Nikon D7200 vs D7500

David Lal · May 7, 2025

Vasilis Delis said:
So, to continue the example, a 300 mm DX lens on a DX body, gives an equivalent reach of 450 mm of an FX body, anyway. Is this right?

Vasilis, WPMChan has given you an excellent answer to your questions but I am just throwing in my two pennies worth now. The focal length of a lens remains the focal length of the lens regardless of the body to which the lens may be attached. All this talk of crop factors and equivalence just serves to confuse people.

What does change is the angle of view or in other words the proportion of the cast image circle that can be captured on the sensor (or film).

I suspect you are asking about 'long' lenses because you think, as many do, that a long lens is essential for wildlife. Well, it isn't. Far more important is understanding the subjects. Knowing how they behave, even how they think - and above all, finding ways to be close, anticipating where they will be.

Some examples?

Just a humble (DX) D70 nearly 20 years ago:

Lens was Sigma 105mm. Subject distance about 1m. European robin

(DX) D300

Lens was Nik 50/F1.8 (I think). Subject distance about 50cm. Bluetit

(FX) D750

Lens was Nik 18-35mm. Vixen

Sure, I'd like a nice Nikon 500mm but I do OK with what I have.

WPMChan · May 7, 2025

David Lal said:
Vasilis, WPMChan has given you an excellent answer to your questions but I am just throwing in my two pennies worth now.

Thanks

David Lal said:
The focal length of a lens remains the focal length of the lens regardless of the body to which the lens may be attached. All this talk of crop factors and equivalence just serves to confuse people.

What does change is the angle of view or in other words the proportion of the cast image circle that can be captured on the sensor (or film).

If I may present these diagrams, illustrating the projection of a scene on sensor by a lens, and the relationship between focal length, angle of view and sensor sizes. The diagram will also illustrate what Crop Factor is and what DX crop means.

The FX sensor is larger than a DX sensor. As seen on the diagram, the FX sensor will need to be further away from the lens, longer focal length, than that of a DX sensor to capture the same scene.

In this example, the focal length of a lens will need to be 450 mm for a FX sensor to capture the same scene, as captured by a DX sensor with a lens of 300 mm. The "angle of view" in both situations are the same. The ratio of the two different focal length is "Crop Factor". For Nikon FX and DX sensor, the "Crop Factor" is 1.5, 450mm/300mm=1.5.

This ratio is determined by the sensor dimensions. Dimension of Nikon FX sensor is 36mmx23.9mm and DX is 23.6mmx15.8mm. The height of the sensor as seen on the diagram will be 23.9mm for FX sensor, and 15.8mm for DX sensor. The ratio of the heights is 23.9/15.8=1.512 or rounding down to 1.5, the ratio of the distance from the lens, to have the same angle of view of projection covering the entire sensor.

This ratio is called "Crop Factor" probably because the DX sensor is smaller than FX, like cropping a piece out of the FX sensor.

Crop Factor has direct linear relationship with focal length and is more tangible than the concept of "angle of view".

The term "Crop" will make more sense when a FX camera is set to DX crop mode, as illustrated in this diagram

When this 300mm lens is mounted on a FX camera, the FX sensor can see a much bigger scene. If the photographer wanted to see what the FX camera would have seen with a 450mm, which is smaller, commonly referred as zooming, the camera software will "Crop" the area, marked as "not recorded" on the diagram, only capturing the scene as if the sensor was a DX sensor. Nikon call this "DX crop" or "1.5 crop".

Nikon FX camera also has other crop ratio available, such as 1:1, 1.2, 1.5, 16:9. I understand 1.2 and 1.5 crop will have the same aspect ratio as FX. 1:1 will have the same frame height as FX but the width narrowed to the same as the height. 16:9 has the same width as FX but about 84% of the height.

"Crop ratio" are provided as in-camera cropping. Photographer can crop the image from FX to whatever size and aspect ratio in post.

In-camera cropping are for convenience to save on cropping in post. In-camera cropping also produce smaller files. Cropped view on viewfinder is the same as enlargement of the view of the scene, allowing more precise placing of focus point on distance object. For most of Nikon DSLRs, photographer will get more coverage of focus points of the required scene, which is hugely helpful in tracking of moving subject.

Vasilis Delis · May 8, 2025

As if the dilemma was not already hard, D800 came into play. I found it second-hand at a good price (more or less close to the other two second hand-prices) with 100K shutter count (how bad is this? typical expected shutter life is 200K). I understand that the D800 is older than the D750 and maybe worse on a few aspects (low light performance, AF, FPS rate) but on the other hand it is a 36 MP beast, earned rave reviews during its era. I was wondering whether the sheer resolution (which results in a 15 MP photo under crop mode) would make a difference in PQ for my particular scenario (compered to using DX lenses on a D7500, or the 24 MP D750 in crop mode).

WPMChan · May 8, 2025

Vasilis Delis said:
As if the dilemma was not already hard, D800 came into play. I found it second-hand at a good price (more or less close to the other two second hand-prices) with 100K shutter count (how bad is this? typical expected shutter life is 200K). I understand that the D800 is older than the D750 and maybe worse on a few aspects (low light performance, AF, FPS rate) but on the other hand it is a 36 MP beast, earned rave reviews during its era. I was wondering whether the sheer resolution (which results in a 15 MP photo under crop mode) would make a difference in PQ for my particular scenario (compered to using DX lenses on a D7500, or the 24 MP D750 in crop mode).

You'll get full size FX images from your FX50 f1.8, DX 18-55 and DX 35, from any Nikon FX DSLR.

The D800 has both 1.2 and 1.5 crop mode and would work well with the other DX lenses, like your DX 70-300, if you prefer a high resolution for your cropped images.

D800 will definitely be much better than Nikon DX like D7500 or D7200, even when used with DX lenses only, especially in low light situation.

As I have said, I see FX camera only excels in low light. perhaps, very low light. In reasonable light, I have been very happy with my D5600 and A1000 and I think your D3500 and P950 would be just as good.

The high resolution will be a bonus, if you want to print "Very" large.

David Lal · May 8, 2025

Vasilis Delis said:
... on the other hand it is a 36 MP beast, earned rave reviews during its era.

What proportion of your images do you print? Of those, what proportion do you print very large? If it's not very many (or any at all) what makes 36mp attractive to you?

True, more megapixels can give greater cropping leeway but is your computer adequately powerful for handling large image files comfortably? What about file storage and backup?

Personally, though I tend to buy secondhand most of the time, I aim for 'nearly new' and would not be interested in a body with 100k shutter actuations although there are plenty of tales about Nikon cameras going way beyond this.

Good luck with your decision making.

Edit: One more thing, the D850 you have found does not have a built-in flash tube whereas the D7200, D7500 and D750 all do. For me that's a deal breaker as I like and use flash a lot. Yes, I know all about external flashguns instead - I have 11 of them but I must have an inbuilt one in the camera too.

Malcolm Richardson · May 9, 2025

My vote: Just get the D7500.

You have a set of good lenses designed for the DX cameras. So put them on a DX camera. Yes, as WPMChan says, it is possible to get some DX lenses to work well on full frame cameras but it is not optimal. If it were then Nikon would not have made so many lenses for its FF cameras.

Even the source that WPMChan quotes to justify his view, namely Francois Malan on the Photography Life site says of the 35 mm 1.8 DX lens: "Caveat: starting at f/5.6, and especially at longer distances, the smaller image circle does become visible. With decreasing apertures, vignetting increases in the extreme corners" and of the Tokina 11-16 2.8 he says "The corner performance is noticeably degraded compared to dedicated FX lenses." He also concludes "If you can live with the limitations of such a set-up, at least your DX lenses may have some use before you fully move to FX."

If you really want a FF camera, you will get better results with FF lenses.

Likewise, if you use your FF camera in DX mode you will lose the noise and dynamic range advantage of a FF sensor. Have a look at the Photons-to-Photons site which is regarded as one of the most objective testing sites. You will see that the D7500 has better dynamic range than all of the FF Nikons when they are used in DX mode, when they will also have a lower resolution than the D7500.

WPMChan · May 9, 2025

Malcolm Richardson said:
My vote: Just get the D7500.

You have a set of good lenses designed for the DX cameras. So put them on a DX camera. Yes, as WPMChan says, it is possible to get some DX lenses to work well on full frame cameras but it is not optimal. If it were then Nikon would not have made so many lenses for its FF cameras.

Thanks for quoting my references. But don't forget that I am speaking of my nine months of intense and wide ranging experience of using my Nikon DX lenses on my D780.

I am not sure if you have actually used a Nikon FF dslr with DX lens before.

In the opening thread, the OP actually said that he wanted to look at a D750, but rejected that, thinking that he needed to replace all his lenses, I assume that to be a cost issue.

I only assured him that should not be the case, as I have used the same Nikon DX lenses on my D780 and have been very happy with them, and that my D780 definitely has outperformed my D5600 and Coolpix A, especially in lower light, in both FX and DX mode. And this is from my 9 months experience.

Yes, both D7200 and D7500 are excellent DX dslrs. But I agree with the initial thought of the OP, a D750 would be a significant upgrade from DX dslr.

You have also missed a very important point. I have been enjoying FX photography, and FX performances, 90% of the time, when using my DX lenses on the D780.

Did you think that I would buy a brand new FX camera and use it in DX mode only? I just want to assure the OP, that he would enjoy FX experience if he chose to get a D750, even with his DX lenses.

Even with the 10% of use in DX crop mode, it still outperforms my D5600 and my CPA. I photographed and took video of an entire indoor event in DX crop mode. I was really impressed by the high ISO performance, with and without flash. I did a lot of indoor events with my D5600 in the past. I could never do without flash.

I still don't need to have any FX lenses, and the OP actually has already got one, his FX 50mm f1.8G.

I am sure that the OP will enjoy using a D750 with his collection of lenses more than I do, with my D780 and my DX lenses.

Ryan Schwartz · May 9, 2025

Malcolm Richardson said:
My vote: Just get the D7500.

You have a set of good lenses designed for the DX cameras. So put them on a DX camera. Yes, as WPMChan says, it is possible to get some DX lenses to work well on full frame cameras but it is not optimal. If it were then Nikon would not have made so many lenses for its FF cameras.

Even the source that WPMChan quotes to justify his view, namely Francois Malan on the Photography Life site says of the 35 mm 1.8 DX lens: "Caveat: starting at f/5.6, and especially at longer distances, the smaller image circle does become visible. With decreasing apertures, vignetting increases in the extreme corners" and of the Tokina 11-16 2.8 he says "The corner performance is noticeably degraded compared to dedicated FX lenses." He also concludes "If you can live with the limitations of such a set-up, at least your DX lenses may have some use before you fully move to FX."

If you really want a FF camera, you will get better results with FF lenses.

Likewise, if you use your FF camera in DX mode you will lose the noise and dynamic range advantage of a FF sensor. Have a look at the Photons-to-Photons site which is regarded as one of the most objective testing sites. You will see that the D7500 has better dynamic range than all of the FF Nikons when they are used in DX mode, when they will also have a lower resolution than the D7500.

I never really liked the idea of using DX glass on a FF body. Just feels like you're throwing money away on a FF body if you aren't going to maximize its capabilities by using FF glass.

GarysInSoCal · May 9, 2025

ryanschwartz80 said:
I never really liked the idea of using DX glass on a FF body. Just feels like you're throwing money away on a FF body if you aren't going to maximize its capabilities by using FF glass.

I have used the Nikon 16-80 Nanocoat ED-VR (a DX lens) on my D750 with some astounding results. Adjusting for the crop in camera is alittle annoying, but if you have the time for composing, you'll get some great results. Using the 16-80's hood is a somewhat helpful guide for cropping. ;-)

WPMChan · May 9, 2025

ryanschwartz80 said:
I never really liked the idea of using DX glass on a FF body. Just feels like you're throwing money away on a FF body if you aren't going to maximize its capabilities by using FF glass.

Try it and you may like it too.

Mind you, the OP already got the DX lenses and 1 FX lens. He will be throwing money away getting another DX body, he got a D3500 already, and not maximizing the capabilities of those DX lenses on a FX body.

The OP said that he had found great deal for a D750 and D800.

WPMChan · May 9, 2025

GarysInSoCal said:
I have used the Nikon 16-80 Nanocoat ED-VR (a DX lens) on my D750 with some astounding results. Adjusting for the crop in camera is alittle annoying, but if you have the time for composing, you'll get some great results. Using the 16-80's hood is a somewhat helpful guide for cropping. ;-)

A good example of how a good photographer had made the difference.

Malcolm Richardson · May 9, 2025

I think we are trying to make two somewhat different points which are both correct.

Some are arguing that it is possible to use DX lenses on FF and get good, sometimes even great, results. I don't dispute this.

My point is that I don't think you will get the best out of either your DX lenses or your more expensive FF camera by doing this. Just because you can do something does not mean it is the best option. Those who are suggesting otherwise are either unable or unwilling to concede this.

In answer to WPMChan, I have indeed used my DX lenses on my FF Nikon and I got vignetting and poorer corner quality at most focal lengths when compared to my FF glass.

And with respect, I don't think that showing a SOOC JPG of a still life taken at ISO 22800 proves anything. You could easily have got a better result simply by using a much lower ISO and slower shutter speed. Indeed, you could have got a better result with the D5600 at a lower ISO.

If the OP wishes to use his current glass but wants more features eg better and faster AF, faster frame rates, better buffer, better metering etc, then by all means get another camera. In my opinion the best way to do this would be a higher end DX camera such as the D7500, D7200 or even a D500 if he can get his hands on one for a good price.

The D3500 has a very good sensor and if the OP actually wants better image quality, as opposed to features, the simplest and cheapest way to do this would be to get a more professional lens like the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or either of the Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4 or the 16-85 f/3.5-5.6. The latter sits very well on the D3500 and D5600 and can often be found reasonably cheaply second hand.

Vasilis, have you made a decision yet?

WPMChan · May 9, 2025

Malcolm Richardson said:
In answer to WPMChan, I have indeed used my DX lenses on my FF Nikon and I got vignetting and poorer corner quality at most focal lengths when compared to my FF glass.

Did you use those lenses that the OP has, the DX18-55, the DX35 f1.8 and DX70-300? I got great results with DX18-55 and DX70-300 on my D780.

You have mentioned that you had bad experience with your Tokina lens. That is irrelevant to this thread. If you have the Nikkor DX18-55, either the AFS VRII or the AFP, the earlier models, the VR and non VR are not so good, I would encourage you to try it on your FX dslr. I am sure that you will have a different view of the results.

The DX18-55 has been on my D780 80% of the time and I have taken thousands of photos and videos with it. I can't be more pleased with it.

I don't have the DX35 f1.8, one of the reasons that I have asked the OP to check out the PL article.

Malcolm Richardson said:
And with respect, I don't think that showing a SOOC JPG of a still life taken at ISO 22800 proves anything. You could easily have got a better result simply by using a much lower ISO and slower shutter speed. Indeed, you could have got a better result with the D5600 at a lower ISO.

You have missed the point as well. What I wanted to show is that the D780 in DX crop mode, produces as good images, if not better than the D780 in FX mode, as the shorter FL at DX crop mode required lower ISO, 12800 vs 22800, using the same DX 18-55 lens. Despite the difference in resolution, 24 vs 9, they are near to identical.

My D5600 is an excellent camera. I like it very much. But in low light, clearly outperformed by the D780 in DX crop mode, despite higher resolution, 24 MP vs 9 MP, demonstrating a common fallacy that low resolution is always worse. The D780 has much bigger pixel site than that of the D5600. Note that both shots were taken at ISO 12800, and the bigger pixel site clearly produced much better image in low light, despite much lower resolution.

FX is about low light photography. In good light, any camera and lens can produce good results, still needed to be in good hand though.

I can see why the OP is looking at D750 and D800. He only worried about needing to spend more money for FX lens, and did not realise that he already has many excellent lenses that will work well on D750, and the D800 he recently looked at.

In reality, what's wrong with a bit of cropping in post. I do that all the time. My favourite camera is my DX Coolpix A, with a fixed 18.5 mm, 28 mm FX equivalent lens. I set it at medium, 9 Mp resolution and I need to crop 90% of my images because of its fixed wide angle lens. I got thousands of beautiful images from it in the last 10 years. I won't trade it for anything. Yes, most of my images are less than 9 MP as well.

Malcolm Richardson · May 9, 2025

WPMChan said:
Malcolm Richardson said:

In answer to WPMChan, I have indeed used my DX lenses on my FF Nikon and I got vignetting and poorer corner quality at most focal lengths when compared to my FF glass.

Click to expand...

Did you use those lenses that the OP has, the DX18-55, the DX35 f1.8 and DX70-300? I got great results with DX18-55 and DX70-300 on my D780.

You have mentioned that you had bad experience with your Tokina lens. That is irrelevant to this thread. If you have the Nikkor DX18-55, either the AFS VRII or the AFP, the earlier models, the VR and non VR are not so good, I would encourage you to try it on your FX dslr. I am sure that you will have a different view of the results.

Yes, I have both the 18-55 VR II and the AFP and while both will work well at some focal lengths, they produce vignetting at others and their corner performance is simply not as good as my FF glass. How else can I say it. I have the FF 70-300 AFP so it works well on DX and FF. I got it because Thom Hogan recommends it as better than the DX lens, even on DX cameras and I have been very happy with it.

Mentioning the Tokina is relevant because the 11-16 is one of the 2 lenses recommended by Francois Malan in the PL article as capable of covering FF but only at 15-16 mm. My 11-20 is a very sharp lens and goes even longer. Again, while it will cover FF at its longer end, it is still not as good as a dedicated FF lens.

I don’t have a FF DSLR, I have a Z5. I decided to get it because it gave me access to Nikon’s Z glass all of which seems to be a step up from its previous DSLR lenses. So far I can only agree. However, I have kept my D7500, D5600 and D3400, all of which I continue to use and which pair very well with my DX glass. Hence why I think the OP would be better of with another DX camera unless he wants the expense of upgrading to a FF system.

i guess we just have agree to disagree on this.

WPMChan · May 10, 2025

Malcolm Richardson said:
Yes, I have both the 18-55 VR II and the AFP and while both will work well at some focal lengths, they produce vignetting at others and their corner performance is simply not as good as my FF glass.

Good. We are on the same page. We should focus on what the OP has. We don't need to disagree on this.

Your Z5 won't allow this DX AFP 18-55 to cast FX image on the sensor.

If you have a FTZ, you may want to try it on your Z5, which will default to DX crop and look at what you got with an open mind.

As I have said, this DX AFP 18-55 has been on my D780 80% of the time. I have taken thousands of photos and videos with it. I have no complain at all. This is such a brilliant lens, on both FX and DX coverage.

The OP should be fine with this lens on a D750.

Malcolm Richardson said:
How else can I say it. I have the FF 70-300 AFP so it works well on DX and FF. I got it because Thom Hogan recommends it as better than the DX lens, even on DX cameras and I have been very happy with it.

Again, FX 70-300 is irrelevant, because the OP has the DX 70-300.

I have used this DX 70-300 on my D780. It works extremely well. I got FX 1:1 images as well as DX crop. The OP should also be fine with this one on the D750.

Malcolm Richardson said:
Mentioning the Tokina is relevant because the 11-16 is one of the 2 lenses recommended by Francois Malan in the PL article as capable of covering FF but only at 15-16 mm. My 11-20 is a very sharp lens and goes even longer. Again, while it will cover FF at its longer end, it is still not as good as a dedicated FF lens.

The OP does not have any Tokina lens. The only lens relevant in the PL article is the Nikon 35mm f1.8, which is what the OP has.

Malcolm Richardson said:
I don’t have a FF DSLR, I have a Z5. I decided to get it because it gave me access to Nikon’s Z glass all of which seems to be a step up from its previous DSLR lenses. So far I can only agree. However, I have kept my D7500, D5600 and D3400, all of which I continue to use and which pair very well with my DX glass. Hence why I think the OP would be better of with another DX camera unless he wants the expense of upgrading to a FF system.

i guess we just have agree to disagree on this.

Don't overlook the fact that the OP does want to upgrade to a FF system, to a D750. With those lenses that he has got, from my experience with the same lenses, he would be able to enjoy FX photography and FX performance from the D750, for the type of photography he does, if he does not want the extra expense of getting more FX lenses, as "budget is the crucial factor", as he put it.

He can always get more FX lens later, when he has less constraint in his "budget".

Peter in Canberra · May 10, 2025

I just love that this community still has 54 comments worth of advice, experience and opinions about these cameras. Ad multos annos !!

Vasilis Delis · May 10, 2025

Malcolm Richardson said:
I think we are trying to make two somewhat different points which are both correct.

Some are arguing that it is possible to use DX lenses on FF and get good, sometimes even great, results. I don't dispute this.

My point is that I don't think you will get the best out of either your DX lenses or your more expensive FF camera by doing this. Just because you can do something does not mean it is the best option. Those who are suggesting otherwise are either unable or unwilling to concede this.

In answer to WPMChan, I have indeed used my DX lenses on my FF Nikon and I got vignetting and poorer corner quality at most focal lengths when compared to my FF glass.

And with respect, I don't think that showing a SOOC JPG of a still life taken at ISO 22800 proves anything. You could easily have got a better result simply by using a much lower ISO and slower shutter speed. Indeed, you could have got a better result with the D5600 at a lower ISO.

If the OP wishes to use his current glass but wants more features eg better and faster AF, faster frame rates, better buffer, better metering etc, then by all means get another camera. In my opinion the best way to do this would be a higher end DX camera such as the D7500, D7200 or even a D500 if he can get his hands on one for a good price.

The D3500 has a very good sensor and if the OP actually wants better image quality, as opposed to features, the simplest and cheapest way to do this would be to get a more professional lens like the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or either of the Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4 or the 16-85 f/3.5-5.6. The latter sits very well on the D3500 and D5600 and can often be found reasonably cheaply second hand.

Vasilis, have you made a decision yet?

Malcolm, it's getting even worse every day :-(.

A few more things about myself:

If I can describe my two-month old photography in a phrase, that would be "(my)aspect photography". I want to reveal secret/hidden/micro/big/misunderstood/covered/… aspects of the world around me (eventually, my emotions) and bring them up-front (for example, a tiny flower accidentally grown behind an urban garbage collection facility). I like my subjects to be minimal/clean. I’ve taken some typically good pictures with my D3500, some nice portraits, lovely coastal scenes (I live close to the sea), not worthy uploading because you’ve all seen thousand fabulous ones of this type. Nice but boring…. But I most often find myself picking my P950 (crappy images in anything but very good light conditions, but that huge reach is invaluable) and capture smallish flowers under huge zoom so that the background collapses severely in often surprising ways, or challenging scenes in general, again under significant zoom. I enjoy such photo-adventures much more. Maybe that’s because of the D3500’s inherent restrictions. I have uploaded a few samples of my P950 shooting (all but one). They are low-res smartphone versions, but you will get the idea. All shot jpg. All but two of them, unprocessed. All shot hand-held even at 2000mm equivalent zoom, under single-shot mode. Very few are decently focused, but I still somehow like them. I was wondering what would happen if I had a chance of a decent body (decent AF, low-light performance, dynamic range and high FPS).

However, my desire to upgrade is partly attributed to my evolution in the field but also to (even more so) my severe Gear Acquisition Syndrome, I guess. Unfortunately, due to recent family problems I am under a very tight budget at the moment. I was very close to buying a mint condition (6K clicks) second-hand D7500. It was selling for 570 Euro (around 640 USD). I offered 470 Euro and was rejected. I then offered 500 Euro and got rejected too. Then I stopped. There are a couple of decent D7200s at 400 Euros available at the moment. Then the whole discussion (triggered by my reading online) came about. Then came you, this wonderful community, trying to shape my attention/desires under more rational thinking about my choices.

Then last night I was emailed an online offer of 999 Euro (probably gray market, but also plenty legit ones of 1299 Euros) for Z50 II, double lens kit (16-50mm & 50-250mm). And I read about the mirrorless marvel, the inherent ability to preview your exposure before the shot, the 11 fps, the 209 focus points, the super-light body (although I am not sure that’s an advantage) the super-duper eye/subject/3D tracking, the -pre -post capture mode just in case you missed the moment….You name it, it’s there. Ironically, utilizing the same sensor as D7500. Made me wonder, shall I just fight my GAS, focus (figuratively) on getting to know my D3500 better, save some money and wait for more mirrorless marvels to come? On the other hand, projecting in the future a few years from now, I don’t like myself having completely missed the brave DSLR era and the opportunity to fall in love and work with one decent representative.

My dilemmas are mostly psychological, I guess, and to a lesser extent rational. Still, quite painful

. My logic says to stick to my gear and wait. My insatiable desire pushes me towards the luxury of shooting with a decent DSLR, enjoy a better AF and overall PQ for 2-3 years more, and then go (if I can, budget-wise) mirrorless.

Still wondering…..

Vasilis Delis · May 10, 2025

Vasilis Delis said:
Malcolm Richardson said:

I think we are trying to make two somewhat different points which are both correct.

Some are arguing that it is possible to use DX lenses on FF and get good, sometimes even great, results. I don't dispute this.

My point is that I don't think you will get the best out of either your DX lenses or your more expensive FF camera by doing this. Just because you can do something does not mean it is the best option. Those who are suggesting otherwise are either unable or unwilling to concede this.

In answer to WPMChan, I have indeed used my DX lenses on my FF Nikon and I got vignetting and poorer corner quality at most focal lengths when compared to my FF glass.

And with respect, I don't think that showing a SOOC JPG of a still life taken at ISO 22800 proves anything. You could easily have got a better result simply by using a much lower ISO and slower shutter speed. Indeed, you could have got a better result with the D5600 at a lower ISO.

If the OP wishes to use his current glass but wants more features eg better and faster AF, faster frame rates, better buffer, better metering etc, then by all means get another camera. In my opinion the best way to do this would be a higher end DX camera such as the D7500, D7200 or even a D500 if he can get his hands on one for a good price.

The D3500 has a very good sensor and if the OP actually wants better image quality, as opposed to features, the simplest and cheapest way to do this would be to get a more professional lens like the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or either of the Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4 or the 16-85 f/3.5-5.6. The latter sits very well on the D3500 and D5600 and can often be found reasonably cheaply second hand.

Vasilis, have you made a decision yet?

Click to expand...

Malcolm, it's getting even worse every day :-(.

A few more things about myself:

If I can describe my two-month old photography in a phrase, that would be "(my)aspect photography". I want to reveal secret/hidden/micro/big/misunderstood/covered/… aspects of the world around me (eventually, my emotions) and bring them up-front (for example, a tiny flower accidentally grown behind an urban garbage collection facility). I like my subjects to be minimal/clean. I’ve taken some typically good pictures with my D3500, some nice portraits, lovely coastal scenes (I live close to the sea), not worthy uploading because you’ve all seen thousand fabulous ones of this type. Nice but boring…. But I most often find myself picking my P950 (crappy images in anything but very good light conditions, but that huge reach is invaluable) and capture smallish flowers under huge zoom so that the background collapses severely in often surprising ways, or challenging scenes in general, again under significant zoom. I enjoy such photo-adventures much more. Maybe that’s because of the D3500’s inherent restrictions. I have uploaded a few samples of my P950 shooting (all but one). They are low-res smartphone versions, but you will get the idea. All shot jpg. All but two of them, unprocessed. All shot hand-held even at 2000mm equivalent zoom, under single-shot mode. Very few are decently focused, but I still somehow like them. I was wondering what would happen if I had a chance of a decent body (decent AF, low-light performance, dynamic range and high FPS).

However, my desire to upgrade is partly attributed to my evolution in the field but also to (even more so) my severe Gear Acquisition Syndrome, I guess. Unfortunately, due to recent family problems I am under a very tight budget at the moment. I was very close to buying a mint condition (6K clicks) second-hand D7500. It was selling for 570 Euro (around 640 USD). I offered 470 Euro and was rejected. I then offered 500 Euro and got rejected too. Then I stopped. There are a couple of decent D7200s at 400 Euros available at the moment. Then the whole discussion (triggered by my reading online) came about. Then came you, this wonderful community, trying to shape my attention/desires under more rational thinking about my choices.

Then last night I was emailed an online offer of 999 Euro (probably gray market, but also plenty legit ones of 1299 Euros) for Z50 II, double lens kit (16-50mm & 50-250mm). And I read about the mirrorless marvel, the inherent ability to preview your exposure before the shot, the 11 fps, the 209 focus points, the super-light body (although I am not sure that’s an advantage) the super-duper eye/subject/3D tracking, the -pre -post capture mode just in case you missed the moment….You name it, it’s there. Ironically, utilizing the same sensor as D7500. Made me wonder, shall I just fight my GAS, focus (figuratively) on getting to know my D3500 better, save some money and wait for more mirrorless marvels to come? On the other hand, projecting in the future a few years from now, I don’t like myself having completely missed the brave DSLR era and the opportunity to fall in love and work with one decent representative.

My dilemmas are mostly psychological, I guess, and to a lesser extent rational. Still, quite painful . My logic says to stick to my gear and wait. My insatiable desire pushes me towards the luxury of shooting with a decent DSLR, enjoy a better AF and overall PQ for 2-3 years more, and then go (if I can, budget-wise) mirrorless.

Still wondering…..

I apologise to everyone offended by the adult contect

....

Malcolm Richardson · May 10, 2025

Vasilis, it sounds like your real dilemma is Gear Acquisition Syndrome and reading your original post you have acknowledged this yourself. At some point it afflicts all who get serious about their photography and it is a difficult disease to treat. Asking for advice on a site focused on gear, it is perhaps not surprising that you will get multiple and differing opinions on what to buy.

In the light of your most recent post, I suggest that you don’t buy anything at present but rather spend time and effort improving your skills and learning to use what you have to its full potential.

Thom Hogan is highly regarded as a Nikon guru and his site has a wealth of information about Nikon gear, both F and Z systems. He also has a lot of articles on how to make the most of the gear that you have. I suggest that you look at some of his articles. I have listed a few to start with below.

https://www.bythom.com/technique/improving-the-photographer/blame-the-equipment.html

https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/are-you-going-forward-backw.html

https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/2022-newsviews/format-wars-are-faux-battle.html

https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/2021-newsviews/where-should-you-focus-your.html

Both the Photography Life (https://photographylife.com/) and Photons-to-Photons (https://www.photonstophotos.net/index.htm) sites are very informative. The latter in particular will allow you to compare your D3500 to possible contenders and show you just how good the sensor in the D3500 is.

Best of luck with your choices.

Vasilis Delis · May 10, 2025

Malcolm Richardson said:
Vasilis, it sounds like your real dilemma is Gear Acquisition Syndrome and reading your original post you have acknowledged this yourself. At some point it afflicts all who get serious about their photography and it is a difficult disease to treat. Asking for advice on a site focused on gear, it is perhaps not surprising that you will get multiple and differing opinions on what to buy.

In the light of your most recent post, I suggest that you don’t buy anything at present but rather spend time and effort improving your skills and learning to use what you have to its full potential.

Thom Hogan is highly regarded as a Nikon guru and his site has a wealth of information about Nikon gear, both F and Z systems. He also has a lot of articles on how to make the most of the gear that you have. I suggest that you look at some of his articles. I have listed a few to start with below.

https://www.bythom.com/technique/improving-the-photographer/blame-the-equipment.html

https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/are-you-going-forward-backw.html

https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/2022-newsviews/format-wars-are-faux-battle.html

https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/2021-newsviews/where-should-you-focus-your.html

Both the Photography Life (https://photographylife.com/) and Photons-to-Photons (https://www.photonstophotos.net/index.htm) sites are very informative. The latter in particular will allow you to compare your D3500 to possible contenders and show you just how good the sensor in the D3500 is.

Best of luck with your choices.

Nikon D7200 vs D7500

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Active member

Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts