|
|
Post by Andy on May 2, 2023 21:51:50 GMT
I've been shooting a D90 for about 12 years now - my first DSLR. I really like it and I'm very happy with the lenses I have. My biggest issue is that I love shooting with my Nikon 18-200 lens, but it is slow with the lowest f-stop being 3.5 (and that only at 18mm). If I shoot indoors, I switch to a faster lens with less zoom. I'd like to be able to stick with the one lens, and I know if I move to something like the D7500 I will get better ISO performance, so I might be able to stick with the 18-200. Otherwise, I'm not sure I'm seeing a big advantage to upgrading. However, I'm curious what others think and if they have made similar upgrades (and was it worth it)?
|
|
|
|
Post by fotofrank on May 3, 2023 0:40:17 GMT
If you are looking to upgrade - I would look at the D7200 as it has twice the megapixels of your current camera and has two card slots. The D7500mis 20 not 24 megapixels and only has one card slot.
I shot with the D7200 and upgraded to a D750 a few years ago with a 24-120mm f4 lens. I still use my DX glass on my infrared converted D200.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackmutt on May 3, 2023 1:30:41 GMT
I had the 7000 & 7500. Sold both. They are solid cameras. I now have the 500. I only use one slot on it and only used the second slot as back up. Good luck on your decision
|
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,362
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on May 3, 2023 4:13:14 GMT
For what it is worth from a non Nikon guy. I've used five DSLR and mirrorless cameras in the past 18 years. Three are still used: two by me and one by my granddaughter. (Two are doorstops somewhere.  ) These cameras were 6, 12, 24, 24 and now 32 MP. (Sidenote: I still use a 100-mm macro that I bought in 1993!!) Each new camera had definite improvements over the previous ... mainly in image quality (IQ). There were a couple of steps backward. For example, I miss having GPS in the two mirrorless cameras. But overall, IQ has become better and better. High ISO IQ blows me away. It is easy spend other people's money (  ) but I just need to say that the change from APS-C (~DX) to full-frame was quantum. I could not be happier. It all depends on your needs and makes you happy. Good luck making a decision. Clive These high-ISO examples are a bit extreme.   |
|
|
|
Post by Andy on May 4, 2023 1:06:39 GMT
APS-C (~DX) to full-frame was quantum I hadn't really thought about making that jump - that does ratchet the price up a bit. I think my lenses would still work. I like the effect of the 1.5x crop factor on my 18-200 lens (it is quite the zoom), but I suppose the increase in megapixels would effectively offset that. What is the current Nikon equivalent of the D500? |
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,362
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on May 4, 2023 1:18:44 GMT
that does ratchet the price up a bit. Andy, Yeah, it does and it is not for everyone and not what everyone wants or needs. You need gear what suits you and what your end results will be. (That's why cellphone cameras suit a lot of people.) I rationalize the expense based on a few things. In my old age, I spend more time taking photos than anything else and it keeps me somewhat active physically and mentally. I don't drink; we never eat in restaurants and we buy used vehicles every few years. So buying a new camera body every five years (my current time gap) keeps me happy and cost per year is suitable for a hobby. (Cheaper than golf and restaurants. ) Good luck with your decision! |
|
|
|
Post by fotofrank on May 4, 2023 1:23:42 GMT
Just to point out - Shooting with DX lens on a full frame camera will cut your megapixel by more than half. A dx lens on a full frame 24 megapixel camera will give you 10.5 megapixel image. With all of your lens being DX format switching to a full frame camera does not buy you any increase in Megapixel, unless you decide to change out your DX for FX lens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on May 4, 2023 1:54:48 GMT
DX lens on a full frame camera will cut your megapixel by more than half. Ugh. Good to know. I really don't want to be replacing my glass. |
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Aug 15, 2024 14:10:00 GMT
I'm reopening this old thread, as I'm strongly revisiting the upgrade. I'm still shooting the D90. It looks like the D500 is discontinued by Nikon and they are only selling the D7500 in DX format. So if I stick with DX format DSLR, I'm looking at a new D7500, or a used D500 or D7200 (which fotofrank mentioned above). Adorama has an "average" condition D7200 body for ~$500. A new D7500 is around $900 and a used D500 ("average" condition) is around $1000. Recommendations? |
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,362
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Aug 15, 2024 14:29:44 GMT
As I am not a Nikon person, I can't offer a credible opinion about the different bodies. If the used bodies come with a warranty, they might be worth considering. You mention a new D7500. If you are likely to keep the next camera body for several years the annual price difference between new and old is insignificant. Good luck. Clive |
|
) These cameras were 6, 12, 24, 24 and now 32 MP. (Sidenote: I still use a 100-mm macro that I bought in 1993!!) Each new camera had definite improvements over the previous ... mainly in image quality (IQ). There were a couple of steps backward. For example, I miss having GPS in the two mirrorless cameras. But overall, IQ has become better and better. High ISO IQ blows me away. 
) but I just need to say that the change from APS-C (~DX) to full-frame was quantum. I could not be happier.