Camera for Church D7200 or D750

Secksy007

Senior Member
Hi

I'm looking to upgrade my camera.

I currently have a D5100 and have recently been asked to take regular photos at Church.

These photos range from changing lighting (different colours & effects) inside the main auditorium capturing shots of the musos, speakers & pastor, to getting candid photos in the foyer(and often outside) after the service.

Although my shots are resonable so far, even bumping the ISO to 3200 on my D5100 still underexposes at times inside the auditorium.

My current lenses are:
Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G
Nikkor AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD.

So my dilemma is, here in Australia, a D750 (body only), will cost an extra $1,400. On top of that, I'll need to invest in more lenses. Or I could get the D7200 and buy 1 or 2 extra good quality lenses for around the same price.

Will the performance of the D750 be so much more superior in my shooting scenario outlined above considering the substantial extra cost? Will I notice a far better image quality using the D7200 compared to my current D5100?

Any camera & lens suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance
Andrew
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
The D7200 would be a major step up from the D5100, both in resolution (16 vs. 24 Mpixel) and in ISO capability. The D7200 will give you plenty of capability and quality to give your fantastic shots, but I am sure others will claim only an FX will do the job. I believe you really only need FX if you plan on doing very large prints. Plus the FX gains will only be there if you invest in pro quality (read very expensive, say something like the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 lens, which is over $2000 US) lenses.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I can't offer you any firsthand knowledge about a D7200, but when it comes to using one of my cameras in church, I prefer either my D750 or D610 over my D7100. My Sanctuary is probably darker than many others which means I have to use a high ISO for non-flash photos. So in that respect, my D750 is far superior than my D7100. I've used all 3 at church. Both FX bodies produce better photos at high ISO than my D7100, but I've never compared either with a D7200.

So would you say your church is brightly lit, average, or perhaps a little darker than others? Will you be able to use flash, because that might be what helps you choose. If you are leaning towards a D750 but the cost of FX glass as well as the cost of the body are prohibitive, then would you consider a D610? The D610 is an amazing body and packs a punch. If using flash isn't an issue, then a D7200 should work fine.
 

Secksy007

Senior Member
I can't offer you any firsthand knowledge about a D7200, but when it comes to using one of my cameras in church, I prefer either my D750 or D610 over my D7100. My Sanctuary is probably darker than many others which means I have to use a high ISO for non-flash photos. So in that respect, my D750 is far superior than my D7100. I've used all 3 at church. Both FX bodies produce better photos at high ISO than my D7100, but I've never compared either with a D7200.

So would you say your church is brightly lit, average, or perhaps a little darker than others? Will you be able to use flash, because that might be what helps you choose. If you are leaning towards a D750 but the cost of FX glass as well as the cost of the body are prohibitive, then would you consider a D610? The D610 is an amazing body and packs a punch. If using flash isn't an issue, then a D7200 should work fine.

Thanks for your suggestions Cindy

Unfortunately, I can't use a flash. To answer your question about lighting, it can vary quite a bit during praise & worship at the beginning of the service, so I need to be able to adapt quickly.

If I can ask a question as a hobbyist who has much to learn, I can see the pros & cons of FX vs DX bodies. If I go to a full frame camera, are there decent quality lenses out there that won't cost thousands of dollars? And did you find your D7100 significantly worse?

Thanks
 
Rent a D7100 or D7200 for a week and shoot it at church and see if it will do what you want.

It it does then you have your answer. I have both the D7100 and D750. I think the D750 is a better choice BUT the cost of the body and all new lenses is high.
Rent or borrow the D7200 and then you can answer this question for yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Andrew, take a look at this thread with an example of a church photo. http://nikonites.com/post-processing/34429-please-show-me-nik-define.html#axzz4QyY07oGq The photo in that thread was taken with my D7100.

I was asking for info on Nik Dfine from the Nik Collection. I will post a Dropbox link to the DNG after I edited the photo but before I used Nik Dfine. It's the same file I made available for download in that other thread. If your computer can read DNG, you can download that here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8zy6uyyo7ewu0h2/065.dng?dl=0

In that thread, Horoscope Fish supplied me with a TIFF of that image after he applied Nik Dfine. He only used the auto setting so he didn't do any spot noise reduction. You can download that file here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6dyzh0kfj1g9l97/065_noiseless.tiff?dl=0 There is a noticeable improvement! The Nik Collection is now free so if you don't yet have it, you should consider getting it.

The comparison of these files will give you an idea of possible noise you may encounter although the D7200 should have some improvement when it comes to noise.

As for FX lenses, my 24-70mm f/2.8 is made by Sigma. My copy is very good, and I am extremely happy with its capabilities. I tested 3 of these lenses, and this one was sharper than the other two. If you are shooting in low light, you will want some type of fast lens--meaning an aperture of f/2.8. Otherwise you might run into some difficulty with the AF. Tokina and Tamron also make their own 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses. You might be able to find a nice pre-owned copy of one of these to save some money.

In my Sanctuary photos, I tend to shoot with a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, but it is expensive. Tamron makes a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that is highly rated. There are also used Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 lenses out there but they lack VR. If you will be using a tripod, you won't need VR. Or if you need a long lens, a used Nikon 180mm f/2.8 is excellent--no VR but with a tripod, it is an outstanding lens, and one that will come in under $1000 used (at least here in the USA).

If you don't get an f/2.8 lens, you can still take photos in low light, but most likely you will have to focus manually. If the walls are light colored and your subject is dark, auto focusing will be much easier than if both the subject and the surroundings are similar in tone.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Andrew, if you choose to go with the D7200, keep in mind there are software programs out there that will help with many problems you may encounter (of course there are exceptions such as completely overexposing a photo). If you go back to the other thread I linked earlier and look at this response by Don, the software he used called DxO Optics Pro is also very impressive for noise reduction. I don't have it, but it looks excellent! Here was his response along with the sample he posted of my photo. This link should take you directly to his post:

http://nikonites.com/post-processing/34429-please-show-me-nik-define-3.html#post516548

So you do have options even if you decide to go with a D7200.
 

Secksy007

Senior Member
Andrew, if you choose to go with the D7200, keep in mind there are software programs out there that will help with many problems you may encounter (of course there are exceptions such as completely overexposing a photo). If you go back to the other thread I linked earlier and look at this response by Don, the software he used called DxO Optics Pro is also very impressive for noise reduction. I don't have it, but it looks excellent! Here was his response along with the sample he posted of my photo. This link should take you directly to his post:

http://nikonites.com/post-processing/34429-please-show-me-nik-define-3.html#post516548

So you do have options even if you decide to go with a D7200.

Thank you Cindy.

I've been using lightoom for a while and find it does a decent job with my current camera. So if I go with the D7200, I'm hoping the better sensor will allow me the shots I need.

Although I would just love to buy the D750 and new FF lenses, I'm thinking at the moment that I wouldn't see the $2500 to $3000 worth of better image quality over the D7200
 

aroy

Senior Member
I can suggested a low cost alternative that will not set you back much. Rent or buy a D3300 and use the 35mm F1.8 to take shots in low light. Couple that with Nikon NX-D and you can recover most of the dark areas easily. The body retails for less than what most lenses cost. What you get with D7200 is slightly better high ISO (not much, though) at a fraction of the cost.

I have shot with the D3300+35mm F.8 DX is quite low light and the combination is fantastic in low light. The D750 is in another league, but then you need to spend at least -10 times more in the body+lenses.

Here are a few shots taken in low light, without flash and then processed in NX-D

JSC_3426.jpg

KSC_0089.jpg
 

Borga Voffe

Senior Member
I would say nikon d750 without any doubt.
I have been using d7200 in my low light situations, but found it incapable just in the way getting the shots I want.
I never use flash, that would ruin my work

So I got d750 with a 18-35 fx lens, and all my problemes were fixed right away. You might have a look at my website, for photos taken inside a mountain cabin at very low light.
 

Danno

Senior Member
I take a lot of photos at my church. The majority are low light. I use a D7200. I also use auto ISO set at 2500. The lenses I use include my Sigma 10-20 f/3.5, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I have been really pleased with the results and the shots show up on the website, bulletin, and projected on the 2 100" screens between services.

I kind of have a limited budget so I try to buy reasonably good glass. None of the 3 lenses I use have VR. If I had the budget I would buy full frame and the VR lenses in similar focal lengths but I cannot, so I have made the best of what I could afford.

I hope you have the budget for a full frame. I would suggest trying to get a few lenses with F/2.8 as a aperture. It gives you a little flexibility when shooting baptisms with a slightly higher shutter speed.

I wish you well in your purchase, and welcome to the forum.
 
Last edited:

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Although my shots are resonable so far, even bumping the ISO to 3200 on my D5100 still underexposes at times inside the auditorium.

My current lenses are:
Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G
Nikkor AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD.

I read your other reply leaning towards a D7200 which is fine. It is an excellent body and should serve you well. My main reason for responding again is because earlier you mentioned being a hobbyist with much to learn--just a little info in case you don't know the following.

If your D5100 underexposes at times, that means the metering is picking up some brighter areas in your scene and is underexposing to compensate. Most likely any camera body reading the same scene with the same type of metering would yield similar results. You should have different types of metering options on your D5100. Perhaps try center weighted metering instead if you are currently using matrix metering.

OR on a D7200, there is a button on the top that will allow you to raise or lower the exposure. It would look something like the +/- exposure compensation button below. Not sure if your D5100 has a similar button to override what the camera meters. You press the button and rotate the rear wheel (on a D7200) to dial in +/-0.3, 0/7, 1.0 or whatever amount of over/underexposure you wish to adjust. You just need to remember to reset it to 0/0 to cancel it out.

480615.image1.jpg


If your metering is going to be off, it is better to overexpose a little than to underexpose a little. The problem with underexposing is that when raising the exposure during post processing, you introduce noise. You just don't want to overexpose by too much because of the possibility of completely blowing out the highlights. If you shoot RAW, there is much more latitude that allows highlights to be recovered compared to shooting jpeg. If you are capturing lights in your frame, then most likely that is the culprit, and they will probably be blown no matter what.

Lastly, have you determined the longest focal length you'd need to capture images of the speakers inside the auditorium? If you aren't too far back, you might be able to go with an 85mm f/1.8 which would be far less expensive than a 70-200mm f/2.8. You might be able to use one of your tele zooms, but it also means you might have to manually focus if it's too dark for the camera to lock focus.
 
I have photographed thousands of weddings many in very dark 13th century churches lit with 5w energy saving bulbs . My wife uses the D7100 which is the same as a D7200 in light sensitivity. We always shoot at f8 or f5.6 in winter and don't have any problems auto iso to 6400 min shut 1/30 and 180-140 on that camera.. I shoot a D810 with 28-300 again at f8/5.6 and dark churches look like daylight. I am sure you would get the same with a D750 or even at D610. I say if you can read the bible then there is no problem.
The ideas of using an F1.8 lens is a fallacy as you wont have any depth of field ..perhaps they could upgrade some of the bulbs in the light fittings or install some floodlights high up out of eye line
 

Secksy007

Senior Member
I read your other reply leaning towards a D7200 which is fine. It is an excellent body and should serve you well. My main reason for responding again is because earlier you mentioned being a hobbyist with much to learn--just a little info in case you don't know the following.

If your D5100 underexposes at times, that means the metering is picking up some brighter areas in your scene and is underexposing to compensate. Most likely any camera body reading the same scene with the same type of metering would yield similar results. You should have different types of metering options on your D5100. Perhaps try center weighted metering instead if you are currently using matrix metering.

OR on a D7200, there is a button on the top that will allow you to raise or lower the exposure. It would look something like the +/- exposure compensation button below. Not sure if your D5100 has a similar button to override what the camera meters. You press the button and rotate the rear wheel (on a D7200) to dial in +/-0.3, 0/7, 1.0 or whatever amount of over/underexposure you wish to adjust. You just need to remember to reset it to 0/0 to cancel it out.

View attachment 236003

If your metering is going to be off, it is better to overexpose a little than to underexpose a little. The problem with underexposing is that when raising the exposure during post processing, you introduce noise. You just don't want to overexpose by too much because of the possibility of completely blowing out the highlights. If you shoot RAW, there is much more latitude that allows highlights to be recovered compared to shooting jpeg. If you are capturing lights in your frame, then most likely that is the culprit, and they will probably be blown no matter what.

Lastly, have you determined the longest focal length you'd need to capture images of the speakers inside the auditorium? If you aren't too far back, you might be able to go with an 85mm f/1.8 which would be far less expensive than a 70-200mm f/2.8. You might be able to use one of your tele zooms, but it also means you might have to manually focus if it's too dark for the camera to lock focus.

G'day Cindy

Unfortunately I do need a bit of reach so more often than not I use the 70-300. I'm not rostered on, but I'll try to get a couple of shots away this weekend.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
The ideas of using an F1.8 lens is a fallacy as you wont have any depth of field ..perhaps they could upgrade some of the bulbs in the light fittings or install some floodlights high up out of eye line

Huh? The reason I suggested a fast lens isn't to have a shallow depth of field (or to use it at f/1.8); it is to allow more light into the camera for auto focusing.

G'day Cindy

Unfortunately I do need a bit of reach so more often than not I use the 70-300. I'm not rostered on, but I'll try to get a couple of shots away this weekend.
Good luck with it!
 

Secksy007

Senior Member
I take a lot of photos at my church. The majority are low light. I use a D7200. I also use auto ISO set at 2500. The lenses I use include my Sigma 10-20 f/3.5, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I have been really pleased with the results and the shots show up on the website, bulletin, and projected on the 2 100" screens between services.

I kind of have a limited budget so I try to buy reasonably good glass. None of the 3 lenses I use have VR. If I had the budget I would buy full frame and the VR lenses in similar focal lengths but I cannot, so I have made the best of what I could afford.

I hope you have the budget for a full frame. I would suggest trying to get a few lenses with F/2.8 as a aperture. It gives you a little flexibility when shooting baptisms with a slightly higher shutter speed.

I wish you well in your purchase, and welcome to the forum.

Thanks Danno. Like you, I would love to be able to stretch my budget for the D750 + lenses. I guess I'm questioning that even if I could stretch myself & buy it, would the image quality & performance be vastly superior to the D7200?
 
Never had any focus problems with my f 3.5-5.6 zoom lenses ..If you can read a book its light enough/
What we don't know is is this a modern church . if it is the lighting should be good and to what purpose are the pictures being put?
Of course if you buy the 750 then the price of lenses goes up and for your work there is only the 28-300. I don't find the 24-120 is long enough. Only buy Nikon lenses
 
Last edited:

Danno

Senior Member
Thanks Danno. Like you, I would love to be able to stretch my budget for the D750 + lenses. I guess I'm questioning that even if I could stretch myself & buy it, would the image quality & performance be vastly superior to the D7200?

I am certain that the 750 would do better at higher ISO than the D7200, but regardless I think you will be in a spot were you still need some new glass. I love my D7200 but full frame just manages low light a bit better.

There is just so much to consider. For me my budget decided. I could not afford all the new glass and the body. For me I chose the D7200 and I am not a bit disappointed. It does exactly what I need it to do, including shots of the congregation during candle light services. I moved from a D3200 to the D7200 because the D3200 could not focus as easily in low light nor shoot at the higher ISO without more noise than I was comfortable with. The D7200 resolved the issue.

At some point I will get a full frame camera. I have a buddy with an 810 and It is a marked improvement in low light and just an amazing camera... but again budget drives that decision.

Here is a shot of my Mom from Thursday. ISO 2500. Just bad light in the house. I was pleased with it.

Thanksgiving 2016-7749.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top