Kuzano

And also remember that 99% of the people who see you out shooting, even if they are carrying, won't give a Rat's Ass what you are carrying. It's your choice and your dilemma. All we can do is relay onto you our bias's and our mistakes. You get the pleasure of writing that big fat check. Odds are this first big purchase will be followed within a couple of months or a couple of years by writing another big fat check to correct this purchase.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Actually, the Z mount has already been mentioned several times. I, personally, would never ask someone relatively new to the field (like the OP) to be a beta tester for a new product. I do, think the Z mounts hold promise and am hopeful to see what the mark II's will look like. I will not go to the new model since when I do buy a new camera, one of the first things I will look for is dual cards, which for reasons unknown, Nikon has decided to skip.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

To "best camera available" I would add 'best collection of lenses.'

wetreed

I disagree with previous post. I think you need to get a camera now, start using and enjoying it now. There is no reason to wait once you figure out what camera to get. Life is too short.The BEST camera for you is the Nikon D5300 or the newer Nikon D5600 with the Nikon 18- 140 or the Tamron 18-400. This is your absolute best option. You might want to check with Nikon for refurbished items.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

The OP has a Lumix FZ1000 he got after the death of a point and shoot. So there is a camera.

KankRat Loc: SW Chicago Suburbs

D7500 would be awesome, but it's really geared towards sports and wildlife. It's also still too knew for truly smoking deals.
D750 would be a fine choice, but I would go with a Nikon factory refurbed D7100-7200 for between $600-700. Lots of "bang for your buck" there.
Spend the saved money on glass and flash.

Suggest 35mm f1.8 DX.- around $200. I own one, great lens. That would be your low light baby.

I don't own one, but I have seen respectable shots with the 18-200mm VR and VR2. About $300 for a used copy. I think I might find one for myself down the road.

That would get you by to till you figure out what focal lengths you actually need.

Flash is nice to have too.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Here is my 2¢.

Digital sensors are improving all the time. Today's APS-C are better than FF was years ago.

The one advantage of FF: For the SAME NUMBER OF MEGAPIXELS, FF collects more light, so is able to get good results in lower light, perhaps better dynamic range.

The disadvantages: Bigger, heavier, more expensive, less “reach”, many fewer available lenses (especially zooms).

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I would recommend a crop sensor DSLR.... or possibly a crop sensor mirrorless (MILC). Not full frame in either type.

Hiking you likely will not want to haul around a bigger full frame camera. Also, a crop sensor camera will make the telephotos you use for sports photography "act" more powerfully (another way of looking at it... you won't need to buy as big, powerful and EXPENSIVE telephoto, when you use the lens on a crop camera instead of full frame). In addition, recent model crop sensor cameras are more than good enough for most peoples' purposes. Unless you make really BIG prints from your images (16x24" and larger), you're unlikely to see much difference between a crop/DX and a full frame/FX camera.

Since you are already familiar with Nikon... a D7500 might be a good choice. Note that the less expensive D7200 has higher resolution (24Mp versus 21MP), as well as slightly wider dynamic range. It also has dual memory card slots, while the D7500 only has one. OTOH, the D7500's rear LCD is "tiltable" and a touch screen (the D7200's is not either). The D7500 might be a little better for sports/action (faster frame rate and some relatively minor AF system tweaks, as well as slightly higher settable ISO that can make for faster shutter speeds indoors).... but the D7200 is no slouch, is very capable and may be a wee bit better for everything else.

A D5600 also might be worth consideration. It's similar to what you've been using.... Has the same 24MP sensor as the D7200 and almost as fast frame rate, and only a slightly lower specification AF system for those sports shots. The two D7000-series cameras have 51-point AF with 15 higher performance cross type... the D5600 has 39-point AF with 9 cross type... both are serious upgrades from the 11-point, 1 cross type at the center in the D3200 you've been using.

The D5600 is about $400 less expensive than the D7200, $550 less than the D7500. That can go a long way toward better or additional lenses, which actually can make a lot more difference in your images, than the camera you choose to use them upon! The D5600 also has a fully articulated, touch screen LCD (again, D7200's is neither and D7500s is tilt-only, touch screen... but it's also lower resolution than the other two).

The D3000/D5000-series Nikon are only able to autofocus AF-S and (recent models) AF-P lenses. The recent model D7000-series can autofocus those, as well as older design AF and other lenses that the D3000/5000 can't. The reason is the D7000-seies cameras have an AF motor built into the camera body... the D3000/5000 don't.

The D7000-series higher cameras also have a true pentaprism, which makes for a bigger, brighter viewfinder. The D3000/5000 models use a "penta-mirror" to save weight and cost.

D7000-series also use a higher specification shutter.... 1/8000 top speed and 1/250 flash sync. D3000/5000 have a top speed of 1/4000 and a 1/200 flash sync.

IMO those are the most important differences, but there are some others:

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon-D5600
https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D5600-vs-Nikon-D7200
https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D7200-vs-Nikon-D7500

D5600 body only, $600.
D7200 body only, $1000.
D7500 body only, $1150.

Many people just compare the cameras and accept whatever lenses come with them. While kit lenses can be a good deal, they aren't necessarily the best choice. As I mentioned above, the lenses you use on the camera will probably make a bigger difference in your images, than the camera you use them with. D3200, D5600, D7200, D7500 are all very capable and probably more similar than they are different.

I'm pretty sure all three of those cameras are available in kit with a fairly basic AF-P 18-55mm DX VR lens. Also available in kit, AF-S 18-140mm DX VR would be a more versatile upgrade option. Even more of an upgrade would be AF-S 16-80mm DX VR.

There are also two-lens kits, but I'd recommend avoiding those. They come with the AF-P 18-55mm DX VR, which is okay. But the other lens usually bundled is the AF-P 70-300mm DX non-VR. The latter is not VR or "image stabilized", which is a lot more important and helpful on a telephoto than it is on the shorter focal lengths! Nikon makes a bit more expensive version of the AF-P 70-300 DX that has VR, which is what they should be including in the kits, instead. The non-VR is simply the cheapest tele-zoom Nikon makes, often avail. for under $200.

You'll want a telephoto for sports and wildlife in particular. At a minimum I'd recommend the AF-P 70-300mm DX VR version, which lists for around $350 though you might find it a bit cheaper.

Not quite as long focal length, but more compact (better for hiking?) is the AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED DX VR II, which also sells for about $350.

Even better, with higher image quality and all around performance, as well as better build quality, is the AF-P Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR , which is a bit more expensive at about $600. This is bit larger and an "FX" or full frame capable lens, but will work fine on a DX camera such the above.

If you wanted even more powerful telephoto, I'd suggest looking at the Sigma and Tamron 100-400mm lenses, each of which sell for around $700. These are bigger lenses, though. So check them out in a store before you buy, to be sure you're willing to hike with them! Between those two, I might favor the Tamron because it can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring (sold separately for about $125). The Sigma cannot. The most similar Nikkor lenses are the much more expensive 80-400mm VR (over $2000) and the bigger 200-500mm VR ($1400).

For landscape and waterfalls, you might want a wide angle lens. At about $300, the AF-P Nikkor 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G DX VR is pretty tough to beat! It's not only one of the least expensive, it's also one of the lightest and most compact. Plus it has VR (though that's not as important on this type lens... still it's nice to have). Nikon makes two other "ultrawide" DX lenses.... an AF-S 10-24mm and an AF_S 12-24mm... but they're ridiculously expensive (around $800 and $1150, respectively). There are some pretty decent Tokina, Sigma and Tamron ultrawides too, if preferred. But they tend to be priced around $500 and up.

You mention flowers which suggest close-ups and macro. While a true macro lens can be convenient, it may not be necessary. Look into the close focusing and maximum magnification capabilities of other lenses you consider... and possibly get a set of easy-to-use macro extension tubes to make any of them able to give even higher magnification. I recommend the Kenko set of three tubes (about $120). Those are high quality, full support both autofocus & aperture control, are compact and relatively lightweight, give seven different possible amounts of extension (for more or less increase in magnification) and can be used virtually any lens.

If you'd like to try your hand at portraiture, a low cost way to get started is with a lens like the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G , which sells for under $220. It's reasonably small and light... and can double as a low light lens for indoor shooting. It's over a full stop faster than most zooms... two or more stops faster than some of the ones recommended above. On a DX format camera such as I recommended above, this 50mm lens "acts like" a short telephoto, which is ideal for portraiture. And AF-S 85mm f/1.8G is a slightly longer alternative that puts you farther away for possibly more candid shooting... but is a bit bigger, more expensive and requires more working distance (may be difficult to use indoors).

Another lens I don't recommend is an AF-S 18-300mm DX VR... Folks buy these thinking one lens can do it all. But they have to compromise and carry around a camera fitted with a fairly large lens all the time. IMO, it's much better to buy two or several less extreme lenses, such as the ones mentioned above. After all, one of the main reasons to buy a DSLR is to be able to interchange lenses, to be able to adapt the camera for use in different situations.

If you preferred, you could put together a similar DSLR kit with other brands. Or you could put together similar kit around a crop sensor mirrorless camera that might be a bit more compact, lighter weight, and nice for hiking. There's no Nikon mirrorless of this type (they just announced a new full frame mirrorless, but those cameras and their few avail. lenses remain fairly large... and pricey). You'd need to look at APS-C mirrorless offered by Canon, Sony or Fujifilm... or Olympus/Panasonic, which use slightly smaller micro 4/3 format sensors. Compared to Nikon and Canon DSLR systems, these mirrorless systems have a lot fewer native lenses to choose among. They often are able to use adapted DSLR lenses, but there goes any size/weight savings out the window when you do that. Also, you'll typically get a lot more bang for your buck with DSLRs and their lenses. Mirrorless are a bit of a fad right now, and that popularity has kept prices relatively high. There are some differences in functionality too.... most sports/wildlife photographers still prefer DSLRs... though recent mirrorless have improved a lot.

Keep in mind that you'll need memory cards, possibly an extra battery or two, and may want image organizing/editing software for your computer (look for "bundles" that include extras like these... but ONLY from reputable stores... there are a lot of shysters out there!)

Have fun shopping!

wetreed

You are correct, while his Lumix might be a good bridge camera, this man wants an upgrade. The suggestions I are really the way he should go.

Daryl New Loc: Wellington,New Zealand

Buy a bridge camera,suss out what you like shooting.then think about DSLR's.thats how I went about it.

no nameJoe

I own both fx and dx nikon cameras you will find that with the fx system the expence goes way up, however if you start with dx system buy fx lenses then if you decide to go fx you don't have to buy lenses twice

The Mug Lady Loc: Oro Valley, AZ

I have only been on this forum a short time and this is only my second post.
It seems most everyone who posts uses Nikon. Is this just by chance?
I am a Canon person and would love to hear some feed back and suggestions using Canon products. Aloha

wetreed

Nikon is by far the best photography company. It has the best quality and excellent customer service.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I agree with your perception Mug Lady ! ......have patience and stick around - Canon and Sony do come up every once in a while

..

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, I was expecting this

..