PGHSHOOTER

I am looking for advice I currently have a Nikon 7200 but thinking of doing other types of photography ie Astrophotography. I am thinking of buying a Nikon d750 but am confused on the pros and cons. Lens 24mps vs 10. Full frame vs cropped.
Should I upgrade to the d750 or
Should I just stay with the 7200?

Bill_de Loc: US

https://www.digicamdb.com/compare/nikon_d7200-vs-nikon_d750/

I have and use the D7200 as a walk around w/ 300 or 500 Nikkor PF.

Both cameras have about the same pixel count.

What advantages will you get with the D750.

Do you currently have FF or DX lenses.

---

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Look at your lenses. Are they full-frame, or DX like the cropped sensor of the D7200? If they're DX, that crop 1.5x crop factor is applied to the D750 24MP sensor, yielding images at about 10MP. You're already shooting images at 24MP with your D7200.

So, your lenses might actually make a move to full-frame a poor choice, or a more expensive choice than it seems, if you need to buy FX lenses too.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

From My Experience the D7200 is a great camera, I use mine all the time. That said when I have used it for Milky Way photography with the Tokina 11mm to 16mm it suffered from Hot Pixels. When doing star shots at 16mm I shot between 20 to 22 second exposures. If you try to stack images or continue to shot frame after frame the sensor heats up and you start getting Hot Single White Pixels all over your image. You see these when you get home to the computer. They don't look like stars and become a real hassle to remove. I have also shot the milky way with the D600 also 24 mp and the D850 and have Never experienced hot pixels from the sensor heating up. Not to mention another 50 reasons why full frame beats out dx for night time photography. Just my experience.

P.S. not sure what dx lens you have but I used my Tokina 11 to 16mm on my full frame D600 all the time. Great lens, but you can only use at 16mm but still worked great for night photography and landscapes..Budget Friendly

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I still have my D7200 and use it all the time. I also have a D850. I never use my DX lenses with the D850... that would defeat the purpose of owning the D850. I owned a D750 before the D850 and found it to be a great camera. I think it is still a great camera in this age of mirrorless. You'll love it but you'll need FX glass to really appreciate it.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

One big advantage of the D750 over the 7200 is the high ISO low light performance - it’s almost a stop better. That means for the same ISO, you’ll get less noise, or you can trade that stop for twice the ISO (with similar noise) which will allow half the exposure time which will reduce distortion of stars (due to movement of the earth) and “hot spots” due to sensor heating. It will, as previously mentioned, require FX lenses to realize the full resolution of the camera.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

Agreed, Probably the only advantage. (I have a D750 and love it)

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

What is the D7200 doing to your photography that you are not happy with?

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Having owned both, I can tell you the D7200 is a great camera and you can produce very adequate MW shots with it. Printing is another story.
However, when I moved up to a D750, my results went up by a factor of at least 50-75% and I could print reasonably an 11x14. The D750 is a workhorse in low light. And cheap now to buy as it is long in the tooth.
I traded in my Tokina 11-16 DX lens for an FX equivalent (I think 16-28) for only a couple of hundred $ more.

Consider there are other FX cameras that do well like D3,4,5, & 6. You might also consider the Z6II if moving up to FX and needing new lenses anyway. I get excellent results with my current Z6 and 14-30 f4 Z lens.

PGHSHOOTER

I have 4 DX lenses ranging from a 35 mm up to a 300 mm.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Look at the prices of the corresponding FX lenses for each focal length / zoom. Add those prices to the cost of the D750. Is that expense worth it to you? As mentioned earlier, is the cost of the D750 worth buying to shoot as a 10MP camera without updating your lenses too?

ELNikkor

When I shot the Milky Way with my D5100, this images were very noisy. My D750 shoots excellent star photos. I have a 20mm f2.8 AF-D lens that covers a lot of sky, and a 24mm AI 2.8 F (only $50!) lens that also gives very sharp images wide open. The F lens has a hard infinity stop, so there is never a fine-focus problem, as can happen with AF lenses.

Al Beatty Loc: Boise, Idaho

I have and use both cameras. I keep the telephoto lens on the D7200 because I get a little larger field of view...so it gets used the most when I'm out-and-about. I use the D750 for my catalog, magazine, and advertising work. You've gotten great information from other members so in addition to what they offer, I suggest you look at your photography and what you need to accomplish it. Unless you just HAVE to have it, you'll be very well served with the D7200. Take care & ...

FredCM Loc: Central Illinois

I jumped on the D750 kit when Nikon dropped the price a few years ago. My D5300 hasn't been turned on since. The D5300 has good low light performance and I think the same generation D7000 series uses the same sensor. BUT The D750 does a lot better, especially with the poorly lit parts of the images. For example the D5300 would take a nice shot of a car come twilight time but the surrounding area would need brightening in post. Not so with the D750. CHG_CANON's talk of replacing len$e$ is very real. I had an FX Nikon 70-300 already when I bought the D750. That and the kit lens, 24-108?, are plenty for my use. The DX 35 prime and 18-300 haven't been out of their protective pouches either. PGH could do some long exposure shots of the night sky, far from city lights, and see if he's happy with the D7200's results. Doesn't matter much what, long exposures will pick up something, there are billions and billions of galaxies out there.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Good morning. I've mostly left the forum, but just happened to see your post and the array of replies. I have and use several DX and FX Nikon cameras, and have done a considerable amount of night sky photography. You can find a few of my posts on this site.

There are basically two types of astrophotography. One which is currently popular is wide angle or panoramic photography of the sky. The other is photography through a telescope (or long telephoto lens). The second almost always requires a tracking mount, the first can use a tracker but much more often will not.

I am not expert in telescope photography and will therefore not discuss what equipment you need, except to say that it can become quite esoteric. For skyscape photography, an appropriate camera and lens, a stable tripod, a remote release, and an understanding of the seasonal changes in the night sky are enough to get you started. Best results will be achieved with a camera with high resolution and good low light performance, and a good, relatively fast lens. Typical exposures will vary somewhat, but it is very common to be working at ISOs of 4,000-6,000 and shutter opening times of 25-40 seconds with a f/2.8 lens. You will quickly learn to appreciate shooting with a camera with 35Mp or more.

Not sure what other responders' experience level is, but I have attended several night-sky classes and shot with several groups. I've never seen a D750 being used. The most successful results seem to some from those folks using a D810 (36Mp) or D850 (45 Mp). Even though the D750 and D780 have quite good low-light performance, they fall short of ideal resolving capability. Your targets are infinitesimally small points of light, and there are quite literally millions of them. This is one of a very few cases where resolution really does matter. While I have no doubt that you could get results with a D750, I'm also pretty confident that you would pretty quickly become dissatisfied with them. If your budget will stand it, you might want to consider a nice used D810 or D850 instead. Tons of lightly used ones have been dumped on the market by folks stampeding to mirrorless cameras.

Eventually, someone is going to suggest a Z7 or some other mirrorless camera. There is no doubt that you could capture a beautiful image with one of these cameras. The problem is the risk that the EVF could upset your night vision and require you to interrupt what you are doing for 15 minutes or more to recover it. I have yet to receive a reliable report from anyone who has been happy using any EVF camera at night.

For best results, you are going to need a good lens. Despite what you read here, the standard is the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8. There are also tons of these on thee market being sold by folks who thought they had to have one for landscapes until they found that they didn't.