papadon

I'm a 75 year old great grandpa who was quite into photography in my 20's and then life happened and I went from my SLR to point and shoots. Life now have lives of their own so last August I purchased a Nilon D3500 kit then I purchased a Tamron 18-400 zoom last week. I'm not a professional, not interested in any one thing to photograph. I'm using the camera for vacations, grandkids, experiments with birds, the moon and anything else I might think about. So, here's the questions, should I upgrade to the D7200? Will I really gain anything or will the 3500 do all I want it too? Thanks

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It's your money. It's your decision. It you let the UHH community spend your money, nothing you have will ever be good enough to their standards.

If you were serious about wildlife and sports, you could get a larger buffer and higher frames per second so you could rip a burst of images over a few second and come away with 20+ images to choose from with the D7200. The D7200 also gives you 2 card slots and more controls of the camera on the camera body rather than buried in menus. But, your D3500 is a serious DLSR and more than enough camera for all your uses, including wildlife and sports. You don't have to process your images, but even just for sharing, you'd benefit from some organizational software. That might be a better next purchase than a camera change.

Your camera is only as good as you can use it. Are you shooting in AI Servo using selective focus points? Do you capture in RAW, expose to the right, or adjust the settings for the situation for JPEG? The camera can help, but a new camera alone doesn't make you a better photographer.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Haven't had a D3500, but even compared to my Full frame Nikon digital cameras, the D7200 is excellent and gets as much use as the D810 and more than the D750. They can be had affordably used with low shutter count if you take your time. I highly recommend it. Believe you will enjoy it and the results you get.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Although the image quality from both cameras is about the same, the D7200 does have superior auto focus and will allow you to shoot at higher ISO in low light conditions. The D7200 is also heavier and larger than the D3500.
There are many folks here who will advise you to not upgrade because the advantages the D7200 give you aren't really necessary for your photography. I believe that, if you can afford it and are going to learn how to use it, then it's totally up to you, regardless of what others may say. You want a D7200, get a D7200. If cost is not an issue I'd recommend the D500. I own both and the D500 is the one I use more often, although I do like both cameras.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Doe is not give you acceptable results?

d3200prime

You will have to make this decision on your own. Google Nikon D3500 vs D7200 and you will have a better idea about it. I went from a point and shoot to a Nikon D3200 then to a D7100 and now shoot with a D500. I can assure you of one thing you will suffer from GAS as the DSLSR manufacturers know exactly how to bait you into moving up to a newer model. Now it's mirrorless cameras and who knows what's next. Good shooting to you on your journey through the world of photography.

papadon

Thank you all for your reply's. I have some AMD and I guess I'm to find something to help insure that what I shoot is actually in focus. When I view photos on my computer I'm never quite sure that they are truly "in focus", but that may be ME not the camera.

Woodsman Loc: North of Peterborough Ontario

Your D3500 is very capable camera. I have the D7200 and looking at a comparison I dont think I would upgrade if I had the D3500. The big difference is not something I used to notice but something I am now fully aware of as I am retired and getting older. The D7200 is a heavy camera, put a big tele on it and its darn near impossible to carry and hand hold if your not strong and steady. I notice the weight more each year. The D7200 is almost twice the weight of the D3500. Something to consider.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

If you think the problem may be from AMD, why not post an image or two and maybe others can respond to its clarity? I'd hate for you to get another camera only to experience the same problem.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Be sure to store the file(s) when posting for review of the focus details.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Najataagihe

No need to do so, but it's your money.

Make yourself happy.



Not really and yes.


From your comments, you need a general-purpose camera well suited to shooting whatever comes your way.

That D3500 fills the bill, perfectly.


You can spend more money on a fancier camera, but all it will buy you is convenience...maybe.

The pictures will be the same.


Go make some pictures and quit worrying about it!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I look at your question a little differently from some. While I agree that your D3500 is very capable of capturing any image that you might want (and yes, you will run into some exceptions), it does present some limitations around usability and flexibility. You've had it for a little over 9 months, so I'm guessing that you've had enough time to discover some of the things that it doesn't do as easily as you might wish. So the question becomes whether that is important to you or not. As a retired industrial engineer, I am concerned about those things...they do matter to me. So when I help the kids at school use the D3500s that are provided for them, it's necessary for me to bite my tongue and help them the best ways that I can, while knowing that the camera would never work for me. Specifically, I access camera controls frequently, so having to do that through the menu is a major problem for me. Similarly, having only one control dial is a disqualifier for me.

Now please be aware...I made these similar factual comments a couple of weeks ago and took a tremendous amount of heat for my "biased comments," so there are clearly at least some of other folks who think quite differently from me. In my mind, these are 100% factual representations of operational limitations...no bias at all. So my suggestion is to look at what other cameras offer and try to determine whether it makes a difference to you.

I was just visiting with my friend who is an accomplished artist. Watercolors are one of her primary media. She is one of those folks who gives credibility to the statement that you will frequently read here saying that "it's the photographer not the camera," because of her ability to produce outstanding results with modest equipment and supplies. She was explaining that she had recently bought a beautiful new watercolor set (her words). The paints are all hand made, and the ratio of pigment to binder is very different from what is available in commercial paints. I have not seen any of her work with these new materials yet, but apparently, in her own words, the equipment and materials DO make a difference.

papadon

From the post "should I upgrade" per Longshadow's suggestion here are some photos. These were processed from RAW with only minor additional post processing.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Papadon, thank you for the follow-up. I took the two images that showed the greatest range of sharpness, one perfect and one a near miss.

Note how both images are shown at the 1:1 pixel-level detail, aka pixel peeping. The eyes of the Airedale are perfect showing the possibilities of this lens / camera combination using the auto focus. The crow (?) looks OK, with opportunities probably more in your shooting technique than any potential issues with the lens / camera. The other two images are good, just not with the eye-catching sharpness of the Airedale.

For the sharpest images, consider using the camera's AI Servo continuous focus setting, shooting in short bursts, and tracking the subject with a single AF point, if possible. Practice helps, sometimes more than anything. The same D3500 camera will appear even sharper with sharper lenses. You can throw more money into the mix for more equipment. But still, your camera is only as good as you can use it. The images report PSE from a RAW capture. I see no obvious points to address in the processing.

I realize your AMD may impact your confidence. Also, as you compare images to some posted here on UHH, keep in mind the range of equipment and skill of specific users can be measured by years / decades of experience and 10s of thousands of dollars in the highest high-end equipment. But note again, this Airedale (both dogs, in fact) shows a perfectly focused image. The other two are in focus as well, but haze over surf is not a good mix. The gulls are good too, but it looks like the focus was the static bottle near the middle rather than the flying birds.

(Download)


(Download)