Usual buying advice request - Nikon D7200

[fargo747]

Looking to replace my ageing Nikon D80 and it's 18-135mm lens and want a little more versatility. It's a bit of an extravagance to be fair for the amount of use it will get, but when I do want to take photos, I want them to be right! Will generally be taking photos of people and people doing 'stuff' (like skiing or archery or other random activity) along with wildlife and the obligatory photos of cats that once used to fill the last few frames of every roll of 36 image films...

A couple of 'musts' that the current package is weak on - shooting in low-ish light without a flash, such as indoor during the day at social gatherings etc, especially when using a little zoom. Plus a longer zoom - I'm forever at max on the 135mm. Plus, I'm not so keen that I want to carry round various lenses and swap them over - I will always have the wrong one at the wrong time. That's for later.

At the moment, a D7200 plus the 18-300mm f35/5.6 seems like a good match; but my knowledge is strictly limited. As a guide, Amazon has this combo at £849+£599 (good price on the lens) which is about the top end of what I expected to pay. To be fair, it started at £1000, but has edged up a little without too much resistance from the secondary user...

What I will promise to do is buy a book to go with it to ensure I get the maximum out of whichever camera I choose...

Thanks in advance for your thoughts/help/advice on whether this seems like a good buy or what else I should be looking at.

[GravelBen]

I went from a D80 to a D7000 and found it a huge improvement in low light/high ISO performance (and AF speed/accuracy if thats a factor too), the D7200 should be another step up on top of that so I don't think you'll be disappointed.

I guess the D5200 is also a good option if you were wanting to keep the cost down.

No experience of the 18-300mm lens to comment on that, 'superzoom' type lenses are often a bit compromised optically but whether that matters depends how fussy you are.

[Golaboots]

Would be looking at a second hand full frame body if you're going to be shooting in low light AND don't want to move from a superzoom.

D600's look pretty good value and are decent at high iso. I know you don't want to but whack a prime lens on the front and you'll be able to shoot in really low light with reasonable noise.

[GravelBen]

He's moving from a D80, anything past ISO400 will be a revelation whatever new body he chooses!

Edited by GravelBen on Monday 6th July 13:08

[Golaboots]

There is something fantasic about D80 and D200 at low ISO though that isn't replicated with CMOS sensors.

[tonyb1968]

Lol@Ben but so true!

I still have my D80, I replaced it a couple of years back with a D7100, the change is very noticable.
If you dont want to go all out on a D7200 then the D7100 is a fine replacement and as long as you dont want to shoot in burst mode, it will be a great replacement for your D80.

[GravelBen]

Golaboots said:

There is something fantasic about D80 and D200 at low ISO though that isn't replicated with CMOS sensors.

True enough, there is something really nice and natural looking about them isn't there.

[ExPat2B]

The D7200 is very "incremental" upgrade over the D7100...the high iso increase is pretty minor, and the buffer is nice, but the d7200 is 30% more than the price of the D7100, HDEW has the D7100 body only for £469 which is a massive bargain. All the really useful features of the d7200, ie viewfinder, no aa filter, advanced flash handling, motor drive for legacy lenses are present on the D7100.

On the lens front....IMHO, the 24mpix DX Nikon sensors are absolutely crippled by the mega range zooms. Here's why :

• they won't resolve onto the sensor properly, lots of distortion and soft pictures, with low contrast. For example, the Nikon 18-300 sharpness map on D7100 http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-DX-...

It reaches a peak of 9mpix sharpness and even lower from 100mm onwards. What's the point of buying a 24mpix camera and then putting a lens that gets you 5mpix of sharpness from it at 300mm ? The reality is that you could put the razor sharp 105mm f2.8 Macro lens on, and take the same picture and crop it, and have much the same results. High Pixel density means the glass is the limiting factor.

• they are "dark" lenses with a small aperture. This negatively affects the brightness of the viewfinder, the speed of autofocus, and forces you to go with lower shutter speeds/higher iso, and the D7xxx does not deal with high iso that well.

• The small aperture and a smaller sensor means its harder to control depth of field, making blurred backgrounds difficult.

If it was my money, I would get :

Nikon D7100 from HDEW - 469

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 from ebay - £150 - wide angle landscape /astro photography

Nikon 35mm dx f1.8 from ebay - £90 - walk around general purpose lens, excellent in low light.

Nikon 50mm f1.8 - 125 quid from ebay. walk around general purpose + portrait lens, excellent in low light.


Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR or Nikon 85mm DX from ebay - £350 - portraits/walkaround, superb depth of field control and Macro capability.
-- if you really don't want Macro the Nikon 104 F2 DC is one of the best portrait lenses about and the same price, but can't be teleconverted. Another option is the 85mm f1.8..

Nikon 300mm f4 AFS Mk1 from ebay - £550 - telephoto for airshows, wildlife etc

Nikon 1.4 TC Mk II - ebay japan - £ 160 - fits the 105mm f2.8 and 300mm F4, giving you a 150mm F4 and a 400mm f5.6

For almost the same money that would give you *everything* you can do with a DSLR and do it with real quality. Yes it would be 3 times the weight. Yes you would have to change lenses.

I know you are going to ignore me and get a megazoom anyway, everyone does, they are Nikon and Canon's best selling lenses, but when you are tired of a dark viewfinder, and soft pictures at high ISO with horrible bokeh revisit this post.

Another thing to consider if you are completely dead set on a megazoom is going full frame, eg Nikon D610 at £885 pounds. A full frame camera has a brighter viewfinder, better high iso and blurs backgrounds more easily, thus they deal with the problems of a megazoom much better. Compare :

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side...

As you can see from the above chart, as you have more glass per pixel, the Nikon D610 is much sharper with the full frame 28-300 zoom than the D7xxx is.

[noell35]

^^^^^ Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for £150


Got a link for that?

[ExPat2B]

noell35 said:

^^^^^ Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for £150


Got a link for that?

http://r.ebay.com/ZuDlED

Cheap as he ended the auction at a funny time on a Monday. Would go for more than that at 8.00pm on a Sunday.

[noell35]

ExPat2B said:

http://r.ebay.com/ZuDlED

Cheap as he ended the auction at a funny time on a Monday. Would go for more than that at 8.00pm on a Sunday.

Well that's no good to me now is it. That's like the bit at the end of bullseye. 'Let's see what you could have won'


ETA Good luck fitting that on a Nikon D7100 as well! Lol

Edited by noell35 on Tuesday 7th July 17:25

[ExPat2B]

noell35 said:

ExPat2B said:

http://r.ebay.com/ZuDlED

Cheap as he ended the auction at a funny time on a Monday. Would go for more than that at 8.00pm on a Sunday.

Well that's no good to me now is it. That's like the bit at the end of bullseye. 'Let's see what you could have won'


ETA Good luck fitting that on a Nikon D7100 as well! Lol

Edited by noell35 on Tuesday 7th July 17:25

From the auction :

PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A NIKON FIT LENS!!! SORRY FOR ANY CONFUSION I MAY HAVE CAUSED!!

If you know the "rules" of ebay, and can spot when people have broken them, you can get some real bargains.

[noell35]

ExPat2B said:

From the auction :

PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A NIKON FIT LENS!!! SORRY FOR ANY CONFUSION I MAY HAVE CAUSED!!

If you know the "rules" of ebay, and can spot when people have broken them, you can get some real bargains.

Fair play, Didn't read that far. Still a bit misleading to the OP though.

I know the "rules" of eBay. That's how I got my 20mm f3.5 - the weren't many other folks bidding on xmas day

[fargo747]

Appreciate all the help all.

Expat2B - thanks for the advice and the links, especially the comparison stuff. It gives me a lot to think about. Will I ignore you? Possibly! But at my peril, I get that. But what about a two lens solution? Hopefully, the times where I will need both are limited, so one will apply to the activity I am doing. For example; getting decent shots of friends skiing is tricky. Unless I stop in the perfect place or risk them crashing into me, they are usually taken at a distance, where a zoom lens is (would be) invaluable. I wouldn't want to be chopping and changing between two on the slope and moreover, wouldn't really want to have a second lens rattling around in the backpack. The zoom versatility for a berk like me does make things more practical - where would you split between a short and long; or do you avoid them altogether?

Will compare the 7100 and 7200, but am a sucker for the latest and greatest...

[tonyb1968]

If you want a 2 lens solution then try the sigma 17-70mm f2.8-f4 macro lens and then the 70-300mm vr f4-5.6, its deemed better than the 18-300mm and its cheaper.