Any point in upgrading?

Author
Discussion

GroundEffect

Original Poster:

13,819 posts

155 months

Tuesday 18th July 2017
quotequote all
I love gadgets and I love photography. I have a D3200 and love it - it is light, portable and takes some damn good shots but I feel like Ive got the best out of it.

The only place I have seen it falling short is fps for motorsport shooting - 4fps and a small buffer shooting RAW I wanted more...but I'd need a D7500 to get a big improvement! Thats huge wedge and failing to justify it even for a toy...

A middle ground D7200 is £700 ish and it gives 6fps but other than that, is it worth it?


Gad-Westy

14,521 posts

212 months

Tuesday 18th July 2017
quotequote all
I think FPS is a bit overrated for most applications including motorsport. I guess it's handy when a 'moment' happens right in front of you but otherwise, can't see that the leap from 4 to 6 is going to do much for you. You'll find the viewfinder and AF better on the D7xxx cameras though. That might be worth the asking price but personally I'd rather shoot motorsport with my D3 or a D300s. Old work horses, not shiny, worth naff all but just get the job done.

ambuletz

10,690 posts

180 months

Tuesday 18th July 2017
quotequote all
sounds to me like you know you're camera inside out and it's limitations. only you can decide if £700 is worthit for an extra 2fps. Would you rather spend that money on a newer camera or lens?

Nigel_O

2,858 posts

218 months

Tuesday 18th July 2017
quotequote all
A D7200 will give you many more improvements than just burst fps over a D3200

51 v 11 focus points
Faster AF
weather sealed
1,100+ shots from a battery v 700-ish
two card slots v one
Wi-Fi
18 shot buffer v 7
1/8000 v 1/4000

My son had a D7100 for a couple of years, after a D3300 - he definitely produced better images with the D7100, but of course some of that will be down to ever-improving technique


GroundEffect

Original Poster:

13,819 posts

155 months

Tuesday 18th July 2017
quotequote all
Gad-Westy said:
I think FPS is a bit overrated for most applications including motorsport. I guess it's handy when a 'moment' happens right in front of you but otherwise, can't see that the leap from 4 to 6 is going to do much for you. You'll find the viewfinder and AF better on the D7xxx cameras though. That might be worth the asking price but personally I'd rather shoot motorsport with my D3 or a D300s. Old work horses, not shiny, worth naff all but just get the job done.
I was at the Festival of Speed and then Austrian GP shooting with my Tamron 70-300 SP and it did some very good shots but the gaps between the frames was huge, especially at F1 speeds. Maybe its my technique and I should be going for single shots when panning but I would love the ability to pick and choose later.

For landscape and everyday shooting it is great (more AF points would be nice...) though. Don't need anything more.

If I could have a lens instead it would be a 70-200 f/2.8...


damianmkv

631 posts

142 months

Tuesday 18th July 2017
quotequote all
3 or 4 years ago, I went from a d3100 to a d7000 and there was bugger all difference in IQ. IMO, I wasted my money.

More FPS doesn't necessarily mean more keepers, it might mean more rubbish to bin ( he says, knowing he can shoot and bin 10+fps )



Edited by damianmkv on Tuesday 18th July 21:45

Gad-Westy

14,521 posts

212 months

Tuesday 18th July 2017
quotequote all
GroundEffect said:
I was at the Festival of Speed and then Austrian GP shooting with my Tamron 70-300 SP and it did some very good shots but the gaps between the frames was huge, especially at F1 speeds. Maybe its my technique and I should be going for single shots when panning but I would love the ability to pick and choose later.

For landscape and everyday shooting it is great (more AF points would be nice...) though. Don't need anything more.

If I could have a lens instead it would be a 70-200 f/2.8...
That's fair enough though not sure 4 vs 6 is going to be life changing. I've not shot F1 but been to Le Mans a bit and never really gave FPS much thought. I tend to position myself prior to each pan so I more or less know exactly where I want to hit the shutter just by the fact it's when my body is straightened up. If that makes sense. Don't really think I ever fire many shots off though I think the D3 is around 9-10 fps so I guess if I do fire a burst they're close together.

Like I say, the VF and AF on the bigger bodies will probably appeal to you. And the dual card slots. The extra controls and better ergonomics are a big plus too. Not sure that the D7500 will be drastically better than a D7200 mind but haven't read any reviews yet.


richelli

285 posts

171 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
I used a d5500 and I do a lot of aviation photography so you get a few seconds of a jet flying past at low level so each fps matters. I upgraded to a d500 and to be fair the d5500 is like a toy next to it. The extra fps of the d500 which coupled with an xqd memory card is like a machine gun compared to the d5500. The d500 has definately allowed me to capture aircraft photos I might have missed with the extra fps. Having said that though I could have easily just used the d5500 and saved a wad of cash. The D500 does give me dual memory card slots and a host of other extras. I still have the d5500 and use it as my take anywhere as I'm not to bothered about it camera and it still produces excellent photographs. The tilt and pull out screen is more useful for night photography than the d500 but the d500 is better at low ISO. The d5500 is a higher megapixel as well. I don't know if there is a perfect camera and only you can know if spending extra money will get you what you want. They always say the money is in the glass, so if you have a good lens your onto a winner!

Below is a photo from the d500

tuczf278(b) by richard elliot, on Flickr

and a photo from the d5500

tucczf269 (1 of 1) by richard elliot, on Flickr

I know the d500 one has more blur but that's just me improving my panning and lowering my shutter speed so not camera related. Both photos are using the same lens but one is a tighter crop and both are edited in lightroom. obviously the difference in cameras is about £1300. But I do feel the D500 gives me more keepers, especially as I lower the shutter speed.


Edited by richelli on Thursday 20th July 23:45

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Friday 21st July 2017
quotequote all
richelli said:
I used a d5500 and I do a lot of aviation photography so you get a few seconds of a jet flying past at low level so each fps matters. I upgraded to a d500 and to be fair the d5500 is like a toy next to it. The extra fps of the d500 which coupled with an xqd memory card is like a machine gun compared to the d5500. The d500 has definately allowed me to capture aircraft photos I might have missed with the extra fps. Having said that though I could have easily just used the d5500 and saved a wad of cash. The D500 does give me dual memory card slots and a host of other extras. I still have the d5500 and use it as my take anywhere as I'm not to bothered about it camera and it still produces excellent photographs. The tilt and pull out screen is more useful for night photography than the d500 but the d500 is better at low ISO. The d5500 is a higher megapixel as well. I don't know if there is a perfect camera and only you can know if spending extra money will get you what you want. They always say the money is in the glass, so if you have a good lens your onto a winner!

Below is a photo from the d500

tuczf278(b) by richard elliot, on Flickr

and a photo from the d5500

tucczf269 (1 of 1) by richard elliot, on Flickr

I know the d500 one has more blur but that's just me improving my panning and lowering my shutter speed so not camera related. Both photos are using the same lens but one is a tighter crop and both are edited in lightroom. obviously the difference in cameras is about £1300. But I do feel the D500 gives me more keepers, especially as I lower the shutter speed.


Edited by richelli on Thursday 20th July 23:45
Both images are impressive.

I've just upgraded to a Panasonic G7. The 4K is a revelation. I especially like the 25 images from 1 second before the shutter is pressed. It is not there just as something the sales staff can push to those on the brink of buying.

It has improved my photography to an extent, and not only through the ability to capture the precise moment. I find I can relax to an extent and can concentrate on the image more rather than waiting to capture the precise moment.


ssray

1,094 posts

224 months

Saturday 22nd July 2017
quotequote all
I recently went from a D3200 to a D700, I was never happy with the D3200 I sold it and bought a d700 with mb10 I also bought a 35-105 f3.5 as a walkabout lens.
The only drawback is that it is soooo much heaver, but I used to have a 645 mamiya and much prefer the size of the D700'

Bottom of the garden shots blown up on the laptop show much better resolution, seeing every brick rather than having them blend into one.

so in summary have you bought a D750 yet?


alock

4,224 posts

210 months

Saturday 22nd July 2017
quotequote all
I've had a D3100 since they were first released. Finally made the decision to upgrade to a D7500. Possibly going to buy later today biggrin

My reasons for upgrading.
1. Ability to get something usable above ISO 400.
2. Faster auto focus for kids sports.

I'm hoping the better dynamic range is noticeable as well but I'm not relying on it.

I also have an 18-300 lens which the family use and the D3100 struggles with the 6.3 aperture at 300mm. Specs of the D3100 say 5.6 is the auto focus limit but I find with center point focusing and a bit more time it just about works. D7500 should auto focus at speed with this lens.

Not really expecting an image quality improvement with a prime lens and good light though.

8bit

4,846 posts

154 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
Sorry for the hijack but I'm considering something similar - have a D5100 just now, thinking about either a D500 or the new D7500. Anyone done a similar move and care to comment?

alock

4,224 posts

210 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
I bought my D7500 on Saturday to upgrade my D3100 biggrin



Too busy on Sunday to have a proper play, but the auto-focus performance is phenomenal and high ISO performance is a massive improvement. These are the two reasons I upgraded.

Trying to get the hang of the twin dials which at the moment is not intuitive. As an example, if you press the ISO button, one dial switches auto-ISO on and off, the other changes the ISO level. Every time I've done this I've instinctively used the wrong dial. Give it a week or so and it'll probably feel more natural.

The body is a jump up in size which is definitely nicer to hold, but the weight gain over the D3100 is very noticeably, especially with the 35mm prime.

I discounted the D500 because I struggled to justify the D7500 financially, let alone another £500. I also sometimes use the popup flash and I would have missed not having it. This is a family camera, not a professional item earning money, sometimes I just have the camera and a kit lens hanging over my shoulder for the day. One test I did perform yesterday was comparing the colours produced from the built-in flash to my old SB-400 on the new camera. The popup flash pointing at the subject produced far more natural colours than the SB400 did when pointing at the subject. The SB400 still edged it when bounced off a white ceiling, but the quality of the popup flash was a surprise.

A second memory card slot would have been nice, but the lack of grip support is irrelevant to me.

I was actually close to buying a D5600, but knew that I would still feel the upgrade urge. For me, the D7500 was all the camera I need and hence was worth the extra money.

For reference, all my experience is based on trying the following 3 lenses:
35mm F/1.8G
85mm F/1.8G
18-300 F/3.5–6.3G


Edited to add... I still cannot get over the speed of the D7500. I used to leave my D3100 in multiple shot mode because I could press the button in less than 1/3 second and hence control whether I got one or more picture by the speed I released the button. I cannot physically press the button on the D7500 and release it faster than it takes to take 2 or 3 pictures. I've configured the intermediate mode to replicate my old camera and only do 3 pictures per second.

Edited by alock on Monday 24th July 17:06

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Monday 24th July 2017
quotequote all
alock said:
Trying to get the hang of the twin dials which at the moment is not intuitive. As an example, if you press the ISO button, one dial switches auto-ISO on and off, the other changes the ISO level. Every time I've done this I've instinctively used the wrong dial. Give it a week or so and it'll probably feel more natural.
You may be able to swap them over in the Custom menu.

alock said:
One test I did perform yesterday was comparing the colours produced from the built-in flash to my old SB-400 on the new camera. The popup flash pointing at the subject produced far more natural colours than the SB400 did when pointing at the subject.
It's not so much about colour but power and direction. A separate flash is also almost immune from red-eye. That said a pop-up flash is sometimes a usedful get-out-of-jail-free card.

alock said:
I used to leave my D3100 in multiple shot mode because I could press the button in less than 1/3 second and hence control whether I got one or more picture by the speed I released the button. I cannot physically press the button on the D7500 and release it faster than it takes to take 2 or 3 pictures. I've configured the intermediate mode to replicate my old camera and only do 3 pictures per second.
Same here. My modest old warhorse will do single, 3 or 5 fps. Unless i'm photographing sport, which is almost never, I always leave it on 3.

GroundEffect

Original Poster:

13,819 posts

155 months

Thursday 27th July 2017
quotequote all
Thanks for the D7500 review smile

I do still really want a D7500 and it probably will be my upgrade of choice but I've bought myself a new laptop (2017 MacBook Pro - shiny lovely thing!) and got Lightroom CC to quicken my post-processing...

so I'll stick with my D3200 for now as when I look at some of the photos on the random photo thread I realise how much my own skills need to improve before my camera becomes my limitation!

GroundEffect

Original Poster:

13,819 posts

155 months

Monday 14th August 2017
quotequote all
These niggles are back.

And when looking at the D7500 with lustful, dirty eyes, it dawned on me that the D750 can be had for very similar money (within £200).

What I do feel like I am missing out on is proper wide landscape shots...

I feel I should go full-frame or go nowhere now!

Anyone know if a D750 replacement is on the horizon?

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Monday 14th August 2017
quotequote all
GroundEffect said:
What I do feel like I am missing out on is proper wide landscape shots...

I feel I should go full-frame or go nowhere now!
Put a 10mm lens on your current camera. Is that wide enough?

If you go FF consider how many lenses you may have to replace - and FF is more demanding on lenses so you'll need high quality ones.

GroundEffect

Original Poster:

13,819 posts

155 months

Monday 14th August 2017
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
GroundEffect said:
What I do feel like I am missing out on is proper wide landscape shots...

I feel I should go full-frame or go nowhere now!
Put a 10mm lens on your current camera. Is that wide enough?

If you go FF consider how many lenses you may have to replace - and FF is more demanding on lenses so you'll need high quality ones.
You're right - but it's something I can't find an answer too....do you get more distortion with an APS-C and a 10mm lens vs a FF and say a 16mm? Same field of view, but is it a more distorted image?

I would only need to change one of my lenses - my 35mm F/1.8G DX would need to be changed to a 50mm F/1.8G but that would be a really nice lens for general purpose.


Tony1963

4,699 posts

161 months

Monday 14th August 2017
quotequote all
And it'll give an f/1.8's DoF, which is a huge bonus.

Gad-Westy

14,521 posts

212 months

Monday 14th August 2017
quotequote all
GroundEffect said:
You're right - but it's something I can't find an answer too....do you get more distortion with an APS-C and a 10mm lens vs a FF and say a 16mm? Same field of view, but is it a more distorted image?
Not really. It's normally a specific character of the lens and generally very easily corrected in LR or similar. FWIW, the tokina 11-16 used to be almost distortion free (other than the normal perspective distortion you get with with wide angles when you're not level, nothing to do with the lens). Bear in mind too, that wide FX lenses tend to be pretty pricey and big!