Re: Upgrading to another camera soon!
2
ThrillaMozilla wrote:
Upgrade? For $1000?
You don't say what kind of photography you want to do, but for $1000 I would stay with a Nikon DSLR with an APS-C sensor. It might require a used purchase, depending on availability. A D7200, for example, is probably one of the finest cameras ever built with 24 MP or less.
Any of these would be great for landscapes and people. If you want to increase the pixel count, that probably means a full frame camera, with lenses that may be out of your budget. Action photography with mirrorless cameras would require a lot of money, at least once you add lenses. A D500 (DSLR), on the other hand, would be excellent for action. Until recently it was the state of the art.
Some people have recommended much more expensive solutions. Any full frame camera will cost many thousands in lenses if you buy new, unless your taste in lenses is extremely modest and limited.
Seriously, is he really GOING TO "SEE" A DIFFERENCE going from a D7000 to 7200 ???
Is he going to "see" any difference to any dSLR, (except a FF would give him a minor low-light gain -- w/ higher ISO capability) ???
Is ONLY "upgrade" is first to a MirrorLess, but w/ higher cost than $1000 to get his current focal-length lenses.
I earlier suggested the FZ1000-II, (and it is still his 'lowest-cost' upgrade option), but it may actually be overkill since I see NOTHING he is trying to do that may need the additional options & features the FZ offers. Other than it is indeed the (lowest-price) "value" option, its main value is all the additional options & features that allow a photographer to further exploit his creativity.
So maybe all he needs is the lowest-price (Nikon?) FF-MirrorLess, (but I honestly am not sure which one that currently is).
It seems to me he can MOST BENEFIT from the WYSIWYG of EVF, (vs OVF), w/ "ZEBRAS" for exposure optimization. (And I think he should shoot in JPEG, I see no benefit to him w/ RAW.)