Should I updgrade from Nikon D7200 to D750?

[zBernie]

Okay, I'm thinking of trading in my Nikon D7200 to a full frame D750. I've read that from a strictly image quality perspective, the D750 will perform better in low light situations, which I think would be beneficial. I also read that other than the better low light performance, that there is not much difference in image quality. But you can't believe everything you read on the Internet!

Any opinions as to whether to upgrade or not would be appreciated.

 

[TomS53]

You may wish to review this similar thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62700272

 

[bjn70]

Okay, I'm thinking of trading in my Nikon D7200 to a full frame D750. I've read that from a strictly image quality perspective, the D750 will perform better in low light situations, which I think would be beneficial. I also read that other than the better low light performance, that there is not much difference in image quality. But you can't believe everything you read on the Internet!

Any opinions as to whether to upgrade or not would be appreciated.

I did that, it's a really expensive upgrade. I was somewhat forced to change since my D7200 was killed.

There are situations such as low light where the D750 has an advantage, there are situations where the D7200 has an advantage, otherwise there is not that much difference except in cost and weight.

I would suggest considering what you will do with either camera and what lenses you would use with the cameras for those uses, then determine if the combination of use/body and lens would be of an advantage to you.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Okay, I'm thinking of trading in my Nikon D7200 to a full frame D750. I've read that from a strictly image quality perspective, the D750 will perform better in low light situations, which I think would be beneficial. I also read that other than the better low light performance, that there is not much difference in image quality. But you can't believe everything you read on the Internet!

Any opinions as to whether to upgrade or not would be appreciated.

I bought a D750 as an upgrade to my D300. No doubt there; it's tons better than a D300 for low light performance, autofocus and resolution. And the D300 was a very good camera.

But a D7200 is better than a D300 and not much different than a D750 except for sensor size. If you shoot a lot in low light, then the D750 is the best choice. Otherwise, I think it's a wash. They're both 24 MP and lenses are cheaper and smaller for the D7200.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Okay, I'm thinking of trading in my Nikon D7200 to a full frame D750. I've read that from a strictly image quality perspective, the D750 will perform better in low light situations, which I think would be beneficial. I also read that other than the better low light performance, that there is not much difference in image quality.

That's pretty accurate.

But you can't believe everything you read on the Internet!

In this case you can, though.

Any opinions as to whether to upgrade or not would be appreciated.

I'd say no. All your lenses are DX so as well as the body you'll need a complete new suite of lenses. On the other hand, you can catch up with low light performance by buying faster lenses for your D7200. I haven't researched what's available but even if you end up with the same lenses as you'd get for the D750 (and that seems unlikely) at least you've saved the cost of the extra body.

 

[John Michael Winterbourne]

Having read the other answers so far, it mostly depends on how important the "low light" thing is to you. If that's a big deal, then the upgrade will probably be worth it.

The DX lens thing is a little more complicated than my brother suggests. The D750 has a very useful 1.2x crop mode, and with that enabled the 35mm and 70-300mm lenses work without any obvious vignetting. The 18-140 would need to be used in 1.5 crop mode, and I can't speak for the 40mm micro-nikkor's image circle (it's the only one I don't have). So not ideal, and you would probably want to add FX lenses over time, but you wouldn't need to ditch all your DX lenses straight away.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Having read the other answers so far, it mostly depends on how important the "low light" thing is to you. If that's a big deal, then the upgrade will probably be worth it.

The DX lens thing is a little more complicated than my brother suggests

I don't think it is - see below.

. The D750 has a very useful 1.2x crop mode, and with that enabled the 35mm and 70-300mm lenses work without any obvious vignetting. The 18-140 would need to be used in 1.5 crop mode, and I can't speak for the 40mm micro-Nikkor's image circle (it's the only one I don't have). So not ideal, and you would probably want to add FX lenses over time, but you wouldn't need to ditch all your DX lenses straight away.

But there's the problem - as soon as you start to crop you need to enlarge more, which shows noise more. So all you've done is spend money on a camera with better low light capability just to revert back to what you already have.

If FF is genuinely the best option all round (and there's nothing in what the OP says to say whether that's the case or not) then, yes, of course one can use DX lenses as a stop-gap. But until the FX lenses are there the FF body alone offers virtually no advantage.

 

[FingerPainter]

Okay, I'm thinking of trading in my Nikon D7200 to a full frame D750.

Do you have a case of GAS or is there a specific problem you repeatedly encounter that cannot be solved without upgrading to a larger sensor? Is this problem critical enough and encountered frequently enough to justify the expense?

I've read that from a strictly image quality perspective, the D750 will perform better in low light situations,

Well, only if you are prepared to have shallower DoF. and then only by less than a single stop. What low-light shooting situations do you repeatedly encounter where your D7200's output is inadequate?

which I think would be beneficial.

Do a cost-benefit analysis. Would the cost of a new body and the new lenses you might need to go with it be justified by the number of low-light shots you take where you can accept shallower DoF and where a one-stop improvement is significant?

There is no point in getting a D750 for improved low light performance and then shooting in DX crop mode. Your image noise will actually be worse than it was on the D7200. In 1.2 crop mode, the noise will be imperceptibly better, certainly not enough to justify the cost.

Might you get a larger improvement by buying faster glass? The two Sigma f/1.8 zooms or some f/1.8 primes will give you more noise performance improvement than changing to a FF body with f/3.5-5.6 or f/4 zooms.

I also read that other than the better low light performance, that there is not much difference in image quality.

Any given lens will produce sharper images of a given display size on a FF 24MP sensor than on an APS-C 24MP sensor. I'm not so sure that the difference in sharpness is any less detectable than the difference in noise performance.

But you can't believe everything you read on the Internet!

Indeed.

Any opinions as to whether to upgrade or not would be appreciated.

Given your posting history, I'd suggest learning a lot more about photography before spending significant amounts of money on new bodies that will only give minor improvements and only in a limited number of situations.

 

[zBernie]

Okay, I'm thinking of trading in my Nikon D7200 to a full frame D750.

Do you have a case of GAS or is there a specific problem you repeatedly encounter that cannot be solved without upgrading to a larger sensor? Is this problem critical enough and encountered frequently enough to justify the expense?

I've read that from a strictly image quality perspective, the D750 will perform better in low light situations,

Well, only if you are prepared to have shallower DoF. and then only by less than a single stop. What low-light shooting situations do you repeatedly encounter where your D7200's output is inadequate?

Mainly at my kids school. Several times I've used my Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5- lens, and the performance left me wanting more. I need the zoom for for certain shots, but also need a higher shutter speed to freeze the the action of the children giving the concert. So to compensate higher ISO == grainier photos. The aren't horrible, and the teachers and staff all like them. Or at least they say they do!

At this juncture I'm thinking of keeping the D7200 and getting the Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8 lens, which I've read a lot of good things about. I think that lens will give me the reach I need, plus is fast enough for this low light level situations at indoor school events.

which I think would be beneficial.

Do a cost-benefit analysis. Would the cost of a new body and the new lenses you might need to go with it be justified by the number of low-light shots you take where you can accept shallower DoF and where a one-stop improvement is significant?

There is no point in getting a D750 for improved low light performance and then shooting in DX crop mode. Your image noise will actually be worse than it was on the D7200. In 1.2 crop mode, the noise will be imperceptibly better, certainly not enough to justify the cost.

Might you get a larger improvement by buying faster glass? The two Sigma f/1.8 zooms or some f/1.8 primes will give you more noise performance improvement than changing to a FF body with f/3.5-5.6 or f/4 zooms.

I also read that other than the better low light performance, that there is not much difference in image quality.

Any given lens will produce sharper images of a given display size on a FF 24MP sensor than on an APS-C 24MP sensor. I'm not so sure that the difference in sharpness is any less detectable than the difference in noise performance.

But you can't believe everything you read on the Internet!

Indeed.

Any opinions as to whether to upgrade or not would be appreciated.

Given your posting history, I'd suggest learning a lot more about photography before spending significant amounts of money on new bodies that will only give minor improvements and only in a limited number of situations.

 

[John Michael Winterbourne]

"Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8 lens"

You do know that the 16-80mm is a an f/2.8-4 lens, not a constant f/2.8?

 

[John Michael Winterbourne]

Having read the other answers so far, it mostly depends on how important the "low light" thing is to you. If that's a big deal, then the upgrade will probably be worth it.

The DX lens thing is a little more complicated than my brother suggests

I don't think it is - see below.

Yes it is, and I've read your "below" before responding.

. The D750 has a very useful 1.2x crop mode, and with that enabled the 35mm and 70-300mm lenses work without any obvious vignetting. The 18-140 would need to be used in 1.5 crop mode, and I can't speak for the 40mm micro-Nikkor's image circle (it's the only one I don't have). So not ideal, and you would probably want to add FX lenses over time, but you wouldn't need to ditch all your DX lenses straight away.

But there's the problem - as soon as you start to crop you need to enlarge more

Who says so? Are you heading towards some sort of "equivalence" black hole? We were talking a few weeks ago about DX lenses on the D750, and I said that although the DX 35/1.8 didn't quite cover the full sensor, in the 1.2 crop mode, it became a 42mm equivalent FOV lens on my D750. We didn't get into how many FF pixels that would give me; but without doing any sums I would guess about 20? Please explain to me why, having taken a picture with those settings, I need to enlarge it? It's just a picture taken with a DX lens on an FX camera that will look quite nice, especially with the fast max aperture for 'low light' situations.

which shows noise more. So all you've done is spend money on a camera with better low light capability just to revert back to what you already have.

Sorry, wrong. A D750 in 1.2 crop mode is not the same as what OP already has, a 1.5 crop camera.

If FF is genuinely the best option all round (and there's nothing in what the OP says to say whether that's the case or not) then, yes, of course one can use DX lenses as a stop-gap.

What you seem unwilling to accept is that some DX lenses can be used in their own right, not just as a stop gap. So far, we've only talked about the lenses that the OP has in their gear list. The cheap as chips AF-P DX 18-55mm kit lens (which is a very very good lens) is a perfectly useable 27-55mm lens on a FF Nikon. A lot of Nikon DX users will have had that lens bundled with their entry level DX Nikon bodies, and they should not be misled by people saying that "DX lenses don't work on FX bodies, you need to get FX lenses

But until the FX lenses are there the FF body alone offers virtually no advantage.

Clearly, I don't agree.

 

[FingerPainter]

Okay, I'm thinking of trading in my Nikon D7200 to a full frame D750.

Do you have a case of GAS or is there a specific problem you repeatedly encounter that cannot be solved without upgrading to a larger sensor? Is this problem critical enough and encountered frequently enough to justify the expense?

I've read that from a strictly image quality perspective, the D750 will perform better in low light situations,

Well, only if you are prepared to have shallower DoF. and then only by less than a single stop. What low-light shooting situations do you repeatedly encounter where your D7200's output is inadequate?

Mainly at my kids school. Several times I've used my Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5- lens, and the performance left me wanting more. I need the zoom for for certain shots, but also need a higher shutter speed to freeze the the action of the children giving the concert. So to compensate higher ISO == grainier photos. The aren't horrible, and the teachers and staff all like them. Or at least they say they do!

At this juncture I'm thinking of keeping the D7200 and getting the Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8 lens, which I've read a lot of good things about. I think that lens will give me the reach I need, plus is fast enough for this low light level situations at indoor school events.

It's a really nice lens, but may not be adequate for your use case. The lens is a 16-80mm f/2.8-4, meaning, at the long end, its widest aperture is f/4. When you used the 18-140mm, did you find yourself using focal lengths longer than 80mm a lot?

When my kids were in school, I used a 70-200mm f/2.8 on a monopod for that type of shot. I definitely needed more than 80mm focal length and faster then f/4 at the long end on APS-C. If you don't need all the way to 200mm, consider the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8

which I think would be beneficial.

 

[zBernie]

"Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8 lens"

You do know that the 16-80mm is a an f/2.8-4 lens, not a constant f/2.8?

Yes, I am aware of that. I thought it would be better in dim light situation than my Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 lens.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Having read the other answers so far, it mostly depends on how important the "low light" thing is to you. If that's a big deal, then the upgrade will probably be worth it.

The DX lens thing is a little more complicated than my brother suggests

I don't think it is - see below.

Yes it is, and I've read your "below" before responding.

. The D750 has a very useful 1.2x crop mode, and with that enabled the 35mm and 70-300mm lenses work without any obvious vignetting. The 18-140 would need to be used in 1.5 crop mode, and I can't speak for the 40mm micro-Nikkor's image circle (it's the only one I don't have). So not ideal, and you would probably want to add FX lenses over time, but you wouldn't need to ditch all your DX lenses straight away.

But there's the problem - as soon as you start to crop you need to enlarge more

Who says so? Are you heading towards some sort of "equivalence" black hole? We were talking a few weeks ago about DX lenses on the D750, and I said that although the DX 35/1.8 didn't quite cover the full sensor, in the 1.2 crop mode, it became a 42mm equivalent FOV lens on my D750. We didn't get into how many FF pixels that would give me; but without doing any sums I would guess about 20? Please explain to me why, having taken a picture with those settings, I need to enlarge it? It's just a picture taken with a DX lens on an FX camera that will look quite nice, especially with the fast max aperture for 'low light' situations.

Because the FF sensor is 36 x 24mm so to get a picture (on screen or print) that's 360mm wide it needs to be enlarged 10 times; but the 1.5 crop sensor is 24 x 16mm so it needs to be enlarged 15 times.

That means that any imperfections in the lens (aberrations, softness etc) are also enlarged more.

If you don't enlarge it you'll see a tiny picture 124 x 16mm, which is too small even for a passport photo.

which shows noise more. So all you've done is spend money on a camera with better low light capability just to revert back to what you already have.

Sorry, wrong. A D750 in 1.2 crop mode is not the same as what OP already has, a 1.5 crop camera.

You talked of both 1.2 and 1.5 (DX). I didn't see any point in saying "either what you already have or something approaching it", especially as we don't even know if 1.2 crop will accommodate his lenses.

If FF is genuinely the best option all round (and there's nothing in what the OP says to say whether that's the case or not) then, yes, of course one can use DX lenses as a stop-gap.

What you seem unwilling to accept is that some DX lenses can be used in their own right, not just as a stop gap.

No I don't. You know that perfectly well from our private discussions about using my DA lenses on my K-1ii and your DX lenses on your D750.

So far, we've only talked about the lenses that the OP has in their gear list.

For the simple and obvious reason that our comments are addressed to him and the way the lenses he already owns will work if he uses them on FX.

The cheap as chips AF-P DX 18-55mm kit lens (which is a very very good lens) is a perfectly useable 27-55mm lens on a FF Nikon. A lot of Nikon DX users will have had that lens bundled with their entry level DX Nikon bodies, and they should not be misled by people saying that "DX lenses don't work on FX bodies, you need to get FX lenses.

No doubt that's true in general but (a) it isn't relevant to the OP's question and (b) I haven't said that they won't work so why even mention that? Saying that they will get no advantage from using them on FX is vastly different from saying they won't work.

But until the FX lenses are there the FF body alone offers virtually no advantage.

Clearly, I don't agree.

 

[KeithandAbby]

"Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8 lens"

You do know that the 16-80mm is a an f/2.8-4 lens, not a constant f/2.8?

Yes, I am aware of that. I thought it would be better in dim light situation than my Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 lens.

Couldn't fight the urge to jump in. I JUST bought the D7200 because my Daughter shoots basketball and our old D90 didn't have the ability to shoot in crappy High School gyms because of it's low light performance. The extra boost in ISO and WAY better focussing system on the D7200 has made a world of difference. If she can shoot 15 year olds playing basketball at top speed with the D7200, I have no doubt that you can shoot your kids play. My Daughter uses an old 80-200mm f2.8 push-pull lens that can still be found for under $500 Canadian and we're about to get an older 50-150mm f2.8 Sigma lens that can be found for around the same price. Any f2.8 will give you more than enough for the scenes you are looking to capture and the used market will offer lots of options at a reasonable cost.

FYI - I held on to the D90 for a long time before upgrading and only did so because I encountered a situation where I knew that it wasn't enough. Had it had the ability to shoot at a 'clean' ISO 6400 for those really crappy gyms we were in, I'd still have it.

 

[zBernie]

"Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8 lens"

You do know that the 16-80mm is a an f/2.8-4 lens, not a constant f/2.8?

Yes, I am aware of that. I thought it would be better in dim light situation than my Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 lens.

Couldn't fight the urge to jump in. I JUST bought the D7200 because my Daughter shoots basketball and our old D90 didn't have the ability to shoot in crappy High School gyms because of it's low light performance. The extra boost in ISO and WAY better focussing system on the D7200 has made a world of difference. If she can shoot 15 year olds playing basketball at top speed with the D7200, I have no doubt that you can shoot your kids play. My Daughter uses an old 80-200mm f2.8 push-pull lens that can still be found for under $500 Canadian and we're about to get an older 50-150mm f2.8 Sigma lens that can be found for around the same price. Any f2.8 will give you more than enough for the scenes you are looking to capture and the used market will offer lots of options at a reasonable cost.

FYI - I held on to the D90 for a long time before upgrading and only did so because I encountered a situation where I knew that it wasn't enough. Had it had the ability to shoot at a 'clean' ISO 6400 for those really crappy gyms we were in, I'd still have it.

Yes, those gyms, auditoriums, and our church, all low light situations. I want the reach of the 18-140mm, but the speed of my 35mm f/1.8! You need a fast shutter speed to capture the kids movements, even when zoomed in. I get some good pictures with the 18-140. I may try a monopod which may help.

Have fun with your D7200, it's a great camera!

 

[emem]

Okay, I'm thinking of trading in my Nikon D7200 to a full frame D750. I've read that from a strictly image quality perspective, the D750 will perform better in low light situations, which I think would be beneficial. I also read that other than the better low light performance, that there is not much difference in image quality. But you can't believe everything you read on the Internet!

Any opinions as to whether to upgrade or not would be appreciated.

I find the images from my D750 more pleasing than the images from my D7200. But only you can decide if it's worth the money you'd have to spend. But that aside, a 70-200 F2.8 lens on your D7200 may give you the lower light capability and reach you seem to be looking for. With a 200mm lens you can also stay a bit further from the action - less obtrusive visually and noise-wise (shutter noise). The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC is a nice lens, and pretty sharp, and you can pick up a good one second hand.

 

[G Rothwell]

Got them both.

Unless you have money to burn, don't bother.

You get 1 stop improvement in ISO, but you would need to swap all your lenses.

Consider Sigma 85mm 1.4, or 135mm 1.8, 3 stops brighter, and far sharper lenses.

Graham.