Is the Nikon D750 Ok for a beginner?

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Any good camera is good for beginner. Only bad cameras that don't work well are bad for beginners. Don't worry about having more camera than you need. More features than you need it's possible but those are the low ends which have too many features you don't need and confuse the hell out of the beginners.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>BeBu, i dont think the issue is that the learning curve of the D750 is too steep for a beginner, although there's certainly going to be a steep learning curve there; it's that the d750 with the OP's current lenses isn't the most ideal setup for what she wants to do, for reasons explained above. i understand the psychology of making a theoretical choice and attempting to stick to it, but when advanced photographers are saying, 'mmm, not sure i would make that choice if it were me,' i would listen. for landscape, all you need is a reasonably decent lens which performs well stopped down. for wildlife you need reach and good AF. but wildlife on a budget can lead to compromises, since long FX lenses are expensive in addition to being bulky. if the OP's interest was events/sports and portraiture, i would say get a d750 and keep the current lenses. but since it's not, other options need to be considered. </p>

[michele_anderson2]

<p>You give me a lot to think about. I am a nature lover, and this Winter will be going on a long vacation to a very rural beach town surrounded by several state parks. I hope to shoot pictures of birds, animals, sunsets, flowers, and anything else that strikes me as beautiful. I love close up photography and really miss having a macro lens. Mine broke years ago, and I've not replaced it. I think I'll need a few lenses to cover all of my interests. I feel a little discouraged because I don't have all of the knowledge that all of you do. I don't want to make a mistake since this will be it for me for a very long time. Realistically, I will need a new body and probably 3 lenses. Unless I drop to a very inexpensive setup, buying those four things will probably run into the thousands. It's encouraging to hear that lesser cameras are producing high quality photos. I would be really sad to buy something more affordable and end up never being very pleased with what it puts out once I get good.</p>

[User_2000406]

<blockquote>

<p>I would be really sad to buy something more affordable and end up never being very pleased with what it puts out once I get good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michelle, that applies to lenses as well. As others have noted, the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 Mk. I is not a good lens on today's high-resolution cameras. Conversely, the D7100 and D7200 are not cheap cameras in terms of quality output and you would not regret using them for your kind of photography. I think you are best off following Shun's advice and trading up to new lenses better suited to nature photography.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I use both Nikon D7100 and D800E. I have used the 28-70mm f2.8 and own a 70-200mm f2.8 also. I use these for weddings but always leave them home when doing my own "nature" photography. The 28-70mm type lens is just too heavy to carry around all day. The 70-200mm f2.8 is even heavier AND it's just not long enough for any kind of wildlife photography. For weddings these are the lenses to have though! As for FX or DX, I use both and honestly there just isn't much difference in the image quality in normal shooting. I bought the D800E so I could make very big portrait enlargements, such as 30x40 in. </p>

<p>For most all kinds of photography, the MOST important thing is the lenses. It's the lens that determines what you can photo, and how. My camera is worth ~$1,500, my lenses are worth $6,000+. Think of photo gear as a SYSTEM. It all has to work together, in balance. I rarely buy new cameras--they drop in value SO fast! It's money down the toilet from my POV. I buy and sell camera gear on ebay all the time, can't remember the last thing I bought new. For you, I'd suggest the following: Nikon D7200 refurb, Nikon 18-35mm, used Nikon50mm f1.8G, used Nikon 105mm f2.8 micro, carbon fiber tripod, and a long lens for wildlife. I use a Nikon 80-400mm AFS that I bought used for $2,000. This is about the cheapest lens available that's both really pretty good, relatively light (for 400mm), and relatively inexpensive. To get the same performance as this lens on a D7200 on a D750, you'd have to buy a 600mm f5.6 lens. You'd have to use a cart to haul it around, and you could buy a pretty good used car for what it would cost. For wildlife, you will not beat a D7200 and Nikon 80-400mm AFS. The other key is a first class tripod and pro ballhead. If the tripod is heavy, you will not carry it. A tripod is the single most important thing for sharpness, most of the time. A good lightweight carbon fiber tripod is going to cost around $400, and a good ballhead at least $100. I would much rather have a D7200 and a good tripod than a D750 and a cheap (or no) tripod. The images from the former will be noticeably sharper. There's no way you'll be happy with a 200mm lens for wildlife on a D750. It might be OK on a D7200 because it will perform like a 300mm. If it's the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR, you could get away with a TC14E, which will give you the equivalent of 420mm f4. Thinking about it a bit more, I think a D7200 plus your 200mm plus the TC14E is the best solution for what you want to do. Add GOOD tripod & head, and a couple of more lenses, and you're set!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[michele_anderson2]

<p>I forgot to address the tripod. I actually have a nice Manfrotto tripod that I purchased 10 years ago. So that is one thing I hopefully will not need to replace. :)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I feel a little discouraged because I don't have all of the knowledge that all of you do.</blockquote>

 

<p>I just wanted to say, <i>please</i> don't feel discouraged. We don't always agree, but we're here to help! And photography - at least the technical side - is not magic (aperture, shutter speed, ISO; understand what they do and you'll be fine, and if you don't there are plenty of automated modes). Don't get intimidated, and you'll get there - and better to have a camera that can do all you need than one which can't. Very few of us use every feature on our cameras, at least regularly. And I'm sure your tripod is fine (just don't ask our opinions on clamp design!) That said, it depends what you shoot - I have some nice tripods, but honestly I don't use them for the majority of my shots.<br />

<br />

At the risk of swamping with more information, I wanted to pick up on Bill's statement: I believe the mark-1 70-200 f/2.8 is still a perfectly good lens <i>on a DX camera</i> - it's biggest limitation is what happens to the corners on an FX camera. So if you were to go with a D7200 or similar, from what I've heard, it'll hold up fine. I'd only be worried about it on a D750 - and then, only if you care about the image staying sharp across the whole frame. There's not much to be done about the weight if you want to keep the f/2.8 aperture (which gives you better control over background blur and lets in more light so you can keep the shutter speed up to freeze motion). The new 70-200mm f/4 is lighter and extremely good optically if you don't mind the reduced aperture.<br />

<br />

As others have said, the 70-200 is a little short on the telephoto end if you're expecting to get good shots of wild birds; you might look at the 150-600mm Sigma, which is huge (well, fairly huge), the new Nikon 80-400mm AF-S (which is expensive), or the 300mm f/4 (new or old version), perhaps combined with a TC-14e teleconverter - especially for an FX camera. At least the older (heavier) version of the 300mm f/4 was known for quite close focus (I'm unsure about the new one) so if you're missing a macro, and to avoid us filling the thread recommending one, it's worth thinking about; it's a popular lens for dragonflies, for example, because it has so much working distance. It's not a true macro like the Sigma 150mm if you really want to fill the frame, though. None of these lenses are all that small. The nearest thing to a light lens with enough reach for birding is something like a 70-300mm VR (or Tamron's equivalent VC version), which don't quite reach as far and don't quite have the quality of the other options - but it's better to have a weaker lens with you than to have left the camera behind because it's too heavy. There's no shame in using a superzoom compact camera if it got you the right shot.<br />

<br />

Resident experts: I think I remember one difference between the VR1 and VR2 70-200s being that the VR2 "teleconverts better" (that the older one wasn't very good with the TC-14e). Can anyone comment on that? Just confirming Kent's advice - but I don't have a VR1 to try this out with.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and don't let us scare you off with technobabble.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I hope to shoot pictures of birds, animals, sunsets, flowers, and anything else that strikes me as beautiful. I love close up photography and really miss having a macro lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know what your budget is, but for those subjects and a budget that is not into tens of thousands of dollars, I would look into:</p>

<ol>

<li>D7100 or D7200 body, the D7200 is newer and better, of course</li>

<li>16-85mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR general-purpose lens</li>

<li>70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR starter tele</li>

<li>40mm/f2.8 DX AF-S macro or 60mm/f2.8 AF-S macro</li>

</ol>

<p>300mm is definitely way too short for bird photography, but the 70-300mm should be a good starting point for some wildlife work, and it is not that difficult to handle. Use that for a few months and if you are more serious and realize that you need more reach, think about the Tamron 150-600mm f6.3 zoom. That is a fairly big lens, but it is probably the least expensive way ($1060) to do some serious bird photography. However, 600mm will give you a lot of magnification and will be far more difficult to get everything right.</p>

<p>Eventually you'll need a wider lens for landscape. In that case FX is definitely better. As a starting point, the 16-85 should be fine for a while.</p>

<p>I have both the D7100 and D7200, but I have none of those lenses. I am a serious wildlife photographer and use more advanced equipment.</p>

<p>Needless to say, neither the 28-70mm/f2.8 or 70-200mm/f2.8 would be in my picture. Just because someone gave them to you doesn't necessarily make them good lenses for your purpose. Hopefully you are at liberty to sell them and use the money to purchase what suits you.<br>

<br />P.S. Back in 1972, I was a teenager and bought my first SLR. After some four decades and lots of terrible images, I have learned a few things about photography. Nobody is born with such knowledge. It takes time to learn. The sooner you start to invest some time in it, the sooner you'll get better.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Andrew wrote<em> "I believe the mark-1 70-200 f/2.8 is still a perfectly good lens on a DX camera - it's biggest limitation is what happens to the corners on an FX camera."</em></p>

<p><br /> Yes and no. The first version of the VR 70-200/2.8 was definitely designed and optimized to work best on a DX camera instead of FX or 35mm film, there is more vignetting, more distortion, and corner softness than one would expect in such a high end lens when used on 35mm film or FX DSLRs. On DX the original 70-200/2.8 was excellent other than being distinctly soft at 200mm, f/2.8 especially at near distances. The 70-200/2.8 II basically solved all of these problems but came with its own set of compromises. First, I find the 1st version produced consistently excellent out of focus rendering; by contrast, at mid to long distances I find the second version of the lens causes some harsh out of focus rendering (even ring-like artifacts). Another compromise is that the focal length of the second version is reduced substantially upon close focus. The center sharpness stopped down at long distances is better with the first than with the second version. However the second version does have 1) improved corner sharpness, 2) less distortion, 3) less vignetting, and 4) improved sharpness at f/2.8, particularly at 200mm at close to mid distances, and finally 5) there is much less tendency to flare and ghosting than with the first version. So if you need to use the lens at 200mm, f/2.8 a lot, then even with a DX camera, the second version performs better. However, if you can stop down to f/4 or more, the first version should perform very well on DX. I personally sold the first version after I got an FX camera, and purchased the second version when it became available, but I have to say that if I had known the full picture (of the differences) I would have be more hesitant to sell the first version; it has its own advantages.</p>

<p><em>and think I remember one difference between the VR1 and VR2 70-200s being that the VR2 "teleconverts better" (that the older one wasn't very good with the TC-14e). Can anyone comment on that?</em></p>

<p>Yes, the first version is poor with TCs, whereas the second version is quite decent with the TC-14E II, stopped down to f/5.6. I haven't yet shot with the combination of TC-14E III and 70-200/2.8 II. The TC-20E III combined with the 70-200/2.8 II yields usable results in the near range at f/8, but if the distance is increased to e.g. 10 m or further, the results are in my experience poor. The near distance optimized nature of the 70-200/2.8 II shows up quite clearly when the image is magnified with a 2X TC, but the 1.4X works reasonably well nevertheless, assuming that one is prepared to stop down a bit.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Incidentally, very few zoom lenses work well with teleconverters. You can put a TC-14E on a 70-200mm/f2.8 (either version for TC and lens); that will give you a 280mm/f4 lens, but you need to stop further down to f5.6 to get good results. Spending $2000 to $3000 to get a good 300mm f5.6 doesn't make a whole lot of sense.</p>

[michele_anderson2]

<p>All of your posts have been SO helpful! Thank you for continuing to share your thoughts. After reading all of your comments, I'm now convinced that trading in my current lenses is probably for the best. The weight of them is an issue, and if they aren't the proper lenses for what I enjoy shooting, they will be pretty useless to me anyway. It sounds like they would bring me a fair amount of money to put towards ones that are a better fit. If you believe that the D7200 would truly make me happy, I'm going to start researching those. We have a reputable photo store in my area that is going to have a "tent sale" in a few weeks. They sell refurbished cameras/lenses at that sale. From what I gather, the refurbished cameras/lenses are a good way to go and would give me even more room in my budget for nicer lenses. I am liking what I'm reading about the Tamron 150-600mm for my long lens. I think I'd rather have a macro lens than use a teleconverter though, and I'll need a wide lens for landscapes. My thoughts are this... I would like to get nicely outfitted for $1500 - $2000, if possible. This is my available budget after trading in my two lenses, which according to Eric's estimates could bring me another $2000 or so. Is this budget realistic? I am a person who would rather do things right, even if I have to wait longer, rather than rushing into something that I'd regret later just to get it cheaply. This is probably a stupid question, but is the camera body I'm using now worth anything at all? It works, but not well because it's gotten very slow (I'm sure my batteries are old and worn) but something more may be going on with it. Any additional thoughts or suggestions would be much appreciated. Sorry if I'm posting too much! I have so much to absorb here!</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Michele - I think $2k is a reasonable estimate for the used value of your 28-70 + 70-200, depending on condition. Maybe a range of $1600 - $2000 is fair to expect. However, you might do some research before getting too far along on your budget process. I like to sell my gear on local craigslist, but that is not an option everywhere. To get full value for expensive lenses like yours, you might also have to be patient. Since you are looking to turn your lenses toward other camera gear, it might be worth talking to KEH or another camera dealer about trade-in value. That would be more expeditious than selling the lenses on your own.</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>Michele, I think your thought process is right: figure out what you'd like to use _as if_ you didn't already have those two lenses. <br>

I'd also consider going further afield than Nikon - you may find size to be the 'critical feature' for you. The best way to learn will be to have a camera you're happy to carry around all the time. That might mean the Fuji systems or the m4/3 like the Olympuses (Olympii?). For Olympus, you can get a decent starter kit (EM-5 or EM-10) with lens for about $500. For most purposes, images will be great. (I use a d750 but have also picked up an Olympus due to weight/convenience and lifestyle changes - the Olympus is getting a _lot_ more use right now).<br>

And you're quite to go slow. Buy stuff when you need it (and know you need it), not to meet some idea of a 'complete kit.' This is true especially for bigger and heavier equipment. You can rent equipment, like the exotic lenses, and if you're only going to use from time to time, that can be a lot more effective. You might find that the type of nature activities (including photography) you enjoy don't fit well with large lenses for 'birding' - nothing wrong with that.<br>

You can decide later if you'd like to spend the money on travel or lessons or whatever 'photography related' equipment or activities. And I also wouldn't worry too much about changing systems later - if your tastes and needs change later, deal with that then.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>If you know that your interest in photography is not a flash in the pan, and if you know that you can handle full-frame cameras and lenses in terms of weight, then I would go ahead and get the best that I could get--and that, in my opinion, would be full frame.</p>

<p>I spent a lot of years building up my collection starting with inferior cameras and lenses. I would have saved a lot of money if I had started with the best that I could have afforded. I wound up buying it later anyway.</p>

<p>That said, most of us who shoot full-frame also shoot at least one crop sensor camera.</p>

<p>I really don't think that you can go wrong with either option. I simply enjoy the low-light, high ISO power that full frame gives. It almost completely frees me from the need for flashes with the kinds of subjects I like to shoot. It's great that you already have a good tripod. Consider a quick-release ball-head mount system for it if you do not have one already.</p>

<p>Good luck to you, and let us know what you get!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks for clarifying about the 70-200 differences, Ilkka. I've learnt a bit about that lens and will be more hesitant about recommending it to DX shooters now! (With, as you say, a share of concerns about the new one too. There's no perfect lens.)<br />

<br />

Michele: I would definitely suggest trying out a 150-600 before buying it - from my experience with an old 150-500, they're not small (the similarly-sized 50-500mm Sigma used to be called the "Bigma"), and if the size of a 70-200 bothers you, that will too. On a DX camera like the D7200, a 300mm lens may well be enough for your needs; you are more likely to need a longer lens to fill the frame if you have an FX camera like the DCS 14n or the D750 (although you can always crop). But the same is true for the bigger cameras in general, even though the D750 is small for an FX camera. All I can say is try everything you can in person, and as Greg suggested, don't buy something until you know you want it (we're all different, I don't have or feel the need for a 28-70 equivalent at all).</p>

 

<blockquote>That said, most of us who shoot full-frame also shoot at least one crop sensor camera.</blockquote>

 

<p>Just to be the exception, I don't. Well, I have (and very rarely use) a Nikon 1 system and a micro 4/3 system, but I don't own any DX Nikon cameras. (I do have an old crop-sensor Canon, though.) Good luck with your experiments!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> I hope to shoot pictures of birds, animals, sunsets, flowers, and anything else that strikes me as beautiful. I love close up photography and really miss having a macro lens. Mine broke years ago, and I've not replaced it. I think I'll need a few lenses to cover all of my interests.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>as i said earlier, selling the lenses you have now could bring you a couple grand toward newer lenses, or at least different lenses which more fit what you want to do. a total budget of 4 grand, counting what you had already projected toward a body, can get you a pretty decent kit in a number of different formats. choosing what brand/sensor format is the tough part, because it will determine your future outlays. <br>

<br>

the X factor here is how much you are willing to spend on longer lenses for wildlife and whether you want to prioritize that. if so, then Nikon DX or m4/3 make the most sense for someone on a modest budget. but you have to think carefully about your ideal lens selection, which might take years to complete, based on cost, if you choose Nikon. if you go M4/3, it's possible to get a more complete kit right now with your budget, including a telephoto zoom and macro lens (Olympus reportedly makes a crackerjack 60mm macro, which would be stabilized when paired with an E-M5, so that's good news for handheld close-ups), IF you go with the E-M5, since instead of $1200 or $2000 on a body, you'll be spending $500, which leaves up to $3500 for lenses. A D7200 would give you better AF for birds and such, but you dont get in-body stabilization nor as much weight savings. so it's a tradeoff. if you didn't have the telephoto requirement, i would probably recommend a Fuji XT1 kit, but Fuji doesnt currently make a lens which goes to 300mm.<br>

<br>

if you stay with Nikon, your upgrade path for wildlife could conceivably be 70-300 VR > 80-400 VR (you can get a non-VR 80-400 for less, but that could be a difficult lens to master without stabilization). IMO, it doesnt make sense right now to plop down $2700 on a single lens right now, but conceivably, that could be a future purchase once you've mastered the learning curve of a new camera system. New Nikon macro lenses are as cheap as $300, and they are plentiful on the used market.<br>

<br>

at this point, your best option is to try to physically handle some of these bodies and see which one feels best to you. maybe make a chart with lens options and do a point by point cost-benefit analysis. you dont have to get it all in one shot, but it's helpful to at least have an idea of where you want to be as far as a kit in say 5 years. of course, by that time, any body you choose will be considered old technology, so you have to ask yourself if the body is good enough to where you can see yourself owning it five years from now. if you can wait, you may want to sell your lenses now and see what Nikon is coming out with in the next six months, which should at least cause current bodies to drop a bit in price.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br>

Is this budget realistic? </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

yes and no. there's always more money you can dump into cameras and gear. if you're estimating $2k for lenses, apart from the cost of a body, price it out yourself and see what you can get for that. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Re: quality of lenses. For use on any 24MP body, I would not recommend the 70-300VR - that lens' quality drops quite a bit between 200-300mm - and if used for wildlife, that's where most of the shooting will take place. It makes more sense to look for a used 300/4 AF-S (I am not talking about the new PF lens) instead. The already mentioned Tamron 150-600 is also a good option - I read a lot of good things about it. ANY lens with a range of 80/100-400/600 will be heavy - usually about the same as the 70-200/2.8 or very close to it (i.e. about 1.5kg).<br>

<br />I agree that the 28-70 and the 70-200 are not good choices for nature and wildlife. Given the budget, the Tamron 150-600 appears indeed a valid choice - or as an alternative the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary (as opposed to the much pricier and heavier Sports version). For macro, working distance is key - one can get close to flowers easily but insects etc are a different story. So going with the 40mm or 60mm Shun suggested works well for the flowers, not so much for the insects. A macro in the range of 90 to 105 might be better. For DX, there's a 85/3.5 VR - gets decent reviews but given that used FX 105/2.8 can be had for a little more, the latter might be preferred. Of course, there are excellent third party options as well - it's quite hard to find a "bad" macro lens.<br>

<br />A D750 costs about $800 more than a D7200 - and only Michele can decide if that extra money is worth it. FX will have an advantage on the wide-angle side of things, and at least for the time being, DX still has some on the tele end. Naturally, FX wins on the ISO front.</p>

<p>If the decision is for DX - then I second Shun's suggestion to start with a 16-85 - preferably used as the price new is a tad high. And then possibly add a wide-angle zoom later. If FX - then the current combo price of D750 with 24-120 is hard to beat.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> For use on any 24MP body, I would not recommend the 70-300VR - that lens' quality drops quite a bit between 200-300mm - and if used for wildlife, that's where most of the shooting will take place. It makes more sense to look for a used 300/4 AF-S (I am not talking about the new PF lens) instead. The already mentioned Tamron 150-600 is also a good option - I read a lot of good things about it. ANY lens with a range of 80/100-400/600 will be heavy - usually about the same as the 70-200/2.8 or very close to it (i.e. about 1.5kg).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i was thinking of the 70-300 as a starting point, just to get the OP out in the field, not necessarily the ultimate be-all/end-all lens. FWIW, the tamron 70-300 VC is a bit sharper in the corners than the nikon version at longer focal ranges. Photozone tested it on a D3x body, which is 24mp FX, so the corners should be even better on a D7200. i have that lens and have no complaints about it optically, although i havent used it personally on a 24mp body. mechanically, the zoom ring is a little clunky but overall it meets or surpasses expectation for a consumer lens. it might make sense to buy used here if the lens is going to be dumped in a year or two for something longer, to avoid the depreciation hit. <br>

<br>

A 300/4 AF-S is almost $1400 new, so this might be a second-round lens, and even then, the OP might prefer the 80-400 or the 150-600. i concur an 16-85 would be a good outdoor general purpose/landscape lens for DX, although i'd still want an ultrawide, a telephoto, and possibly a macro. regarding macro, the 85 would be a better choice for DX users planning on shooting handheld a lot, due to VR, than a non-VR 105. you only lose one-half stop of aperture which isnt super-field relevant (except maybe for portraits) as you'll be stopping down for macro anyway. for tripod work, the tokina 100 is at least as sharp as the 105 Nikkor and less expensive, to boot.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Now that it appears that Michele will start "from scratch" it might be a good idea for her to also have a look at Canon - in particular, the 7D MkII. Price recently dropped some $300 - and it is crop-sensor DSLR with the fastest frame rate. The new 100-400 lens appears to be excellent - and of course, the option to get the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 remains. It might be advantageous to go into a store and handle all the options mentioned - sometimes that clarifies things rather quickly.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Maybe time for a pause. From replacing a body to investing big in an new kit? Maybe a bit too much. Is it really neccesary?

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it really necessary?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems to be quite obvious that the lenses she has don't fit the applications she has in mind. So why consider those lenses at all in choosing a "replacement" body? So the initial question quite logically and naturally change into "what replacement system". Mirrorless was brought up - I am just not sure it's a good choice for bird photography - but certainly also something Michele should have a look at.</p>

<p>And as soon as "serious" comes up in conjunction with "cropped sensor" - then the big question in the room is how "serious" both Nikon and Canon are with their future cropped sensor plans. Nikon just announced a new and pricey 16-80/2.8-4 lens - and it's not quite clear how big the market for such a lens is. Canon made a "serious" commitment to APS-C-sized sensor with the 7D MkII - but like with Nikon, enthusiast-level DX lenses are mostly missing. APS-C seems to be mostly aimed at the consumer market now - with small, restricted-feature bodies and mostly slow kit lenses. Serious APS-C runs into limitations quite quickly nowadays. A D7200 with 150-600 has some advantageous over a D750 with the same lens - and some disadvantages - and I am glad I don't have to make the choice - which is complicated by the $800 price difference. Of course, there is one answer that solves this easily (except for the budget issue) - get both the D7200 and the D750 and use each when it suits the situation best.</p>

[User_2000406]

<p>Andrew, you're correct - I spaced on that one. Yes, the issue with the first version of the 70-200/2.8 is poor performance on FX. I actually considered getting that lens used for my D7000 but ended up getting the 70-200 f/4 instead.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I don't know, is it that obvious, Dieter? "Love nature" and "spend more time shooting" is translated here into a need for a superlong lens to catch tiny critters at medium to long distance.<br>A range from 28 mm to 200 mm on full frame is a quite comprehensive one, that can deal with tons of nature-subjects. They do indeed "fit the application she has in mind". No worries.<br>A 150-600 mm lens can not, is anything but versatile. And is big and heavy and probably the thing that will put someone loving nature off from going out with camera and lens (as in: "If they haven't gotten lighter, I don't know that I'd be able to deal with one that is much larger").<br><br>Then a bunch of us is trying to convince the OP (and themselves) that the camera is too big, that a DX camera, or even smaller thingies, are much better. They are (and i'm glad to see you agree, though perhaps not for quite the same reasons) not.<br><br>The only sensible thing to do, in my opinion, is to get that replacement body and use the perfectly usable lenses the OP already has.<br>The original question was whether the D750 would be a good camera for a beginner. It is.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>A range from 28 mm to 200 mm on full frame is a quite comprehensive one, that can deal with tons of nature-subjects. They do indeed "fit the application she has in mind". No worries.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure the range is fine (though as has already been pointed out numerous times, quite limited on either end for nature photography). The "worry" is that it's covered with two lenses that aren't the most suitable ones for that sort of photography - a heavy 28-70/2.8 "beast" and a heavier 70-200/2.8VR lens that has some optical shortcomings when used on an FX body. 2.5kg of lenses that don't do "close-up" (which she mentions specifically and where she misses her macro lens), don't provide any reach for wildlife (certainly not on FX) and only do moderately wide for landscape. One can cover more range in one lens - the 28-300 - if that lens wasn't the epitome of optical compromises.</p>

<p>How can it be sensible to purchase a $2,000 camera body to use $2,000 worth of lenses that are in no way "perfectly usable" for what Michele wants to do? Sensible suggestions were made above - which I am not going to repeat here. With a budget like Michele's, I am afraid that FX and birds/wildlife don't go together well and DX offers some advantages. If weight is indeed a major concern, then m4/3 appears to be a sensible option to look into. Compromises will have to be made - and it's Michele who will have to make them and deal with the consequences. And again, I think a lot of helpful suggestions have been made in this thread.</p>

<p>And yes, the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 lenses are heavy beasts - close to 2kg. Naturally, only an option if you indeed want to become somewhat serious about shooting wildlife including birds. It was suggested above to buy a 70-300 (either Nikon or Tamron) to get the minimum required in a lighter and smaller lens. And then, withing "a few years" (or likely less, if indeed serious) upgrade to a 80-400 (about the weight of a 70-200/2.8) or 150-600 (500g more). If the weight of such a lens is too much to handle, then there's only the option to make do with a 70-300 (and at least maximize the reach by using it on a DX body) or to forgo shooting much wildlife and particularly birds. Should we not bring up a lens that might be in Michele's future and perhaps save her the step to purchase something else before "upgrading" to it? In addition, the use of the 150-600 will (and should) most likely involve the use of a (substantial) tripod - with it "convenience" is no longer an issue (and neither is a 500g weight difference in a lens).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The original question was whether the D750 would be a good camera for a beginner. It is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Surely it is - since - as Shun already pointed out - it offers essentially the same features and handles the same way as the D7100/D7200 (I actually find the lower-end DX bodies harder to use and don't think that the compromised handling is to the benefit of a beginner). But I think it's to the credit of all those who responded in this thread, that the answers didn't just stop with "it is".</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>A range from 28 mm to 200 mm on full frame is a quite comprehensive one, that can deal with tons of nature-subjects.</em></p>

<p>I agree and think the OP has two versatile lenses of very good image quality and the trade-in value of those lenses would most likely lead to purchase of new lenses of lower optical quality unless substantial additional money is spent. I think the range from 28mm to 200mm is very well suited for general landscape photography - I do not believe the kind of bend-the-earth exaggerated perspective effects of superwide angles are necessary or even desirable. I prefer more moderate focal lengths for landscape photography and often use the 24-70 and 105mm Micro (or equivalent) for these subjects.</p>

<p>I believe in the iterative method in general. In this case this would mean making small changes in steps to improve the capability of the kit towards the subjects of interest of the photographer. In the OP's situation if the existing full frame camera is not practically usable then it needs to be replaced. If it is replaced with an FX camera such as the D750, the OP gains a much faster camera, with much better autofocus, higher image quality, but the stated budget is spent on the one camera without getting new lenses. The good thing with an FX camera purchase is that the 28-70 still provides the wide angle and doesn't need to be replaced. Then what remains is the purchase of a longer lens. In photography you almost never can afford all the things you want, so it's the same process for almost everyone. It is better to think long term and make purchases when you can afford what you really want. If you buy something that you can afford today but which doesn't provide good results, you just lose money and potentially get frustrated. Longer term planning is really important - think where do you want to be 3-5 years from now. Which subjects are the most important for you, and which you want to pursue seriously? You have the kit for landscape and general photography now (except the camera body that may need to be replaced), but lack the equipment for birds/wildlife and macro. If you can choose between (a) pursuing wildlife photography and (b) macro in the short term, it is easier to make a decision. A 85mm to 105mm Micro Nikkor or comparable lens is very well suited for general close-up photography. I think it's better to take it slowly and focus on select subject areas of interest and learn the techniques needed for those subjects and get the equipment for them instead of trying to pursue all possible subjects at once. In close-up photography you also need a tripod and you may want to learn techniques such as focus stacking, leading to increased depth of field in the final images. In landscape photography, people often learn to stitch panoramic images from multiple frames and also combine multiple exposures to gain details in the shadows and highlights. This all takes quite a bit of time to master and while you are learning you can gradually save money if you want to pursue further subject areas.</p>

<p>Wildlife and bird photography can be a lot more difficult than many people initially think. You may need to spend a lot of time researching the subject, networking with other wildlife photographers to find where the subjects have been seen, and then often spend many hours (or days, or weeks) in a hide to allow you to photograph the subject without disturbing them from a vantage point that is close enough to capture the subject with a lens that you can afford. People build all kinds of hides, some of them are floating in the water, others are semipermanent fixtures on land, etc. It's not just that you walk to a position near the animal lift your camera and go click click, there you have the picture. You may be able to do that sometimes but a lot of the time it won't work simply because the animal won't let you get that close (and you should probably avoid getting so close that the subject is alarmed by your presence). If you photograph the animal from a long distance away, you get generally poor image quality. The summer cottage of our family is in a forest where there are a lot of woodpeckers and there are often birds in the lake as well. With the woodpeckers I realized that even in the best case of a nest at a relatively low height in a tree, a reasonable composition without cropping would require a 600mm or 800mm lens. In a lot of cases the holes are a lot higher up in the trees, so some kind of a hide in a tree would probably work for those, but the long lens would still be needed. I haven't pursued it because bird photography is such a popular activity that producing unique images in this area is very demanding and it is clear that I cannot allocate as much time to it as would be needed to produce interesting, high quality work. I already have books of excellent images of woodpeckers made in my country by the local experts. So I do other things including winter landscape photography and close-ups of ice. The chilly temperatures involved in winter landscape photography in the Nordic region reduce the number of people pursuing this area of photography so I have a better chance of doing something meaningful that hasn't been done too many times before. I think rather than pursuing everything all at once it is better if you can focus on one or a few subjects at a time, and learn it really well. I'm not trying to discourage you from pursuing bird photography but it is important to be aware of the challenges involved before jumping in.</p>

<p>It's a good to proceed in steps both in the process of learning photography itself as well as in equipment purchases. I think what you have is a good foundation of lenses for the FX format. For a switch to DX you would need to get a new wide angle, so the additional costs may in the end be fairly similar between the two formats. I do not think it is wise to go with a mirrorless camera system at this point. Those systems don't have a good selection of long lenses, for example, and there is so far no evidence of a focus tracking system that would work as well on a moving subject as the better DSLR AF systems (such as the ones in the D750, 7D Mark II etc.) do. Wildlife and birds are often on the move, so excellent focus trackinge is likely of value to you, if you decide to pursue these subjects. For landscape photography Nikon has some of the best sensors in the business, and they usually manage to stay ahead of the competition, e.g., in dynamic range. The D750 and D7200 both have excellent sensors in their respective formats.</p>

<p>With regards to the problem of weight of the long lenses, Nikon has a very light weight 300/4 PF lens (about 750g) and there is some hope that this technology will be adopted in some other long lenses. The weight and size reduction is a big deal and the image quality is very good. In addition the autofocus tracking capability of the 300/4 PF is excellent. Alternatively, long lenses of more moderate maximum apertures can be found, i.e. Nikon's 80-400mm or Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm, but those lenses have limitations when photographing in lower light. I think the 300mm PF may be too short for most bird photography but for many other subjects it is an excellent lens. If you are specifically interested in a long lens that is lighter than the 70-200/2.8 then this lens is worth considering. It's a lot of fun to work with, and an enjoyable shooting experience can lead to more time spent shooting and eventually better results.</p>