A successor for my D300. Input appreciated...

[jorish]

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I'm looking for some input/thoughts. I currently own a Nikon D300, and while this camera is in many ways good enough or even better than what I need, the time has come for a purchase. I've been hoping for a "D400" for some time now; my D300 is showing signs of age (the rubber on the handgrip is coming undone, the back screen is scratched), the low light capabilities are beginning to hamper me when compared to newer Nikons, and my girlfriend is starting to photograph again \o/, so a second camera would be welcome.</p>

<p>I've been hoping for a D400 because I like the 'Pro' body (compared to the D7xxx models) for the size and dedicated controls, and because I don't feel a need for FX. Sure, the possibilities for more DOF and the slightly better low light capabilites are nice, but I would also have to upgrade some of my lenses (the 10.5 fisheye, the 35/1.8 and the Tokina 11-16 are all DX). Now, since this would become a second camera (for the first time I'm not looking to sell my old camera), the DX lenses become less of a reason to stick to DX; I can still use them on the D300. And so the 'bonuses' of FX become more attrective.</p>

<p>For tax reasons it would be better to buy the camera in this year (instead of taking my time figuring things out into the next year), and that's why I'm asking for some input from you guys. I've not handled any of these cameras yet, but know the D50, D70 and D80, and I'm guessing the D7200's body will feel somewhat similar; slightly too smal, but doable. Handling comes somewhere the next week, and will be very important in my decision making, but on the capabilities you can probably give me a better (less biased) idea than the shop can.</p>

<p>My budget can stretch to the D750 (plus some sd cards), not the D810. So the choice seems to be between the D7200, the D750, or an ex-demo D800E (which the shop says is in very good condition and which is about the same price as a new D750). My own first thoughts:<br>

* <strong>D7200</strong>: pro: I can use the same lenses; it's already a lot more capable in low light; price. Con: small body; more indirect controls compared to D300; need to buy sd cards<br>

* <strong>D750</strong>: pro: the benefits of FX (more DOF capability, larger image); even more capable in low light than the D7200. Con: small body (compared to D300), but larger than D7200 (I think?); more indirect control compared to D300; need to buy sd cards<br>

* <strong>D800E</strong>: pro: the benefits of FX; more capable in low light than the D300 (but how does it compare to the D7200 and D750?); no direct need for sd cards; a bigger body with more direct controls (big plus). Con: older design than the D750 (but where exactly does that impact it, and is the impact negative?); according to Thom Hogan more need for careful post-processing (which I'm not very good at), but how does this compare to the D750?; not new (not too big a problem, as there will be a 1 year warranty in the shop).</p>

<p>Frame rates are unimportant to me (I try to press the shutter just the once, at the right time), as is video (I only shoot stills). </p>

<p>So, what are your thoughts on this?</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The 7200 is the easy choice imho. </p>

[mightypir]

<p>I went through a similar decision making process. You need to be clear about what your photographic needs are. If you need reach, then a D7200 is the only real choice. The body will be the cheapest possible upgrade to your D300 and you will have money left over to buy accessories. Don't fret too much about the SD cards, memory is getting cheaper and faster every day...I use a 32GB card which cost the same as the 4GB card I used to use in my D300. </p>

<p>Don't worry too much about the consumer body type, you will adapt to the controls. There will be times when you miss the D300 controls but difference in image quality will more than make up for it, IMO. I found that adding a battery pack made a world of a difference in handling. </p>

<p>If you are inclined towards FX, then logically the D750 is your best choice but will be costly not just for the body but for also new lenses. I wouldn't go for a D800e unless you really need the extra mpx. </p>

<p>All of these three cameras have considerably greater resolution that the D300 and require a bit more care with regard to handling. </p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>If you just want a D400, the D7200 is that. I fail to understand how it is inferior in any way. I bought one to replace my D300 and am delighted. I find it easier to use than the D300. Some things are in different place, but they're easy to find and get used to. The results are definitely superior.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I was comfortable shooting the D7100 at ISO 1600, and the D800E at ISO 3200 (i.e. one stop difference.) I'm a night photographer. I bought a D800 mainly for two reasons: (1) I sometimes make very big enlargements (20x30 or more) for paying customers (2) I really wanted to use the Nikon 24mm PC-E lens (which won't fit on D7000 series.) I'll also mention that the D800E is VERY demanding on lenses. In addition to the camera, I also ended up spending about $6,000 on lenses (all purchased used at that.) If none of the above applies to you, the D7200 is the obvious choice, plus maybe a new lens or two.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Another vote here in favour of the D7200. A very capable camera, and not far short of the D750 in terms of IQ. No need to spend extra on lenses, although you might find the 24 Mp resolution shows up some flaws in the lenses you already have. And since you seem to favour the wide-angle view, the better control over Depth-of-Field that full-frame offers wouldn't really be an issue. The D800E will certainly show the shortcomings of any lens, and if you choose that route then be prepared to spend many times over the cost of the camera to buy suitable lenses for it.</p>

<p>I know I keep plugging Dave Etchells' "Camera Comparometer", but IMHO it's one of the best resources out there for real-world comparison images between cameras. The link is: https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</p>

<p>Then you can see for yourself how the performance of the D7200 stacks up against the D800E and D750. Personally I'm not seeing a massive difference between the D750 and D7200 until you hit 3200 ISO. I also own both a D7200 and a D800. Yes, for the utmost quality I would grab the D800 and a prime lens, but for everyday shooting the D7200 and its 18-140mm kit lens deliver all I need. And for macro and telephoto work the extra effective magnification of the D7200 makes it a hands-down winner.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I like the 'Pro' body (compared to the D7xxx models) for the ... dedicated controls ...<br /> ... more indirect controls compared to D300...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Except for the dedicated AF-ON button - that the D8x0 bodies have and the D7x0(0) don't - there's only a difference in placement for the controls between the cameras being discussed here, not a major difference in functionality (I may have overlooked some items that require menu diving in one but not the other). <br /> The main loss for me from the D300/D700 was the dedicated AF area selector in the back (to make space for the live-view switch (that IMHO could have gone almost anywhere on the camera)) - what used to be a flick-of-the-thumb deal has become a two-handed operation on any of these newer bodies now (to me it's only a big deal when using large and heavy lenses hand held).</p>

<p>In general, I like the placement and control layout of the D8x0 a lot better than that of the D7x0(0) cameras - to the point that I regret having purchased the D7100 and have put off the purchase of a D750. I assume that the reason Nikon did what they did was mostly a cost-cutting measure that resulted in some poor choices.</p>

<p>The D7200 has a "reach" advantage (24MP vs 10.67 for the D750 and 16MP for the D800E in DX crop mode) - this may or may not matter to you. It would take a 54MP FX sensor to "break even" in that aspect.</p>

<p>To me, the differences between the D800E and D810 where sufficient to go for the latter.</p>

<p>I also kept my D300 - but have not used it once since I got the D7100 and D810. So any move you contemplate towards acquiring an FX body, plan on replacing your DX lenses too. And depending on what computer you are using for post processing, you may want to include an upgrade in your considerations there as well - 24MP and in particular 36MP can tax a system that was running fine when the files had only 12MP.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I STILL believe that Nikon should and will respond to the Canon 7D Mk II. That camera is freaking amazing. I don't know how it is selling, but I haven't seen blowout deals, so that has to be something.</p>

<p>If I was still a DSLR shooter and if my kid was into sports instead of music, it would tempt me to drop my Nikon stuff in a heartbeat. As it is, I went smaller and went mirrorless (Olympus µ43) and am happy... but then I'm really an amateur.</p>

<p>I am predicting, not a "D400", but a "D9x00" that will be a hybrid between the control layout of the pro bodies and the features of the D7x00" series, and probably not in the D300 size, but closer to the D7x00 size, because I suspect that it is what Nikon thinks people want. But I've been thinking that's what they'll come out with for years, and they haven't...</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know how it is selling, but I haven't seen blowout deals, so that has to be something</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Price has dropped to $1399 (after being $1599 for some time and $1799 at introduction; it had been $1299 for Black Friday/Cyber Monday) and currently there is a "blowout" deal at B&H where you end up paying $1049 (and get a printer in the bargain). Seems to indicate that the camera isn't selling all that well - and that Nikon might have been right in not releasing a D400.</p>

<p>I'd be tempted to by the 7D MkII - but getting used to the Canon control layout makes adapting to D7x0(0) appear easy in comparison.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Agreed that the D800e is probably most tempting if you're after the resolution. It's a very good camera, but the D750 and D810 had a number of improvements. The D750 is somewhat better in low light, also. Bear in mind its AF sensors are clustered slightly more closely in the centre of the frame than the D800/D810, and both are much more centralised than the D300/D7200.<br />

<br />

If it has to be this year, given your lens options, I'd say the D7200 (or D7100 if you don't need the buffer and want to save bit) is obvious. There have been unfulfilled rumours of a "D400" for a long time. The main thing that would give me pause is that, if Nikon <i>did</i>decide to respond to the 7D2, there's a sporting chance that they'd do it early next year - so given the chance, I'd sit tight for a few months. But if you can't do that, I'd go with the D7200 and be happy.<br />

<br />

I don't think living with the "consumer" interface is likely to be a major problem - it's not like a D3300, you still have reasonable control points on any of these cameras (and a fair amount moved between the D300 and the D800e even if you went that route). I'll warn you that you're likely to be frustrated hopping back and forth between them, however.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Joris, as of now, there are only 6 images in your portfolio on photo.net: http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=4798929</p>

<p>At least I am not able to tell what kind of subjects you typically photograph, and what your girlfriend photographs. Without such information, it is difficult to suggest which camera body to get. I do have a D800E, D750, and D7200, among others. If you go FX, you'll probably need to add some lenses. (That is also difficult to judge since I have no idea what other FX lenses you have.) So factor in the cost for lenses if you go that route.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I STILL believe that Nikon should and will respond to the Canon 7D Mk II. That camera is freI STILL believe that Nikon should and will respond to the Canon 7D Mk II. That camera is freaking amazing. I don't know how it is selling, but I haven't seen blowout deals, so that has to be something.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I totally agree that Nikon should have introduced some D400 as the successor to the D300/D300S, but the time frame should have been 2010 to 2012, when Nikon could no longer sell D300S in Japan after November 2011 due to the exposed battery contacts on the EN-EL3e.</p>

<p>However, Nikon completely missed that window and, instead, put AI/AI-S compatibility on the D7000 (2010) and then their top AF module on the D7100 (2013). Therefore, it was already very clear several years ago that Nikon had no plan to introduce this "D400." Instead, Nikon has been encouraging its customers to upgrade to consumer FX bodies such as the D600, D610, and D750.</p>

<p>It took Canon a full 5 years to upgrade from the 7D (2009) to 7D Mark II (2014). To some degree Canon also missed the upgrade window. If anybody hasn't seen those fire sale prices for the 7D Mark II, they have not been paying attention.</p>

<p>As Dieter pointed out, currently you can get a 7D Mark II + a Canon printer for $1399 and then you get a $350 rebate for a final cost of $1049, and that is from B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1176700-REG/canon_eos_7d_mark_ii.html<br>

The 7D2 is so cheap that I might have some interest in getting one, but I need to factor in a Canon lens for two, and it is not that appealing.</p>

<p>If Nikon introduces something to challenge the 7D Mark II, it'll have to be around $1000, i.e. cheaper than the D7200. It simply doesn't make any business sense. Such pricing is great for the customers, but Canon and Nikon aren't going to make money at such fire sale prices.</p>

 

[chip_chipowski]

<p>If the OP does get a D7200, I would be interested in hearing about the transition. I have a D300 that I am happy with. If it broke, I would probably look at 7100/7200. I wonder if anybody can comment on how the 7100/7200 handles with a grip attached? Does that help with the hand comfort?</p>

[Member69643]

<p>Can't understand why anyone would want a D7200 when the D7100 is $400 cheaper, new. The 7200 has but two small advantages over the 7100, buffer size and wi-fi. If you don't need those, it makes little sense to get the 7200.</p>

<p>As far as the Canon 7DMkII, I have that one and the D7100 is better.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Just a few days ago, Nikon USA had refurb D7200 for $800: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dcYa">Nikon USA: Refurbished D7200 Deal at $800</a><br>

Those in the US can potentially wait for a similar deal again perhaps before Christmas?? However, the OP seems to be in Europe.</p>

<p>Compared to the D7100, the D7200 has some obviously better high-ISO capabilities and slightly better AF. I added the D7200 and still own the D7100. At least to me, it is worth the price difference.</p>

<p>I still have a D300 and also use a D800E and D750. Personally I don't have much problems with the size of the D7000, D7100, and D7200. However, they are at the lower bound of my tolerance. I am not interested in anything smaller, at least for DSLRs. I never add a grip on the D7000 series, though.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"The 7200 has but two small advantages over the 7100, buffer size and Wi-Fi."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>- Not forgetting better low-light/high ISO and AF performance.<br /> The buffer size increase alone would be worth it for anyone machine-gunning sports or wildlife shots. Plus the AF works quickly in light so low that you can hardly see the subject through the viewfinder!</p>

<p>The WiFi facility allows almost any smartphone or tablet to be used as a remote control and viewfinder for the camera - a saving and convenience for anyone with a half-decent phone in their pocket.</p>

<p>Over here in the UK the best deal prices on a D7100 and D7200 show only around a £150 difference, and that's currently equivalent to $228 US. With the D7200 being readily available brand new for just over $900.</p>

<p>Edit: Shun beat me to it in pointing out the above.</p>

[jorish]

<p>@Michael Darnton: as far as I know the D7200 is not inferior in any way to a possible D400, and is in every technical aspect probably superior to my D300. For my taste however, I think (but am not sure until I've tried one in the shop) it's too small for my hands. I'm basing this on the D50, D70 and D80's that I used in the past. I *can* use those smaller cameras, but I like the heftier bulk of the D300 and D8**'s.</p>

<p>@almost everyone else: my main topic was (and probably will be in the next year at least) theatre performances. Both inside regular theatres and outside (in the street or in special locations like an old factory for instance). So low light capabilities are important; the less light the camera needs, the better. And since I always try to be inconspicuous; if a shutter should be (a lot) more silent, that may be a point in favour as well.<br>

Reach is not that important; I have a 70-200/2.8 (first generation) but I hardly ever use it; my 85/1.8 is usually long enough on the D300 and has a larger aperture of course. This may of course be different with a FX camera.<br>

Besides performances I'm also slowly starting to expand into landscape (both nature and city) photography, and I'm expecting all options to be perfectly capable of that.</p>

<p>I've been checking prices further, and a.t.m. the D750 and the D7200 here in the Netherlands have cash-back deals going. €150 for the D750, and €75 for the D7200. This puts the demo 800E about 15% above the D750, so the choice will probably be between the D750 and the D7200. The D7100 is close enough to the D7200 that I'll take the newer model if only for the minimal gain in low light situations.</p>

<p>I understand that in almost every way the D7200 is the most logical path from the D300. Transition will probably be easier because by now I usually know which focal length I want to use, whereas this will probably take me some time to learn with an FX camera. I was already considering it, but now I will definitely take my lenses with me to the shop to try them out, and see if they measure up to the new sensors. I'm hoping that *if* I go for a FX, at least my primes and the 70-200 will be up to the challenge...<br>

<br />My current lenses are:<br>

DX: Nikon 10.5/2.8, 35/1.8 and Tokina 11-16/2.8<br>

FX: 24/2.8, 50/1.8, 60/2.8 micro, 85/1.8, 28-70/2.8 & 70-200/2.8<br>

My computer(s) are a MacBook Pro 15" late 2013, with 16GB RAM and an SSD drive, and a MacMini late 2012 also with 16GB and an SSD. I'm expectiing them to be up to handling anything Nikon can throw at them ;)</p>

<p>I really appreciate the time everyone takes to share their thoughts. Some of them are in line with what I've been thinking myself, but new considerations came up as well, so your time is not wasted as far as I'm concerned.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder if anybody can comment on how the 7100/7200 handles with a grip attached? Does that help with the hand comfort?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Purchased a D7100 initially without - but the first serious outing using the AF-S 80-400 convinced me that a battery grip was sorely needed. Hand comfort is not a word I would use in connection with the D7100/D7200 - because it didn't feel nearly as comfortable, my wife flat out rejected the D7100 when I offered it to her to replace her D300.</p>

<p>Like Shun said, in terms of size, the D7100 size is at the lower bound of what I can tolerate - compared to the D200 and D300 before it, the reduction in size has turned on of the best handling DSLR shapes into one of the worst (and that's before taking the control layout catastrophe into account).</p>

<p>The shape of the D750 body is a big improvement over the D7100/D7200 - I hope the DX successor will use the same body style (because I don't think there is a chance it will use the D810's).</p>

<p>I was tempted by the low-price offer for the D7200 - but in the end decided against the upgrade from my D7100 - I will make do and wait to see what Nikon comes up with next.</p>

<p>EDIT: didn't see your post above before I posted mine. Given your intended use, I would recommend the D750. Just sell some of the lenses you currently have (24/35/11-16) and add the 18-35 for landscape (almost cost neutral). The 70-200/2.8 VR will be fine - if you don't mind the corner sharpness issue towards the longer focal lengths. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you want a quiet shutter, the D810 (not the D800 and D800E) is very quiet, but I am not sure it makes sense to spend that much for that feature.<br>

<br />If you need low-light performance, FX is the logical answer. You can't change simple physics that the larger sensor area captures more light. The D750 is really good for that purpose and the AF is excellent. The D750 is a bit larger than the D7100/D7200 and has a very comfortable grip.</p>

<p>It looks like Joris already has plenty of FX lenses. You might want to add some 24, 28, or 35mm f1.8 lens for the wide end. IMO the 24mm/f2.8 is simply too old now. There are quite a few choices from Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron. And of course you'll need sd memory cards for either the D750 or D7200, but those are inexpensive in these days.<br>

<br />Good luck.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I'll warn you that you're likely to be frustrated hopping back and forth between them, however.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Based on my own experience, I can only second that warning!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want a quiet shutter, the D810 (not the D800 and D800E) is very quiet</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Totally surprise me - it appears that the D810 is actually quieter than my Sony A7 mirrorless. Even the D7100 and D7200 are a lot quieter than the D300 - which wasn't exactly known for its audible stealth capabilities.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D810 is quieter because Nikon has added mechanism to dampen the mirror rebound (at least that is what I understand). Additionally, all D800, D810, D750, D7x00 have the quiet mode.</p>

<p>Regardless of whether you go with the D750, D7100, or D7200, the controls are going to be quite different from those on the D300. In fact, even the D800/D810 are a little different from the D300. E.g. the positions for the + and - buttons have swapped, the S/C/M AF mode switch is gone, replaced by holding down a button at the same location and rotate the command dials ....</p>

<p>I, for one, have no problem changing among different camera bodies. I once was using a Contax 645, a Nikon F5 (film) and a Nikon D100; they are really different, and I was fine with them. But everybody has their own preferences.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I went from a D300 to a D7100 and had no problem with the controls after shooting it for one day.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[mightypir]

<p>@joris: adding the grip improves the handling considerably. But it is still not as a good as the D300 with its grip. I think that this (size and handling) has been the biggest let down for me in moving. The shutter is also quieter than that of the D300.</p>

<p>I have used my 7200 along with a 70-200 VR1 (and battery grip) to shoot stage (kids school stuff). Have had excellent results all the way up to ISO 3200. With the D300 I used to try never to go over ISO 800...1600 only in a pinch, but here I have gone to 6400 with very little loss of quality. I've remapped the video button to ISO to make life a bit easier and this worked out well.</p>

<p>No issues with frame rates even when shooting RAW with a fast 90 MB/s SD card at 6fps bursts. Oh and the WiFi is incredibly useful!</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>The D7200 will be quite a step up from the D300. That is the model I will use to replace my D300.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>All I can add is that I was quite surprised how much quieter the D7200 is after using a D800 for a few years.</p>

<p>WRT low light performance: Joris, if you think you were getting acceptable results from a D300 then you'll be blown away by the performance of either the D7200 or D750. And as for the D7200 being too small? I can't see how that's a bad thing, no matter how big your hands are. I used to love using my old Nikon F2 for its feel and ergonomics, but it's positively miniature compared to any of Nikon's current DSLRs.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>... Nikon F2 for its feel and ergonomics, but it's positively miniature compared to any of Nikon's current DSLRs<br>

A Nikon F2 is 152.5mm wide - compared to the 135.5mm of the D7200 and the 140.5mm of the D750 - how is that positively miniature?<br>

With the non-metering finder, the F2 is 98mm tall - vs 106.5mm and 110.5mm for the D7200, and D750, respectively. Replace with finder on the F2 with a metering one and the height is 102mm.<br>

The one place were the F2 is indeed smaller is in width - due to the lack of a molded grip: 65mm vs 76 (D7200) and 78mm (D750). And at least for me, the molded grip makes a big difference in holding a camera comfortably (I used to attach a MD-12 to the FM/FM2 just to have a grip to hold onto).<br>

I am not going to look up the dimensions of a motor-driven F2 - I am fairly sure one can completely hide a D4S behind it ;-)</p>