Toment Loc: FL, IL

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

as far as photo quality, their is very little difference between dx and fx lenses. the critical difference comes down the road when you decide to upgrade to a full frame body. the fx lenses will work on both dx and fx format cameras, the dx lenses will not work well with full frame bodies. if you are able to predict that you will never have the desire to move to a full frame body, which is very hard to accurately predict, then dx lenses are fine and are usually less expensive, but if you do ever decide to upgrade to a full frame body, then the cost of the dx lenses you currently own and will need to replace, may cause the transition to be painfully prohibitive.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

The best way IMHO to decide between cameras is to look at their specifications. That way you can see which features are different, or present/not present in each model. Then, depending on your budget and what suits your needs, you can rule in / rule out different models.

Go to the Nikon website and download the manuals for each camera. Near the end of each manual you will find the specifications. Other sites will let you do side-by-side comparisons, which is good. However, the presentation does not include as much as the camera manual. I discovered this when doing my own research and still had questions about some features. The camera manuals specifications list answered those questions!

Buy the best you can afford. As for lens and camera match-ups, it really is not that important. I use FX lenses on a DX camera with excellent results. Just lose some angle of view. And if you go for an FX camera, you can also use the DX lenses on it. But your current camera can be used as a backup instead of switching lenses when out taking photos.

Zeke4351 Loc: Kentucky

I have both the D750 and the D7200 with some of Nikons best glass. If you plan on shooting any sports or wildlife the D7200 has the reach needed. If you think one day you will become interested in shooting a lot of fast action sports then get the D500 and don't look back. The image quality can be compared side by side at image quality review .com. The answer is always money. If you put the same lens on all three cameras and took a picture of the same subject I doubt you could tell any difference by looking at the pictures side by side. I had the D7200 first and wanted a second body so I wouldn't have to make a lens change so often. I saw no reason to have two DX bodies so I bought and love the D750. The tilting screen is worth a lot for my old body trying to take pictures from different angles like below the waist or above the head. I would never invest in DX glass no matter what camera you wind up with. There are some bargains in older pro quality Nikon FX glass such as 35-70 F2.8 D or the 80-200 F2.8. You can go to Flickr and see pictures from just about any lens or body you can think of. Beware of falling into the trap of buying a lens because people say it is sharp. There is a lot more to great image quality and some touted as sharp will produce flat washed out colors. The Nikon 18-140 is an example.

Ted Liette Loc: Greenville, Ohio

I can't speak for anyone else but I upgraded to full frame last December and never have I regretted it. I waited until the Christmas deals hit and I made my move by buying a Canon 6D with a 24-105 lens, and grip, I love it. I had been saving my nickels and dimes so that helped but justified it by telling my wife it would be my Christmas. When UPS delivered it, my wife had me give it to her and she wrapped it up for Christmas, it just made it more fun that way. Do your research, listen to everyone's opinion, and then buy what "YOU" want. You'll be more happy that way. This is just my opinion.

Edia Loc: Central New Jersey

Who in their right mind thinks that the D500 at $2K will make you a better photographer? If you shoot sports or birds in flight, the D500 may fill the bill but for walking around, landscape and portrait photography there are better choices at more reasonable prices. Why dwell on the latest and greatest hardware when the space between your ears is just as important to getting the right shot. Most of the photos I see in this forum are OK but have been shot before by better photographers (Check out National Geographic). The camera companies come out with new models every year that are a little better than their older models but the end users don't change from year to year. The camera companies want you to buy the new stuff. Its all a marketing ploy. GAS is an illusion with no reason to think it will improve everything. It won't.

stillducky

A d500 will ENABLE you to use its new capabilities and features to improve you skills..... ...and expand your skill level if you ever had a skill level...

Edia Loc: Central New Jersey

That is a hopeful way of looking at it.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Here's my suggestion: (I am using this strategy myself)
Initially, depending on your budget go with the D7200 or D500 - great APS-C format cameras - but invest in FX (full frame) lenses - that way when you have the urge, inclination, need, money, etc., to go to a full frame (and eventually you WILL) you can use the same lenses without any loss of MP (a DX lens on on an FX camera will result in a lower res image (or severe vignetting) due to smaller projected image on the sensor). For a general photographer/enthusiast (or pro), the best strategy is to invest in both APS-C/full frame bodies with full frame lenses. The DX format cameras will give you the extra reach for sports, nature, wildlife photography while the FX cameras will provide the wide(r) angle coverage and low-light performance for landscape vistas, interiors, weddings, churches, window-lit portraits, etc. The DX cameras are lighter and more discrete too (generally speaking). The cover story of the current issue of NPhoto magazine (issue 63) covers the details of this great debate - that I was struggling with too until now. It all boils down to: need vs want, budget, and application/usage. Go with the best of both worlds! There is a strong peer pressure in the pro photographer circles to go full frame.
Chris (a Nikon enthusiast, former Olympus OM series film user)

StanP

Just got a 750 ... Could have gotten the D500. Tough choice ... I don't think FX and DX are different enough qualitatively anymore to make a difference (unless you're doing murals). Besides, the D500 will shoot all of the DX lenses and most of the FX and old Nikon as well.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

The difference in FX vs DX will only really be noticed under high magnification for higher ISO (3200-6400+) shots regarding noise. Other than that FX will provide slightly higher dynamic range, less DOF for "bokeh" shots, and somewhat better low-light shots (dimly lit interiors), wide(r) angle coverage for WA lenses. But as for overall quality only a pro will tell looking at the original image under magnification - since we normally don't view pictures this way there is no practical way to tell the difference, especially when printed which "blends" the pixels together anyway (e.g., printed in photography magazine, posters). One can take a great pictures with an APS-C camera and a lousy one with a FF camera, and vice versa. An example of this - in the aforementioned issue of NPhoto (#63) there is an article showing some fantastic pix of dogs (by a pro dog photographer) using - guess what - a D3200 camera! These could have been shot with a D810, D750 for that matter, there is no easy way to tell at magazine print resolution, unless the original digital files were examined. Sensor technology is closing the gap between APS-C and FF, but FF will always have a slight IQ edge for all else equal, for applications that really need it. The quality of the lens also matters - let us not forget.

Chris

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

Get the D7200 unless you like spending time in the gym pumping iron. There are times when a FF camera might be a little better, but then you might as well go for the Hasselblad. The D7200 produces excellent images you can print to 20x30 (If you are careful) or even bigger if you use ON-1 Photo Resizer.

I think a lot of folk just like being able to say that they have an FX camera and are willing to spend a ton of money to do so. But that's OK too.
YMMV

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I have a d810 and a d700. The last two times out, I brought the d700. Don't always need to have the latest and greatest to have fun and take great shots. Most cameras will do all you need. The most important thing is to have fun.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

You are right about the lenses. Many people want the convenience of a "super zoom", so they don't need a lot of lenses. But the larger the gap between lowest and highest focal distance capability, the less overall sharpness of the images. This is on reasonwhy zoom lenses like the 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 produce sharper images than the 18-140mm mentioned.

Another point to mention is that the smaller the f/stop (larger aperture), the more light-gathering ability of the lens. More light-gathering means lower ISO, which also helps to produce a better image quality.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

FX lenses in general are better. And the basis is that Nikon says so!

How many DX lenses does Nikon lists as "professional quality"? Only three: the 10.5mm f/2.8G DX fisheye, 12-24mm f/4 AFS DX, and 17-55mm f/2.8G AFS DX.

How many DX lenses are variable aperture, as opposed to FX lenses? There are only 8 variable aperture FX lenses, and more than 4 times as many fixed aperture lenses. But there are almost 3 times as many variable aperture DX lenses as there are fixed aperture DX lenses. Not to mention there are twice as many FX lenses as there are DX lenses total.

How many DX lenses have a zoom range that is a greater than 5x (there are 8), and how many FX lenses do (only 1)?

There are only two DX lenses (a fisheye and a macro lens) that have a maximum aperture of f/2.8, and none are greater than that. There are too many to count for FX.

The simple fact is that, from Nikon, FX glass is higher quality. It is not a case of high quality lenses cannot be designed in the DX format, it's a simply that Nikon targets their high quality lenses for the FX market.