? Full frame Upgrade: I have a Nikon D5500 with the Tamron 18/400 lense and am considering trading up to a D750 with the 28/300 Nikor F lense for starters. My goal is better picture...

RDF24

I have a Nikon D5500 with the Tamron 18/400 lense and am considering trading up to a D750 with the 28/300 Nikor F lense for starters. My goal is better picture quality and a more durable camera. There's a substantial cost to do this, over $1500, but I have some undexpected money. Any thoughts?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

This might help

Myths about full-frame cameras

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

RDF24 wrote:

I have a Nikon D5500 with the Tamron 18/400 lense and am considering trading up to a D750 with the 28/300 Nikor F lense for starters. My goal is better picture quality and a more durable camera. There's a substantial cost to do this, over $1500, but I have some undexpected money. Any thoughts?

Without knowing what kind of subjects you shoot and under what conditions it is impossible to tell.

RDF24

Thank you. I shoot mostly landscapes, oceanscapes, marshes, harbors, animals and grandchildren, including their sporting events.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I would definitely go for the full frame camera setup. I started with an FX Nikon and stayed with that format for 9 years now. I recently purchased a DX just to see what shooting with it would be like. Fortunately, it wasn't a huge investment for me as it's more of a paperweight now. The choices you list would work very nicely.

I've read numerous negative comments on UHH regarding the 28~300. I use that lens often and it is quite nice. I see nothing wrong with the results, for example...
--Bob

RDF24 wrote:

I have a Nikon D5500 with the Tamron 18/400 lense and am considering trading up to a D750 with the 28/300 Nikor F lense for starters. My goal is better picture quality and a more durable camera. There's a substantial cost to do this, over $1500, but I have some undexpected money. Any thoughts?

(Download)

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

RDF24 wrote:

Thank you. I shoot mostly landscapes, oceanscapes, marshes, harbors, animals and grandchildren, including their sporting events.

The FF might help with landscapes, oceanscapes, marshes, harbors and grandchildren (in low light.) Their sporting events less so.

User ID

RDF24 wrote:

.....
am considering trading up to a D750 with the
28/300 Nikor F lense for starters. My goal is
better picture quality and a more durable camera.
There's a substantial cost to do this, over $1500,
but I have some undexpected money.
Any thoughts?

I bought that combo for pretty much the same
reason ... had a lotta reward credits at BestBuy
and it was on crazy holiday sale price.

It's huge but it can be useful. My smaller gear
gets much more use. I refuse to bring out "the
biggy" unless I've a definite use in mind. IOW
it's NEVER served me as what hoggers like to
call a "walk around".

As to picture quality vs a smaller format, it is
NOT gonna blow you away, if thaz your hope !
Used carefully, it will show improvement that
most casual viewers will never notice, but it's
not going to accomplish ANY improvement if
it's not used rather carefully.

If you don't usually shoot raw, you will easily
see that the jpegs from it have a verrrry nice
look to them, like a life of their own. I'm not
talking about pixel peeping IQ. The effect is
there even if you used a second rate lens at
fairly high ISO. It just seems to have a really
good jpeg engine. You could count on almost
always using sooc jpegs while also including
"+RAW" as "insurance". Just direct your raw
files to the 2nd card.

.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

If you want it and can afford it, buy it. I have that lens and use it on crop bodies, but, I really do like that lens and it's versatility.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

There is a reason many pros, such as wedding photographers, use the D750. If you want a solid camera that shines in low light/high ISO situations and high quality images, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed with the move to FF and this fine camera.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

RDF24 wrote:

I have a Nikon D5500 with the Tamron 18/400 lense and am considering trading up to a D750 with the 28/300 Nikor F lense for starters. My goal is better picture quality and a more durable camera. There's a substantial cost to do this, over $1500, but I have some undexpected money. Any thoughts?

Life is short. Enjoy it.
If you can afford full frame—-by all means, go for it and don’t look back!

Selene03

To the OP, I think you would really like the D750! I was amazed by how much more I could do and how much more I enjoyed photography when I jumped from the D5100 to the D600, which was at the time a similar move. I have seen some great photographers do amazing things with the 28-300 lens, but I found it very soft. I think you might be better off with the 24-120. I also got some pretty decent shots with the 70-300 that was bundled with the d600 when I got it. That might be more than you can afford to start with, but for sharper images I think you would be happier with the 24-120.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Selene03 wrote:

To the OP, I think you would really like the D750!... (show quote)

Ditto. I absolutely agree and have gotten some wonderful shots with the D600. The D600 used basically the same sensor as the D750 while the D750 has more up to date electronics. I also agree about the 24-120 (latest version!) Add that together with a natural tendency to always want the best we can get and if you don't make the leap, you'll always wonder if the shot you just took could have been better. In the long run upgrading anyway.

BebuLamar

I only bought FX but I doubt that you should upgrade.

CO

The D750 is discounted to $1296 right now. I recently purchased one from B & H Photo to complement my D500 and D7000. They are including a free shoulder bag, memory card, and battery right now.

I would get the D750 but also keep the D5500. It's easier to get a shallow depth of field with the full frame camera. Use your D5500 for long range shots where its 1.5x crop factor could be of help.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

RDF24 wrote:

I have a Nikon D5500 with the Tamron 18/400 lense and am considering trading up to a D750 with the 28/300 Nikor F lense for starters. My goal is better picture quality and a more durable camera. There's a substantial cost to do this, over $1500, but I have some undexpected money. Any thoughts?

The 28-300 is better on the D5500. You can, and probably should, do better than that lens. In no literature from Nikon does Nikon suggest using that lens with it's higher pixel count full frame cameras (D800, D800E, D810, D850). If it were one of their better lenses, you know they'd be included in their recommended lens list. If it were $300, I might consider it, but not at the price they ask for it. If you can swing it, the 70-200 F2.8 FL is an outstandingly sharp lens - and even with a 1.4 TC it is noticeably sharper than the 28-300. If you goal is better image quality, then you should only consider Nikon's better lenses.