Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

7200 or 750? Or... Sony?
  
 
lawa222
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


I shoot mostly landscape and nature photography, and also action, environmental portraits, and wildlife for my work. Often I'm hiking very long distances (20+ miles per day) and backpacking or shooting while primarily working on something else outside, so size/weight is super important to me. For those same reasons VR and toughness are also a big plus.

About a year and a half ago, I switched from D800e with 16-35/4 and 70-200/4 (too big/heavy) and Oly EM-1 12-40/2.8 and 100-300 (landscape IQ not great) to just Fuji (also saving money). I've burned through a few Fuji lenses and can't find a setup that makes me happy. I got almost no good wildlife photos this year with the 55-200 or 50-230 (100-400 is too big), and I'm frustrated with no WR+VR zoom to use as a one lens solution. Fuji primes are great, but I shoot outside in bad conditions 50% of the time and often can't switch lenses easily.

Right now I'm struggling to choose between the D7200 and the D750. The new DX 16-80 and 70-300 looks like a really solid, cheap combo but leaves me without a great wide option (new 10-20 doesn't seem to cut it). D750's are starting to come down in price, and the 20/1.8 and 24-120 would work for me 80% of the time... but I don't know what to do on the long end as the new FX 70-300 is too expensive/heavy to still not get me into wildlife range. Would the new DX 70-300 be a stupid choice to pair with the D750? Maybe I go back to the 70-200/4 and add the TC2EIII?

Or... do I really blow my budget out and get an A7-series? The 12-24, 35/2.8, and 70-300 (A7rII has enough MP to make this stretch?) seems like a great lens setup. I'd be leaning towards this but am concerned about A7 toughness, not to mention the extra $1-2k.



Nov 07, 2017 at 12:34 AM
charles.K
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


Here lays your dilemma. For landscapes the A7 series are excellent, but for action/environmental portraits the D750/D7200 is better. You need to decide on the lenses you need, budget and the type of body needed will be become more obvious



Nov 07, 2017 at 12:40 AM
lawa222
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


Yes, the need for at least an occasional wildlife shot makes the lenses question really hard. I think 750 is plainly the (cost-effective) choice if the fundraising people weren't constantly asking me for animal pictures... similarly 7200 is perfect if Nikon would make a DX 14 prime!


Nov 07, 2017 at 12:46 AM
TooManyShots
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


If you want wider, there are better alternatives than what Nikon is offering...Tokina 11-16 f2.8 or their newer version, 11-20 f2.8.


Nov 07, 2017 at 12:46 AM
jpelt78
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


I think the D750 with the 70-300 DX might leave you wanting on the wildlife photos. In DX crop the 750 is only around 10MP. The D7200 would be better with it.


Nov 07, 2017 at 01:10 AM
kwe67
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


For DX, what about the Tokina 14-20, f/2? Not so far away from the 14mm wide prime...


Nov 07, 2017 at 05:56 AM
Blakehfreeman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


Go Sony... you said one of the smallest Nikon set ups was too big (Nikon 16-35 and 70-200).


Nov 07, 2017 at 06:31 AM
thedruid
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


Trade offs, trade offs.. D7200 with new Tamron 10-24mm VC, 24-85mm VR, 300 VR F4 with 1.4/1.7 tc.


Nov 07, 2017 at 07:56 AM
Mikehit
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


It sounds as if you are trying to carry a do-it-all system all the time 'just in case' you see a falcon hunting, or a great storm landscape. I think you need to decide before you go out for the day what the main aim of the shoot will be. Do you go out for the day knowigng the shots you want or on spec?

When out shooting wildlife I have the DSLR and long telephoto plus my Olympus with wide angle and compact macro just in case - and that MFT combo is just as small and light as the DSLR macro lens alone. If I am intent on doing just landscapes on a particular day I prefer to run with FF DSLR but may take MFT with macrolens.
If my main aim is walking I will pack the MFT with wide angle



In what way is the Olympus gear not good for landscapes? There are several professional landscape photographers who use Olympus precisely because it is compact and light for long-distance walking. Yes, they admit it is not as good as the FF CaNikon equivalents but here is the thing about professionals - they understand the compromises and the quality is good enough to make a living selling picture to the general public who do not give a crap about pixel peeping.
I sometimes think a professional worries about gear more for their own ego (look, I can zoom in 300% and still see every leaf on the tree) than what the customer wants. I am not being rude, but I wonder if your expectations are higher than will make the sale.

You want great IQ, tough and light. It doesn't exist. Do you want 'tough' (most cameras) or 'most rugged' (starts to narrow the field)? Sony is not as rugged as Canon but is it 'rugged enough' for you? And bear in mind that with Sony once you start using wide aperture zooms they are not much smaller or lighter than the DSLR equivalents

Compromises, indeed



Nov 07, 2017 at 10:09 AM
milkod2001
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


'Often I'm hiking very long distances (20+ miles per day) and backpacking or shooting while primarily working on something else outside, so size/weight is super important to me." not sure about D7200 but D750 which i own together with some lens while fantastic it is also not exactly the lightest combo ever.

I'd probably go with Sony 6500 or if you insist on the very best IQ and light setup then A7rii plus Loxia 21/Batis 25/Sony 12-14 & 70/200 or 100-400.



Nov 07, 2017 at 10:34 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Tyr-Sog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


For DX the Sigma 8-16 is A+ IQ and ultra wide. Hard to beat.


Nov 07, 2017 at 12:29 PM
rjb6893
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


I'm pretty happy with my (aging) Tokina 12-24 and Tamron 70-300 VC on the D7200 for hiking and walkabout. Some the aforementioned new wider zooms would be even better. My goal is to get there and return with some satisfying pictures; if I'm carrying too much, neither is gonna happen. Water takes precedence over the "maybe" lens for me. The late Galen Rowell said most of his best shots could have been taken with a 24mm and a good 80-200; my feeble emulation attempts have worked for me. YMMV of course.


Nov 07, 2017 at 02:45 PM
lawa222
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


Thanks for good thoughts everyone - a quick response to some ideas...

Tokina DX lenses would be more of an option for me if I was going back to carrying just a wide-zoom and tele-zoom. I am shooting and wanting normal focal lengths more and more lately. Adding a Tokina to the bag as a third lens would be heavy.

It feels like consensus is the 750 would be too much compromise on both sides - it is neither small nor does a great job reaching out for wildlife photos (with cheap/light lenses). I see that now.

I'm not opposed to m4/3; especially EM1.2 with really good glass would be a great setup. I'm less interested in it bc it is in same cost/size/weight ballpark as A7 series with cheaper/smaller glass. Maybe I need to take another look.

Seems like, if I can drum up the cash, A7 series is the way to go. I'll probably sit out much of the winter and pray some of these newer lenses start to drop in price.



Nov 07, 2017 at 03:52 PM
Mikehit
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


lawa222 wrote:
It feels like consensus is the 750 would be too much compromise on both sides - it is neither small nor does a great job reaching out for wildlife photos (with cheap/light lenses).


Given you are asking about using a single Sony set-up, I am not sure what cheap/light lenses Sony offers that interest you for wildlife.
Also bear in mind that pixel quality - Nikon have had a good reputation for their sensors as Sony do and sometimes the 'reach' factor (I wish there were a better phrase) of the higher density sensor Sony sensor maybe offset by pixel quality. This can be very important for wildlife because you are often focal length limited and will crop with any format.



Nov 07, 2017 at 04:25 PM
mogul
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


lawa222 wrote:
Thanks for good thoughts everyone - a quick response to some ideas...

Tokina DX lenses would be more of an option for me if I was going back to carrying just a wide-zoom and tele-zoom. I am shooting and wanting normal focal lengths more and more lately. Adding a Tokina to the bag as a third lens would be heavy.

It feels like consensus is the 750 would be too much compromise on both sides - it is neither small nor does a great job reaching out for wildlife photos (with cheap/light lenses). I see that now.

I'm not opposed to m4/3; especially
...Show more

Get yourself a Sony rx10IV., 24/600 equivalent, weather tight and fairly light. Not going to be as good as the dslrs metioned for IQ but the pictures seem pretty outstanding.



Nov 07, 2017 at 04:32 PM
lawa222
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


Well as is clear, there's no perfect answer to the wildlife problem. Even considering lower quality pixels, the Sony 70-300 cropped from 42MP likely beats Nikon 70-300 cropped from 24MP. Probably it's inferior to 750 with new Sigma/Tamron 100-400's but is much smaller.

I've used 1" cameras as second bodies before. They're very nice for what they are, but I never could get one to print well at the sizes that I either sell or distribute for work. I'd rather carry EM5 and 100-300 if I wanted to own two cameras.



Nov 07, 2017 at 04:45 PM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


charles.K wrote:
Here lays your dilemma. For landscapes the A7 series are excellent, but for action/environmental portraits the D750/D7200 is better. You need to decide on the lenses you need, budget and the type of body needed will be become more obvious


This dichotomy may be less true for the A7R III, which reportedly has pretty decent AF and fast frame rates to back up its 42MP sensor. Eye detect is also awesome for portrait work. If you found a D800 to be too heavy (and I can see why... carrying a D800 with lenses into the back country is rough, and I've done that more than a few times), I don't think a D750 gives you that much weight savings. I also don't see a D7200 offering you enough weight savings to justify the crop factor. If size and image quality are your primary considerations and the D8xx series is too big, I think your best option is to get an A7R III. Expensive but probably worth it. I have a D850 and A9 at the moment, and the A9 is much lighter and smaller, particularly given my penchant for adapted lenses (the Alpha cameras have a lot more options in this regard).



Nov 09, 2017 at 09:36 AM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


mogul wrote:
Get yourself a Sony rx10IV., 24/600 equivalent, weather tight and fairly light. Not going to be as good as the dslrs metioned for IQ but the pictures seem pretty outstanding.


If he's not happy with the IQ he's getting from 4/3, there is no way he'll be OK with an RX10.



Nov 09, 2017 at 09:38 AM
lawa222
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 7200 or 750? Or... Sony?


Arka wrote:
If you found a D800 to be too heavy (and I can see why... carrying a D800 with lenses into the back country is rough, and I've done that more than a few times), I don't think a D750 gives you that much weight savings. I also don't see a D7200 offering you enough weight savings to justify the crop factor. If size and image quality are your primary considerations and the D8xx series is too big, I think your best option is to get an A7R III. Expensive but probably worth it. I have a D850 and A9 at
...Show more

Gracias, I'm tending to think you're right. A7r3 will not be in my price range but am thinking I can get 90% of the shots that I need/want with the r2. Most of the 'action' that's critical for work is more like event photography, and we usually only need a few keepers from an event. The real action is playing outside in my free time, and if I miss the shot, I miss it (pictures of friends don't sell anyway). Maybe I'd get better speed by eventually picking up an a6000 for the really tough conditions stuff anyway.



Nov 09, 2017 at 07:52 PM







FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password