Labmom60 wrote:straitouttahell wrote:This is the FX forum and probably most people will disagree, but I'd get Sigma's Art marvels, the 18-35 1.8 and the 50-100 1.8 With those two lenses and a D7500, it's a hard time to justify the purchase of an FX camera.I heard those are great lenses.Two of Sigma's best.

historianx wrote:San Luis Valley stormJust when I talked myself out of buying the 15mm Irix prime (enough lenses is enough lenses) you come with this photo. I must stop reading this site...

I suggest a D7200.  D7200 or D7500 with 16-80 is probably sharper than a D750 and 24-120.  If you do buy a full  frame you will eventually have to buy a full set of lenses, and they are big, heavy and expensive.

bjn70 wrote:I suggest a D7200. D7200 or D7500 with 16-80 is probably sharper than a D750 and 24-120. If you do buy a full frame you will eventually have to buy a full set of lenses, and they are big, heavy and expensive.Thank you. I’m going look at used D7200 or D500 or D7500.  My trip isn’t till October so I’ve got some time to find something.

You have a decent low light camera - with a 2 steps back AF system part because the percentage of the screen covered by AF points is the smallest in any Nikon 51 point AF body.The D500 AF is 2 steps forward in having a much more advanced AF system and which covers the full width of the AF screen.Whether you need the advanced AF (and fps) features of a D500 only you can decide.If you do then anything else is a compromise.

Labmom60 wrote:I have a D7500 and looking to add a second body(I have multiple photography vacations), I’m thinking something like a D500, D610 or D750 The shutter count on my D7500 is about 20K. I have the following lenses, Nikon 35, 16-80, 70-300, Tokina 11-16 and Rokinon 8(my most used lens is the 16-80 and 35, I hardly use the others)I shoot landscapes, pets, theme parks, city scenes, low light). If I add a FF I’d get a 24-120 f4. The 2 lenses I plan to add no matter what is a 50 and 70-200. I was originally thinking on just renting a backup, but since I have vacations planned and retiring in a few months(retirement gift to myself). I’m not having any issues with my D7500 and maybe just my worrying too much, I’d hate to have an issue. I appreciate any input. Thank youAs these are photographic holidays there would be nothing worse than being without a camera for the rest of the trip.Having two identical bodies is great in some ways as you can use different lenses on each body yet both cameras work the same with the same menus.Choosing two different bodies with differing strengths is another option you still have a back up but you can choose between each body to get the best possible images.Another option for a backup is something quite different. I have a small micro 4/3 Panasonic GM1 with the kit lens. I bought it for travelling as it is small and light with great image quality. It makes a great back up for my larger cameras too and gives me a small camera option when photography is not the most important thing to do.

Stujomo wrote:Panasonic GM1 with the kit lens [...] small and light with great image quality.Panasonic's sensors must be deeply different from Olympus ones then, because when my E-PM1 still worked, it had nothing like "great image quality". I'd say that it struggled to get a "reasonable image quality, considering the sensor size".

I thought about gong with something like a mirrorless or high end P&S, but I’d probably be investing at least $500(?) into something decent.  I’m seriously thinking going with a D500 and using my d7500 as a backup, I have DX lenses, not sure I want to go with the extra weight of the FF and cost

Labmom60 wrote:not sure I want to go with the extra weight of the FF and costnot sure a D500 will be lighter than a D610 or D750. My D800+Sigma 35 1.4 weighs more or less the same than D7200 with 18-35 1.8 If weight is a concern, the D500 doesn't strike me as a particularly light body.

straitouttahell wrote:not sure a D500 will be lighter than a D610 or D750.As DX bodies go the D500 is heavy and as FF bodies go the D610 and D750 are light.One possible benefit of DX is extra reach without the need to carry a longer focal length lens for FX.

Leonard Shepherd wrote:straitouttahell wrote:not sure a D500 will be lighter than a D610 or D750.As DX bodies go the D500 is heavy and as FF bodies go the D610 and D750 are light.One possible benefit of DX is extra reach without the need to carry a longer focal length lens for FX.True, but OP already has a D7500, which, to my understanding, means same IQ and AF as the D500. So, unless she needs the higher FPS or weather sealing, I see no advantage in purchasing a D500, more so if weight is a concern.

straitouttahell wrote:Stujomo wrote:Panasonic GM1 with the kit lens [...] small and light with great image quality.Panasonic's sensors must be deeply different from Olympus ones then, because when my E-PM1 still worked, it had nothing like "great image quality". I'd say that it struggled to get a "reasonable image quality, considering the sensor size".What problems did you have with the E-PM1 image quality, at lower ISOs I found the GM1 to be great, no its not as crips or clean as a full frame sensor like a D800 but it's a fraction of the size with a much smaller sensor. In an 8x10 to 10x14 inch prints I doubt I could tell which camera was used.

Stujomo wrote:straitouttahell wrote:Stujomo wrote:Panasonic GM1 with the kit lens [...] small and light with great image quality.Panasonic's sensors must be deeply different from Olympus ones then, because when my E-PM1 still worked, it had nothing like "great image quality". I'd say that it struggled to get a "reasonable image quality, considering the sensor size".What problems did you have with the E-PM1 image quality, at lower ISOs I found the GM1 to be great, no its not as crips or clean as a full frame sensor like a D800 but it's a fraction of the size with a much smaller sensor. In an 8x10 to 10x14 inch prints I doubt I could tell which camera was used.It was terribly noisy, even at base ISO, and would only get worse bumping up ISOs. I found it had pretty limited DR, too. It would happily blow highlights with little chance of recovery, and pushing up shadows would amplify the already horrible noise. Exposure was a major PITA, it would underexpose more often than not.All in all, my iPhone 7 takes better pictures, which defeats the purpose of carrying a specialized photographic tool.When it finally died on me, I bought an used NEX-C3 and never looked back.

straitouttahell wrote:Stujomo wrote:straitouttahell wrote:Stujomo wrote:Panasonic GM1 with the kit lens [...] small and light with great image quality.Panasonic's sensors must be deeply different from Olympus ones then, because when my E-PM1 still worked, it had nothing like "great image quality". I'd say that it struggled to get a "reasonable image quality, considering the sensor size".What problems did you have with the E-PM1 image quality, at lower ISOs I found the GM1 to be great, no its not as crips or clean as a full frame sensor like a D800 but it's a fraction of the size with a much smaller sensor. In an 8x10 to 10x14 inch prints I doubt I could tell which camera was used.It was terribly noisy, even at base ISO, and would only get worse bumping up ISOs. I found it had pretty limited DR, too. It would happily blow highlights with little chance of recovery, and pushing up shadows would amplify the already horrible noise. Exposure was a major PITA, it would underexpose more often than not.All in all, my iPhone 7 takes better pictures, which defeats the purpose of carrying a specialized photographic tool.When it finally died on me, I bought an used NEX-C3 and never looked back.The NEX C3 is great I had one before I gave it to my daughter. I picked it up used with just a few hundred on the shutter count for 120e in the box. Probably the best bargain I ever found in my local camera store, it was just a few months old. I really liked the NEX C3, the kit zoom at the time was rather large for the body but I never had any complaints about the camera. It was my most used camera while I had it.

Stujomo wrote:The NEX C3 is greatIt is one no-frills, solid performer. Very good IQ and an AF that does not get in the way. It's a joy to use with old MF lenses, thanks to focus peaking. It does not have all the fancy functions of higher specced Sonys, but, for the price I paid for it (around 100 Euros), it is quite hard to beat. And it's roughly the same size and weight of an Oly PEN.

straitouttahell wrote:Leonard Shepherd wrote:straitouttahell wrote:not sure a D500 will be lighter than a D610 or D750.As DX bodies go the D500 is heavy and as FF bodies go the D610 and D750 are light.One possible benefit of DX is extra reach without the need to carry a longer focal length lens for FX.True, but OP already has a D7500, which, to my understanding, means same IQ and AF as the D500. So, unless she needs the higher FPS or weather sealing, I see no advantage in purchasing a D500, more so if weight is a concern.I’m just talking about the weight of FF in general, lenses.  I’ve seen some on eBay that have been repaired, the shutter issue.  Nikon is having a refurbished sale this weekend, which would be cheaper then Adorama, B&H and KEH.

I’m just talking about the weight of FF in general, lenses.D750 for instance isn't really that heavy, just a few ounces more than the D7200/D7500.  But I had to buy a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and that thing is a big heavy monster.  I carried the D750 and 3 lenses all around the New England coast, I figured this group was about 112 oz.  If I still had my D7200 the kit that I would have put together around it would have been 70-78 oz.  That's a significant difference but not the end of the world.  Oh and there was a significant difference in cost too.

I think I’m going to get a D500, Nikon has a refurbished sale and I can get one for about $1500, I’ve been looking on eBay and they are going for $1200 +, plus I’d get a warranty.

IF you want to spend a ton of money, then the D750. Of course, the D7500 would be the backup, not the other way around, because you would have to buy FF lenses. The 24-120 is probably not the best lens. The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 G is my favorite lens on the D750. BUT if you just want to spend $1400, get a D500. However, I think that the D750 is better overall than D500, except for sports. Also, the D500 missing a flash was a little annoying for me, because it forced me to carry a Speedlight with me.

Nikon33 wrote:The 24-120 is probably not the best lens. The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 G is my favorite lens on the D750.A little off topic, the optics are good on the 24-120, not too far behind the 24-70, with the convenience of the wider zoom range and a lot lower price though not f2.8.Anybody who cannot get a good 24 inch wide print from a 24-120 and 24 MP has either defective equipment or maybe a lack of photographic skill.Nikon gives us choices.I use the 24-120 when versatility is important and the 24-70 VR when a specific need (maybe a wedding) is the aim, combined with a 70-700 f2,8.Yes - larger good quality prints than 24 inches wide are possible with the 24-70 from 24 MP - but not if you are back packing with a significant weight penalty and are too tired to use equipment to the highest standards.I avoid telling others one lens that is perfect for me will therefore be perfect for them.