old poet

Thank you. The 500 sure sounds like my best option. Now, to make and sell more of my pottery for the cash.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I will echo two sentiments. One...if you move up to the D850, which would be a big move and big commitment, be ready to purchase some lenses that would take advantage of this awesome camera. NOW....I have seen an individual actually use old Nikon glass on an 850 with outstanding results, so it is possible to be creative. It was a prime, however, not a zoom. Check the list of recommended lenses for the 850 put out by Thom Hogan and you'll see what I'm talking about in the way of expense. It is possible that this is your substitute for a bass boat. If so, so be it. IF NOT, a dx camera and associated lenses can do an excellent job. Second point. I have seen the D500 mentioned. Before you go for that, look at the D7500. It has the same processor and af system as the D500 and D5. It does not have quite as many focus points as either, and only takes one SD card, but is an excellent camera and will save you about $600 over the D500. It also has the same low-light/high ISO capability as the D500. I saw photos taken at ISO 6000 projected on a large Apple monitor with no discernible noise. That comes in handy. It also has a popup flash which the D500 does not have. I purchased a 7500 for my daughter along with a Tamron 100-400 for shooting outside sports and the combination is really nice. At high burst mode the thing is like a machine gun (8 fps), and after viewing on the computer, the buffer had no problem in handling that load. I have a D7000 and am amazed at the increase in technology in the D7500.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

I’m interested in that D5 battry with adapter. Do you have a link for it where I can order it. I also use the D500.

deepdiverv Loc: arizona

I have the D850 and theD7200. I have had great luck with the D7200 and use it with my 200-500 mm . I would hang on to your D7200.

Bill Waxman Loc: Friday Harbor, San Juan Island, Washington

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d500.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs

The above link will take you to the specs for the batteries. I forget the cost, not inexpensive certainly, but ups the number of shots significantly.

Bill Waxman

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

Thanks

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Nikkor 200-500mm is an FX lens...

When it's used on an APS-C Nikon body it will "act like" a 300-750mm would on a full frame camera. The D7200 will capture that as a 24MP image (6000x4000 pixels).

Now if you put the same 200-500mm on a D850, use it to shoot the same subject from the same distance, then crop the resulting image to match the APS-C (it doesn't matter if you do the crop in-camera by using its DX mode or do the crop in post-processing), instead of the D850's full 42MP you'll end up with a 19MP image (5408x3600 pixels). That's not bad at all... and the D850's crop mode masking features is pretty neat, as well as it's ability to do other crops besides DX. But it's still a bit of a loss of resolution compared to the D7200. It's even a slight loss from a 21MP D500 or D7500.

So the D7200 is a great match with the 200-500mm lens. It would be ideal for birding.

But if you are shooting landscapes with a wide angle and want to be able to make really large prints from the images, the D850 would be a great choice.

A lot depends upon what you do with your images. If you aren't printing any larger than about 13x19, you're unlikely to see much difference. If you are primarily using the images online at normal internet sizes and resolution, you certainly won't see any difference.

In fact, the way most people end up using their images, you'd be the only one to ever see any difference and that would only be when you're viewing the image at ridiculously large sizes on your computer monitor. Most computer monitors are approx. 100 pixels per inch... so if you're viewing a D7200's image "at 100", that's like making a 60" x 40" print and then viewing it from only 18 or 20" away. Even if you were making 5 foot wide prints, you would be standing farther away to view them!

It's fine to do retouching and such at 100% or higher. But evaluating images for sharpness, noise, even focus accuracy at such high magnification is unrealistic. Back off and judge your images at sizes closer to how they'll ultimately be used after you've resized them for their final purpose. When you do that, unless that final purpose is really big prints, you're unlikely to see much or any improvement from an "upgrade" to an FX camera.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

If you use a DX lens you end up with only 20MP, the 7200 has, I believe 24; you just "lost" 4MP (46 / 2.25 = 20.4).....

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

A previous post from some days past, and today, had mentioned 19 megapixels using a DX lens on the 46 megapixels D850. Your formula unknown to me, explains it. 46 divided by 2.25 = 20.4 megapixels. The D7200 has 24 megapixels.

Bill_de Loc: US

I love math but Nikon in their specs claims 19.4 in DX mode. I think I'd go with that.

--

Diocletian

Maybe just refurbish the next one. Might be less expensive, then you can buy a NEW camera......

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

The 7500 does NOT have the same af system as the D5 and D500. It's closer to an upgraded D7200, but will not get you the same speed or accuracy at all. There is currently nothing like the af on the D5/500 in the Nikon lineup.

Floyd2 Loc: Littletown WI

Agree with Barny, headed for purchase of a D500 and will accompany that with my D7200. Selling my D5300 which was a great starting point for this amateur. Best of luck with your shooting.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

I would stick with your D7200 until you are flush with money. I got thousands of great bird shots with my D7100 and still use it with the AF-P 70-300mm VR DX lens. I "upgraded" to the D500 and prefer it, but seriously the advantage is not as awesome as some suggest. It's biggest advantage in my opinion is simply the presence of a dedicated ISO button on top of the camera. My full frame D750 is a wonderful camera too but it mostly sits; the FF advantage is also not as awesome as some people suggest. I print routinely to 20 x 30 inch and all three of those cameras give great results. With a D850 you could print larger and crop more, but from what you say I doubt that's a big deal either.

I also have the 200-500 and it mostly sits too. Why? Really too heavy to hand hold comfortably, for me anyway. What about you? Do you enjoy carrying the D7200 and 200-500 around for hours? If not, here's what I suggest:

Grab a gray market AF-P 70-300 DX VR lens online for about $200. Be sure its the VR model. Test it. Do an AF fine tune. You should get very sharp shots right up to 300mm, but not quite as sharp as the 200-500. But that lens weights 1 lb compared to 5 lb for the 200-500 and you can carry it and the D7200 with great ease.

If hand holding the 200-500 is any kind of issue at all, your next move, should you come into $2000. should be to get the 300mm f4 VR PF. 26 ounces. Sharper than the 200-500 (its a prime) and half the weight. You can put a 1.4x TC on it and still get very sharp shots at 420mm, which is 610mm FF equivalent.

Once you have those two lenses and come into more bucks you can think about getting a different camera. Maybe by then Nikon's FF mirrorless will be out and people will be selling their D850 to get one.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Wes,
I've sold a ton of photos printed at 20x30, 40x60, and a few 20x80 panoramas, for use in commercial buildings around my city. Almost all were shot on a D-200, D-7000, or D-7100. I did just upgrade to the D-500, but that was because I've always missed the layout of my D-200. Other than for personal (or sometimes, just "because") reasons, there really isn't a "reason" to upgrade, unless you outgrow what you have, and there are features that you can't live without. (Like the layout in my case) Now that I have the D-500, my D-7000 and 7100 probably will not see the light of day, except in a "back up" situation. The 7xxx series are awesome, and I wouldn't have had an issue continuing with what I had, image quality wise. It was just that I could "afford" to get something that I'm more comfortable with, and enjoy using.

Long story longer....... Really, it's up to you. Why ask a group of people who all have personal preferences for one reason or another on why what they chose is best? Do your research, I suggest renting one or borrowing one from someone, get the feel of it, and actually USE it, then decide if it's everything you dreamed it would be. Honestly, if I had done that, I would have replaced the D-200 with a D-300, mainly because I prefer the controls, and how it feels in my hand. I do sell prints, but was able to do that with a 6.1mp D70, so there's no reason that you "have" to upgrade, if the current body works. (but it's fun, nice to have if you decide to, and can afford to... That's where I feel lucky)