Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Actually, the D5600, D7200, D7500, and the D500, are all very good crop sensor cameras. The D500 and D7500, would be the better low light cameras, IMO. Team either of these DX cameras, with a good quality fast lens, will make a difference. Perhaps, the least expensive prime fast lenses for the Nikon DX cameras, are the DX version 35mm f1.8G, and the FX 50mm f1.8G. All 50mm lenses are full frame formatted. If, you want to go zoom, such as an f2.8, you will have to spend some extra money. You can purchase third party lenses of good quality. The Nikon DX formatted 18-140mm lens, is just an extension of the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens. A lens I own, and liked very much, when I did street photography. Good luck.

RoswellNM Loc: SW Indiana

D500 or D7200. Have both. Great.

Nantahalan Loc: Savannah originally; western NC now

Over years in a darkish church, my most useful tools were a tripod, shutter release, ISO experiments, and sitting on the first or second row. A 2.8 lens is useful wide open if it’s limited depth of field works for the photo. About half the time I needed f5.6. Best solution was voting for the budget with significantly improved lighting!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Nikon D850 with a Nikkor 24~70 f/2.8
--Bob

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

or purchase a “FF” lens and ‘up’ the ISO setting. The reason for having a camera with good high ISO ranking is using it at higher ISO - I use my Pentax KP up there all the time. In fact, the guy I mentioned got his Z7 after he saw the photos I took with my KP.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-631428-1.html

Carnpo Loc: North Carolina

I have a D500. It handles low light very well. Have recently taken candid photos for my Church’s Website. Used my Nikon Df set to Aperature priority and auto ISO. Took some in Monochrome to shake things up. Was very pleased with results.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Wow why would someone have a lens and then go for the body that's reversed? Unless someone gave him a lens. But it is what it is so.....

That is a great lens and pairs very well with the 72 7500. That is what I shoot with and I love it that's a great all-around lens. But depending on how low the light is the actor is not very large on that lens. so to answer part of your question as to not making very many
Changes, go with auto ISO.

You might still find a D7200 new but could very easily pick up a good used one. The 35 mm 1.8 would be a great lens for that also.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

I strongly disagree with the D500 recommendations. The D500 is an excellent camera choice for many situations, but in my experience (considerable experience), the D500 does not do hi-iso all that well. If you insist on that lens, which I agree is a backwards way to approach the situation, and force the use of a DX sensor, as someone mentioned earlier, the D7200 is a FAR better DX choice for hi-iso shooting.

If you untie yourself from DX format and can’t afford the D5, look into the venerable D3S which is available quite reasonably used and, other than the D5, is the best hi-iso body I have ever owned. I currently shoot with a D5 for action, a D500 for traveling light and a D850 for most everything else. But I don’t hesitate to grab my beloved D3S for times when I know I need hi-iso capability such as when shooting religious ceremonies or theater work. The D3S can be shot at 6400 all day long with superb results and I often go to 8000 and above when necessary. Don’t let the 12mp’s frighten you. I routinely print from D3S files at 20x40.

The trick when shooting in low light is nailing the exposure. Underexposure translates into more objectionable noise. While I don’t necessarily “expose to the right” in normal circumstances, I do tend to do so in poor light.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

The main features to look for are a high ISO ability, a setting for Auto-ISO, and a way to lock in the widest aperture. And don’t expect a high quality photo if it’s not a full frame sensor. I think they’re the best in low light. I think.

ELNikkor

If you must use that lens, the D7500 would be a good choice.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

I have not found that shooting with a very fast lens like 1.4 or 1.8 is a practical solution for low light when shooting in situations where depth of field is important. I do often use 1.4 primes at gatherings when I want to limit dof (like shots of wedding rings, bride’s shoes, isolation of a particular subject, etc) or my 400/2.8 when shooting sports. However I find that a fast lens is not necessarily the best choice in overcoming low light when you may want or need greater dof and the subjects are often at varying distances from the lens. I much prefer to use higher iso to solve poor lighting. Don’t get me wrong - I’ll bet 90% of my lenses are 2.8 or faster, but more often then not, I am shooting my 24-70 or 70-200 f2.8’s stopped down significantly. It all depends on the circumstances.

CO

I don't think you're correct when you say the D7200 is far better than the D500 for high ISO shooting. These charts are from DxO Labs sensor testing. Their signal to noise ratio is identical The D500 surpasses the D7200 for dynamic range starting around ISO 300. I have a D500. Its dynamic range is very impressive.

Signal to noise ratio - the D500 and D7200 are identical

(Download)

Starting around ISO 300, the dynamic range of the D500 (red line) is wider than the D7200 (orange line)

(Download)

CO

The large aperture lens does help with autofocus though. If you have say an f/1.8 lens and stop down to f/8 to achieve greater depth of field, the camera will still hold the aperture wide open at f/1.8 while focusing. It stops down the aperture to f/8 an instant before the shutter opens.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

Absolutely true. I hadn’t thought of that.