tamalero wrote:
typoo: I wanted to say that the D7200 is a marginal upgrade of the D7100.
That's what I figured you meant.
Flyextreme wrote:
The 5200 is a very capable DX camera. I doubt that since you have already considered FX, you won't be happy until you get one. At least that's the way it worked for me. Do you need two DX cameras?
I love the fact I have one of each.
I think I will like that also, my wife cannot understand why I'd want to have two cameras.
tamalero wrote:
the D7200 is a marginal upgrade of the D7200.
the D750 is more worth it imho.
I started out wanting to upgrade to FX and then was interested in seeing what the new D7200 would provide, so will probably go D750.
Rongnongno wrote:
Well, I use my older D300 (DX) along side my D800e. Difference is that from the get go I purchased my lenses knowing I would step up to FX sooner than later. I have a single 'do-it-all' DX lens: a 18~200. All the rest are prime FX.
When Nikon presents its own super megapixel camera (50MP) or more I'll let go the D300 and spring to the new one, after waiting 1 year to check the feed back first. I am anything but spontaneous when it comes to photography.
oh, but the GAS pains are significant. :)
Nikon_DonB wrote:
I had the similar dilemma a few years ago. I was waiting for the D7100 to be released and in the meantime the D600 came out. The rest is "Insanity," oppps. "History!"
Get the Full Frame D750. NO QUESTIONS ASKED!
Sounding less and less insane!
SonnyE wrote:
Should I give you a push? ;)
I can feel it from you and many others but I'm not fighting it very much.
Mike D. wrote:
I know this won't help much but it boils down to affordability. Comparing a DX to an FX is like comparing an apple to an orange. The similiarities end after the realization that they are both pieces of fruit.
For me, I can't afford to go full frame and will attempt to worry about it when/if I outgrow the D7100. Since this isn't likely to happen for quite some time, I am content with trying to squeak out decent pictures with the crappy glass that I have.
At the end of the day though, if you can swing the D750 without breaking the bank, I seriously doubt you would be disappointed.
I know this won't help much but it boils down to a... (
show quote)
Thanks, It won't break the bank but will slow the future upgrades of glass for sure.
wilsondl2 wrote:
If you don't go with the FF you will always think you are useing a 2nd class camera. It's just the way some folks are so go for it. - Dave
Thanks, yes, I think you might be correct.
Rongnongno wrote:
What you are or what you do does not really matter. What matters is are you happy with the current DX format (and investment)?
If yes, don't change.
If no, you can still use your lenses but the camera will automatically crop your image to DX so... Additional $$$ would be needed to be up to par with the FX camera capabilities.
Thanks, the lure of the FX is probably going to win out.
speters wrote:
The D7200 is a fantastic camera, but it can't touch the D 750 IMHO, that is especially true in low-light-shooting! Definitely worth the few extra bucks!!
Thanks, I am really looking for that low light capability and Nikon has indicated that 25,600 ISO is not a "HI" setting on the 7200 but maybe the FX is still better.
I was planning on upgrading from my D5200 with 18-200mm VR11 lens to the D750 with 24-120mm. However, I was waiting for the announcement of the D7200. Now that it is announced, I have a dilemma.
I thought I wanted move up to FX with higher ISO, larger sensor, and more control. I really do use the flip LCD on my D5200, that is similar on the D750. If the D7200 had the same tilt screen as the D750 I would most likely get the D7200 with it's even higher ISO, larger buffer, and capability with my existing 18-200mm and 35mm DX lens. I could even add a Nikon 10-24mm for 800.00 and still be 1200.00 less than the D750 with 24-120mm. However, will I be disappointed to not move up to FX?
I am just hobbyist that likes to take sunsets, landscapes, interesting shots and family photos.
abc1234 wrote:
I hate to burst your bubble but would return it.
The camera is not the issue. The lenses are. Since you may find yourself switching lenses a lot, having the popular 18-200 zoom will be a welcome alternative. Unfortunately, you may not realize this until later.
If you can, exchange this for a bundle with the 18-200 or just buy the body. Nikon, Sigma and Tamron have 18-200's and some even have 18-250's. Sigma has a new 18-300 worth considering. This sounds like pretty complicated advice but with the 18-200 or more, you will grow to appreciate it. With the 18-55/55-200, all you will do is grow out of them.
I looked at B&H and the body is $470 and the Sigma 18-200 is $300. Even though this is more than the two-lens bundle at $697, consider what you lose if you buy a 18-200 later and have to take a loss on those two kit lenses.
Good luck and enjoy your new camera.
I hate to burst your bubble but would return it. b... (
show quote)
I did get the D5200 with the 18-200mm VR II lens and agree with abc1234. I have many many times been shooting in the 18-25mm range and then out to 200 and then back to 18 right after that. I didn't want to be switching lens and am really glad I don't have to. It was a little more than the kit but well worth it IMHO. I did go with refurbished for both camera and lens. Have fun with your new toy/tool.