I agree and I would include paper "lens tissues" that are sold in camera stores. Don't use them either!

Most paper is made from wood pulp. Trees take up minerals from the ground water they draw in with their roots. Some minerals are hard enough to scratch glass or the coatings on it.

There are specially made, single-use cleaning products like Pec Pads especially made for optics. Those and microfiber cloths are much safer to use than any paper products.

Note: If you read some of the camera repair books, they often advise use plain "facial tissues" for lens cleaning. However, a repair tech will likely only be cleaning the lens once... not repeatedly over it's life time like the lens' user will be. Repeated use of paper products is probably the cause of "cleaning marks" on old lenses, which are a permanent haze of very fine scratches.

There are several types of Windex (and other glass cleaners)...

I am not certain, but I think it is the cleaners with ammonia that shouldn't be used on cameras, lenses, eyeglasses, etc.

At any rate, I simply don't use any Windex. I use a lens cleaning solution (or a sensor cleaning solution... essentially the same thing).

My process for cleaning lenses:

1. Remove any dust or grit with a blower, gentle brush, minivac or gentle use of a micro fiber cloth. Dust particles can be minerals that might scratch the coatings on the lens.

2. Wet clean with lens/sensor solution... just a few drops on a Pecs Pad or the corner of a clean microfiber cloth. I currently have a small spray bottle of Zeiss lens cleaning solution and spray one or two shots of that onto the cleaning pad. (Never spray directly onto the lens... too much moisture there can get "wicked" inside the lens around the perimeter of the elements, where it might do damage or take forever to dry.) Single use, pre-moistened wipes like Zeiss are fine too, but are more expensive.

3. Let it air dry or use a clean, dry microfiber cloth to dry it.

4. Polish with a Lens Pen. The wet cleaning often leaves a little "haze". This polishing removes that and makes it less likely that dust, etc. will adhere to the surface in the future.

Microfiber cloths can be cleaned and reused. Just put them in the laundry. HOWEVER, never use "fabric softener" with them in either the washer or the dryer. It will leave behind a residue that causes smearing when cleaning optics.

Pec Pads are available inexpensively in bulk. I also make my own sensor swabs with them, wrapping them around a reusable "wand".

Microfiber cloths are available in bulk, too. They seem to cost less any place other than a camera store! Auto parts stores have larger "terry cloth" style microfiber cloths sold in relatively inexpensive bundles and great for all types of external camera cleaning. I keep one or two in my camera bag all the time.

Did you know that you don't need to use the © symbol, the word "copyright" or the year on your photo to protect it from misuse?

Simply "signing" your name is all the assertion of copyright you need... according to the international copyright act of 1990-something.

An uncalibrated monitor "lies" to you, causing you to incorrectly set the exposure and colors of your images. For example, out of the box virtually all monitors are excessively bright and will cause you to make your images too dark. My advice...

Get a calibration device and software, such as Datacolor Spyder or Calibrite ColorChecker. Even a basic one will do and come with one or more sample images built-in.

The first steps of calibrating a computer monitor are installing the colorimeter and setting the brightness. Once that's done, the software suite will run a series of color tests and produce a correction profile it will apply to your monitor. The softaware walks you through the process step by step.

Calibration CAN be done by eye... but you will burn through A LOT of ink and paper doing it.

Computer monitors gradually grow dimmer and shift color rendition, so re-calibration needs to be done periodically... maybe weekly, monthly or every two or three months, depending upon how much you print and how picky you are. Because of this over time a calibration suite will essentially pay for itself, in savings of paper and ink, as well as wear and tear on the printer itself.

P.S. Re-reading my reply above, I want to be clear and say I fault the newspaper... not Ken. I'm glad for him that he got the photo published and that they credited him for it. Kudos for that!

I do get it.

The newspaper should have gotten Ken's permission to use his photo. I worked at three newspapers in my career and none of them would have used a photo without express, written permission from the copyright holder. That's the guy who took the photo. The only exceptions were photos taken by our own staff photographers. That's because the employer, the newspaper in this case, owns the copyright and can do with it whatever they wish.

This is a clear case of copyright infringement that could easily have been avoided. Just because Ken has no intention of doing anything about it, doesn't mean it isn't an infringement. If I were working at that newspaper, I'd be talking to the staff about getting permissions.

I also agree with George that the newspaper should have paid something for the use of the photo. Maybe just a nominal amount. But something. For a "contract" to be valid there has to be "valuable consideration"... i.e., money. Even $5 would have done.

And, no, free use of one's image by a publication doesn't make anyone a "pro". Someone has to be paid for their work, to be considered a pro. It doesn't have to be the bulk of their income or even very much.

I have no problem with people doing favors such as taking a commemorative photo like Ken was doing. But it's another matter when the photo is published.

And, no Ken, the paper wouldn't ask for a release. They would "license usage" of the photo from you. They might ask you if the people in the photo all signed model releases and possibly ash you to provide them with a copy of the releases, though you should keep the originals on file. That would be your responsibility.

"Hard news" photos don't typically involve releases... such as firemen fighting a house fire. "Editorial" usage doesn't rigidly require a model release. But, just as a precaution many newspapers and other publications sometimes ask for releases for "soft news" such as your photo. The model release simply protects the publisher from being sued for using a person's image without their permission. On the other hand, releases are pretty much mandatory for commercial usage, such as advertising (including what appears in the newspaper), packaging, posters, calendars, etc. Besides standard model releases for adults, there are also special releases for property and for minor persons, as well as specialized releases for nude images, etc.

I always "copy" images from my memory cards to my computer. I don't "move" them or delete any initially, pnly after I've viewed them on the larger computer screen.

Later when I am sure the images are safe and secure on the computer I format the card in the camera, which effectively "erases" the images. Quick and easy.

D7500 is fully compatible with ALL Nikon autofocus F-mount lenses.

Yes, basically that is correct.

Let's break it down.

AUTOFOCUS LENSES:

D7500 is compatible with ALL Nikon autofocus F-mount lenses.

D7200 is compatible with ALL Nikon autofocus F-mount lenses, too... except for one relatively minor limitation: You cannot turn off VR on AF-P autofocus lenses lacking a switch on the lens body itself. The D7200 doesn't have the function in the camera menu to turn off VR. The D7500 does have that function in its menu.

MANUAL FOCUS LENSES:

D7500 can mount, but cannot meter Nikon pre-AI, AI converted, AI and AI-S manual focus F-mount lenses. You have to use an external meter.

D7200 cannot mount Nikon pre-AI lenses, but is fully compatible with AI converted and AI-S manual focus lenses.

NOTES:

1. What you refer to as "non AF" lenses, I am referring to as "manual focus" lenses.

2. Pre-AI lenses are the oldest F-mount, manual focus lenses, made prior to 1977. There can be mechanical interference issues with some of them, mounting them on the much newer cameras. So be careful the first time you mount one.

3. BOTH cameras (and most or all? other Nikon DSLRs) cannot be used with any of Nikon's "invasive fisheye" lenses. These are lenses that have a protruding rear element that fits inside the camera body. Other than the new mirrorless, most Nikon made this century cannot be used with these lenses. The lens' protruding rear element will interfere with the action of the mirror and cause damage. This is probably not a concern, as these lenses were relatively early manual focus and are relatively uncommon.

Mister Undecisive.

He's the guy who still doesn't think zooms are any good.

And he's definitely not in San Francisco... His load would be lightened a lot in a few minutes.

Your best bet would be to leave the files on your computer (get a larger drive or install a 2nd drive in it, if need be)...

AND back that up by putting it on something external, like a flash drive or an external drive or "cloud" storage. And I agree with the idea that if you are going to have the backup "on site" with you, double it by having redundant drives you swap out every so often (depending upon how much you shoot, how important your images are, etc.) You might swap them weekly or monthly or every few months. It's up to you. If something happened at your home and you lost BOTH the computer with the primary storage and the external storage device, how many images are you willing to lose irreplaceably?

The software that came with your camera (might need to download and install it) should be able to convert a RAW file to a JPEG easily. Look for something like an "as shot" button, which will use the camera settings recorded in the RAW file and do the conversion based on them. Of course you also could adjust, tweak and modify the RAW file. That's much more possible with the "full data" of the RAW file than it is with in-camera JPEGs.

You may not be aware of it, but you are always shooting RAW files. Every image any digital camera makes is a RAW. When you set the camera to "JPEG", it's quickly converting the RAW file into that JPEG and "throwing away" the original file that contained quite a bit of additional info. To get some idea of the difference, sometime set your camera to shoot RAW + JPEG, take a few shots, then download them to your computer. The two files from each shot will have the same name, but different suffixes when you look at them in your computer's browser. What you'll see is that the RAW file is larger than the JPEG. The difference is what's being thrown away when the camera makes JPEGs.

Besides the RAW always being larger, both RAW and JPEG file sizes vary from shot to shot depending upon how much detail is in each image. An image of a very plain gray area with just a few details would be a lot smaller than a landscape with a lot of trees and foliage details, for example.

The Nikon 80-200mm lens may be an older model, but in it's day was pretty well respected.

Actually there were three Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED.... the first was made from 1993 to 1997. I think it is a "push/pull" zoom with silver colored lettering and decoration on the barrel. The "New" update of that lens came out in 1997 and is distinguished by no longer being a push/pull, instead having separate focus and zoom rings, as well as a lot of gold lettering and decor on the barrel. In 1999 the AF-S 80-200mm model came out, essentially the same, but a bit larger with a "silent wave" focus drive motor built in. The two earlier models rely upon a focus motor built into the camera, which not all Nikon cameras have. So this AF-S version is the first that can be used on pretty much the entire line of Nikon cameras. I'm pretty sure that 80-200mm was replaced by the first of the AF-S 70-200mm that out around 2003. I don't recall if that was a VR model or not, but if not then subsequent Nikkor 70-200mm added that feature and have had it ever since.

The latest and the best of the Nikkor 80/70-200mm models is the "FL" or "fluorite" version. That lens and several of the super telephotos were revised with fluorite elements added, which in telephoto lenses make for less chromatic aberration and a bit more sharpness. Nikon had "made do" without fluorite in any of their lenses for decades, due to the expense and difficulty working with it. Naturally occurring fluorite large and pure enough for lens elements is rare. For that reason, Canon developed a method for growing their own fluorite crystals and pioneered methods of working them into usable lens elements. Many of the Canon telephotos over the years have used fluorite, both in the older FD/FL mount and in the modern EOS/EF. All of their EF 70-200mm lenses other than the first two used it. It also was used in all EF 200mm f/1.8 & f/2, 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4.5 & f/4, 600mm f/4, 800mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8 lenses.

Nikon was late to the fluorite party... HOWEVER, reportedly Canon's use of it cost them a big contract. The story goes that when NASA was looking for cameras to send into space on their rockets, they ruled out Canon because some of the lenses had fluorite. There were concerns that the extremes of a rocket launch might cause the fluorite to shatter. It is rather delicate by itself. But there is little to no problem with it in lenses... at least those that remain on Earth.

OP, if your images aren't sharp there are any number of possible reasons. Some of the most likely:

- Lens out of calibration.
- Focus on the camera needs to be calibrated.
- The lens/camera combo needs to be calibrated (can be done by user).
- Incorrect auto focusing setup/usage.
- Too slow shutter being used for hand held shots.
- Poor quality "protection" filter on lens.
- Dirty image sensor in camera.
- Images not properly sharpened in post processing.

Well, let's see. I got Lightroom 6 in mid 2015, a short time after it was introduced. It was selling for $120 or so at the time, but cost me $90 thanks to a "hidden" upgrade offer on the Adobe website. I'd used LR5, LR4, LR3 and original LR before that (1st version cost $299... I don't recall all the later version prices, but know that LR5 was around $120, so was LR6 but it was the 1st time Adobe offered a reduced cost upgrade fore LR5 users).

So Lightroom 6 (now 6.14) has served me for 8 years and still does all I need it to do, quickly and efficiently.

Someone who had to have the latest and greatest "CC" and subscribed shortly after it was introduced will now have used it for five years.

They've spent $600 for five years ($120 a year) use of Lightroom CC.

I've spent $90 for eight years ($11.25 a year) use of Lightroom CS6.

Of course, with that subscription they get the latest Photoshop too (I bet not all install it... a lot only use LR Classic). I'm "stuck" with old Photoshop CS6, although it still does everything I need it to do. I did pay a separate upgrade for PS CS6. That was a couple years before the LR6 upgrade and probably cost around $250... so I've been using it for around 10 years ($25 a year cost).

A "selling point" of the subscription is auto updates. But I've had "auto updates" turned off for a long time, ever since it caused some problems for me in Lightroom... an auto update reset some things to defaults and made a mess on my computer in the middle of a big job.

Never, ever buy a "camera brand" filter... Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. They are ALWAYS outsourced from one of the actual filter makers, usually just mid-grade at best and often massively over-priced. Essentially you end up paying a premium just for the brand name. Equal or even better quality filters can be had for a lot less. The same is probably true of "lens brand" filters as well... Sigma, Tamron, etc.

One of the most expensive filters I ever bought was a Canon brand circular polarizer. Later I found out it wasn't even multi-coated.

The older Nikon branded filters also had no coatings... but the "II" series filters they offer now are.

I recommend you cut out the middle man and buy a filter from a filter maker: B+W, Hoya, Heliopan, etc. Very often you can get a better filter for the same or less money.

Actually when they introduced their mirrorless system Nikon made a really big deal that the model names were "Z (space) (number)". I don't know why they were so adamant about this... but that would be the way I'd type it in or expect it to appear on any official Nikon website. I noticed that retailers, reviewers, etc. went along with it initially, but have mostly stopped bothering to put the space in there.

This is IMPORTANT.

Original poster states they use a number of older, manual focus lenses. They need to be more specific about what lenses they want to be able to use.

The D7200 cannot even mount a pre-AI lens. But AI-converted and everything after are fully usable, except for some limitations with AF-P.

D7500 can mount a pre-AI lens, but without metering. They also can mount but cannot meter AI-converted, AI, AI-S manual focus lenses.

General consensus of reviews and testing is that the D7500 is a better choice for sports/action shooting and low light. Because of this, it's baffling why Nikon didn't design the D7500 to accommodate a battery grip, which sports/action shooters often want to be able to use. Maybe Nikon was concerned that if the D7500 was available with a grip it would undermine the sales of their D500.

For other stuff the same reviews and testing suggest the D7200 is a better choice for slightly better color depth and slightly more dynamic range, as well as it's additional resolution.

For example, DXO Mark ranks the two:

D7500.... overall score 86
D7200... overall score 87

D7500 portraiture (color depth)... 24.3 bits
D7200 portraiture (color depth)... 24.5 bits

D7500 landscape (dynamic range)... 14 EVs
D7200 landscape (dynamic range)... 14.6 EVs

D7500 sports (low light).... 1483 ISO
D7200 sports (lost light).... 1333 ISO