5---/7---- series on a tight budget - advice please!

I have an odd process - I print in greyscale then overpaint in oil glaze. Looks great but am starting to get images which would look lovely as plain photos.

But....I use a little Fuji S9600 which is AMAZING but lacks fps (I work with horses) and the file size to print well at A2.

Budget is super tight.

Looked at D300 and fell in love with build and controls, but uplift in image quality was surprisingly not there.

Thinking D3300/3400/3500 - but they feel small in my big hands and although I know the control is there it is buried in menus rather than on buttons.

D7---- series probably my sweet spot, can't afford D7500 and prob don't need it.

There are some good deals on D7200 out there with 18-140, but would love to save money with D7000 or D7100.

Advice and poss alternative ideas PLEASE

How about a D5600? You can get one used with 1500 shutter actuations and a 6 month warranty for $465. Or one rated Excellent with 550 on the shutter for $420. And they have a D7500 rated excellent with 2200 clicks at $689. This is at the used camera division of Roberts Camera. They also have mint and excellent used lenses for great prices...not sure what kind of lens you are looking for, but they have a lot of choices.

I just bought an Excellent rated D700 from this outfit, and it is perfect, doesn't look like anyone ever used it. Even the battery was rated at 100% and new condition.

Decent used D7100s are very affordable, and you won't be giving up much over a D7200. The fps rate is a bit lower, but it is no slouch. I used to own one and found it a very capable camera.

As far as lens choices go, Nikon's 18-55 and 55-200 are absolute steals and quite competent at the price. Just trying to keep your budget limitation in mind.

Refurbished D7200s have gotten really affordable recently: $549 at Adorama!

https://www.adorama.com/inkd7200r.html?utm_source=rflaid63773

Jake5000 said:

Refurbished D7200s have gotten really affordable recently: $549 at Adorama!

https://www.adorama.com/inkd7200r.html?utm_source=rflaid63773

Click to expand...

IMHO consider the D7200.

If you need faster FPS . . . then a bigger buffer would probably be beneficial as well.

I passed on the D7100 because I read that it could not keep as many pictures in the buffer, so I actually picked a D7000. (The D7200 was not released yet.)

If the D7200 had been out when I was upgrading from my D5100, I would have really hummed and hawed a lot about getting the D7200.

Now that the D7500 is out, and the D7200 is discounted, I really think the D7200 is a really good sweet spot.

The D7200 is 24MP versus the D7000 which is only 16MP.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

Refurb D7200 for $549 USD seems like a bargain.

edit: what Jake said above.

Dweeble said:

Looked at D300 and fell in love with build and controls, but uplift in image quality was surprisingly not there.

Click to expand...

Look again at the D300. It was once the flagship Nikon Pro DX camera used by, inter alia, professional wedding photographers. If the results did not please you there must have been an error in your usage or processing. The one weak point it had by today's standards was low light performance.

The D300 remains a quality camera and a good condition secondhand one sells at a very reasonable price.

David Lal said:

Dweeble said:

Looked at D300 and fell in love with build and controls, but uplift in image quality was surprisingly not there.

Click to expand...

Look again at the D300. It was once the flagship Nikon Pro DX camera

Click to expand...

DSLRs are technology and as such, get obsolete way faster than analog, er film did.

A D300 is 12 year old tech. That’s just ancient. Anybody remember the original iPhone. That was also 2007.

Sensors have improved, as has AF and all the other things done computationally, which in the digital domain is basically everything

Sure it was once great. So were many other DSLRs at their time. But time moves on and things improve in tech. Tech does not age gracefully.

YMMV and you may disagree.

David Lal said:

Dweeble said:

Looked at D300 and fell in love with build and controls, but uplift in image quality was surprisingly not there.

Click to expand...

Look again at the D300. It was once the flagship Nikon Pro DX camera used by, inter alia, professional wedding photographers. If the results did not please you there must have been an error in your usage or processing. The one weak point it had by today's standards was low light performance.

The D300 remains a quality camera and a good condition secondhand one sells at a very reasonable price.

Click to expand...

I have and still use my D300S and it still delivers the goods big time. If the OP can't get a decent photo with the D300, a D whatever is no magic wand.

TIght budget? Grab a D3500 body for $273 new and call it a day. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-D350...708929&hash=item2f24e18be6:g:uo4AAOSwn6Jb0zjm

nojak said:

David Lal said:

Dweeble said:

Looked at D300 and fell in love with build and controls, but uplift in image quality was surprisingly not there.

Click to expand...

Look again at the D300. It was once the flagship Nikon Pro DX camera

Click to expand...

DSLRs are technology and as such, get obsolete way faster than analog, er film did.

A D300 is 12 year old tech. That’s just ancient. Anybody remember the original iPhone. That was also 2007.

Sensors have improved, as has AF and all the other things done computationally, which in the digital domain is basically everything

Sure it was once great. So were many other DSLRs at their time. But time moves on and things improve in tech. Tech does not age gracefully.

YMMV and you may disagree.

Click to expand...

Come on guy..you are tossing out nonsense. I suggest you read up on the D300 specs.

I possibly was, it was a few snatched shots in the vendors office car park.

Must say I'm torn......normally I am a huge fan of getting top quality from a few generations back......but the argument that sensors really have come on leaps and bounds seems quite convincing.

Think I might have to make a trip to LCE in Newcastle and have a play. Obv hard to get a horse in a camera shop, so borrowing to practice on actual subjects might be better but finding lender might be hard!

Thanks very much everyone for input so far.

Dweeble said:

I possibly was, it was a few snatched shots in the vendors office car park.

Must say I'm torn......normally I am a huge fan of getting top quality from a few generations back......but the argument that sensors really have come on leaps and bounds seems quite convincing.

Think I might have to make a trip to LCE in Newcastle and have a play. Obv hard to get a horse in a camera shop, so borrowing to practice on actual subjects might be better but finding lender might be hard!

Thanks very much everyone for input so far.

Click to expand...

take photos of cars going gown the street in front of the shop. The technique and demand on the sensor in a car moving about 25-30mph and a horse running same speed are similar enough that you can get an idea of how the focus system works for your style and how the overall image quality will look.

Just a thought.

Jeff

Sactojim said:

nojak said:

David Lal said:

Dweeble said:

Looked at D300 and fell in love with build and controls, but uplift in image quality was surprisingly not there.

Click to expand...

Look again at the D300. It was once the flagship Nikon Pro DX camera

Click to expand...

DSLRs are technology and as such, get obsolete way faster than analog, er film did.

A D300 is 12 year old tech. That’s just ancient. Anybody remember the original iPhone. That was also 2007.

Sensors have improved, as has AF and all the other things done computationally, which in the digital domain is basically everything

Sure it was once great. So were many other DSLRs at their time. But time moves on and things improve in tech. Tech does not age gracefully.

YMMV and you may disagree.

Click to expand...

Come on guy..you are tossing out nonsense. I suggest you read up on the D300 specs.

Click to expand...

Totally Agree!

When it comes to AF, Both D300 and D300S have the original 3500DX 51 pts auto focus system. D7100 has the slightly updated 3500a DX and D7200 has yet another update of 3500 DX II. D7500 has the same D3500DX II but with improvement “borrowed” from D500. (BTW, D7000 was the first camera having the 39 pts 4800DX AF which find its way to all D5xxx series). I own both D5200 and D7100, I can definitely see AF performance difference between the two. However, among all generations of 51 pts AF system, variation of my skills far out weight the improvement among them.

As for Burst, D7500 obviously is a generation better. However, D300S has bigger buffer and slightly faster burst rate than D7100/D7200. Of course, we all know Nikon played a joke on us when it comes to D7100 buffer depth.

As for Sensor IQ, at good light, I certainly can’t tell the difference most of the time. At low light, D300s is starting to show its age. However, given constrained budget, I would take D300s with good glasses over D7200 with cheap glasses any time.

In my opinion, if you want to use AI-S and AF-D lens, don’t get D5xxx series. The combination of D7xxx with AF-D prime has size and weight advantage over D5xxx and provides a far better light weigh walking around setup; specially if you like shooting Full-frame equivalent 35mm or less focal length.

If you need deeper burst buffer, D300s is a great value as long as you can live with its low light performance. Otherwise, if you shoot a lot in lower light situation, or you need better dynamic range to bail you out from time to time then get D7200.

If having non-existing burst buffer is not an issue, or you enjoy laughing with Nikon on this joke, or appreciate the opportunities Nikon gives you to practice timing of the shots, get D7100 and save some money toward lenses. For me, it represents the best value and best compromise.

PTMcH said:

In my opinion, if you want to use AI-S and AF-D lens, don’t get D5xxx series. The combination of D7xxx with AF-D prime has size and weight advantage over D5xxx and provides a far better light weigh walking around setup; specially if you like shooting Full-frame equivalent 35mm or less focal length.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. I was dissatisfied with the D5600 for BIFS and that's why I upgraded to the D7500. World of difference.

PTMcH said:

Sactojim said:

nojak said:

David Lal said:

Dweeble said:

Looked at D300 and fell in love with build and controls, but uplift in image quality was surprisingly not there.

Click to expand...

Look again at the D300. It was once the flagship Nikon Pro DX camera

Click to expand...

DSLRs are technology and as such, get obsolete way faster than analog, er film did.

A D300 is 12 year old tech. That’s just ancient. Anybody remember the original iPhone. That was also 2007.

Sensors have improved, as has AF and all the other things done computationally, which in the digital domain is basically everything

Sure it was once great. So were many other DSLRs at their time. But time moves on and things improve in tech. Tech does not age gracefully.

YMMV and you may disagree.

Click to expand...

Come on guy..you are tossing out nonsense. I suggest you read up on the D300 specs.

Click to expand...

Totally Agree!

When it comes to AF, Both D300 and D300S have the original 3500DX 51 pts auto focus system. D7100 has the slightly updated 3500a DX and D7200 has yet another update of 3500 DX II. D7500 has the same D3500DX II but with improvement “borrowed” from D500. (BTW, D7000 was the first camera having the 39 pts 4800DX AF which find its way to all D5xxx series). I own both D5200 and D7100, I can definitely see AF performance difference between the two. However, among all generations of 51 pts AF system, variation of my skills far out weight the improvement among them.

Click to expand...

+1

The thing to note with the D5x00 series is that it does not have the micro focus adjust.

PTMcH said:

As for Burst, D7500 obviously is a generation better. However, D300S has bigger buffer and slightly faster burst rate than D7100/D7200. Of course, we all know Nikon played a joke on us when it comes to D7100 buffer depth.

Click to expand...

+1

PTMcH said:

As for Sensor IQ, at good light, I certainly can’t tell the difference most of the time. At low light, D300s is starting to show its age. However, given constrained budget, I would take D300s with good glasses over D7200 with cheap glasses any time.

In my opinion, if you want to use AI-S and AF-D lens, don’t get D5xxx series. The combination of D7xxx with AF-D prime has size and weight advantage over D5xxx and provides a far better light weigh walking around setup; specially if you like shooting Full-frame equivalent 35mm or less focal length.

Click to expand...

+1

PTMcH said:

If you need deeper burst buffer, D300s is a great value as long as you can live with its low light performance. Otherwise, if you shoot a lot in lower light situation, or you need better dynamic range to bail you out from time to time then get D7200.

Click to expand...

+1

PTMcH said:

If having non-existing burst buffer is not an issue, or you enjoy laughing with Nikon on this joke, or appreciate the opportunities Nikon gives you to practice timing of the shots, get D7100 and save some money toward lenses. For me, it represents the best value and best compromise.

Click to expand...

IMHO . . . since the D7500 came out and the D7200 is put on sale, IMHO the D7200 (with the more shots in buffer) is the sweet spot.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

I agree that the D7xxx series is where you should be looking. The size will fit your hands better than the D3xxx or D5xxx, and it has more/better external controls.

The D300 is still a great camera, but is a bit older. And the newer models have more mp, which means you retain more detail when cropping. I think the D7200 offers the most bang for the buck.

Thanks everyone........

Have just had a look and it seems the D300 actually has nearly twice the pixel area of the D7200. Is that right?

Yet one of the improvements I had expected over the wee Fuji was an improvement in recoverable highlights (was shooting a laurel bush in bright sun) - but no.

Down to my technique?

Confused. Then more confused.....

Must say the idea of money on glass over money on camera makes perfect sense.

But surely sensor technology has come on leaps in a decade? Or has much of the development been in features I really don't need.....?

LCE Newcastle for a try beckons.

Dweeble said:

...

Have just had a look and it seems the D300 actually has nearly twice the pixel area of the D7200. Is that right?

Yet one of the improvements I had expected over the wee Fuji was an improvement in recoverable highlights (was shooting a laurel bush in bright sun) - but no.

Down to my technique?

Confused. Then more confused.....

Must say the idea of money on glass over money on camera makes perfect sense.

But surely sensor technology has come on leaps in a decade? Or has much of the development been in features I really don't need.....?

Click to expand...

Yes, D300 has half the pixel count on the same-size sensor, so its pixels are twice the size. Problem is, even with that its dynamic range is significantly worse, so sensor technologies indeed must have come a long way. Take a look at this site and enter D300 vs. D7200/D7500 and whatever else comes to mind. Quite a compelling picture.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Don't think your technique is the issue here...

I tried a D5500 for a couple weeks and just didn't feel comfortable, and I have average size hands. Then got the D7200 that just feels right. I miss the tilt screen for night shots on a tripod but have no use for the touch control.

Just curious, doesn't your Fuji offer 10fps? The DPR specs. list the D7200 at 6fps. the D5500 and D5600 with 5fps. The D7500 jumps along with the price. These all vary according to other settings of course.

10 fps? 1 fps more like

Have dealt on a D300 plus 18-55VR plus 55-200VR2 all for £285 with 2 year guarantee. Arrives later this week and then I start to climb the learning curve!