DX vs FX (D7200 vs 810 vs D5) ?

[WAngell]

<p>I need to get a new body before my trip. I'm leaning towards an 810. My thoughts:</p>

<p>D5 - I'd really like a D5 for a number of reasons but I'm wondering if it's dumb to take a D5 in to such a dusty place as Africa and risk having it have to suddenly be checked on flights. I know the camera can take it I'm thinking more along the lines of better to risk a less expensive body than a more expensive one from natural and airline personnel damage. Then again, the low light capability and shooting speed might be really worth it.</p>

<p>D7200 - Is there an overwhelming advantage to a DX over FF that can't be made up with the 810 or D5? EG, do I really want a D7200?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

 

[WAngell]

<p>BTW, between my son and I we'll likely have: 4 bodies (D300, D700, D800, plus above).</p>

<p>70-200/f2.8 (each)<br /> 80-400 AFS<br /> 300/f2.8<br /> 400/f2.8 (rental)<br /> 24-70/f2.8<br /> TC14E-III, TC20E-III</p>

<p>My thought is the TC20 w/ the 300 for longer shots. Or put the 300 on a DX? 300 on the DX would be faster than w/ a TC or do DX+1.4+300? Or skip DX and use 810 or D5.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

[andylynn]

What kind of trip is it? I hope you'll be driving, with all that gear.

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Living involves risks -- the least important of which are those to equipment. Properly packed the Cameras and lenses will most likely travel unscathed. If I were going to Africa, it would be with the best of my current equipment and the best longer lens that I could afford.</p>

[WAngell]

<p>The trip is to Africa. Mostly Serengeti but possibly Zanzibar and Kruger as well. On the equipment side there's a balance between having ideal and dealing with weight and size restrictions on flights and airline personnel forcing you to check carry-on. There is also some theft concern with stuff left in a hotel room such as in Zanzibar. So, lighter and smaller (and less expensive?) is good. </p>

<p>On bodies. I've noticed that many photogs like Thom Hogan never mention anything like a D4 or D5. He recommends 810's. Reason?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The D5 has the best weather sealing, AF and file quality of all the cameras listed! What would be "dumb" about taking something like that to dust filled Africa? Just don't take the lens off in dusty situations (true of any of the bodies).</p>

<p>Shooting wildlife, AF speed and accuracy and ability to use high-ISOs at dawn and dusk are the most important criteria for body selection. If a D5 is an option, then go for. Send it for cleaning when you get back. ;-)</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Sure, I'd use D7200 for a longer reach (400mm + 1.4extender if needed) and use 70-200 on FX (anything from D700 up would do)....I may also have a WA prime of choice - keeping the weight to minimum. The 400 is not exactly light or the 70-200 after a while.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Shooting landscapes? D810

Shooting wildlife? D7200.

Shooting fast moving action or at very high ISOs? D4s or D5.

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"I'm wondering if it's dumb to take a D5 in to such a dusty place as Africa and risk having it have to suddenly be checked on flights."<br /><br />A couple of thoughts, since you raise a couple of issues.<br /><br />First, the D5 is now Nikon's top of the line professional camera. It is the most rugged, solid Nikon DSLR available, including the best weather sealing, meant to be used in any conditions a photographer might encounter. If a D5 can't handle dust or other nature/weather issues, no other camera can.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you know conditions are going to be so severe that the camera -- any camera -- is actually going to get trashed, then go with a cheap body that you won't mind losing. That's why back in the first Gulf War, when reporters were being embedded with the troops, the TV networks sent some crews out with $1,000 Hi-8 camera instead of $20,000 Betacam cameras. They knew the cameras weren't going to survive. But I doubt those are the conditions you are working under.<br /><br />As far as the camera getting checked by the airline, how could that conceivably happen? I know that the more remote the area and smaller the plane, the smaller the carry-on baggage allowance. But even in the worst situation you get at least one carry-on, don't you? Even if it's just a small backpack? Assuming you can carry something even as small as a good size purse, that's where the camera and at least two or three lenses go. You clothes and everything else can go in checked luggage. If you have really large camera gear (maybe the 400) it can go in an ATA-style cases meant to be checked.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Walker, it really comes down to the type of images you like to take--more portraits (DX) vs animals in their environment (maybe FX). And what country you are going to. In the Serengeti I took two DX bodies because most of the animals were not that close. In Botswana, I took two FX bodies because you could get closer to some of them. Some take one DX body and one FX body. It is really up to you and what lenses you are going to put on the bodies.<br>

Joe<br>

. </p>

 

[Palouse]

<p>Reports over the past week or so indicate that the new D500 (dx) has AF to die for and excellent high ISO capabilities, as well as great burst shooting.</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>If you want a D5 get one. If you want the AF, frame rate and weather sealing of the D5 but worry about the weight and expense, consider the D500.<br>

If you just want a backup camera, I would get a D7200, but you might prefer a D810 because it has similar controls to your other bodies.</p>