Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Upgrade camera or lens?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Feb 10, 2019 08:38:08   #
grahamfourth
 
I do mostly wildlife photography and use a Nikon D3200. My go-to lenses are a Nikon 40mm Macro lens for insects and flowers, and a Nikon 70-300mm for birds and other distant animals. I don't often have the finances to upgrade, so I need to make good choices when I do. As I consider my options based on the kind of photography I do, it seems my best choices now are either to upgrade my macro lens to one with a longer working distance (such as the Nikon 85mm macro) so I can be further away from my subjects, or upgrade my camera to a Nikon D7200, since the cost of both is similar right now (better telephoto lenses are way out of my price range, so that is not an option at this point).
I think I have a pretty good idea of the improvements I will get from the 85mm lens, but I am less clear what type of improvement I can expect in going to a D7200. I have read reviews that indicate there is a substantial improvement in going to the D7200, but it is not entirely clear to me how the improvements will flesh out. I would appreciate any advice people can give me regarding whether choosing a new lens or a new camera will provide a bigger improvement for my photography. Thank you all in advance for your input, and for taking the time to read this post.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 08:47:53   #
| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 08:48:05   #
LWW (a regular here)
 
Take the D7200, sell the 40, pick up a 105 AF-D or 105 AIS MF NIKKOR.

NIKKOR legacy glass properly cared for is close to indestructible and the D7200 opens up a world of AF legacy glass.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 08:48:09   #
brontodon
 
I think you'd get a significant improvement in camera control by switching to a D7200, but little if any improvement in image quality. I'd vote for the lens upgrade.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 08:50:58   #
ggab (a regular here)
 
grahamfourth wrote:
I do mostly wildlife photography and use a Nikon D3200. My go-to lenses are a Nikon 40mm Macro lens for insects and flowers, and a Nikon 70-300mm for birds and other distant animals. I don't often have the finances to upgrade, so I need to make good choices when I do. As I consider my options based on the kind of photography I do, it seems my best choices now are either to upgrade my macro lens to one with a longer working distance (such as the Nikon 85mm macro) so I can be further away from my subjects, or upgrade my camera to a Nikon D7200, since the cost of both is similar right now (better telephoto lenses are way out of my price range, so that is not an option at this point).
I think I have a pretty good idea of the improvements I will get from the 85mm lens, but I am less clear what type of improvement I can expect in going to a D7200. I have read reviews that indicate there is a substantial improvement in going to the D7200, but it is not entirely clear to me how the improvements will flesh out. I would appreciate any advice people can give me regarding whether choosing a new lens or a new camera will provide a bigger improvement for my photography. Thank you all in advance for your input, and for taking the time to read this post.
I do mostly wildlife photography and use a Nikon D... (show quote)


Is having 51 focus points vs 11 as well as 15 cross type focus points vs 1 important enough to do the upgrade?
This would be most beneficial tracking flying birds or fast moving animals.
This is the area with the most improvement from the info I can find.
https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon-D7200


Good luck.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 09:08:54   #
fourlocks
 
I had the same dilemma when choosing between the D5500 and the D7200. Like you seem to be, I was an "enthusiast" with a limited budget although I could afford either body. The D3200, D5500 and D7200 all contain the same 24.2 MP CMOS sensor so there's nothing to be gained in that area. As you move from the 3200, to 5500, to 7200 you get more capabilities but you need to compare them and decide if you
actually need those additional capabilities at your level.

UHH advice is usually to spend any extra money on "good glass." I liked the D5500's compact size, light weight and touch screen so I opted for the "lesser" D5500 and purchased a good Nikon 18 - 200mm lens. I never regretted that decision.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 09:14:55   #
gvarner (a regular here)
 
Check out the Tokina 100mm Macro. It’s a great value, decent quality at a decent price. It will give you way more working distance than the 40.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 09:19:56   #
camerapapi (a regular here)
 
Both cameras have lots of megapixels if you do crop your images often. The D7200 ha a much better AF and a larger buffer along with a faster firing rate if you need those features for your wildlife photography.
Like others I recommend that you buy the 105mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor which can be bought at attractive prices second hand if you decide to keep the D3200.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 09:26:48   #
Phil Martin
 
I have a D7100 and cannot find any really good reason to upgrade to 7200. I'm sure you can find an affordable D7100, maybe refurbished. I think you'll be very happy with it.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 09:44:30   #
ksmmike
 
LWW wrote:

NIKKOR legacy glass properly cared for is close to indestructible and the D7200 opens up a world of AF legacy glass.


I agree for people on a budget or not, Nikon has some fantastic older Manual focus glass that can be found for cheap on Ebay and elsewhere. Don't be concerned about purchasing from Japan. I've done it several times now and have never been disappointed.

The 105 AIS F2.5 is a great lens and can be had for less than $200, less than $150 if you're patient.
The 135 F2.8 of F3.5 are both fantastic lenses. I bought a 135 F3.5 for about $120 in mint condition.
The 200 F4 is also another steal. I got that one for $78 in close to mint condition.

There are examples of great 35 and 50mm lenses as well, but remember they are manual focus lenses. If you don't mind MF, for the money, you can't beat them. For color and sharpness, the 200 F4 for $78 rivals the 300MM F4 Fresnel that I paid $1800 for. Yes, the 300 is the better lens and is autofocus, but if I were on a budget and didn't need the AF for sports or wildlife, I'd take the 200 F4 all day long. For birds sitting still for a moment, you can use the 200 4 without hesitation and make fine images.

I realize the focal length is different, but you'll be hard pressed unless you're a real pixel peeper to see differences between the 105 AIS F2.5 and the newer Nikon 85mm 1.8 G. I own them both and use both.
Again, you have to dial in the manual focus, but as far as image quality, hard to see any major differences. In a 11x14 print, good luck telling the difference. The 105 is a classic lens and can be had cheap these days. I could send you some examples, but they are easily found on the internet.

Mike

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 09:54:21   #
brontodon
 
gvarner wrote:
Check out the Tokina 100mm Macro. It’s a great value, decent quality at a decent price. It will give you way more working distance than the 40.


Keep in mind that on the OP's D3200, the Tokina will not have autofocus -- it will be manual focus only. The Tokina does not have an in-lens motor and requires the camera body to have a focusing motor. The D3200 lacks such a motor.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 10:08:03   #
olemikey (a regular here)
 
The D7200 or any in that series will give you the ability to use and AF any Nikon lens, going back a few decades (a lot more lens options) since they have a focus motor built into the body. I have a D7100 and sold a 3200, mostly because of physical camera size, and better capabilities/better control layout, topside LCD and other considerations (IMO) of the D7xxx series. The D3200 is a nice camera, but the body was to small for hand/finger comfort for me, and the D7xxx series fits my shooting style better.

It really depends on what you are looking to do, what type of photos you will be taking. Do you need AF on all, or will you be happy with manual focus on lenses other than AF-S or AF-P, or 3rd party with BIM?

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 10:08:08   #
LWW (a regular here)
 
ksmmike wrote:
I agree for people on a budget or not, Nikon has some fantastic older Manual focus glass that can be found for cheap on Ebay and elsewhere. Don't be concerned about purchasing from Japan. I've done it several times now and have never been disappointed.

The 105 AIS F2.5 is a great lens and can be had for less than $200, less than $150 if you're patient.
The 135 F2.8 of F3.5 are both fantastic lenses. I bought a 135 F3.5 for about $120 in mint condition.
The 200 F4 is also another steal. I got that one for $78 in close to mint condition.

There are examples of great 35 and 50mm lenses as well, but remember they are manual focus lenses. If you don't mind MF, for the money, you can't beat them. For color and sharpness, the 200 F4 for $78 rivals the 300MM F4 Fresnel that I paid $1800 for. Yes, the 300 is the better lens and is autofocus, but if I were on a budget and didn't need the AF for sports or wildlife, I'd take the 200 F4 all day long. For birds sitting still for a moment, you can use the 200 4 without hesitation and make fine images.

I realize the focal length is different, but you'll be hard pressed unless you're a real pixel peeper to see differences between the 105 AIS F2.5 and the newer Nikon 85mm 1.8 G. I own them both and use both.
Again, you have to dial in the manual focus, but as far as image quality, hard to see any major differences. In a 11x14 print, good luck telling the difference. The 105 is a classic lens and can be had cheap these days. I could send you some examples, but they are easily found on the internet.

Mike
I agree for people on a budget or not, Nikon has s... (show quote)


Even the legacy AF glass is a ridiculous bargain.

So many new photographers have been sold by the marketers that pictures can’t be taken without VR/OS/IS.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 10:59:26   #
deer2ker
 
I agree! The Tokina 100mm is a steal at that price! I would normally say invest in glass but what I would do is find a slightly used D7200 and get the Tokina 100mm. The nice thing about the 7200 is the availability to use AF on non-motorized lens so you could pick up some great used lens' for great prices. The Tokina is a fantastic portrait lens so the AF would be beneficial to have double usage on it! If you looked up the camera pics on Flickr, you would love what that D7200 can do and you would not have to upgrade in a long time as it is a "pro-sumer" camera.
gvarner wrote:
Check out the Tokina 100mm Macro. It’s a great value, decent quality at a decent price. It will give you way more working distance than the 40.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 11:05:00   #
swartfort
 
I recently upgraded from a D3400 to a D7500. I was looking at the D7200 very seriously and I am sure I would have been happy with that body, I just got a GREAT deal on a used d7500. I find that with the camera having the lens drive built in, there is a TON of great legacy glass available at really low prices. If I was a macro guy, that is the way I would go. Upgrade to a D7200 now as they are very inexpensive vs. the features you will get (look used and refurbed). I LOVE my D7500 and the ability to really use the knowlege I have acquired in the field with the controls that are available to me. Then take some time looking at used macro lenses that do not have internal focus motors (legacy glass)for really great buys on macro lenses. Just my $0.02

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.