$1000 to spend....what to get?

Ok, I can't make my mind up on if I should get a new camera or buy some new glass.

Wife and I will be moving to Kansas City at the beginnng of the year for a promotion she received. I'll be staying at home for awhile until we get settled. She has been pushing me to do photography as a business so I can be somewhat flexible and able to help more with 2 yr old daughter since wife will have to travel some.

I currently have an older d7000 that I have enjoyed, but it has limitations on what it can do. I will most likely be doing real estate photography, headshots, and some family shots.

Here is what I'm considering on first purchase:
1. Sell d7000 and upgrade to d7200
2. Purchase Tamron 24-70 2.8
3. Puchase Tamron 70-200 2.8
4. Save up for d750

Thoughts?

1st question: What kind of limitations does the D7000 have that you don't like?
2nd question: Would the D7200 overcome those limitations?

Either camera you mention, the D7200 or the D750, can perform well for the types of photography you listed, as can the D7000, so the lenses tend to be my preference, but I can understand the want/need to upgrade as well. The 24-70 seems more likely to fit all the types of photography you mentioned, but what do I know?

I'd vote for the 24-70 & 70-200's too, then maybe upgrade the camera later. How much closer would the D750 come if you were to also sell the DX lenses from your collection, as their days would be limited anyway if you are going FX - Especially since those focal lengths are covered by the two new lenses.

The only real limitations I've found with the d7000 recently are the ISO performance. I recently took some pictures at a concert with it and the pics were really grainy with the higher ISO.

I had thougt about getting rid of the 35 and 50 if I go with the 24-70

If you got a D7200 and saved for a D750, would you then keep the D7200 as a backup? I'm just thinking that buying a D7200 to then upgrade again in a year or whatever could be false economy but if you are planning on using it for sport / wildlife / backup then fair enough - Then again, is the gain in ISO performance big enough to warrant jumping from a 7000 to 7200 just as a backup if the D750 is your "Main" body?

I probably would not keep the d7200 as a backup, that is why I'm kinda leaning toward getting new glass.

You mentioned concert shots and noisy results with D7000. Switching the fast(ish) primes to a 1.3 stops slower zoom will only make matters worse in this regard.

I haven't used my AF-S 24-70/2.8 for years, and probably never will. It is slow and unnecessarily bulky and the image quality just isn't there when compared to my 24/1.4, 28/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4 or 85/1.4. Not to mention the zoom is 2 stops slower.

How about 85/1.4 and/or 50/1.4 instead of the zoom? Just my 2 cents.

dickelfan said:

I probably would not keep the d7200 as a backup, that is why I'm kinda leaning toward getting new glass.

Click to expand...

If funds are limited, then just get new glass for now, and start saving for the D750, or perhaps even a D610. (both will give you much better ISO performance)
If you buy FF now, then you're also going to have to buy new/FX lens/lenses as well.

How often is ISO noise a problem for you? If it's a rare thing then I would probably go with a 70-200 f/2.8. It's one of my workhorse lenses for so much.

If ISO noise is a problem then go for a full frame.

Well glass is the better choice. You seem to be limited with your current collection. The D7000 is a great camera, and undoubtedly the 7200 would also be a good replacement. However.... practicing with what you do have to get better at it before jumping to the next would also be a recommendation. There is nothing like experience to help alleviate any questionable habits that you have.

But then again... what do I know.

what lenses do you currently have?

I dont think the lens is the issue if were talking about primes.

the camera is holding you back. the idea of having a 1.4 or 1.8 lenses doesnt mean you should be shooting at open aperture and many times you need to stop down to f/4 or more so getting a 2.8 zoom doesnt really help.

good glass will help with high iso image IQ as well.

what iso were you shooting that you were getting grainy images? every camera has a limit of acceptable grain to us. to me, the D600 was 3200, my d3 is 6400 and the D3s is 8-10000- BUT! only if the scene is lit well. not the amount of light.
which means, if youre shootin in a dark scene with lots of shadows and little light sources, the dark shadows will show heavy grain. but if youre shooting things with some lighting and brightly colored surroundings then it wont be noticeable as much.

I shoot with the D7100 and my wife shoots with the D7000. I can tell you there is a noticeable difference in IQ and overall quality. I think IQ between the D7100. And the D7200 is pretty close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is one of the pics I recently took


I think it might have just been the low light situation and the fact I didn't really have the ISO bumped up to much.

Pretty sure I'm leaning toward the 70-200 to help with portraits, etc. Was kinda wanting the 24-70 for good walking around lens (especially for upcoming New York trip)

dickelfan said:

Here is one of the pics I recently took
View attachment 183929

I think it might have just been the low light situation and the fact I didn't really have the ISO bumped up to much.

Pretty sure I'm leaning toward the 70-200 to help with portraits, etc. Was kinda wanting the 24-70 for good walking around lens (especially for upcoming New York trip)

Click to expand...

The nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 is awesome and cheap on ebay. Lots of folks like the 24-85 vr (good for night shooting) and 28-85mm really cheap and great.

get the following used on ebay for your 1000 bucks
nikkor 35-70 f2.8 or 28-85
nikkor 70-300 vrg or 80-200 f2.8 (screw drive not the push pull model) depending on what you're after
tokina 100mm macro 2.8
nikkor 300mm f4.5 edif

dickelfan said:

Here is one of the pics I recently took
View attachment 183929

I think it might have just been the low light situation and the fact I didn't really have the ISO bumped up to much.

Click to expand...

IMO, I really like that photo. The B&W with grain gives it a really cool feel.

Get the glass first. It's the best investment that will last you across multiple camera body "upgrades".

Second, I think FX would do you better for the photography subjects you mentioned, however the D7000 should do fine for getting you started.

I've got a lot of family up in the KC area, so good luck with your move!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If high ISO in low light is the problem, then only D750 will give you noticeable difference in IQ. I personally prefer primes shot wide open for concert shots.

What ever the level of technology at a given time, FX sensors will have an edge over DX sensors in low light, so in my opinion going for D750 instead of DX sensor D7200 will yeald lesser noise a higher ISO.

aroy said:

If high ISO in low light is the problem, then only D750 will give you noticeable difference in IQ. I personally prefer primes shot wide open for concert shots.

What ever the level of technology at a given time, FX sensors will have an edge over DX sensors in low light, so in my opinion going for D750 instead of DX sensor D7200 will yeald lesser noise a higher ISO.

Click to expand...

Well said. If you need to see some concert shots taken with the D750 at high ISO take a look here. This guys photostream was the convincing fact that made up my mind to go with the D750.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/60035031@N06/17954575674/in/dateposted/

I don't see it in a quick scan of the above posts, so I'll ask: What kind of photography do you see yourself practicing professionally?

WM