neillaubenthal

D7500. The D500 has a slightly higher frame rate and is aimed at sports shooters and pros. The D7500 is almost as fast, same resolution and cheaper. The big plus IMO for it is the U1 and U2 settings. This allows you to quickly change between two shooting scenarios. D500 requires more work. In my case I use U1 for landscape and wildlife shots using manual mode with auto ISO...U2 is for my other fave subject waterfalls with ISO 100 and bracketing turned on. The only other change necessary for the latter is turning the self timer on so all shots in the bracket set get taken.

Supposedly the D500 has slightly better low light AE and AF...but my D7500 performs fine in low light.

neillaubenthal

Nope...wildlife is almost impossible with a phone...not enough reach. Landscapes are fine on phone in good light...but in poor light where you might need to bracket or focus stack they don’t cut it. People...they’re fine with a camera...but the physical size limitations on sensor size and focal length are too limiting.

neillaubenthal

Not sure I agree unless you are shooting for large prints or advertising. Crop sensors are fine in most cases...and based on some calculations I did yesterday a 7500 puts more pixels on the subject than a FF does unless the FF is north of 38MP. Granted...the pixel size on FF is probably a bit larger...meaning less noise and better low light performance ( it only maybe in both cases for most output use). For medium size prints, web, and screen viewing...in most cases the FF performance does not justify the cost and weight penalties. Besides...OP already has DX lenses.

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

Post a sample of an image that you are unhappy with that you feel might be improved with a new camera body. Or put another way, the image shows where you have been limited by the camera you now have.

My guess is that a new camera may not necessarily produce the results you are aiming for.

Upgrades are usually a result of one or more of the following factors - (1) perception that it will improve your pictures, (2) you came into some unexpected financial windfall - an inheritance, good night at the track, you found a duffel bag full of $20 bills in the middle of the street, (3) your significant other said it's ok to get a new camera, (4) you have seriously hit some hard limitations with your current equipment.

The last one is a really good reason, and will likely help you in your quest. Based on some sample images, it will be easier to determine if new lens(es) or new body will do the trick. The others are questionable.

In any case, this Flickr group has some good examples of what can be done with a D3400:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/3717875@N20/pool/

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

Other than birds and animals (in most, but far from all cases) a cellphone will accomplish everything the OP said he needs or may need in the future. Not a step up by any means from what he has now, but it will allow him to deal with the other aspects of his photography without having to worry about camera settings - and it will always be in his pocket ready for the next picture.

As far as wildlife is concerned, closeups are no problem. Birds in flight and large game animals - both taken with considerable distance between the photographer and the subject, require much more specialized equipment, and the OP has not quite decided if he is going in that direction.

I may be a full-frame raw-shooting, dyed in the wool camera snob, but I recognize the value versatility of the humble cellphone. I don't disagree with RJ Wallace at all. It has its place in the world of photography. If you have an issue with this, then take a look in here for some examples of what can be done with a mobile phone's camera. This Flickr group has been active since 2007, has nearly 297,000 pictures contributed by nearly 10,000 photographers. Not all of them competition-quality winners - but it is not unlike any other Flickr group - some good, some bad, and some truly inspired.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/mobilephonephotography/pool/page1

Bill_de Loc: US

Here's why you need more than a cell phone.

https://mobilephotoawards.com/nature-wildlife-winner-honorable-mentions-7th-annual-mpa/

--

srfmhg Loc: Marin County, CA

I just ordered a refurbished D7500 from B&H for $599 to accompany my trusty D7200 which has 60,000 shutter clicks on it and is temperamental in wet weather. Also great price on refurb D7200.

Flash Falasca Loc: Beverly Hills, Florida

D 500

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

Stunningly excellent examples of mobile phone photography, Bill!

Photographers have become very gear-centric - instead of focusing (pun fully intended) on the content of their images.

Bayes Rule Loc: Chapel Hill, NC

Maybe my own experience will help. Until recently my camera was a D3300, with a similar set of lenses to yours - with one exception I'll mention. Like you, I thought an upgrade would be a good idea. I learned a lot in the process.

I spent a lot of time reading as much as I could about each option that I considered. I strongly recommend you do that, and try to be systematic. List your options, and outline the strengths and weaknesses of each. For each attribute (speed, ease of use, etc, and of course, cost), decide how important it is to you - maybe translate each into a dollar amount that each would be worth. Because n the end, everything is a matter of trading off quality for cost.

I opted for a D5600. Other cameras looked better, but not so much so that I thought the extra cost worthwhile. One factor that was important for me was weight. I do a lot of my photography on long hikes, and lugging even a few more ounces of camera for several hours was a concern. (For this reason I had already bought a 18mm - 300mm zoom lens, lighter than 70-300) Another factor that for me favored the 5600 was the articulated view finder. I like to take a lot of shots in settings where I don't want to be holding the camera in front of my face.

This doesn't mean I recommend the 5600 for you. What I recommend is the process of making a choice. You'll have different concerns (but remember, it's likely you'll soon want to explore new avenues of photography). You might well decide the 3400 is all you need. But there is never, ever, a perfect camera, for anyone. Every choice is a matter of tradeoffs.

For what it's worth, here's what happened in my case: The articulated viewfinder ended up being less useful than I expected. I have been working on other ways to take photos without being conspicuous. But I'm still happy with my choice, for lots of other little reasons. Who knows, perhaps my reaction is just a standard response to cognitive dissonance. But, I did learn one very important lesson. About the same time I bought the 5600 I also bought a 35 mm f/1.8 lens, which you already have. Now that REALLY improved my photography. Don't let anyone tell you that new equipment will not make you a better photographer. It might not, but it certainly can, if it lets you do things you knew you had not been doing well before.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

If you reread the post the op made a statement about being a better photographer and asked for suggestions. Asked and answered:keep the camera and upgrade lenses. IMHO.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

This is very good advice.

To the OP:

A review of all the posts here reveals that they are so different that they cannot all be correct. They also cannot even be looking at the same issue from different perspectives. In particular, many, many of them quote information about the D500 that are simply not true. If I were to start talking about the other cameras under discussion, I would unavoidably do the very same thing, because except for a quick peek here and there, I've not looked at any of them. I will tell you with confidence, though, that the D500 is a completely different camera with a completely different "user interface" than any of the other cameras. Once properly set up, it is extremely rare that you will need to access the menu system while in the field. It is also very sturdily built of magnesium alloy and carbon fiber. (I had been concerned that fiber construction vs. all metal, like in the D300s and earlier cameras, would be a problem. It's not.) Be aware that for some reason, the D500 is probably the most actively misunderstood camera ever introduced. Mostly by folks who have never (really) seen one and don't even know why they believe the way that you do. I made the mistake of listening to the misdirected KoolAid concerning the D500 on this site and others (mostly that it is just for sports and wildlife, which is pure garbage). The result was that I delayed buying one for over two years. Big mistake. Earlier purchase might have held me away from full frame for a good while longer.

You cannot make a valid choice about cameras just by reading about them. And you also cannot do so by just listening to what others say. What works great for me may not work for you. You may end up choosing the exact camera that I use, but for a very different reason. You must find a way to look at your choices. In person. Hold them. Point them. Have someone who knows lead you through the control systems and how they differ. If you don't have a store nearby, rent one. Maybe rent one even if you do have a store nearby.

Finally...I have posted an offer to trade my 12 year old D200 (including relatively new Nikon battery) even-up to any of the folks who say that equipment does not matter for their newer, more modern equipment. No one has taken me up on my offer.

Good luck with your choice.

donald4u Loc: California

Hey there is a congress woman that says the world is going to end in 10 years. And cut out products from oil. Global warming. So when Chicago in the winter is freezing how come California is so hot?

Dan Ausec

baer

I vote for a D500
It’s superb and sees in the dark