steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

I, too, own both the 7100 and 750. I bought the 750 to replace my D700.

For what I shoot, the 750 is my first choice- the high ISO performance is incredible. With either of the other cameras, I got in the habit of limiting low light shots to ISO between 2000-2500, whereas with the 750 I've been able to shoot at 6400 without noise issues.

However, if I am shooting in good light, the 7100- having omitted the AA filter- to my eye produces sharper images than either of the others.

I've only owned the 750 for 2 months now, so still learning how to handle it. But for the time being I predominantly go to the 750 inside and use the 7100 outdoors.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

Read my statement!
I mention nothing about full frame.
My comparison is D7200 vs my older but still loved and still have D7000.
Yesterday I was in a mausoleum and set my D7200 on auto ISO and photographed a good friend, and very distinguished looking black man in very poor light. ISO was 25600, and on my iPad looks pretty good.
Tomorrow I will try to print at A4 borderless and see what it looks like.
I could not have taken that at 6400 with my D7000, 25600 IS 4 times, understood.


quote=pmackd]Prove it to us. What does "I can shoot mean?" The KNOWN advantage of contemporary Nikon FX over DX (not only according to DxO) is a little over one stop, maybe two in some circumstances. In DxO's terms a difference of 2x in their Low Noise Iso, such as 2500 vs 1250, would be ONE stop. You are claiming four stops. If you choose to show us examples they must be RAW straight out of the camera since different cameras apply noise reduction differently when they make Jpegs. Just for others reading this, DxOs Low Light ISO for D7000 is 1167, compared to 1333 for D7200. What you are claiming in effect is that your D7200 is better in low light noise than any Nikon Full Frame camera, since even Nikon's current low light champ, the Df , has ISO Low Light ISO 3279[/quote]

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I think your question should have been "What should I upgrade to, a D7200 or a D750?"

Much is said about the benefits of upgrading your glass, but what about the difference a good sensor can make? And if you got the 7200 you'd save yourself a fortune by not having to put yourself on the body-building course and protein pills that you'd need if you went for the 750 and a lens with long reach (not to mention the inconvenience of having to sell your grandchildren to pay for them).

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

[quote=Bear2]Read my statement!
I mention nothing about full frame.
My comparison is D7200 vs my older but still loved and still have D7000.
Yesterday I was in a mausoleum and set my D7200 on auto ISO and photographed a good friend, and very distinguished looking black man in very poor light. ISO was 25600, and on my iPad looks pretty good.
Tomorrow I will try to print at A4 borderless and see what it looks like.
I could not have taken that at 6400 with my D7000, 25600 IS 4 times, understood.

***********************

First of all ISO 25,600 is TWO stops more than 6400, not four. For each F-stop change, exposure is doubled(or halved) and there are only two doublings between 6400 and 25,600.

I think the more substantial misunderstanding here is the difference between the actual noise quality in shots taken at the same usable ISO on two cameras and the ability to set the ISO very high on the cameras. These are two completely different things that aren't closely related.

It's true that on a D7000 you can set the ISO only up to ISO 6400. After that you have to go into the "H" extended modes, the highest of which is 2.0, two stops higher than 6400, or 25,600. On a D7200 you can set directly to 25,600 and extend that TWO stops higher to to 102,400.

This says nothing about the actual low noise capabilities of the cameras, which by scientific, or even quasi scientific measurement, are similar, with D7200 probably somewhat better.

It's nice of Nikon to give us the option of setting to 102,400 if we want, as well as clever marketing. Personally I have no use for such an ability because I hate noisy pictures. But a D7000 user can get pictures at a similar ISO sensitivity, especially if shooting in RAW, by using ISO 6400 and boosting exposure compensation four stops in post processing. The reason this works is that using the extended range in a DSLR means increasing sensitivity via on-camera software rather than increasing sensitivity by boosting gain electronically in the sensor. This can just as well be done afterward in post processing software, probably better. (For this reason, some say only Jpeg shooters should use the extended ISO range)

I can't test the D7200 because I don't have one, but I can tell you that even though DxO's Low Light ISO for the D7100 is higher than for the D7000, I and other users have found that at certain ISOs, ones that a fussy shooter might actually use, like ISO 640 and ISO 800, the D7000 gives cleaner files. This is not surprising because the D7000 16 Mp sensor has larger sensor sites (pixels). Note that Nikon's highest end and most expensive DSLR camera, the D4s also has only 16 Mp. Nikon does this because D4 and D4s users frequently shoot low light sports professionally and low noise is crucial, more so than resolution.

For a more detailed discussion of the extended ranges in Nikon cameras you might want to check out this site:

http://petapixel.com/2015/06/24/native-versus-extended-the-science-and-marketing-of-iso-ranges/

glgracephoto Loc: Arlington, WA

I haven't read all the replies, but you may also want to consider the Tamron 150-600mm, or the Sigma Sport 150-600 if you want a bit more reach for less money than the 80-400.

I agree you'll likely not get near 1500 for what you are selling. I got 485 for my used D7100 in good shape, and 240 or so for my 18-200 lens. Camera was in great shape, lens not so much. One likely could get more then I did but I dont think THAT much more

tramsey Loc: Texas

This threat has been a real wake up for me as far as what I can expect to get for my 7100. It is a great camera. The Tamron 150-600 is a favorite on the site. Many people have it, most swear by it, none of them swear at it. That is a consideration I completely forgot about. Thanks for reminding me.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

I do not care about extended ISO ranges, I can take pictures now that I could not before. That is what counts for me, not the scientific tests published on the Internet.
You do not even have a D7200 to see for yourself, so you are counting on others for data.
I am telling you there is a lot of difference with the same lens....


quote=pmackd]

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

I use a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary on my D7200 for wildlife and it's superb. I don't see an extra $900 for the Sport. They claim better weather sealing, etc and 24 elements instead of 20. I can shoot tack sharp at 600mm and get an effective 900mm on the DX sensor. As pointed out above, the D7200 has good low light performance, good continuous shooting. You could get a D7200 and this lens for around $2100. Or, you could try the lens on your D7100 and see if that takes you to the next level. I also have a Sigma 18-300 for my walking around lens, both do a nice job. Good luck, that's my 2 cents.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

What I told you in the last post was that you COULD have taken the same pictures as before with your D7000 IF you took them in RAW and compensated for exposure in post processing. If you can't or don't want to understand why and how this works, that's fine. You have your D7200, go ahead and enjoy it.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

By the same token, I could go beyond 25600 on my 7200, so again l can still shoot in less light. This reinforces my comment that the 7200 is much better in low light, than my 7000. Again l win you loose, go rent one so you too can compare.
Bye

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

You still don't get what I'm saying. You can shoot at ISO 25,600 (H +2.0) on a D7000 and boost exposure 2 stops in post processing, which would be the same as shooting at ISO 102,400 on a D7200. The results would probably be a little less noise in the D7200 shots but not grossly less. Your real problem seems to be limited understanding of the technical aspects of photography.

Beyond this, most photographers don't care about shooting at these very high ISOs because the noise is terrible. What is far more important is what the shots look like, in terns of possible objectionable noise, with minimum or no post processing at practical high ISOs like 800-3200. There, again, per scientific measurements, the D7200 will have a SMALL advantage over the D7000 and D7100. But any current model full frame camera, like my D750 will produce cleaner files than a D7200, at any ISO.

Bunkershot Loc: Central Florida

I have a D7100 and recently purchased two Sigma lenses, a 10-24mm and a 24-70mm. I have found the image quality of these two lenses to be far better than my Nikkor lenses. You might want to try the 24-70 (an FX lens) before spending $4K.