Upgrading from D5000 to D7200 or D750?

Leebert

Leebert

Messages
2,026
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
No
Apologies if this has been discussed to death already! I've been using a D5000 for years and I think it gives me good results. The only time it struggles is capturing action shots in lower light conditions really (fast jets at the Mach Loop on a dull day for instance).

I am thinking of upgrading and was initially thinking of a D7200 but also looked into full frame and the D750 as I have fx lenses.

The D750 is a fair bit more cash than the D7200. I've not owned an fx camera before - what are the advantages for going full frame?is it worth it to "future-proof" myself? The reviews for both seem very positive.

Thanks in advance.
 
The high iso capabilities of the 750 will be better and you will get a shallower depth of field. Possible downside for your needs would be that you would lose a third of your effective field of view... Could be a bit of a bummer. What lenses do you have? Perhaps buying the D7200 and upgrading your lenses would be a better option?
 
As above, FF gives you better ISO/noise performance and 1-stop shallower depth of field. Some say the overall look of FF is different but this is VERY subjective and controversial ;) The D750 has a flip out screen which is useful for landscapes and video.

Obviously with the D7200 being a crop sensor you effectively get more reach which can be beneficial for wildlife etc.
 
adrianday said:
The sensor size will not affect the depth of field.
Click to expand...
Ok, it's perception, perspective and field of view so it gives the appearance of more shallow depth of field.
 
FF, without a doubt gives better ultimate image quality (all other things being equal), no question. And by better I mean less noise at high ISO, more surface texture and higher contrast on edges which gives better perceived sharpness.

However, since getting some m4/3 kit (and subsequently investing heavily in) I haven't touched my Nikon FF kit.

Yes, the Nikon image quality is better but the m4/3 is more than good enough for my purposes and I prefer the extra features and much smaller size the system offers.

However, you pays your money and you takes your choice - in many ways I think FF is a bit of a right of passage or a scratch you have to itch and only after that will you be able to decide if everything that comes with it is for you.

So, I guess what I would say is that if you are at all thinking of FF you may as well do it and find out for yourself.
 
I would say go FF and keep your existing dx body for reach when you really need it as looking at your Flickr stream most of your work does not require the reach ( I can see you done some aircraft but they look good with what you have and it's a minority compared to the other images ) people are really raving over the D750 and thin it will shine for you looking at what you mostly take
 
Nawty said:
FF, without a doubt gives better ultimate image quality (all other things being equal), no question. And by better I mean less noise at high ISO, more surface texture and higher contrast on edges which gives better perceived sharpness.

However, since getting some m4/3 kit (and subsequently investing heavily in) I haven't touched my Nikon FF kit.

Yes, the Nikon image quality is better but the m4/3 is more than good enough for my purposes and I prefer the extra features and much smaller size the system offers.

However, you pays your money and you takes your choice - in many ways I think FF is a bit of a right of passage or a scratch you have to itch and only after that will you be able to decide if everything that comes with it is for you.

So, I guess what I would say is that if you are at all thinking of FF you may as well do it and find out for yourself.
Click to expand...
I'm the opposite, I use my D750 far more than my EM5-II, the Olympus is pretty much reserved for travel. As good as the Olympus is using the 12-40mm f2.8 pro and 45mm f1.8 it still can't match the IQ of the D750 and 99% of the time the desire for the best IQ outweighs the bulk and weight difference. Also, around 50% of my shots require excellent C-AF, which the Olly doesn't have unfortunately.

But as you say, we all have different requirements.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
This is the one thing we forum goers always forget, everyone is different.

I lumped a D700 and tripod up Kilimanjaro and at the time I said nay bother as I am fit and (not as much as I once was) young. But still, in hindsight carrying less weight would probably have beed nice...

That said, I'm judging old tech vs. new which isn't really fair but it makes my point about begin good enough, rather than the best. And my other point was that until you've owned it you will never know, so why not try a little FF goodness :D
 
I've got a D7200 which is very, very good. If I'd been able to run to a D750 though I would have. As has been said you've already got a half decent DX camera, get the 750!
 
Thanks for all the replies. Lots of similar thoughts to mine there (after a fair few trawls around the web comparing the two cameras and formats). Although, I don't quite understand the fact that I would lose a third of my field of view. I would have thought it would be more as the sensor is larger? I'll be keeping the D5000 as I think it is a good body albeit getting on a bit.

The more I think about it, the more it looks like I'll be going for it ;)
 
The DX sensor is basically a cropped view of a FX sensor. So if you have a 500mm lens then the FX sensor will display a FOV of 500mm. The DX sensor will give you an effective field of view of 750mm due to the cropped sensor.

Plenty of info on here and the net which will explain it far better than i ever could.
 
If I'm not mistaken and I'm sure someone will come along and correct me if I am :) on a crop (dx) Nikon the field of view is 1.5x that of what it would be on a fx body, ie 200mm fx lens on a dx body would give the equivalent of a 300mm lens on an fx body.

I've just bought the d7200 (free battery grip offer too with Nikon UK) not sure if it's still going, I upgraded from a d90 so can see a massive difference, really impressed with the quality so far, I only have one fx lens though so going full frame would have meant investing in a whole bunch of new lenses which wasn't a possibility. Would like to go ff eventually though, I feel a little that I am not quite getting the best from photography I could be with dx :)

Danny
 
Ok so the thing you want is faster focus sing?

What lens are you using, that has a huge impact on focusing. Also APS-C sensors may give you better reach for aircraft.

Look at the focus modules on each camera not whether or not it's full frame
 
And you can never future proof, the cameras that worked 20yrs ago still work.

My d70 is still working ;)
 
minnnt said:
The DX sensor is basically a cropped view of a FX sensor. So if you have a 500mm lens then the FX sensor will display a FOV of 500mm. The DX sensor will give you an effective field of view of 750mm due to the cropped sensor.

Plenty of info on here and the net which will explain it far better than i ever could.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I misunderstood but thats cleared it up. i understand that I have more (1.5x) reach with a cropped sensor.

Dannyj1984 said:
If I'm not mistaken and I'm sure someone will come along and correct me if I am :) on a crop (dx) Nikon the field of view is 1.5x that of what it would be on a fx body, ie 200mm fx lens on a dx body would give the equivalent of a 300mm lens on an fx body.

I've just bought the d7200 (free battery grip offer too with Nikon UK) not sure if it's still going, I upgraded from a d90 so can see a massive difference, really impressed with the quality so far, I only have one fx lens though so going full frame would have meant investing in a whole bunch of new lenses which wasn't a possibility. Would like to go ff eventually though, I feel a little that I am not quite getting the best from photography I could be with dx :)

Danny
Click to expand...

andyscott said:
Ok so the thing you want is faster focus sing?

What lens are you using, that has a huge impact on focusing. Also APS-C sensors may give you better reach for aircraft.

Look at the focus modules on each camera not whether or not it's full frame
Click to expand...

andyscott said:
And you can never future proof, the cameras that worked 20yrs ago still work.

My d70 is still working ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks. Faster focussing wasn't a reason really - more the option to use a higher ISO with fast jets on dull days an example. I use a 90mm Tamron Macro, a 70-300 Tamron and a 300 f4 Nikon as well as a 18 - 55 dx kit lens on my current D5000. I understand that the 18-55 will stay on the D5000 if I go FF. I'm keeping the D5000 so I can still use that and have the extra reach that a crop sensor gets me with the longer focal length lenses.

I guess you're right re future proofing - there'll always be something better coming along and the the old stuff is still pretty good too :)

Many thanks.
 
I imagine you will stop using the D5000 for extra reach as the better and higher resolution sensor of the D750 will give you better results from cropping anyway.
 
You could probably use a 1.4 tc with your 300mm lens to give you not far off what you get now. 420mm at f5.6 (i think?) that and added resolution and generally sharped shots will result in a far better image.

Have fun.
 
minnnt said:
The DX sensor is basically a cropped view of a FX sensor. So if you have a 500mm lens then the FX sensor will display a FOV of 500mm. The DX sensor will give you an effective field of view of 750mm due to the cropped sensor.

Plenty of info on here and the net which will explain it far better than i ever could.
Click to expand...
But surely this means that you gain field of view with FF not lose it? I always say that with DX you gain reach due to the crop effect rather than referring to field of view as I think it's less confusing ;)
 
Nawty said:
I imagine you will stop using the D5000 for extra reach as the better and higher resolution sensor of the D750 will give you better results from cropping anyway.
Click to expand...
Possibly right yeah. If you crop the D750 to DX format it reduces to 10MP, so only 2MP shy of the D5000 and I would have thought the 10MP image from the D750 would look better than the 12MP from the D5000 but without doing a direct comparison can't say for sure ;)
 
I hadn't anticipated that I could use the 18-55 with a D750. Result :) A bit of luck too that it'll end up close to my current setup too.

Not sure I'd go for a D3 but thanks for the heads up (y)
 
minnnt said:
I've had a dabble with the 18-55mm vr2 on the D750 tonight and it's clear from 24mm. It's a very sharp lens indeed.
Click to expand...

Was that in crop or FF mode? I have sold my 24-120 f4 (too heavy at present) while something with VR, light and cheapish could be usefull until I recover from some ops.
 
I'm sat at my dads as we all speak and I playing with his D800E all I can say to the OP is if you can afford FX in the D750 or D810 get it

I'm gobsmacked at the low light ability of this thing I'm sat in his study it's dark ish where I'd want to switch light on I've taken a picture of a bunch of flower and it's like the flipping suns shining no exposure Connor anything just f2.8 24/70 Iso 1000 it's got my attention I'll tell you that much
 
Don't forget on the D7200 not only is it 1.5 but you also have the ability to select a further 1.3, so turning 200 >300 >360
 
Guys any of u used the 810 for Motorsport I was just skeptical the raw file would fill cards fast.....being massive
 
LOL nice, yeah i know, but i was really asking if your panning motorsport using RAW on a D810 how long does it take you to fill a 32 or 64 ?
I went to cadwell with my EM5II and shot raw, filled a 16gb in about 20 mins. I was playing but still didn't last long....
 
Well if you buy a bigger card to what you use in any other camera then it will be of a similar timescale. I use 32's in my 750. I'd still use 32's if i had a D810... I'd just buy a few more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top