kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Of the lenses I have, only one -- Sigma 17-50 f2.8 -- is a "DX" lens. The others, 50, 105, 180, 70-300 and 200-500 are all "full-frame" lenses.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Active-D lighting modifies the response curve..sort of "flattens" it at one or both ends. The result is that 10 or even 11 stops on dynamic range can fit inside 8 bits of data. It's sort of like "pull processing" film. I find it useful when shooting in direct sunlight and trying to preserve shadow detail. The tradeoff is giving up a little bit of contrast.

I understand your concerns around ISO. I was the same way until I took a deep breath and tried it. The main trick is to be sure not to underexpose. Then just always remember that you are trading dynamic range for sensitivity, then decide just how far you can go (or are willing to go).

In the end, you will probably have to decided how much (if any) you are willing to adap your process. But making some adjustments will be necessary to take advantage of additional camera capabilities.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Last weekend I was shooting a helicopter "show" here in town. Law Enforcement, Firefighting and military helicopters from all over the state. Unfortunately for us photos, and the way they were required to approach the landing site, we were shooting into the sun (7-9 am arrivals) until they were low enough over the field where that was no longer a problem. SOME guys got great shots. But me? Backlit, dark subjects with a bright background. No bueno.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

In high contrast situations, Active D Lighting lightens up the dark areas without doing much to the light areas. My Nikon’s allow it to be turned on or off as well as being able to apply it in camera after the shot is recorded. Oftentimes I like the result but there are times when I don’t, so I shoot with it off or set to the minimum effect. I can always apply it later. It’s not as effective as in camera HDR, but sometimes HDR images can look weird. Incidentally, active d only works for jpeg. In short, I like it and use it. If you only shoot RAW and post process every thing it’s meaningless to you.

therwol Loc: USA

If shooting aircraft is your passion, and you're challenged by the lenses you own, I think you'd be better off sticking with DX. There are many reasons to use a full frame camera for overall better IQ, low light performance, less noise etc. On the other hand, if you're having to crop your DX images to extend the reach of your lenses, you would be challenged to reproduce those results with most full frame cameras short of buying very massive and expensive lenses. Your DX camera gives you a full 24 megapixels. There is some room for cropping. The Nikon D850 and 45 megapixel Z cameras give you about 20 megapixels to work with in the DX mode where the camera crops down to use only a part of the sensor. The older full frame cameras don't come close. I hope this makes sense. What I'm saying is that the D700, D610 and even the D810 would probably not be able to duplicate your cropped results without some loss of quality. There are some functional reasons to look at the D500. It has lightning fast and reliable autofocus. It has a better maximum frame rate than the D7200. It gives 20 megapixels, which is a bit lower than what you're getting now. Is this significant? Maybe or maybe not. I can't say because I don't own either camera. In the end, you might just want to stick with what you have for shooting aircraft and maybe consider a full frame camera for general photography.

Harry02 Loc: Gardena, CA

I did that very thing a few years ago.
I had a very used D7100. Loved it. Magic in my hands.
Had the opportunity to trade it for a low used D600 to someone who wanted a DX.
They are so similar there's very little learning curve.
And if there are any image problems it's going to be me!
Get the D610- it's a newer and newer tech camera anyway.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Good advice. I'm well aware that the D7200 is no slouch. And that I could very well benefit from adding a D500 at some point, rather than "an older FX". However even a used or refurb D500 will still be around $1000, give or take, so it might be a while before I make that jump.

Thank you.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Food for thought... I owned and shoot the Nikon D610 for Sports and yes it's crippled by old technology... I has the same Multi-CAM 4800 autofocus sensor module from the Nikon D7000 (39 AF points, including nine cross-type points.) What is even worst is those 39 autofocus sensors have to cover a huge area (read 1.5 time larger than DX Nikon D7000). Please unless you have actually shot both cameras maybe rethink advising others.

And to make the D610 even more challenged is it's buffer... I would only get a dozen 14-bit lossless (NEF) frames until it choked and started writing directly to the card (at a greatly reduced rate).

Now if you're only shooting JPEG's ignore everything I've shared here... buffer capacity isn't an issue with JPEG

D600 (24.3 MP) fps 5.5 buffer 16 14-bit lossless
D610 (24.3 MP) fps 6 buffer 14 14-bit lossless
Folks this limits you to a 2 second burst
(if you're good with this, fine but I wasn't since I was coming from a 20 frame buffer on the Nikon D700) yes there is a noticeable difference between a 2 second and 3 second burst.

The D610 is a great camera for Landscape and portraiture (if you're not shooting in low light). And it's 24 MB resolution is to be cherished (especially if you are forced to crop heavily).

Now that I realize the OP is shooting photojournalism then the Nikon D500 would be an excellent choice.
Amazing frame rate and awesome buffer... which is germane for the paradigm the OP is working in.

Again hope this helps...
All the best to everyone who has shared in the OP's journey here.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I have a D610. I do not use it for wildlife or action photography. It is serving me well.

ELNikkor

Of Course, I'll put in my 2 cents for the D750. It has both the articulating screen and built-in flash that I require and most other FF cameras do not have, as well as being more versatile than the D700.

jpicc1113

The d7100 is not a full frame body

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

This is a skills problem of the photographer, not the equipment. Even though the UHH mantra is: Success is the photographer. Failure is the equipment.

If you want a new camera, then get one. But, you already have all the equipment you need to succeed. Looking at full-frame will cost you the crop factor of the DX format. Given your distance to subjects, you'll be disappointed with any full-frame resolution less than the monstrous 40+MP. You'll also be disappointed the equipment and the expense does not overcome skill limitations.

Ask to see the EXIF of the successful shots you've admired. Compare their settings to yours. Consider too if they did things in the processing you didn't.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Here are the links I have. Without reading them, I would go for newer over older.

https://cameradecision.com/compare/nikon-d610-vs-nikon-d700
https://shotkit.com/nikon-d610-review/
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D610-versus-Nikon-D700___915_441
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D610-vs-Nikon_D700
https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d600/vs-d700.htm

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"This is a skills problem of the photographer, not the equipment. Even though the UHH mantra is: Success is the photographer. Failure is the equipment.

If you want a new camera, then get one. But, you already have all the equipment you need to succeed..."

So totally agree Paul, albeit so many here don't want to hear this... The vendors of Photographic Kit has convinced them that "Photographic Excellence" is a consumer commodity... And sadly a vast number of UHH members are under this delusion.

Paul I tried to share with the OP that their D7200 was more than up to the task and to keep it... If there was concern about low light then the D700 is a very cost effective second body.

Yet folks are coming forward in this post espousing that their high end body is an ultimate solution (without providing any imagery to validate such a claim.) To this end below please find what the "Old Tech" D7200 is capable of... My clients have never ask me what camera I'm using...

"...Ask to see the EXIF of the successful shots you've admired..." Paul this is one of the compelling reason's I enjoy Flickr... It's a feature available in the description... as well as Tags appropriate to the capture.

Thank you for sharing Paul...
UHH is very fortunate to have your talent/wisdom aboard.

Nikon D7200


Nikon D7200


Nikon D7200


Nikon D7200 with a little help from HSS Flash

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thanks Thomas!

They claim it's the photographer, not the equipment, but the only thing they ever talk about is the equipment. And then, they get made when I rub their noses in it when singing the praises of new equipment over old.

kb6kgx, if we can get one or a few of these images and see the EXIF, and compare to your results, we surely should be able to point to the technical details of the differences to help you leverage all your current equipment with no new expenses. You can decide if that seems like a useful action to pursue.