Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Both are important, however the OP was talking about cameras not lenses and in my opinion the better lenses are for full frame cameras not crop frame lenses.

david vt Loc: Vermont

Hi. As this is closely related to the above discussion, please forgive me for adding this to this string, but I think the resulting thoughts may be relevant to the question, and importantly details, that rbk35 originally asked.

I have been contemplating the 7200 vs D5 vs 500, possible through the used/refurb markets. Primary use will be shooting high school bball, which I know is challenging environment. While I do know that the 500 is the more advanced camera, and many of the contributors here are professionals whom make their living from their pics, as a non-professional whom will never desires to do more than have good pictures of their kid's teams and, maybe, a submission to our local paper (Circulation 2500), IYHO, are the advantages of the 500 enough to offset the mich higher price and size? Note that this is a question on the camera body, as many of you have already contributed thoughts of having good fast glass. Thanks

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

My take on it owning 2 of the 3 mentioned is that the D500 is far superior than the D7200 for sports with only a loss of 4MP. The D5 is great, however at a price comparison you could buy 2 D500 and still save money over the D5 also for the D5 you would need full frame lenses (which if you are on a budget could be expensive). I own the D4 and it gets very little use compared to my other cameras.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

I bought a D7200, and it is awesome. Kept my D7000 and use with a longer zoom (with adequate light), and keep my 18-200 VR ll on my 7200 - 90% of the time.
Switch back and forth at ball games between batting and fielding.
Duane

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I prefer putting full frame lenses on a good crop camera like the D500.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Yes Steve I do the same and it does work out well on the D7200 as well. I posted several pictures on UHH of birds from my back yard all taken with the combination of the D7200 and 300mm f2.8 Nikon and the reason I chose the D7200 over the D500 for the photos was the extra resolution allowed me to crop some of the photos a little tighter.

saintsrest44

I agree with those suggesting that you hold out for the D500; make the major leap instead of the incremental jump. I have two D7000's and dearly love those cameras. When the D7200 came out I looked at it and rented one for a weekend. I'm not a professional, just an advanced amateur...as long as you leave the "advanced" part out. My not so critical eye didn't really see much (if any) difference in quality between the two. I also see little value in using a camera with more than 16 mp unless you are planning to blow your shots up to wall size. My old and not so sharp brain has trouble learning new stuff, so my next leap will probably be when the D7000 thru D7500 series becomes obsolete. My point is, I personally don't see the advantage to learning the D7200 if I'm happy with the D7000 and can wait to upgrade to something exponentially better...if not easier. For more reference, I use my gear primarily for my Grandkids' softball games which are played in every type of light. I put a 24-200 Nikon lens on when behind the plate (one granddaughter is a catcher) and use the 200-500 on the other when I head to the outfield for a different perspective. As I'm sure you know, shooting through a chain link fence is a bear (any suggestions anyone?) but the smaller zoom does an adequate job if I find the right hole in the fence behind the plate. So, my second point is that I also agree with those suggesting you look more closely at lenses than bodies for a cost effective way to improve your images. Good Luck with your choice!

CO

I'm not that familiar with the D7200 but from what I can find out, flicker reduction is used to reduce flicker and banding when shooting video. The D500 has a flicker reduction for both still shots and video. I have yet to shoot under mercury-vapor lighting with my D500 but I would like to test it out soon. This might be something to look into if shooting indoor sports.

D500 flicker reduction

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I'm a Canon shooter, so not all that familiar with D7200 and D7000...

However, I think that one of the biggest improvements with the newer model was a larger buffer, allow more shots in a continuous burst than the older camera could do. This can be an important feature for sports photography. If I recall correctly, that was one of the biggest complaints about the D7000... that it had to pause to clear the buffer far too often.

Another thing, maybe not for baseball but for indoor sports, does the D7200 have "Anti-Flicker" feature? I think the recent Nikon models have this and find it's a VERY helpful thing on my Canon. Exposures are MUCH more consistent under fluorescent and similar types of lighting.

mrpentaxk5ii

You can put a slow lens on the best camera to shoot sports and your photos will suck, people that put all their money on a D500 and then if he uses a 55-300 F4 - 5.6 will get poor results.
for the sports that you are looking to shoot you best have a 70-200 F2.8, if you don't a better camera will not matter at all.

advocate1982

If you have a need to upgrade, then a step to the 7200 is warrented. But if your 7000 is still working fine, I would keep using it. If you need to spend money because the 7000 is broke, then I would probably wait til the end of Juve to see what the 7500 is like because new it will be cheaper than what you spent on the 7000. . If money is really burning a hole in your pocked, then for the price of two 7200 you can get a D500.

saintsrest44

Sorry, in my statement 5 posts above I should have said that my go-to behind the plate lens was an 18-200 Nikon, not 24-200.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I really do not understand comments like this, while it is true and has been mentioned before the OP question was on camera bodies. It is also true that a good lens on a good camera body with a person that knows how to handle both can produce exceptional photographs, however photography is not always about equipment being used, but the talent behind the equipment. So my view is to answer the OP question and not diverse.

rbk35

I have a sigma 70-200 2.8, problem is at some of the fields I have to stand far away to avoid fences. 200mm is not enough reach. I have a Tamron 200-500 which I know is slow but has the reach I need. Problems seem to start on overcast or low light games. Also considered a newer lens such as a Sig.or Tamron 150-600. Neither great in low light but i'm sure better than the 200-500 Tamron. Also noticed with the D7000 if I shoot 4 or 5 in a row the first one may look great but falls off. This is just a hobby and something I do for the kids, not looking to break the bank .

david vt Loc: Vermont

Is the D500 the only of these camera bodies that have this flicker reduction for floressent and mucus you vapor lighting? Is is needed for amateurs (advanced or not) for decent shots in poor indoor gymnasium lighting?

Thanks. Sorry for asking, but all of this is new and I want to make sure my one purchase is the right one, and if I can save money on the body and put additional money into the glass, I would like to do that