already revolutionising high ISO for DX and good for the more advanced use.
D5: Yes it is usable as a normal camera, but I would say you really would be looking at reliability, high ISO and need to get fast subjects, it is hard to justify for not pros (btw still on my agenda second hand in 2018 for birds in flight in the woods).
D500: the mini D5? Better to justify and a surprising move from Nikon. You need to need the super AF and FPS to justify it.

They are very good cameras, better then the predecessors and getting to a level which is more and more "easy to use", direct usable jpgs SOOC, but with a lot of possibilities in RAW.
However, Nikon has been making very good cameras, e.g. the Dynamic Range of the Nikon D7000 at ISO 100 is still at the top, so the evolutions are in some domains and revolutions are rare.

 

[Ta2Dave]

I'm thinking the 7200 will be my next one. The price on them is good at the moment. Don't really know much about the 750 or the 810's...

 

[john*thomas]

I love my D7100. It does everything I need a camera for. The only way I will ever replace it (I used my old Olympus OM-10 for 20 years) is if it breaks.

That said, knowing what I know today and knowing what I would be willing to Spend, I would LOVE to have a D750 or D810 but I wouldn't go the extra money and I would purchase the best deal I could find on a D7200.

 

[Allen]

Thanks for the comprehensive post, Vincent.

I am fairly certain the next body will be the 7200.....the question of the moment is now what walk around lens. I have read an array of reviews of the super zooms.....including 18-200, 18-300 and 18-140, plus the Tamron 16-300. It seems they all have advantages and disadvantages....need to sort this one out as well..

 

[hark]

I'm just going to throw a wrench into your conversation, Allen. I don't know firsthand how the sensor of the D7200 performs, but even when comparing my D7100 against my D610, the D610 outperforms when it comes to high ISO in somewhat lower light. And although the D750 is even better, the D610 tends to get overlooked. It is an excellent FX body. And if you were to couple it with a 24-120mm f/4 lens, they would work well as a walk around body/lens combo.

 

[singlerosa_RIP]

I'm just going to throw a wrench into your conversation, Allen. I don't know firsthand how the sensor of the D7200 performs, but even when comparing my D7100 against my D610, the D610 outperforms when it comes to high ISO in somewhat lower light. And although the D750 is even better, the D610 tends to get overlooked. It is an excellent FX body. And if you were to couple it with a 24-120mm f/4 lens, they would work well as a walk around body/lens combo.

The 7200 will give your 610 a run for its money.

 

[SkvLTD]

Thanks for the comprehensive post, Vincent.

I am fairly certain the next body will be the 7200.....the question of the moment is now what walk around lens. I have read an array of reviews of the super zooms.....including 18-200, 18-300 and 18-140, plus the Tamron 16-300. It seems they all have advantages and disadvantages....need to sort this one out as well..

I'd perhaps get a 17-55 level zoom for IQ, or 18-140 if you really need that tempting, but ultimately too-short of a reach.

 

[Vincent]

Thanks for the comprehensive post, Vincent.

I am fairly certain the next body will be the 7200.....the question of the moment is now what walk around lens. I have read an array of reviews of the super zooms.....including 18-200, 18-300 and 18-140, plus the Tamron 16-300. It seems they all have advantages and disadvantages....need to sort this one out as well..

Superzooms is a topic I would not dare to give a recommendation, except maybe that I was quite OK with my 18-105 and that I sort of miss the flexibility sometimes. The only thing on this is I bought my 18-105 second hand for 100€ and after a year use and buying a 28-75 f2.8, sold it to a shop at 90€ (who put it up for 150€). Sometimes some older zooms come at bargains second hand.

 

[TL Robinson]

My .02 - go with a D750 - I own one, and I also own a D7100 and a D500. It's an all around fantastic camera - and the key words here are all around. Fantastic performance across the board, and a great first step into full frame. I've even shot shows with it in DX mode (using a DX lens of course). The D7100 is no slouch either and refurbs can be had for cheap. I owned a D7000 prior to switching to full frame (I had a D610 in there that met with a tragic accident) but you can't go wrong with any of the recommendations. I've only touched a D7200 in a store - but everyone one I talked to who owns one says it's stellar as well.

So, my opinion, D750 > D7200 > D500 > D7100 in that order. I could argue D500 > D7200 but the learning curve there is going to be greater coming from a D7000 than it would be going to a D750 or D7200. The D500 is a phenomenal machine - but has some initial release pains + control differences.

 

[Philnz]

750? interesting option...hadn't thought of that (the two lenses I own are FX). I must admit that I don't know much about them..other than they are pricey. Not sure if FX would fit the kind of photography I do as well......

This also begs the question: what walk around lens best fits a D7200? From what I have read it is not necessarily the 18-200 0r 300.....thoughts?

What about the Tamron 16-300. That's on my D7100 most of the time.

 

[Allen]

What about the Tamron 16-300. That's on my D7100 most of the time.

I have read both good and bad regarding this lens on a 7200.....some say even with its compromises its a great walk around lens, and others say that it 'doesn't belong on a 7200' as its too much of an image quality compromise. thoughts?