Retired - need recs. for good retirement camera - D7200 (?)

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

I have a lot of cameras, but getting a little long in the tooth right now; D80 with 16-85 lens; D700 with 28-105, and Panasonic LX7 (good travel/hiking light weight). Basically I'm "fine art" documentary type photography. What I'd like is a good up-to-date camera, smaller and lighter than the D700, to carry me through the next ten years (assuming I last that long).<br>

The D7200 with the new 16-80 lens is what comes to mind and pair it with the LX7 (prefer this to cell phone as a point-and-shoot for candid street). Right now, strange as it seems, the D500 combo with the 16-80 is about the same price as the D7200/16-80.<br>

The other alternative is buy a 24-120 VR for the D700 but then we're big, heavy, loud, and obvious. FWIW, I have plans to hike the Gila Wilderness area in New Mexico summer 2017 so weight is a major concern.<br>

I'm open to opinions and suggestions. Thanks.<br>

Gene</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Right now, strange as it seems, the D500 combo with the 16-80 is about the same price as the D7200/16-80.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's because the D500/16-80 combo currently has two discounts on it, $200 on the camera body and about $470 on the lens; but it is still $2397 vs $2064. Another alternative maybe the D750 with 24-120, also on discount for quite some time and about $100 cheaper than the D500/16-80 combo.</p>

<p>Personally, I think the 16-80 is a better lens than the 24-120 (and also the 16-85). And the D7200 does better in terms of DR at low ISO than the D500 (but not as good past ISO 800). Being FX, the D750 has advantages in high ISO performance over DX cameras. Pick whichever combo suits your style best.</p>

<p>Also deeply discounted is the D810/24-120 combo (but at $3197 still dearer than any of the option mentioned so far).</p>

<p>The D750 and the D810 are most likely due for updates in 2017, the D7200 might be too; the D500 is barely 1 year old now.</p>

<p>You probably are aware of this, but do check for compatibility of any older autofocus lenses with whatever new body you buy. Some of the newer bodies do not support the older focus-in-the-body 'screw' lenses</p>

<p>I'd rule out the D500 - it's chunky for what it is, and its considerable strengths are with moving subjects (sports and wildlife). It sounds as though that's not your priority.<br />

<br />

The D7200 is probably the obvious choice, unless you want to save money and get a D7100 (the differences are small if you don't need speed). I don't shoot DX, so I can't vouch for the DX lenses, but I do have the 24-120 for my D810, and it's not as small as you might hope. If you do go the FX route, the 24-120 is 104mm long and 710g, for $1097 (a figure that just made me cry because I happened to look up the UK price first); I'd also consider the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 is 108mm long and 825g, at $1300 (though currently it's about £160 <i>cheaper</i> than the Nikkor in the UK, probably because Tamron hasn't spoken to my local shop about Brexit yet, so shop around just in case). I find the Tamron optically <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Zoom-Nikkor-24-85mm-F35-45G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D810-versus-AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-24-120mm-f-3.5-5.6G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D810__885_963_814_963_176_963">better</a> (though it could do with losing a stop or two at the long end) as well as being a stop faster; obviously it has less reach in return. If you can live with a smaller aperture, the 24-85mm is half the weight and price, and keeps the 24-120 pretty honest (I possibly should have got one instead of the 24-120, but I panicked).<br />

<br />

A D750 is quite a bit lighter than a D700, to the extent that it feels like a toy to me, but as other have said it's getting old (which might mean you want the replacement or might mean you want to save money on the old one...), and you won't get down to the weight of a D7200 system with it. These models have similar handling - the D500 and D8x0 are similar to the D700, and have quite a different interface. Try before you buy, but they're both very capable. (The D810 is a bit lighter than the D700 and, unlike the D800, surprisingly quiet, but way more expensive than the other models we've discussed.) Good luck!</p>

<p>Here's what I did: Switched to Micro 4/3 because it's so much smaller and lighter.</p>

<p>Nikon DSLR and a bunch of lenses sold and selling on eBay.</p>

<p>And, when my Micro 4/3 is too big, I have a Sony RX100 IV.</p>

<p>I did what Marc did and am delighted with my EM-5.<br /><br />That said, if I were the OP, used to Nikon, and retired, I'd treat myself to the D750/24-120 and add a 50 f1.8 or something later on. Life is short, enjoy it.</p>

<p>Well, I second the RX100 series as a back-up camera (I have the original, whose lens is less good but more flexible - and importantly it's a lot cheaper...) but I assume we're talking about the DSLR/lens combo in the context of also occasionally using it with other lenses, which rules out compact-only. Micro 4/3 is increasingly capable, but I'd still be a little nervous about the format for "fine art", at least without bulking up the lenses and possibly body. There are those that would say the same of anything short of medium format, though, so it depends what you consider acceptable.</p>

<p>First, don't believe anything you've been told about retirement - it's all a pack of lies. Retirement is way better than anything you've heard.<br /><br />Considering what you shoot and your preferences regarding size and weight, a DX camera is clearly a better choice for you than FX. I think a 4/3 system will leave you wishing for better low light performance. The question then boils down to which DX body.<br /><br />I'm not familiar with the layout of controls on the D700 body, but I suspect that is fairly similar to the D80. The control layout on a D500 will seem like a foreign language to you, at least to start with. If you plan to keep your current gear, switching between cameras could become a bit of a hassle because of the control differences. All that hassle is worthwhile if the D500 offers you something valuable to you, but the best features of the D500 are suited to sports and wildlife shooting - moving subjects - and that doesn't appear to be what you need.<br /><br />The D3xxx and D5xxx operate differently from the cameras you have and I expect you'd find the differences very restrictive and cumbersome. That leads to the D7200, or as already said, maybe a D7100. The sensor+processor in the 7200 gives it an advantage at higher ISOs, but it doesn't seem likely that you'd notice it also has a larger buffer than the 7100. But my recommendation would be to buy for the future, making the 7200 my suggestion as the better choice.<br /><br />If you think the faster 16-80 is something you'd prefer to your 16-85, then I'd look at kit prices - you'd undoubtedly save some money buying a 7200&16-80 as a set than getting them separately. But if there's no real saving buying them as a kit, you might try the 7200 body with the 16-85 you now have to see if that setup leaves you longing for the 16-80. You might save the cost of the 16-80, which would be money you could spend travelling to new places to photograph.</p>

<blockquote>I'm not familiar with the layout of controls on the D700 body, but I suspect that is fairly similar to the D80.</blockquote>

 

<p>It's not <i>that</i> similar. The D700 is almost identical to a slightly fat D300, meaning the D500 is the closest modern DX body in handling. That said, I had a D700 and D800 at the same time, and the switched + and - buttons meant I was forever zooming wrongly when chimping. I do think Gene would find the D500 the most familiar camera of the DX family, I just don't think it's worth the fact that a D500 is 860g with card and battery to get there (compared with 675g for the D7200). The D700 is 995g without battery (the D810 splits the difference between it and the D500). The D750 is actually lighter than the D500, although lenses come into play. The D5x00 and D3x00 series are even lighter, but I'd prefer the handling benefits of the bigger cameras, and there comes a point where it helps you hold the camera steady - it's not going to fit in a pocket anyway.<br />

<br />

We're still talking dual-dial cameras for everything above the D5000 series, so none of these are likely to compromise you much on handling (I agree with Bob that the single-dial cameras will get annoying fast if you're used to more), but there are differences between the families. The D750, D7x00 and D6x0 have mode dials like the D80 rather than a mode button, for example. It'll take a little getting used to if you've been shooting the D700 a lot, but not nearly as much as moving systems, and frankly enough has moved since the D700 that even a D810 or D500 is going to cause some disconnect. So I agree, D7200 unless you want to save a little on a D7100. But for goodness sake try it in a store in case you hate it! As well as being lighter, the D7x00 is a lot smaller than the D700 (though slightly bigger and heavier than the D80), so check you're not going to get finger cramp. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the 24-85mm is half the weight and price, and keeps the 24-120 pretty honest</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In your link, you compared to the old, variable-aperture 24-120. With the f/4 version, it's close but from other sites and tests, the 24-120 usually rates a bit higher; its main issue is the obvious decrease in optical quality as the focal length increases to 85 and beyond. That and the obvious price and weight difference were the main reason I went for the 24-85 (which to me isn't more than a gap filler between the 16-35 and 70-200).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>want to save money and get a D7100 (the differences are small if you don't need speed)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>FWIW, the D7100 with 18-140 (or 16-85) is my choice for "walkaround". That's instead of carrying the 24-85 on an FX body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>layout of controls on the D700 body, but I suspect that is fairly similar to the D80</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Andrew already pointed out, the D80 is a lot closer to the D7x000 and D6x0/D750 control layout than to the D200/D300/D700 one, the latter being similar to how things are arranged on the D500/D800/D800E/D810 (though there are differences that make using them side-by-side a bit frustrating).</p>

<p>16-80 vs 16-85: while the latter is doing quite fine on a 12MP or 16MP body, weaknesses start to show on 21/24MP bodies. The 16-80 clearly is better in every aspect.</p>

<p>D7200/16-80 kit: to the best of my knowledge, none available in the US at the moment. The kit lens for the D7100/D7200 is the 18-140.</p>

<p>Having read the entire thread again, it appears that there are two choices:<br>

<br /> D7200 (or D7100) with 16-80 (or keeping the 16-85)<br /> D750 with 24-85.<br>

<br /> Here, weight and size are almost the same, with a slight (100g or less) "disadvantage" for the FX solution.<br>

<br /> To get the equivalent reach to the DX solution, the 24-120 would be required, which increases the FX disadvantage to about 2/3 of a pound in weight. Because of the rebate for the latter, a D750/24-85 or D750/24-120 cost almost the same.<br>

<br /> Compared to the DX setup, a m4/3 solution consisting of E-M1 and 12-40/2.8 weighs and costs considerably less ($1300), and advantage that can easily be turned upside down when opting for the E-M1 MkII, which despite the rebate on the 12-40 ends up being the most costly of the options discussed in this post. It also has the disadvantage of providing the narrowest range of focal lengths.</p>

<p>Dieter,<br /><br />in the µ43 arena, though, the EM-5 mk II might be a better option than either the EM-1 or the EM-1 mk II (which is too expensive imho). And lets not forget the excellent panasonic options.</p>

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

Thanks for all the prompt responses. I have checked out M 4/3 and I'm sure its IQ is great, but I have a hard time with its buttons and menus. I forgot to mention that I have Nikon primes, from 24 to 200 mm, some AIS and some AFD so it makes economic sense to stay in the Nikon camp. I hadn't considered the 24-85 VR but it sounds like I should. I had checked out the 24-120 at Best Buy and, yes, it seems big. So we come down to D7200/16-80 or D750/24-85. I think either one will be a good (relatively) light-weight travel/backpacker kit. Probably should go with the FX. Again, thanks for the comments and will be posting images when I travel.</p>

<p>I very recently replaced my DX/FX combo of D300 & D700 with a D7200 & D750 combo.<br>

Both were refurbished cameras. I have bought refurbished equipment several times and always been happy with it. And happy with the price.<br>

I got the 16-80 f/2.8-4 VR for the D7200. It is an incredibly good pairing.<br>

<br />One of the main reasons for those two combos was the common batteries/chargers and memory cards.</p>

 

<p>I would go with the D7200 if I had to choose between those two. It's more compact and cheaper. My camera strategy has been this. Get a set of the very best (not merely good) lenses available, and top notch tripod & ballhead, and into this system foundation plug a used camera every few years. Cameras have become disposable, like photos and computers. I'll offer another route without getting into M43. <br /> Nikon D5300--same sensor as D7200, more compact, lighter, less money.<br /> Lenses: Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS HSM, Nikon 85mm f1.8G. Compact excellence with fast glass.<br /> Tripod: Sirui ET-2204 Carbon Fiber Tripod, with ballhead. Lightweight and capable.<br /> Software: Adobe Photoshop Elements. Software is now about half of photography.<br /> Waist type camera bag, spare battery, maybe a small flash.<br /> <br /> The above will do what you want with better quality and less bulk. Instead of thinking "camera," I always think SYSTEM. In the end, the camera is the least important thing in photography.<br /> <br /> Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Probably should go with the FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most certainly, given the other lenses you own. Provided you are going to use them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I hadn't considered the 24-85 VR but it sounds like I should.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are going for the D750, then the 24-85 should only be considered an option to save weight over the 24-120.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D7200/16-80 or D750/24-85</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rather interesting that it boils down to this duo (even though the 24-120 would be the better equivalence" choice to the 16-80). Almost the same price (with the 24-120 currently only because of the lens rebate, otherwise it would cost substantially more). Though the full asking price for the 16-80 is also a bit steep IMHO. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>EM-5 mk II might be a better option than either the EM-1 or the EM-1 mk II</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Possibly, I am not really up to speed on the differences. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>lets not forget the excellent panasonic options</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't forget, I just don't know enough about them to make a suggestion. </p>

<p>If you want lightweight and good quality, check Fuji. I got EX-1 and 18-55/ 2.8-4 on sale, since that my Canon gear mostly staying home. </p>

I also got tired of the weight and size of my D700

and D800, and downsized to a D7200. I'm sorry to

report Gene, that the weight and size saving wasn't

that significant. IME it's lens bulk that's the issue.

Put any decent wide aperture zoom on the camera

and you're pretty much back to square one as far

as weight is concerned.

 

 

I'm not saying there's no difference, just that it's not that great compared to a high-end compact or four-thirds, or by simply shooting with one of Nikon's plastic-bodied prime lenses attached. But then you lose VR and flexibility of shooting.

 

However, that said, the D7200 is a great "little" camera.

<p>After 30 years a Nikon user, I sold almost all my Nikon equipment and changed to Fuji X system. No regrets at all. I can now get two bodies, four lenses etc into a fairly small bag. And with advancing age and worsening health, I can actually carry the bag without one shoulder drooping below the other.</p>

<p>The performance, especially image quality, is superb, and prices for top quality equipment are reasonable.</p>

<p>My advice would be to think broadly before deciding your direction.</p>

<p>The Fuji X flagship although smaller than Nikon SLRs is not very small. But there are other smaller versions I find very interesting, too. As Rodeo mentioned, the key is on the lens size.<br /> Be sincere with yourself, and check your needs. Many times a cell phone is more than enough for a snapshot, some times we want higher quality... but maybe you don`t need a full sized DSLR. And a reasonably good camera make wonders on a tripod.<br /> Personally, if I were for a digital camera I`d look for the smallest bulk. Many times I take a film Leica to avoid the size&weight of my D700. DX is still bulkier than film Leicas.</p>

You should look at the Sony a7 series. The a7RII is an excellent camera.

<blockquote>In your link, you compared to the old, variable-aperture 24-120.</blockquote>

 

<p>Oops. That's embarrassing - I thought it looked bad (and the variable aperture 24-120 is famously iffy). I meant <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Zoom-Nikkor-24-85mm-F35-45G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D810-versus-AF-S-NIKKOR-24-120mm-f-4G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D810__885_963_814_963_321_963">this comparison</a>, for reference. I now feel a bit less bad about buying the 24-120, although I stand by my claim that the Tamron is optically better. :-) That at least stops the 24-85 showing up the 24-120 to the same extent.<br />

<br />

For non-retrofocal lenses whose size is dominated by the optics rather than the ergonomics and mechanics (I'm looking at you, 50mm prime lenses with inset front elements), the weight of the lens tends to be dominated by the physical size of the front elements - although length also has an effect. For example, the 400mm f/2.8 FL weighs 3.8kg; the 800mm f/5.6 with the same front element size weighs 4.5kg, and the 600mm f/4 FL with roughly the same front element size (actually slightly larger) also weighs 3.8kg. Simiilarly, the 200mm f/2, 200-400 f/4 and 300mm f/2.8 are all around 3kg. Again for longer lenses, the coverage doesn't tend to affect the lens size much.<br />

<br />

The upshot is that a lens with the same control over depth of field and with the same light gathering capacity tends not to differ much by weight between formats - it just gets longer for bigger sensors. One of the significant reasons that lenses for smaller sensors tend to be lighter is that, once "equivalence" has been taken into account, they're effectively slower than the lenses on larger sensors. If you use a faster lens to compensate, the sizes aren't that different. Of course, there aren't many micro 4/3 zooms that are f/1.4 to match the depth of field of a full-frame f/2.8 lens (though there are some fast primes out there, and in DX land we have the f/1.8 Sigma zooms to consider), but there also aren't many f/8 zooms in FX-land. If there were, they'd be nearly as light as the micro 4/3 f/4 lenses! You <i>can</i> use focal reducers to get back most of the depth of field control by adding a large lens to the micro 4/3 system... but then you've added a large lens. And you can usually teleconvert on FX. :-)<br />

<br />

Anyway, just pointing out that the "lighter" micro 4/3 system isn't a true like-for-like comparison; that's not to say they're not "good enough". The argument is different for wide angles, because mirrorless systems don't have to engineer themselves around the mirror box - although you can't usually go for the tiny wide lenses that some Leicas are used to without having light angle of incidence issues.<br />

<br />

That said, I'm interested to see how many people posting here have gone mirrorless. Nikon should really take note about the leaking customer base.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I forgot to mention that I have Nikon primes, from 24 to 200 mm, some AIS and some AFD so it makes economic sense to stay in the Nikon camp.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Other factors such as cost and weight aside, if it is important to you to continue using those lenses from 24mm to 200mm, AI-S and AF-D, I would get FX, i.e. the D750. Due to the crop factor, those lenses on DX are a bit weird, especially the wide angle ones. Whether those old lenses can still perform well on modern 24MP DSLRs is another topic. I also still have a few of those lenses, but I don't use them any more in favor of modern lenses.</p>

<p>To me, the D7200 is a bit too small. I prefer something like a D750 and D500, but perhaps I am also a bit younger than retirement age.</p>

<p>I'd hope that 16-85 would be compensating for the lack of a DX-equivalent 24mm prime, but it's true that the (non-f/1.4) 24mm primes are relatively tiny in the way that wider DX primes aren't (the mirror means they have to be heavily retrofocal).<br />

<br />

Regarding old glass, I still have a 50mm E-series f/1.8 (bought recently because it's nearly a pancake and much cheaper than the 45mm AI-P) which behaves roughly as well as the bigger AF-D equivalent (awfully wide open, quite well at f/5.6), and an also-tiny 135mm f/2.8 AI, which is pretty good at f/4. Sure, they're not up with the latest and biggest Sigma Art/Zeiss Otus wide open, but they're okay if you don't stress them with aperture; not true of all lenses, of course. I've also just got a 200mm f/4 AI, which is respectably small and optically decent, because it has a 52mm filter thread that matches my astronomy filter. (I've belatedly realised that my 200mm f/2's rear filter is 52mm, but that might be a bit much for my cheap tracking mount...)</p>

<p>So I read yesterday from somewhere in internet that Nikon D3400 has wider dynamic range in base ISO than Nikon Df.</p>

<p>You allready have wide array of camera equipment. D80 and 18-70mm is rather nice kit. D700 and Ai-S primes are there for heavy duty challenge. To make camera lighter but still stay in current Nikon system, I would like to suggest D3400. Or D3300 if You need microphone port for video.</p>