Need for GAS Advice (Page 2): The D7200 shoots uncompressed RAW. That is a potential advantage. It also has convenience features that make it easier to shoot quickly. I believe it has...

whwiden

The D7200 shoots uncompressed RAW. That is a potential advantage. It also has convenience features that make it easier to shoot quickly. I believe it has a more advanced focus mechanism. I like the U1 and U2 settings and the second control wheel in front. It may avoid banding in low light better. However, in most situations, your existing camera will take comparable photos. The d7200 should have a faster frame rate for taking sports or action photos, but for that purpose the newer D7500 is a better choice.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Elmo55 wrote:

Currently shooting with a D5300, considering tradi... (show quote)

I use Canon so will stay out of that part.
But I disagree about lack of landscapes and wildlife in Illinois.
You have river valleys, prairies, swamp/march/lakes and loads of birds, esp migrating waterfowl and deer.
I do know the 7000 series does better at action/birds/sports than the others in general.

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

You do not need two card slots to shoot in Raw. If that is the only reason for an update; I personally think you need to keep what you have. If you are worried about filling up the card, get a bigger
cad. Happy Shooting.

Bipod

Elmo55 wrote:

Currently shooting with a D5300, considering tradi... (show quote)

That's a beautiful landscape --but what's been done to the photo?
The river has black lines on each shore, as if it had been cut and pasted.

It appears to have been processed in some way that makes it look striking but unnatural.
Without a higher res image, it's hard to say more. (I realize this is off-topic--I just wanted
to mention it.)

IDguy Loc: Idaho

You might hate your decision. I did after going from a D5100 to D7000.

As noted by many, you will get the same image quality.

Despite the excess weight and cost the main thing I dislike about the D7xxx, till the D7500, is the control scheme: randomly placed unlighted buttons with unreadable green screen (at least without reading glasses) and inoperative Info screen. I hope you control your D5300 the elegant way it is designed to be controlled: via the active Info screen on the LCD. I find many that control it via menus: big mistake.

The other thing I really missed was the fully articulated screen. I used it for many purposes, from group selfies to overhead and ground level shots, and on my telescope.

The tilt touch screen on the D7500 solves some of these issues. But then you are back to single slot (which I think fine).

IDguy Loc: Idaho

whwiden wrote:

The D7200 shoots uncompressed RAW. That is a pote... (show quote)

I didn’t realize the D5xxxs only offered a choice of 12 or 14 bit raw. I suppose they use lossless compressed. Why would anyone want uncompressed?

I find the second control wheel somewhat useless except because it enables easy ISO on my D800. The big advantage the OP might get is going to the D5600, where the touch screen provides the ultimate enhancement of the elegant D5xxx control scheme and allows adjusting ISO by sliding your finger across the LCD (which I wish they kept on my Z6). I used to keep my function button set to ISO on my earlier D5xxxs.

I agree the U1 and U2 settings are nice. I’m liking the three of them on my Z6.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Bipod wrote:

That's a beautiful landscape --but what's been done to the photo?
The river has black lines on each shore, as if it had been cut and pasted.

It appears to have been processed in some way that makes it look striking but unnatural.
Without a higher res image, it's hard to say more. (I realize this is off-topic--I just wanted
to mention it.)

It is a nicely composed and exposed image of the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, but unsharp. Either too low an f-stop (needs f16), too high an ISO, low quality filter on the lens, or camera movement.

The black area along the river is where the rocks are wetted by splashing. Real effect on white water rivers.

If the OP would post using “store original” and provide EXIF info might get an idea.

Bipod

IDguy wrote:

It is a nicely composed and exposed image of the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, but unsharp. Either too low an f-stop (needs f16), too high an ISO, low quality filter on the lens, or camera movement.

The black area along the river is where the rocks are wetted by splashing. Real effect on white water rivers.

If the OP would post using “store original” and provide EXIF info might get an idea.

Thanks for the explanation!

whwiden

IDguy wrote:

I didn’t realize the D5xxxs only offered a choice ... (show quote)

I was not careful with my terms. There is a heirarchy of RAW files in Nikon. The entry level NEF is 12 bit lossy compressed. See D3500. The mid level is either 12 bit or 14 bit lossy compressed. See D5600. The high end offers 14 bit lossless compressed. The D7200 offers 14 bit lossless. The D5300 offers 14 bit lossy. I gather that lossless is better for a NEF in containing more details and helps a bit with shadow recovery. I hope I have my terms correct. The functional point is that the Raw files in the D7200 can be set to contain a bit more information which a raw shooter might find useful sometimes.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Elmo55 wrote:

Currently shooting with a D5300, considering tradi... (show quote)

Go RAW or go home.

The weak link of most DLSRs is the reliance on SD cards for image storage, it is far too easy to damage them. With a dual card system, always use the 2nd slot as a backup.
And I know I will get a lot of pushback on this, but, if you are changing your workflow to incorporate RAW, why bother with shooting JPEGS in camera? Spend time fine tuning your workflow to incorporate RAW processing and just export as JPEG for posting on line, etc.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

Go RAW or go home.

And I know I will get a lot of pushback on this, but, if you are changing your workflow to incorporate RAW, why bother with shooting JPEGS in camera? Spend time fine tuning your workflow to incorporate RAW processing and just export as JPEG for posting on line, etc.

Exactly. Since I upgraded to a D7100 this is the practice I've followed. I'm looking at incorporating an auto adjust into my LightRoom import workflow.

Andy

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

suntouched wrote:

There are so many other more recent Nikon choices- look into all of them before you decide including the Nikon Z6 mirrorless.

deanfl Loc: Georgia

Elmo55 wrote:

Currently shooting with a D5300, considering tradi... (show quote)

I own and use the very similar D7100, a D5500, and a D5200.

My main landscape camera is the D7100. The main reason is that I can take 3 bracketed shots for HDR, mounted on a tripod, using the self timer....and I don’t have to reset the self timer after each shot....like I have to do with the D5500 and D5200.

If I didn’t have the D7100 I would definitely get a D7200. When I travel by car on a photo trip, I take all 3 cameras, all with lens mounted that I may want to use.

If I started over completely, I would go for a refurbished D7200 and D5500. The latter for its flippy touch screen and light weight.

I hope this may help.

Country Boy Loc: Beckley, WV

If what you have meets your needs, you need to think about making a change and what you think you will gain. It always feels good to hold a new toy and think you can now do what some of the pros can do but the reality will hit you shortly there after. I don't want to take the GAS away, but would hate to spear you on to a less than desired result!

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Upgrading to a new camera or lens is a very personal decision. In my book that decision is based on the need of features that I consider absolutely necessary for my photography and that I know my present camera lacks. In your case, the D7200 surely will make a difference for wildlife photography but not for your other styles of photography. Is it worth it to spend more money in a new body and new lenses? Only you can answer that.