Upgrading From D7500 To Fx

Yeah, I'd love to have a D5, but considering what I paid for my D2Xs....maybe not. At least I know it'll last a life time.

On the other hand, the D2Xs does perfectly sharp 16x24s. I've got a bunch of them hanging on my walls.

I'm having my digital work printed by a local lab that exposes the paper with some kind of laser, and processes the paper chemically. No inkjet for me.

If you're trying print really large photos, you might want to. 16x24 is as big as I want to go.

I recently started buying FX lenses for the one day I will make the move. Or if it doesn't happen these lenses will still be awesome!

I will never buy another used camera. Not worth the risks.

Harold,

Why do you think you need or maybe WANT a full frame camera.....and then lenses? Big investment to begin with?

Rich

Yeah. Well, it all started with my recent purchase of a Tamron F4 70-210 zoom. Neither Tamron, Sigma nor Nikon makes an F4 in a DX format, so I went with the FX lens. It is really great, much better than any of my DX lenses - in fact, I think it is sharper than the Nikon F4 that I first rented. (Okay, maybe there's some confirmation bias going on, but it's a great lens.) So now I'm thinking I'd like to get out of the lens all that it has to offer, which means an FX body. As you may recall from my prior posts, I have begun shooting stage productions, so low-light performance and sharpness are my primary considerations. Thanks!

It depends. The D750 is a steal right now at $1399 with a free grip in the US. The D850 is a monster camera. Simply awesome. The D810 can be had for a pretty good price though. The question is, do you need 36 or 46 megapixels, or will 24 do? The D750 will be better in low light due to the larger pixels, so that may be a good route to go for those stage performances. Also, I highly recommend the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 as a standard zoom. Outstanding lens.

I love my D750!!

Although I shoot Canon, I have been photographing for three decades and have been a photo instructor so I think my observations may help (if not ignore this post). I have also shot full frame exclusively, using 35m film and jumping to digital with Canon 5D2 (then 5D3 and now 5D4).

If you want better low light performance (which you do for stage productions), then yes a full frame sensor will definitely give better low light performance. If you do a lot of indoor stage photography I think that is reason alone to go full frame.

Full frame (FX) bodies come in two configurations, those that are basically the same size (a fraction larger and a bit heavier) as your current DX series camera and those that are much taller and heavier due to a built-in battery grip (which is an optional screw-in accessory on most other DSLR cameras). The latter consists of only one body for Nikon (or Canon for that matter), currently the D5 and descending numerically for previous versions you can get used (D4, D3, etc). These cameras are primarily for sports photographers and if you are considering this make sure you rent one first to see how the bulk feels. I bought a used Canon 1DmkIV (same size as NIkon D5 etc) and on first serious use with no strap or tripod it caused me to get tendonitis (tennis elbow) and took a few months to recover. I sold it shortly after and would never go back.

The Nikon D800 series is probably the best general purpose DSLR series made. Although these do not have the built in battery grips as above, they are slightly taller and heavier than most other DSLR cameras. Current model is D850 which is almost certainly the best DSLR ever made and if I could afford it honestly I would probably switch from Canon (which I love) to that model (and also their brand new 500 f/5.6 PF lens, but that's another topic). The previous models, D810 and D800 are also excellent BUT there is one reason I would NOT recommend them for shooting stage plays. They have an obnoxious bright white focus assist light that as far as I know cannot be turned off and is insanely annoying. Other Nikon models have this too and it's a huge problem in my opinion. Thankfully they removed that feature in the D850 and went the way Canon has always gone with an invisible infrared focus assist. I don't know if the D750, D610 or other (older, used) models have this, but I would find out before you buy. The light is so bright (when used in a dark setting) that some stage managers may forbid you from photographing altogether.

Used cameras can be a great way to get into a higher level camera. Any reputable used dealer (KEH, MPB, Adorama, BH) will have a rating system showing the quality. Any camera rated Excellent or Excellent Plus condition should be safe. Plus those dealers I think all have a no hassle return policy (you just pay for return shipping). Of course if you can buy new that's even better. You can also get a refurbished camera directly from Nikon that will be less expensive but essentially the same as new. At least I assume Nikon site has this just like Canon does. I currently have two Canon 5D4 bodies and they were both purchased from Canon refurbished.

Daring to be different, after trying my first Fuji X-Series camera two years ago, I couldn't wait to get rid of my big and heavy full frame Canon(5D3) and ll of the big L glass that went with it. I gave up nothing in low light/high ISO performance, or image quality. The one thing I did give up was a ton of weight in my backpack :)

@Harold. I have a D610 I use for emergency backups and vacations. Full frame and I've never regretted getting it. You can use your DX lenses with it until get full line of FX lenses. Its not a pro camera but the sensor does give you pretty nice images.

@Edward, I have a D5, beautiful camera. The little things I didn't think would be a big deal turned out to be really nice features to have, example, the little joy stick. In your situation, consider a used D3s. I still use my D3s all the time (even though I have a D5). I like it for single portrait work in that the file sizes are perfect and the camera still amazes me with the results. I also still have a D2X and used it once in the last couple years. Just hard to go back to a D2x format after getting use to the full frame.

I don't own one, but the D750 is excellent for low light.

https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-d750-24-3-megapixel-digital-slr-camera-body-only.html?m=Grouped&prod_id=1082533&aid=1082533&rmatt=tsid:|cid:1410739866|agid:58384555634|tid:aud-355278560845:pla-484702646763|crid:270919418341|nw:g|rnd:8180044086784030705|dvc:c|adp:1o4&gclid=Cj0KCQiA_s7fBRDrARIsAGEvF8QRJU6oz4h1jlO6n5bFsn_6SGP1lxjcAVfFwA-GLjvmcpkVkrr3t-UaAvWEEALw_wcB

I have a NIkon d610 full frame. The reason why I bought it is for improved handheld performance (less noise) in low light. However for normal "walk around" shooting, I recently acquired a Sony a6000 which is much lighter and image quality is just as good up to ISO400 or so. I also use the d610 when shooting with a tripod for long exposures as I am more familiar with it and all of my ND filters fit the Nikon lenses I use.

As I approach geezerhood, lighter weight equipment becomes more important to me. If I were to start all over again, I'd stick with the lighter, mirrorless a6000 series and put my money into more expensive optics for it instead.

Dave Gordon
http://dgportfolio.net

People are bringing up mirrorless (vs DSLR), something I ignored in my lengthy post. But it is worth discussing. In addition to the very popular (smaller size) Sony A7 series and the newer Fuji FX series (and others), both Nikon and Canon have just announced and released new full frame mirrorless systems. I haven't been following Nikon, only Canon R, but initial reports are that the Canon is far better than anyone anticipated and that they are going full steam ahead with the system. Nikon I presume will proceed rapidly with their system. Both of these use different lens mounts, meaning their current SLR lenses can only be used via an adapter. It seems quite likely that their SLR lines will be phased out sooner than many of us would like. So if you are starting all over with a brand new system, it might make sense to jump into mirrorless at this point. On the other hand, if money is an issue, you might be able to get some really nice (pro level) used bodies and lenses in a year or two once many pros make the switch and dump their SLR gear.

What you should buy depends on what you like to shoot. If you want ultimate sharpness, stay away from cameras with a low-pass filter. If you are concerned about moire and low light performance go the opposite direction. You can't have both. The best cameras out there are the Nikon D850 and the Sony A7rIII. In your place, I would look at a Nikon refurbished D810. The D750 is a great value in you don't mind the a.a. filter. If you wait a while, the new Z7 is best for ultra-wide lenses. Fred, don't know what you have been reading, but check out what DP Review has to say about the R.

Be careful... you may find that the D7500 is sharper than a full framer that performs well in low light...

Robert Potts, do I understand you correctly that a low-pass filter *improves* low light performance? Would you please explain why?

Ok, different can of worms... Less pixel density=larger photo sites which collect more light (less noise), but yields more moire. Low pass filter ameliorates moire, but does not affect low light performance. A good low light camera loses resolution because of fewer pixels and loses more resolution because of the filter for moire.

Harold,

Just go and rent a camera body for a day(usually give you 3 days to get them back) and shoot with both your camera bodies and the same Canon lens, in a similar light situation and then see if it's worth the move to a full frame camera....

Rich

Excellent discussion, very informative and helpful; many thanks to all!

Haha, I'm still shooting on silver. Yes there are limitations, but I do art...just the same. F, F2 and RB-67. Beseler and Omega...plenty of patience.

Yeah, Edward S. 6x7cm. Definitely hard core, but the beauty of film is undeniable. Like!

IMHO
I just switched to Olympus Mirror less m4/3 from Nikon full frame which I had shot with for years.
It's just to heavy for me at 74 years young and with out image stablization its just too much to carry a tripod etc.
I love the features that Olympus m4/3 gives, I get way more shots.
The image quality is good enough, I don't need to print 8 x 4 foot prints.

I have the Nikon D610 and it is a great camera. That said the auto focus leaves a bit to be desired. If you plan on shooting static things such as landscapes, portraits and etc. then it will be perfect for you. If you want action shots you might be better off with something else. That said you can shoot action but you have to plan out your shots better. As long as your stage productions have decent lighting it should do fine. The lens makes all the difference. Your f/4 should do well, I shot a low light church service with an f/4 and it worked well. In the noise department, you won't complain. It is the cheapest full frame you will find used or new. On average it sells for around $800 used. However I have seen it sell on Ebay for $600.

Used D4S can be had a good prices and is an extremely great low light/high iso performer.

A couple of months ago, I upgraded from the D7100 to the D810. There is a huge difference with regards to low light shooting and reduction in noise.

I typically shoot landscape, so the 7100 was pretty good for that, but it seems the depth of color that I am getting with the D810 is just a bit better. Also, the size of the images means that I can print larger, which is also nice.

I bought my D810 used from a photographer that I know who was transitioning to the D850. The camera was well taken care of and I think I got an excellent deal given that it came with a battery grip and a couple of batteries.

Of course, the challenge was that most of my lenses were DX glass, not FX. I was blessed to receive the gift of several lenses from the owner of the company that I work for. Now, I have a pretty good selection of glass and I am able to shoot pretty much anything from 14mm to 500mm.

I would say go full frame and keep your D7500 as a backup. Recently on a trip, I had my 50-500mm on my D7100 and my 24-120mm on my D810. This allowed me to take some great shots without having to deal with changing lenses; of course, it got pretty heavy carrying all of that.