D3200 to D750/FF Upgrade

<p>Hey guys,<br>

I'm relatively new to the forum and was wondering if you guys have any tips / suggestions. I've been shooting with the D3200 for about 2-3 years now. While I did manage to get a lot of nice shots from it, I do miss a lot of shots because the AF takes forever to get focus. Will I see a big improvement in the focusing accuracy / speed if I'm upgrading to the D610 / D750?</p>

<p>As I've read, the D750 performs better in low light as compared to the D610. The D810 is really expensive and I don't studio work so I figured that there's no point in spending the extra money.</p>

<p>I currently have the following lenses:<br>

Nikon 17-55 f/2.8G<br>

Nikon 55-300 f/4.5-5.6G<br>

Nikon 50mm f/1.8G</p>

<p>I've been taking quite a number of event jobs and I've mainly used just the 17-55 and 50. Is using the 17-55 on a FX worth it? I mean I definitely have plans to get the 24-70, but that itself isn't cheap. Should I sell off the 17-55 and get a a few primes or get the 24-70 or just keep the 17-55 first? <br>

Suggestions / tips are much appreciated!</p>

<p>Your 17-55 and 55-300 are DX lenses and won't provide acceptable results on FX cameras such as the D610 and D750.</p>

<p>Al</p>

<p>As Al points out above, your DX lens will not cover the full frame sized sensors of the D610 or the D750. Of course there is a specific DX mode in both these cameras that crops down the area of the sensor used to enable the use of DX lenses such as yours, however this really defeats the point of switching to a FX body. The 50/1.8 will work fine on the D610 or the D750.</p>

<p>As for AF performance, I now use the D810 which I believe shares a very similar spec AF module to the D750 (I beleive the D750 has an even more light sensitive AF than my D810) The AF on my D810 is faster and more reliable in poor lighting conditions that the D3200 I borrowed a year ago using the same lenses - so I expect you too would notice a considerable improvement in AF performance.</p>

<p>I guess it comes down to wether you want to divest yourself of DX lens and body and switch over to FX. The 17-55mm is as good as the 24-70 FX big brother in my opinion having used both. Why not look at upgrading to a D7200 DX body and keeping your current 17-55 lens?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>you might better off getting a d7200 which has better AF than your current camera. the 7200 also has better AF than the 610. for event shooting, forget DX lenses on an FX camera. you will at least need a 2.8 FX lens as well as a few fast primes for low light shooting. so the total investment is closer to $3-4k or more vs. $1100 or however much a d7200 is these days. personally im saving for a D5; when that comes out you should see some used d4s and d4s's hit the market.</p>

<p>I know the DX mode effectively reduces a the image to ~10MP maybe? But I'm wondering if this is still a somewhat okay resolution to use though. This is because the main reason of me switching to FX format is for the low light capabilities. </p>

<p>I also plan to get a FF rather than a D7200 because I want to get something that I'll use and like for a number of years. I mean you can probably almost take the exact same shots in DX vs FX, but based on the D3200, I have this somewhat mindset that DX performs quite poorly in low light and tends to take a while to acquire focus. I mean the extra 1-2 stops of ISO would definitely be useful.<br>

<br />Does the 7200 perform pretty well in low light? You mentioned that the 7200 has better AF, does it mean it can acquire focus as well, if not better than the D610 in low light?</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for your responses btw! Really do appreciate it.</p>

Gerald: if you use the DX crop of an FX camera, you'll get low-light performance like a DX

camera. You're throwing away more than half the light that's hitting the sensor (at the same

ISO and other settings) - that the bigger sensor captures more light is the reason FX has a low

light advantage, and in DX crop that area is unused. Thought obv another way, you've got the

same noise, but in DX mode it takes up more of the image area, so it's more visible. If you

want FX for low light, you need full frame lenses.

 

The D610's autofocus (like the D7000's) is far from state of the art. Better than the D3200, but

very cloistered in the middle of the FX frame. I'd go with the D750 if you possibly can - or the

D7200 with fast lenses. Good luck.

<blockquote>

<p>I also plan to get a FF rather than a D7200 because I want to get something that I'll use and like for a number of years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And is there any specific reason that makes FF more likeable than APS-C? ;-) Sure there is nothing wrong with getting Full Frame, but the internet likes to overstate how full frame makes some sort of holy grail; it isn't.<br>

Frankly, the mindset that the sensorsize is limiting you for low light and AF is mistaken. The current generation APS-C cameras perform very good in low light, the advantage that FF holds isn't that large. The D3200 should actually be fine in low light, in terms of noise/colour accuracy. It's a sensor that should do well up to ISO3200 without massive problems, and that is already seriously low light.<br>

The AF system in the D3200 has its limits, but I've used it in an older incarnation (D80) and it isn't that bad either. Yes, it isn't as fast to acquire focus as the AF system found in the D7200 or D750, but certainly using the central AF point, it manages quite OK. It sure isn't terribly sluggish. Tracking focus, a lot less performant - so the biggest gain, in my view, would be there. But, reading between the lines, this isn't your problem - it's the initial focus.</p>

<p>Often, though, people perceive cameras as performing mediocre in low light when in fact the light isn't much good. All natural light indoors quite often can mean flat, dull, low-contrast light. And that low contrast is also what makes AF struggle; it also introduces noise in photos that otherwise are at ISOs where the camera can deliver practically noise-free images. And frankly, it is a type of light that tends to not render the most pleasing images. The solution isn't a different body, but improve the quality of light. Something like a SB700 or SB8910 solves more of the problem.<br>

I am not saying this is exactly your problem, but given your description, I would not rule it out. A D7200 still makes sense (given your lenses, a lot more sense than FF - lenses first, then the FF body), but I'd first study properly the circumstances when the D3200 lets you down, because you may find that upgrading to a D7200 isn't solving anything, and that would feel like sour money. Better first understand the root cause, and then fix the right thing.</p>

<p>Oops. "obv" = "of" and "cloistered" = "clustered". Damnyouautocorrect.<br />

<br />

Software updates on newer bodies have had an effect on autofocus, but I'd still hope that the central focus point is reasonably performant on a D3200 - it's very much a consumer autofocus system, but it's still recent. The autofocus performance has nothing to do with full frame vs DX crop (witness what the 7DII can do); Nikon's high-end autofocus system has remained largely unchanged since its introduction on the D300/D3, and although there are minor improvements (including slightly lower light and smaller aperture), the D750 version is pretty much the same as the D7200's (and D7100's). Even the D5300 has pretty decent autofocus, matching the D7000, D610 and Df. The one caveat to "FX makes no difference" is that the AF sensor coverage is similar in the two formats, which means they're clustered in the centre of the FX frame. If you're matching the depth of field by using a larger aperture on DX, that means the AF sensors get more light. That's a subtlety that is probably not going to affect you, but I thought I'd mention it - it would be relevant if comparing the 18-35 f/1.8 to the 24-70 f/2.8, for example - or if you decided that your depth of field control from the 17-55 f/2.8 was sufficient, and went to the slower 24-85 VR on FX to save money, rather than the 24-70.<br />

<br />

I'm a little worried if the 17-55 is that slow to focus. The 55-300 I'd expect to be slow, and the 50mm isn't that fast either, but those are the lens, not the body. I note that the going rate for a 17-55 isn't that much different to the 24-70, so you might not be as much out of pocket as you'd think (though you'd be looking at replacing the 55-300 as well at some point - probably with whichever of the 70-300 and 80-400 you feel you can afford at the time). <br />

<br />

Wouter is right that nothing will focus well given a low-contrast target, though. Worth checking.</p>

<p>Far better to get a 7200 or even 7100, and only make the jump to FF if you see serious shortcomings with those.</p>

<p>Well, if Gerald wants a pro zoom that covers the range of the 24-70 (i.e. the 18-35 f/1.8 Sigma won't cut it), full frame <i>will</i> give him better low-light performance (at the cost of shallower depth of field) - in terms of noise, not so much in terms of autofocus. There's no DX lens with the same range that's fast enough to make the difference; the closest for crop sensor cameras are the Sigma 18-35, which is short, and the Samsung 16-50 f/2-2.8, which is only sometimes fast enough and is in the wrong mount. (And the 24-35 f/2 full-frame is coming, if that's of interest.) So if noise is really a problem, full frame <i>will</i> help. For autofocus, the 7200 or 7100 is, as you say, going to do the same job and have better coverage of the frame.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So if noise is really a problem, full frame <em>will</em> help.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not always, it depends on the root cause of the noise. Flat, cold low-contrast light can leave very ugly looking muddy-grey noise in monotone colours, independent of ISO. Massive underexposure - same thing. The high ISO benefit of FX is real, but given where DX is today (good ISO3200, acceptable ISO6400), it's debatable how big that advantage is <em>in real life</em>. The solution isn't always throwing a newer camera or a larger sensor at it.<br>

Maybe if the OP could put up an example of a photo he finds unacceptable due to high ISO performance with full EXIF data, it could be easier to pin down what would work and what wouldn't.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Far better to get a 7200 or even 7100, and only make the jump to FF if you see serious shortcomings with those.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Definitely, and the D7200 has considerably better high ISO results than the D7100. If that is what you are after, I favor the D7200.</p>

<p>I wouldn't buy an FX body unless you have a few matching FX lenses, or at least you will be getting those lenses in the next few weeks. Digital cameras depreciate rapidly. There is no point to buy for the future. In another year or two, something much better and cheaper will come to the market.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for the input guys. It is very much appreciated.<br>

I did my research on the D7200 and it seems pretty good which was out of what I expected. As for DX being good in ISO 3200, it probably is on the D7200, but definitely not the D3200. I had this mindset where the AF on a crop isn't as fast / as good as what's on a FF, but I guess I was wrong. The amount of noise / color noise is noticeably more obvious on the D3200 as compared to the D7200 especially in black / dark areas. There's also this link I found that shows the difference in noise: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_d3200&attr13_1=nikon_d750&attr13_2=nikon_d7200&attr13_3=nikon_d610&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.8546513639771612&y=-0.15960598525124337</p>

<p>The main reason why I felt the need to change my camera was mainly because there were a lot of shots I missed due to focus hunting. But having the extra stop or two in addition to the AF would definitely be much better. As for the price different between the D750 and D7200, it's pretty signifcant, the D7200 being ~2k cheaper (MYR) than the D750 which is priced at ~5.8k. But is the D750 worth upgrading to full frame for? Or should I stick with the D7200. </p>

<p>As for lenses, I'm definitely looking into getting a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 regardless whether or not I'm upgrading my body. The 55-300 is something I'm definitely changing and looking to change when the time comes. Also one more thing is that the 17-55 sells used for ~600USD here while a used 24-70 goes for about 2x the price, which is ~1200USD. So it would be quite a lot of money coming out of my pocket to change the 17-55 for a 24-70. </p>

<p>But a FF has this big appeal to it and I guess it's sort of an ego thing as well. I'm definitely not dismissing getting the D7200 now, but is the D750 more worth it in the long run? I mean I would definitely be a freelance photographer, but I doubt I'll be doing it professionally. </p>

<p>I do make do with what I have and try to make the best out of it and I'm not just upgrading from the D3200 because I want better gears, but it's more to I want better gears to be able to get more shots and miss less shots. Here's some photos of concerts/live shows that I took using the D3200.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xerixe/sets/72157633741708019</p>

<p>Well, if we're measuring differences, there's <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3200-versus-Nikon-D750-versus-Nikon-D7200___801_975_1020">DxOMark's view</a>.<br />

<br />

The D750 is an extremely good camera, and not uncompetitively priced. You seem set on wanting to upgrade to FX, so we might be fighting to talk you out of it. The handling is not dissimilar from the D7200, too. I would strongly suggest trying both in a store - they will handle very differently from a D3200, and you may find you hate it, or massively prefer one. Do bear in mind the clustering of the AF points in the middle of the FX frame when you have a look - but the finder view will also be larger and brighter. That said, the D7200 is a heck of a camera too, a little closer to what you're used to, and won't cost you so much in replacement lenses.<br />

<br />

On the 70-200 front, even that's not clear. The previous (VR 1) version of the 70-200 f/2.8 is still an extremely good lens whose biggest weakness is that the corners are soft at 200mm on full frame. I'd never recommend one to someone shooting on a full-frame camera, but it can be a good money saving if you're staying with DX. It also arguably has nicer bokeh than the new one, and doesn't have the focus breathing issue to the same extent (on the VR 2, "200mm" isn't 200mm when focussed closely).<br />

<br />

I'm not personally blown away by the 24-70 - I think it's one of Nikon's weaker pro lenses, and due for replacement (though who knows when that will happen). But I see that it's a priority if you're doing events on full frame. Maybe it's worth looking out for a used Tamron 24-70 VC? It's not quite as sharp (according to some tests) as the Nikkor, but it's close and it's stabilised. I appreciate that the Nikkor 24-70 is quite a lot of money, though - one reason I don't own one myself. By all accounts the Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR is pretty good (if not quite a 24-70), though - so if you can live without f/2.8 at the long end (and if you're already talking about a 70-200 f/2.8 and have a 50mm) it might be good enough.<br />

<br />

You're talking about a very big jump from a D3200, with all of these. I don't want to dismiss you or say you should earn your way up by buying a D5x00 series first, but I do think you might want to hire a body before you're committed to it. Or at least have a long play in a store. I find reading the manual online useful, too. Good luck.</p>

<p>

Does the 7200 perform pretty well in low light? You mentioned that the 7200 has better AF, does it mean it can acquire focus as well, if not better than the D610 in low light?

</p>

<p>The D7200 smokes the D610 when it comes to low light focus. I have a D7100, the previous version, and it can actually focus by moonlight! I did a lot of night photography with it. As has been pointed out, the camera is the cheapest thing. When I added a D800E (wanted more pixels to make huge enlargements), I ended up spending over $5,000 in the lenses needed to really make the switch worthwhile. The AF on the D7100 is a bit better in low light than it is on the D800E.</p>

<p>If low light is your thing, you have the wrong system. Rather than simply buying a D610 and then crippling it by using your current lenses, I'd suggest you buy either a used D7100 or refurb D7200. Right there you have bumped up the AF to Nikon's best. Next, depending on what you shoot go for used copies of either Sigma's f1.8 or Nikon's f2.8 zooms, or a few f1.8G lenses. This would be far more cost effective than buying a new D750 and then the lenses for something like that. I'd suggest D7100, Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, Nikon 50mm f1.8G, and a used Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR1. If you aren't earning income from the photo gear, I'd advise against getting all f2.8 zooms. Besides, they are very bulky and heavy--no fun at all to carry. FWIW, the difference in ISO that I've noticed between D7100 and D800E was about one stop. For this I spent over $6,000, all used gear. I bought the camera & lenses for the ability to make 30x40 inch enlargements more than anything else. If you don't do much of that, I have no doubt you'd be better off with the system I mentioned above. When it comes to camera gear, it's not just the camera, it's the ENTIRE SYSTEM that produces the image. Lenses are the most important part.</p>

<p>I'll add that for over two years I did weddings with a pair of D7100, Nikons 17-55mm f2.8 & 70-200mm f2.8 VR1, and x2 SB-900 flash. You will be astonished at the difference in AF performance with the D7100 or D7200 over what you have. The 70-200mm f2.8 VR1 is a no-brainer for weddings, not sure what "events" you are talking about here.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>

I also plan to get a FF rather than a D7200 because I want to get something that I'll use and like for a number of years. I mean you can probably almost take the exact same shots in DX vs FX, but based on the D3200, I have this somewhat mindset that DX performs quite poorly in low light and tends to take a while to acquire focus. I mean the extra 1-2 stops of ISO would definitely be useful.

</p>

<p>I'll address this separately. Instead of buying a camera and hanging on to it for years and years, as I did with 4x5, my strategy now is to buy used or refurb cameras and stay about half a model behind to save money (i.e. I have a D800E I paid $1,500 for instead of the D810 @ $3,000). That way I'm not paying full price and have less money tied up in gear. I don't earn enough from photo sales to justify spending $3,000 on a new camera every two years and then losing half of that to depreciation. I let someone ELSE take the depreciation hit and buy it from them. I've concentrated my money into buying the VERY BEST lenses and flash available, as lenses make the single biggest difference. These lenses & flash constitute the core of my SYSTEM, and I simply plug a new (bought used) camera into this system every couple of years. This way, I always have a fairly current camera at the lowest amount $$ tied up in it.</p>

<p>DX does not perform "poorly" in low light. It's the AF on your current camera that is struggling. If you buy a used D7100/D7200, you will have a dramatically better AF--as good as any Nikon offers. The money saved will buy you a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 which is a stop & half faster than your current f2.8. That effectively negates the gain you would have from spending $4,000 on an FX system. The AF on the DX D7100 is noticeably faster than the AF on the FX D800, D600, D610 in low light. Personal experience. The D750 will match the D7200 in low light focus speed but at higher cost. Depending on what events you are shooting, and if you are getting PAID, you of course need two bodies, not one.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>+1 to what they said - d7200 is your way to go. I would also add the suggestion of then using the saved money on a flash or two and perhaps some classes - these things will give you much stronger ROI than any FX body you buy.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot guys! Based on your replies, I think I will most likely get the D7200 instead along with a 70-200 2.8 VR1 or a 18-35 f/1.8. Maybe even both. </p>

<p>You guys are amazing. Thanks again!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The money saved will buy you a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 which is a stop & half faster than your current f2.8. That effectively negates the gain you would have from spending $4,000 on an FX system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>right, because you get those stops back. im always amazed at how little people think of practicality when it comes to buying gear. the notion that an FX body saves all is just incorrect.</p>

<p>Eric--</p>

<p>Most people look at photography as mostly being about a camera. I look at it as a SYSTEM. I put together a system that will do what I want in the most efficient way.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>For completeness, I'm obliged to point out that the 18-35 is FX-equivalent in field of view to 27-53mm. That's an appreciably smaller range than the 24-70. It by all accounts behaves really well, and if that range is enough for you, you're sorted - but it's not quite the "very wide to moderate telephoto" that a 24-70 can give you. It <i>is</i> somewhat less restrictive than the 24-35 f/2 full-frame lens that Sigma just announced (which is a zoom that gives you more subject isolation than any DX zoom), so you pay your money and take your choice. Having the 50mm in your repertoire arguably helps a bit, but the 35mm-70mm gap is substantial, so I might be looking at the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 as an alternative to the 70-200 unless I really needed the reach. HTH.</p>

<p>If you can order from the U.S., the D100 factory refurbished can be found for around US$700. You should be able to produce good results covering events with a D7100 + 17-55, but if you are shooting fast and continuously, the buffer is inadequate, fills up very quickly. The D7200 has a larger buffer and the latest AF system. Its US$1200 at this time. The D610 factory refurbished is selling for around $1,000, less then the D7200, but you would need new (FX) lenses. Its a viable move for event shooting. I use an AF-D 28-105 on FX cameras to cover events, I am a FT working photographer doing press work as well as business and other events. Its a very good lens that you can find on eBay and elsewhere for less than $200.</p>