What model Nikon camera (Page 4): Perhaps helps , but my Pentax KP focuses using the f/8-9.5 lens mine becomes once I put the TC on.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

CO wrote:

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.

Perhaps helps, but my Pentax KP focuses using the f/8-9.5 lens mine becomes once I put the TC on.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

CO wrote:

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.

I don’t pay attention to what charts say. Nor do I shoot brick walls looking for distortion. The only thing I care about is my personal experience from the photos I produce with my gear. Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually shot with a D7200 or are you kneeling before the DxO chart prepared by a lab geek?

Sorry to be seemingly harsh, but MY eye is the only thing that influences me.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Rick from NY wrote:

I don’t pay attention to what charts say. Nor do I shoot brick walls looking for distortion. The only thing I care about is my personal experience from the photos I produce with my gear. Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually shot with a D7200 or are you kneeling before the DxO chart prepared by a lab geek?

Sorry to be seemingly harsh, but MY eye is the only thing that influences me.

I agree.

CO

Rick from NY wrote:

I don’t pay attention to what charts say. Nor do I shoot brick walls looking for distortion. The only thing I care about is my personal experience from the photos I produce with my gear. Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually shot with a D7200 or are you kneeling before the DxO chart prepared by a lab geek?

Sorry to be seemingly harsh, but MY eye is the only thing that influences me.

I rented a D7200 one for a week. I own two D500's. I have a Nikon 16-85mm on one of them and a Tamron 10-24mm on the other. I've been impressed with the dynamic range of the D500.

The D500 has 4.22 micron pixels while the D7200 has 3.92 micron pixels. That's not much difference but from what I have read it equates to almost twice the pixel well capacity.

Whether the DxO testing charts are prepared by lab geeks or not, they do accurate measurements there.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

rmorrison1116 wrote:

I guess it depends on how much money your friend wants to spend on a camera and if your friend is looking for a full frame or crop sensor camera. The best Nikon model for low light photography is the D5 but that's a rather pricey camera. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the D7200, probably the Best Nikon crop sensor camera for low light photography. I don't own a D5 but I do own a D7200 and it does an excellent job in low light situations and a new one costs under $700.

The 18-140mm is a DX lens. I use both a D7200 & D500. The D500 & D7500 share the same sensor, the D500 is better in low light than my D7200.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Snap316 wrote:

I have a friend who is deciding what model from the Nikon cameras to use for shooting pictures in low light, people in a church sanctuary, and without making a lot of adjustments to the camera with a lens 18-140mm.
Any suggestions and thanks in advance.

Snap316

IMO any modern Nikon DX camera is good in low light when teamed with a fast lens. I use the Tamron 17-50 or Tamron 28-75. Both are constant f2.8 aperture lenses. I also use the Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime. Both the Tamron 28-75 and Nikon 50mm prime are FX lenses that work very well with all of my DX cameras.

SueScott Loc: Hammondsville, Ohio

I frequently have to take pictures in our church sanctuary and the lighting gives me fits! I was using first, a D7200, followed by a D7500 and didn't have a lens that would do the job properly. My Tamron 18-400mm had necessary reach but produced images with a lot of noise and my Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 produced fair results but didn't have enough reach. I recently upgraded to a Z6 - paired with a Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-4, I have the needed reach and images with very low or almost no noise. I'm now a very happy camper! Proper equipment DOES matter!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

SueScott wrote:

I frequently have to take pictures in our church s... (show quote)

Argus

I think the 18-140mm is overkill for the range of depth you mention. I'd go with a fixed lens that's much faster as the faster lens will bring in much more light and not require a flash in many cases. For a DX camera the 35mm f:1.8 is 4 times faster than the wide end of the 18-140mm and almost 5 times faster at the long end. Even a 55mm f:1.8 from a full frame camera on the DX is about a 75mm equivalent and still much faster. I carry both for low light and have no issues. As for the camera, the sensors are pretty much the same in light sensitivity unless you look at the higher end cameras like the D500. The D7500 is a close second the the D500 in sensitivity but costs less and has user definable settings. It all depends on the light of the scene.

I'm using an ancient D300s which is not that sensitive to light but with fast fixed primes and I don't have an issue. The 35mm set me back $100 used on ebay and the 50mm I picked for $40 on craigslist. Most people are too fixated on zooms thinking they are a do-all lens in all situations and overlook great fixed primes.

Almostageezer Loc: USA

Start with a better low light lens, then choose a body.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Almostageezer wrote:

Start with a better low light lens, then choose a body.

That is so 2015, maybe 2000, in thinking.
Find camera that handles high ISO settings gracefully, then choose lenses.
If you start off by choosing "better low light lens" than you have forever limited yourself to shallow DOF.

SueScott Loc: Hammondsville, Ohio

Argus wrote:

I think the 18-140mm is overkill for the range of ... (show quote)

The problem I've found with using a prime lens in a sanctuary setting is that even though a 35 or 50mm is fast and will handle the low lighting, neither is versatile enough for varying distances within the room. I used a 50mm lens while shooting a highschool play and although the images had very little noise, the fact that they had to be pretty seriously cropped left faces looking strangely flat. BTW - I was sitting in the second row which was fairly close to the stage. My Tamron 35-150 would have worked much better.

MichaelMcGrath Loc: Ireland

You don't need the expense of a Nikon D7200 when the Nikon D7100 will do the same for a lot less money, as The Angry Photographer shows on YouTube. I use the D800 myself, every bit as good as the D850 except for some upgrades, but at a much more decent price with less the moire.

MichaelMcGrath Loc: Ireland

Nothing wrong with the D300, I have a pal a press photographer who still uses it.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

SueScott wrote:

I frequently have to take pictures in our church s... (show quote)

Sue your Tamron 35-150 is considered to be an excellent lens especially for full frame. Have you had a chance to try out Tamron’s the way new 17-35 that mates with the 35-150? i