Why not get a new/used/refurbished D3300/D3400? - very lightweight, inexpensive and will fit all your D7200 DX lenses - so it makes a great travel/backup to the D7200 and will take great pix! Smartphone cameras are okay for quick snaps at close range, but lack the flexibility and IQ of a DSLR.

Keep Win 10 up to date - that solves many problems including security issues. I found that System Mechanic (Iolo) is a great tool to keep any Windows system fine tuned all the time. Use the force, errr, cloud Luke. I use Google Drive currently so I have a back up on every laptop I access Google drive from, plus the cloud (3 places) and everything is synced automatically. Also if you have attached a thumb drive or other external drive save the files and then eject the drive - don't let the computer sleep with unresolved back ups.

YES a 300mm is a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens that's the point BUT a 300mm will give the same effective *** field of view *** (or APPARENT magnification) as a 450mm lens (which is a 450mm lens which is a 450mm lens which is a 450mm lens) mounted on a FF camera....that's all. Other aspects of the image such as DOF, bokeh, IQ etc. will not necessarily be identical - of course. But for some photographers they would rather carry around a 300 mm/ APSC cam to photograph birds (or sporting events) rather than a heavier/costlier 450mm lens on a FF and get a VERY SIMILAR effect. That is the appeal of APSC cameras over FF at the moment.

300mm FF lens on a FF camera = 300mm field of view (about 6.9 deg horizontal)
300mm FF lens on an APS-C camera = 450mm field of view (best bang for the buck - less than 5 degress horizontal)
300mm FF lens with 1.5x TC FF camera = 450mm field of view (sub-optimal IQ on either APSC or FF)
300mm FF lens with 1.5x TC APS camera = 675mm fov (wow but IQ will suffer)
450mm FF lens with FF camera = 450mm field of view (best in terms of IQ but weight and cost will be higher)

So with a TC and APS camera you can make a lowly 300mm lens into a superzoom - cost will be IQ especially and loss of minimum fstop.

Note for Canon's the crop factor is around 1.6 for APS-C so the above would be comparative and approximate.

Recommendation - always stick to FF lenses even with an APS-C camera - then you can get a second FF body and use the same lens for full coverage without any crop loss. BOBW!

Film is not quite dead yet, but digital is here to stay - I would not sell off just yet. Just as the invention of TV did not kill off radio as some thought at one time, digital has not killed off film 100%. If they bring back Kodachrome (and I also heard Ektachrome possibly) that would be fantastic! Kodachrome has to be processed in a tightly controlled environment so home processing is out of the question. I've done Ektachrome (E-6) processing at home years ago - it was fun but too involved for me. Vintage 35mm film cameras and lenses can be had on eBay for mere pennies of what they once sold for - I have an OM-2n, 2s, 4t with some lenses - although haven't shot film in a while. Well, this is one way to go "full frame" on the cheap - many mail order processing houses will scan the film and put on DVD for a small extra cost so you can get the best of both worlds. I hope film never goes away - it's nice to have choices.

There was a recent article in a photo mag recently that featured shooting with crystal balls - very interesting effect. Don't expect absolutely perfect images as the glass is not purified as with a modern camera lens.

We can turn it around and say "Why can't Canon innovate like Nikon?" Both are the the top in the DSLR field, and will leapfrog each other at times. When I think Canon I think copiers, printers, as well as cameras. When I think Nikon I think only "photography" since they are not as diversified as Canon. Nikon is a more specialized company, especially now so with the recent reorganization (search the posts here about a month ago) focusing on more pro level cameras and less on consumer models (point and shoot like Coolpix). IMO Nikon produces better APS-C cameras than Canon (D500 for one), but the FF models toss up - take your pick. Canon is better suited for videography. Many pro videographers will use a Canon DSLR over a Nikon DSLR. Ultimately it's user choice. Canon has more R&D money to work with being more diversified. It's like arguing Intel vs AMD in the processor world...Intel has more R&D resources.

Someone mentioned it too but one item to be aware of - Nikon removed the sensor cleaner from the 3400 to reduce cost/weight- SO, be careful when changing lenses - change them only indoors in still clean air - eventually the sensor will have to be manually cleaned anyway since some dust will make it to the sensor even if you never change the lens. The 3300 prior model has this feature. On the plus side the 3400 has the BT/Snapbridge built in .... in any case the 3300/3400 are excellent starter models - I have the 3300 since last year (with the 2 lens kit - 18-55, 55-200) and it has produced excellent images for a "beginner" camera. I might keep it anyway even when I upgrade sometime this year.

What I would like to see on all new Nikons is a fully articulated screen, and maybe mirrorless/EVF versions in the same body style. I think the mirror will eventually go the way of the typewriter, 8-tracks, and analog tv.

Yes, I have been torn between the D500 and D750 (a D5 is out of budget for many enthusiasts, not to mention a behemoth) In fact NPhoto magazine did a comparison test between the two cameras a couple months back. The D750 had the slight edge in terms of low-light handing (lowest noise figure at given high ISO). They also pointed out the benefits of FF vs APS-C in terms of IQ. BUT, the APS-C D500 has benefits too....for action photography, BIF, etc. Also the D500 handles noise very well, probably due to the 20 MP sensor vs. 24 MP for other APS-C sensors in the current line - somewhat larger photo-sites = better noise figures.

My final decision is to START with the D500 BUT invest in FX lenses, so that when I add an FX camera both bodies can be used interchangeably. The use of FX lenses on the DX body also has some IQ benefits too. Especially too, I don't plan to shoot in low light/ interiors too much with supplemental lighting.

I think it should be FF + APS-C not FF vs. APS-C, even for PROS. But if you had to choose one to start with, choose the one that goes with your genre of photography, budget and existing lenses (if any)....note there is much overlap too.

Landscape (esp ultra wide angle), low-light interiors, weddings, general -> FX
Action, BIF, sports, extra telephoto reach (1.5x) without using a TC (so you don't need a $20,000 1000mm f/2.8 monster), general -> DX
Investment in DX lenses existing -> DX

Chris

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

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)

Here's what I would love to see:
A digicam with the OM-2/4 form factor, with a **full frame** (no APS-C/u4/3) sensor, 24MP+ or higher, 10 fps+ ...with an extended OM mount to fit older ZUIKO MF lenses, along with newer full frame digital line of lenses....I never understood why full frame digital cameras have to be so large....is this a marketing ploy on the part of Nikon/Canon (bigger/heavier is better?). Basically all of the older 35mm film cameras, including the older OM-1/2/3/4 lines are all "full frame", so it should just be a matter of adding the sensor and support electronics, LCD monitor, etc. Since there is no film transport, that is space gained for the digital counterparts (the back can now be replaced with some of the support electronics)....and...why not a digital back for the older OM bodies????