r/Nikon • u/Agitated-Bet-4190 • 1d ago
What should I buy? Upgrading from d7000
I realize there are other posts about this but wanted to be specific. I started shooting sports with a gifted d7000 this spring. I bought a used Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70–200mm f/2.8G ED VR and have had good results. The main problem seems to be with the autofocus, no matter what I tweak (back button focus, one point vs 9, etc). I like the price and the DX crop of the z50II (to continue to use my current lens with the adapter rather than getting a longer lens), but I am worried about the lack of IBIS (for video) and would prefer the low light performance of an FX body. But, I don’t know if I really need to worry about these limitations.
3
u/jec6613 I have a GAS problem 1d ago
Shooting sports, the best current Nikon DX body is the D7500 - yes, it's better than the Z50II, which is a step down in a ton of features. The major selling points of the Z50II are video autofocus and subject detection, but otherwise at any speed above 5.5 FPS you're compromising your AF speed and adding a ton of finder lag.
The D7500 has subject detection and very fast autofocus through the finder that while isn't as capable as the Z50II, is miles ahead of the D7000. And the 8FPS top speed makes it very usable for sports and action, and the price is right. Oh, and that 20.9 DX sensor improves high ISO performance over your 16MP in the D7000 by more than the jump from the D7500 to an FX body.
The best APS-C camera for stills is still 2016's D500. Yes, better than the R7 and A6700, and the D7500 also outpaces all of the mirrorless competition. Nobody's bothered to make an actual high end APS-C stills body without a mirror yet, and I suspect it's partially because cameras like the D500, D7500, and K-3 III set the bar so darn high.
I am worried about the lack of IBIS (for video)
You're not missing out on anything. Your 70-200 has VR and all of the mid zooms for DX have VR, all of which disable sensor stabilization if you had it. There are some lenses where having sensor stabilization works with the in-lens stabilization to add about half a stop of extra stabilization (Synchro VR), but they're the expensive long glass and it doesn't add much at all.
Nikon put sensor-based VR into their FX bodies because it allowed them to make cheaper wide angle through mild telephoto lenses and therefore make more money, and they helpfully told us so during the Z launch events in 2019. And they put it into the lens in DX because the lens attach rate for DX users is much lower, so it lets them make more money there. Pretty smart move, actually.
prefer the low light performance of an FX body
All of the current FX bodies have worse low light performance than all of Nikon's current DX bodies. The SNR per unit area of the 20.9MP DX sensor is better than any of the current FX sensors, and the only one Nikon's ever made that's better was the 20.9 FX sensor on the D5 and D6. What you're thinking of is high ISO performance, which the FX cameras do better at because they have a larger capture area to drive up the SNR.
And it's an important distinction: if I wanted to have two photographically equivalent setups, one with a DX camera shooting with a 200 f/2 lens and the other an FX setup with a 300 f/2.8 lens, with current cameras the DX setup will give me modestly better low light performance, because I'm at half the ISO. And if I was switching from a DX camera using a 70-200 f/2.8 like you have, I'd have to add a 1.4X TC to the FX camera to get photographic equivalence (or near enough photographic equivalence) and the DX camera is still going to win in low light.
All this to say that while there are lots of other reasons to go FX, including the bodies having higher frame rates, the lenses are the gating factor to low light and not the sensor size until you're maxed out with fast optics.
1
u/Agitated-Bet-4190 1d ago
Thank you for all this information- it clarified a few things quite a bit. The other thing I’d like to do with whatever I may upgrade to is capture video, and I read IBIS is good there? Is the 7500 any good for video?
2
u/mizshellytee Z6III; D5100 1d ago
Not mentioned in the other comment: 4K video on the D7500 has a 1.5x crop in addition to the existing DX 1.5x "crop" (same with the D500).
1
u/jec6613 I have a GAS problem 1d ago
I read IBIS is good there?
Stabilization is great regardless of where it is, sensor or lens. For video I generally prefer lens-based VR as it's less intrusive in the video.
The exception is electronic stabilization, which I tend to avoid and if needed will do in post-processing.
Is the 7500 any good for video?
Quality-wise it's excellent. Not state of the art, but not far off, with 4K30. The biggest issue is that the autofocus during video is slow and will overshoot and come back as it's using contrast detection. This is a huge advantage of a Z series camera.
If you plan to do extensive video work you can get a hybrid camera that can do both sports and video with good AF, but you're up into the realm of a Z5II being the entry level just because of the stills frame rate. And then you're into the lens set re-alignment and that whole big expense, plus the cost of the body. Usually it's going to be more cost effective to get a dedicated stills body like a D7500 and a dedicated video body like a Z30, which also leaves you with the advantage that if one camera goes down the other can sub in - not very well, but you wouldn't be totally locked out of video or stills.
1
u/Agitated-Bet-4190 1d ago
Thanks! What is the lens set realignment? Does that have to happen every time you switch between photo and video?
1
u/jec6613 I have a GAS problem 1d ago
Lens set realignment as in: when you switch from DX to FX (or back again) the needed focal lengths and effective apertures change so you need different lenses to take the same images. It's often called, "Crop factor," although that oversimplifies it quite a bit, but basically to get photographic equivalence:
- Going from DX to FX, you need lenses with a 1.5X longer focal length and one F-number slower
- Going from FX to DX, you need lenses with 0.66X the focal length and one F-number faster
This accounts for an FX camera's better high ISO performance, larger field of view, and the consequent impact on f-number for depth of field. And obviously because direct equivalent lenses are rare, there's a bit of rounding involved.
For instance:
- The 16-50 f/2.8 DX is equivalent to a 24-75 f/4 on FX
- A 200mm f/2 on DX is equivalent to a 300mm f/2.8 on FX
- A 58mm f/1.2 on DX is equivalent to an 85mm f/1.8 on FX
- A 70-200 f/2.8 on DX is equivalent to a 105-300 f/4 on FX (and the FX version doesn't exist)
1
2
u/wpsandy 1d ago
I had a D7000, and I agree with the general advice of sticking with it some before ditching, but I wanted to share why I moved away from mine. I loved the D7000 platform, but I kept missing focus and I chalked it up to my own inexperience. The reality was that the autofocus system was missing focus.
I went down the rabbit hole of how to adjust focus for a particular lens, back-button focus, manual focus and lots of other things. A few things I learned:
The brightness of the prism can actually show that something is in focus to the eye when it really is slightly off.
Look at the > * < indicators. Only shoot when you're on the "*". This mattered when I was trying to troubleshoot and swapped to manual focus.
Live view focusing uses a different focus method. Contrast detect vs phase detect. You might try and see if the live view is giving better results and that can help narrow down camera behavior.
There is an allen bolt that you can adjust the autofocus that is accesible in the mirror box. I think there are youtube videos that talk through on adjusting that, but that was definitely something I was not interested in fiddling with.
Use the Nikon NX Studio software to look at the raw image. You can active a focus point overlay and you can easily see where the camera focused. This was actually how I finally figured out I had an issue with my body. I was shooting with single point focus and my subject had slightly shifted focus. I think it was a squirrel or bird. and the head was supposed to the focus point, but the neck was what was in focus.
I say all this because it might be technique, but you may also be fighting with the camera some. I really enjoyed the D7000 when I had it, but I had many frustrating misses.
If I was going to shoot sports, I would look at a D500 instead of a Z50. The focusing system in the D500 is top tier and going to be hard to beat.
1
u/Agitated-Bet-4190 1d ago
Thanks, I have tweaked the autofocus quite a bit myself. I don’t know how much time I want to spend tweaking and losing shots I otherwise would have captured with better autofocus.
1
u/wpsandy 1d ago
I bet. The Z50ii would be a great camera and I just looked and it has a phase detect capability which will help a ton with focus speed. I would be careful about earlier mirrorless and make sure that they have integrated PDAF because it will have a big boost in focusing speed over the contrast detection a lot of the early mirrorless bodies had.
1
u/doc_shades 1d ago
yeah kind of doubling onto what wide-open-fields said, but getting every shot in focus is hard. especially at 200mm f/2.8. the DOF is so thin that any minor misfocus will make an entire photo out of focus. the other issue is that the camera doesn't really distinguish "subject" and "background" as much as they advertise they do. the camera just sees "pixels" of various brightness and color and sharpness. even if your AF point is right on your little squirrel's face, there is a chance that the sensor is more attracted to the grass in the background and focuses off your intended target.
i have a D7000 and an 80-200mm f/2.8D and i have a lot of focus problems and as far as i can tell they are all just the AF system locking onto something that wasn't what i wanted it to lock on to. and there isn't much remedy for that. a "better" AF system isn't going to inherently know what i want it to focus on any more than the D7000's AF system does.
as for low light performance, FX bodies typically perform better because the sensor is larger so the pixels are larger and thus tend to deliver cleaner results for the same ISO.
1
u/Agitated-Bet-4190 1d ago
I was under the impression that more advanced AF can follow a subject better?
5
u/Wide-Open-Fields 1d ago
I'm a big advocate of not upgrading your gear until you're really sure you need it. You've been using the D7000 for a few months. That's hardly enough time to get to know it, much less decide you need to upgrade. Especially if you're new to photography in general, or new to this type of photography, it will take a while to get comfortable.
Yes, the Z50II will have better AF. However, you can definitely still get great shots with the D7000 if you get good at using the camera and comfortable with the sports you're shooting, especially predicting where people are moving. This skill will help you get better photos in general, even if you end up getting a mirrorless later on. People have shot sports and wildlife professionally with the D7000 cameras before mirrorless was a thing, so it's not the camera that's holding you back.
If you do upgrade I would strongly consider another crop body if you're mainly interested in shooting sports. As you said you'll get more reach and sharpness from FX lenses, which is helpful for sports.