Through_MI_Eyes

I asked about a telephoto lens for Nikon d3400 and seemed like a lot of folks told me not to waste my time. Recommendations were to buy a different camera body but that cost a lot of money and money is tight. What does everyone think about the Nikon 7200? And sigma 150-600

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

Don’t know about the lens but I love my d7200. I previously had a d5500. The step up was well worth it. The 7200 will definitely be well worth the upgrade from the d3400

I am planning on getting a zoom in that range. However I am a Nikon snob and would not put a non Nikon lens on my Nikon body. I feel the Nikon glass will perform optimally for the Nikon camera.

My 2cents

lamontcranston

I wouldn't blow off your D3400 as being an inferior camera. It is capable of taking excellent photos, but like any camera, it's only as good as the person using it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Definitely buy an expensive camera. That's the only way to get halfway decent pictures. I recommend both the Nikon D5 ($6,500) and also the Canon 1DX II ($5,500). The Canon probably isn't as good as the Nikon because it's cheaper (You get what you pay for.)

Seriously, the D3400 is a fine camera. Keep it, use it, and get a nice tele lens. The Nikon 18-200mm is a nice lens, for a decent price -
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xnikon+18-200mm.TRS0&_nkw=nikon+18-200mm&_sacat=0

Also -
https://www.camerastuffreview.com/en/general/best-lens-for-nikon-d3300
https://www.switchbacktravel.com/best-lenses-nikon-d3300
https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-first-nikon-lenses-you-should-buy/
http://lensespro.org/best-lenses-for-nikon-d3300/
http://www.smashingcamera.com/2014/03/6-best-lenses-for-nikon-d3300/

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I too vote for keeping the camera. Worry about the lens first, the best for your needs including the consideration of available budget.

aschweik Loc: NE Ohio

Keep the camera...nothing wrong with it. Use your money for a lens, instead. I have a Tamron 18-200 and it has been excellent for my needs. Research lenses depending on what you are shooting. If you happen to decide on the 7200, it has been a great camera for me. Find it refurbished and save some cash. But depending on what you use the 3400 for, if it's working for you, then why buy a new one? My daughter has the 3400 and it's been great for her. Consider just getting the new lens for now. And you can always change your mind later. Why spend extra money if you don't have to? Don't let people tell you to get rid of a camera that's serving you well.

Indi Loc: L. I., NY, Palm Beach Cty when it's cold.

If you get a new lens now for your Nikon, you can always use it on any Nikon you upgrade to in the future. Get the lens.

BebuLamar

The problem I have with your original post is that you say the D3400 as a backup for the P1000. I take that the P1000 is fine for you except that when it fails you need a backup. I would think if that is the case another P1000 would be a less expensive backup.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

The D 7200 takes the same images as your D3400 but weighs and costs twice as much.

CO

I posted charts in your other thread that shows the sensitivity of the different Nikon AF modules. Why don't you check those? Your D3400 has the Multi-CAM1000 AF module. It has no AF points rated to work with an f/6.3 lens. The D7200 has the Advanced Mulit-CAM3500DXII AF module. It does have an AF point rated to work with lenses down to f/8. The Sigma 150-600 should be good with the D7200. I would still get the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 lens though.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

I consider the D7200 a step down from the D5500, except for weight and price.

I love the articulated touch screen on my D5600. I dumped my D7000 after a few months because the unlighted randomly placed buttons, unreadable green screen, and inactive info screen totally sucked for control compared to D5xxxs. It did have a nicer viewfinder, though.

I agree with the recommendations for the Nikon 200-500. But if money is an object you can get refurb AF-P 70-300 VR for $150 now. It is fully compatibile with D3400. Compatibility with D7200 has small issue: no menu itemto turn off VR.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

What thread are you reading? I see no mention of P1000.

BebuLamar

This thread
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-579955-1.html

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Oh. That isn’t this one. I guess the OP didn’t like the answers some gave. That’s good because a new camera isn’t what this OP needs.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Tell the folks who are disrespecting your D3400 to go take a long walk on a short pier.

The FACT is that your D3400 is about 1 year newer camera than a D7200. Yes, the D7200 is a higher specification camera in some ways, but it really ain't gonna make any better images!

Both cameras use a 24MP sensor without an anti-alias filter (more fine detail). Both have a native ISO range of 100 to 25600. Both are rated to get more than 1000 shots with a fresh battery (D3400 is actually able to do a little more). Both have moderately fast continuous shooting rates (D3400 up to 5 frames per second, D7200 up to 6 fps). Both have WiFi connectivity.

See: https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D3400-vs-Nikon-D7200

Notable differences:

D7200 has an in-body focusing motor that makes it able to autofocus additional Nikkor lenses. D3000-series and D5000-series cameras lack that motor, so they are only able to autofocus AF-P and AF-S Nikkors. There are also a few third party lenses that won't be able to autofocus on a D3400, such as the Tokina 100mm Macro lens. Even with this limitation, there are a lot of lenses available that will autofocus fine on a D3400.

D7200 has a true pentaprism that makes for a bigger and brighter 100% viewfinder. To save weight and cost your D3400's 95% viewfinder instead uses a "penta-mirror".

D7200 has a more sophisticated 51-point, f/8 capable AF system. Your D3400's 11-point AF system is "f/5.6 limited", which simply means you have less opportunity to use teleconverters with lenses. (Note: Some of the telephoto lenses below are f/6.3. However, those are designed to "fool" the camera and are still able to autofocus despite the camera's f/5.6 limitation.)

D7200 has more sealing for weather resistance and dual memory card slots. But these things and the pentaprism make it significantly heavier, too. In fact, D7200 is almost 2X the weight of D3400.

Nikon makes an MB-D15 multiple battery grip for the D7200, which both doubles the battery capacity of the camera AND provides a comfortable secondary grip and controls when using the camera in portrait orientation. Nikon doesn't make a similar grip for the D3400... but there's the Vello BG-N12 available for it, which doubles capacity and provides a vertical grip, but with controls limited to only a shutter release button. There's also a lower cost Vello BG-N11 Battery Grip for the D7200. Sometimes multi-battery grips such as these come in handy when using large lenses like those listed below, to better counter-balance the lens.

Finally, D7200 has a higher specification shutter.... 1/8000 top speed and 1/250 flash sync, compared to 1/4000 and 1/200 on your D3400. I would guess the D7200 shutter is rated for a longer life, too... probably 150,000 shutter actuations compared to 100,000 or so with D3400.

But none of these differences have very direct effect on either camera's ability to take great photos. That's going to depend a lot more on your skill using it... and the quality of the lenses you use upon either camera! Lens quality and characteristics make a much bigger difference in the results you get, than the camera you use your lenses upon. In a sense, the lenses are the "eyes" of the camera, while the camera merely captures what those eyes see. While there are some limits to the D3400's abilities, they are minor compared to the differences using high quality glass on it would make. In other words, you will almost always be much better served if you put your money into lenses... and only worry about camera upgrades when you absolutely must have some new feature that your current camera lacks or have literally worn it out. I'd much rather have a basic camera with premium lenses, than a premium camera with entry-level lenses. The "better glass" will always make better images!

All that said, you asked about the Sigma 150-600mm in particular. Be aware there are two of those.... a less expensive "Contemporary" or "C" model (about 4.5 lb.) and a more robust, higher performance and more expensive "Sport" or "S" model (around 6 lb.).

There are also two Tamron 150-600mm... but in this case there was an original version (which is a little soft between 500 and 600mm).... and an improved "G2" or "Second Generation" model that replaced it. Both the Tamron are around 4.5 lb.

All these lenses are rather big and challenging to use. 600mm is a whole heck of a lot of lens on a DX camera like D3400 or D7200. You're likely to want to to use a tripod or at least a monopod for anything more than a quick shot. A good, sturdy tripod will cost between $250 and $400 minimum.... and if shooting moving subjects like wildlife, you may well want to use a gimbal on the tripod, which will cost another $100 or more (gimbal adapter... $250 or more for a quality full size gimbal head). A good monopod with a simply head would cost at least $150, but means "hands on" full time while using it. It's not like a tripod, where you can just let the lens and camera sit on it until it's time to take some shots.

Sigma 150-600mm "C" is on sale for $989 ($100 off).
Sigma 150-600mm "S" is on sale for $1799 ($200 off).
Tamron 150-600mm original is on sale for $779 ($290 off).
Tamron 150-600mm "G2" is on sale for $1299 ($100 off).

A popular alternative among Nikon shooters is the Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6 VR. It weighs about 5 lb. and is currently selling for $1397.

But the 200-500mm is big, too... and 500mm is still a whole lot of lens on a DX camera.

You might want to consider some slightly less extreme and much more hand-holdable alternatives:

Sigma 100-400mm on sale for $699 ($100 off, weighs 3 lb., no tripod ring possible)
Tamron 100-400mm on sale for $699 ($100 off, 3 lb., accessory t'pod ring sold separately, $129)
Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm VR on sale for $2097 ($200 off, 3.5 lb., t'pod ring included)

All three of these are quite powerful telephotos when used on a DX camera, but are more hand-holdable and easier to work with than the 150-600mm and 200-500mm lenses. Even so, I'd still want a tripod mounting ring on such a powerful tele, for times when it's needed. There is none available and no way to fit a ring to the Sigma. The Tamron doesn't come with one, but a separate one for it is sold separately, so could be added later if not bought with the lens. The Nikkor is undoubtedly the most durable, best sealed for weather resistance and highest performance, most pro-oriented of all these lenses.... and it's priced accordingly.

Finally, there is now also a Tamron 18-400mm "do it all" zoom. While convenient and surprisingly good for such a wide ranging zoom, don't expect anywhere near as good image quality or autofocus speed as the lenses above can provide. It's also a "good light" lens, steps down to smaller apertures at very short focal lengths (as does the Sigma 100-400). Not that ANY of the above lenses have particularly large apertures. f/4 and f/2.8 "super" telephotos weigh 6 or 8 lb. or more and cost around $6000 to well over $10,000. (Sigma makes a 200-500mm f/2.8 that weighs 35 lb. and costs $25,000!)