anyone shoot with the Nikon D7200, D500 or Fuji X-t3?

[Meshell2002]

I'm considering upgrading from my Nikon D5100. I'm a advanced beginner. I like to shoot my family, some travel, and children's sports (girls gymnastics & theatre right now). I work full time so I have no intention of shooting for money. This is purely for my own pleasure and fun. I really want a faster autofocus (11 points) and fps (4) than my d5100. I have a sigma 30 1.4 (old non art version) and a tamron 70-200 (non VC), in addition to the kit lens that came with my camera. I'm looking at the Nikon d7200, d500 and the Fujifilm X-t3. I lean towards the Nikon because I already have a few nikon lenses, but curious about the Fuji. Has anyone shot with the D500 and the Fuji? I love the 7200 price but not sure if I can use it for indoor sports. My son is also considering playing basketball (another poorly lit sport).

 

[jec6613]

How about a D5100, D7200, D500 shooter who's also borrowed the X-T2 and X-T3?

Spoiler: don't get any of them.

Do you shoot raw or JPEG? Because if you shoot raw, you'll find the Fuji to be mostly lacking. Their X-Trans sensors are lovely for doing anything panchromatic, but fall down a bit in most raw converters. Heck, even Fuji's raw converter is worse than their in-camera JPEG rendering. Also, for indoor sports, both Nikons mop the floor with the Fuji for high speed AF indoors, which is about as snappy as the D5100's center point (not bad, but not DSLR level). You have to remember that the D7200's older AF module is still the same one out of the D4 professional sports camera still used today all over the world.

In terms of the D7200 vs D500, since I did that upgrade myself, here are the big differences in image quality:

• At lower ISO with certain lenses the D7200 pulls a bit more detail, but the D500 is more consistent about pulling more detail from all lenses in all situations.
• The D500 has a higher full well capacity, so raw highlight recovery is much more forgiving.
• The D500 is slightly better in low light - maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of a stop? The D7200 is still better than anything Canon or Fuji has once you get into the ISO6400+ range, just the character of the noise is simply not objectionable, and is essentially state of the art.

In handling and shooting:

• The D500 responds instantly. With it set to Ch, it's difficult to feather the shutter release for a single shot.
• The D500's thumb stick focus point selection is exceptionally nice.
• The D500's AF points go right to the edge of the frame, really, right to the edge. But for indoor sports I have not found it to be faster - mostly because the 51 point AF never struggled in that sort of setting.
• The D500's grip is a bit more comfortable, and you can do a bit more with your eye to the finder compared to the D7200.
• The D500 has flicker reduction for shooting under gym lights.
• The D500 shoots at a true 10 FPS, where the D7200 tops out at 5 FPS with 14 bit raw.
• The D500 meter is much better, and it does 3D tracking properly because of it.
• The D500 shoots under gym lights without flicker by timing the shutter to the A/C cycle of the lights.

If it sounds like the D500 is much better than the D7200, you'd be right, it is, but it's also $1,100 more expensive and a full two years newer - I'd sure as heck hope it is! But that comes with downsides that you're probably not thinking of right now that would keep me from making the D5100 to D500 jump in most situations:

• The D500 takes XQD cards, and needs them to really have a nice buffer. I have 64 GB cards and they're $130 each. Oh but it takes SD cards? Yes, but to keep it running for long bursts you need UHS-II cards, they're not much cheaper. I walk around with media cards worth $500 just for a light days worth of shooting.
• There's no flash, so I carry an external speedlight if I might need to use flash. And that means when traveling with it, I have a bulky item, plus its AA batteries, plus a charger for the batteries. This adds up fast in the weight department.
• It's 100g heavier - the D7200 is heavier than the D5100, and the D500 is heavier again by the same amount.
• The control layout is completely different compared to the D5100. Yes, it's a Nikon, but 95% of controls don't show much of anything on the screen, you have to know where to look. Pro bodies do the, "Push button, spin," and don't offer a lot of feedback.

So, what I suggest, is a D7500. It's a mini D500, and grabs you 8 FPS with 14 bit raw, the sensor out of the D500 with a few nicer tweaks, uses inexpensive UHS-I SD cards and give you a great buffer with them (get the Sandisk 95 MB/s ones, BTW), it has the flicker reduction for using indoors in gyms, it has the meter out of the D5/D500 so it tracks like one, the 51 point AF won't let you down in low light,it has built-in flash, it's smaller, lighter. The processor is the same used in the D5, D500, and D850, so it has all of their capabilities. It also has a more consumer-ish interface, where things show up on screens for you so that you don't need to re-learn from scratch, it's just a really beautiful camera. Oh, and by the time you're done with media cards and buying a Speedlight, it's about a grand cheaper.

 

[bob100]

I'm considering upgrading from my Nikon D5100. I'm a advanced beginner. I like to shoot my family, some travel, and children's sports (girls gymnastics & theatre right now). I work full time so I have no intention of shooting for money. This is purely for my own pleasure and fun. I really want a faster autofocus (11 points) and fps (4) than my d5100. I have a sigma 30 1.4 (old non art version) and a tamron 70-200 (non VC), in addition to the kit lens that came with my camera. I'm looking at the Nikon d7200, d500 and the Fujifilm X-t3. I lean towards the Nikon because I already have a few nikon lenses, but curious about the Fuji. Has anyone shot with the D500 and the Fuji? I love the 7200 price but not sure if I can use it for indoor sports. My son is also considering playing basketball (another poorly lit sport).

I don't know about Fujifilm but mirrorless is definitely the way to go. Mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter and can easily use DSLR lenses. I think all the major camera manufacturers are going mirrorless, DSLR's are the dinosaur of the camera world.

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[jec6613]

I don't know about Fujifilm but mirrorless is definitely the way to go. Mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter and can easily use DSLR lenses. I think all the major camera manufacturers are going mirrorless, DSLR's are the dinosaur of the camera world.

This is a great example of the FUD being spread around about DSLR. They're not going anywhere and still handily outsell mirrorless and will for the next 1-2 years, and the lens install base is enormous (80+ million Nikkor F mount alone, not counting third party). But let's break down the arguments:

Mirrorless are smaller and lighter. Well, mirrorless are not necessarily smaller or lighter, what they are is thinner. A D5600 weighs less than an X-T3 and has better ergonomics and focusing, for instance, but the deep F mount with flipping mirror means it can't be as thin; most of that is empty space though, and doesn't add substantially to the weight. Another trick is that most mirrorless cameras also have smaller batteries to get that weight - the X-T3 has a lower capacity battery than the D5600 (not in shots, just pure capacity, and DSLRs are more miserly with power), and when you add in the weight of a second and third battery to the X-T3 to bring it to the same still shots per outing, it weighs the same as the D7500, and the D7500 (and D5300) are handicapped in its battery rating by an internal flash that's fired every other shot during testing.

As for using F mount lenses on a mirrorless body, that works with varying levels of success. Using Nikon lenses on a Z6, or using Canon lenses on an RF, or Sony/Minolta lenses on an A7, are all quite good experiences, because each manufacturer has put in tuning in the firmware for all of their own lenses. That starts breaking down when you move to third party lenses though, when the mirrorless body falls back to using PDAF and CDAF in ways that are not optimized for the lens. Oh, and of course once you slap a DSLR lens on the thing, you've just added the mirror box space back, and more size and weight.

Lenses bring up the one size advantage mirrorless do have hands down: wide angle lenses. Because of the deep DSLR mounts, lenses need to be strongly retrofocal and therefore large (if you want, I can show off my 12-24 f/4). Mirrorless have a much shorter flange focal distance, giving the lens designers more freedom and making for a smaller wide angle. For telephoto though, there's little if any difference in size because the size is dominated by the requirement for the front element to be focal length divided by F-stop, so the minimum size of a 70-200 f/2.8 is a 71mm front element.​

And don't get me wrong, it's not that mirrorless cameras are bad - they're not. They are absolutely where things are going, and I think we'll see the Nikon D6 and Canon 1DX III be the last true flagship DSLRs at the 2020 Olympics where they'll be the dominate cameras, with mirrorless having taken over by the 2024 Olympics (pro level DSLRs are released every 4 years to coincide with the Olympics). The fact that the two largest ILC manufacturers only now tipped their hats into the ring is an example of the people who make the cameras believing that it's the way forward - but also notice that they've released no true fast sports bodies, and compared to even the keeper rate in indoor sports of the D7500, neither have Sony (even with the A9) or Fuji. And right now, the only truly complete mirrorless systems are from Sony and Fuji, who had no DSLR business to speak of and had nothing to lose by moving early and having an inferior but highly marketable product. The low light focusing advantages, better focus discrimination, and general lens inertia that DSLRs have will have moved by 2024, but it takes time to do so and we're not there yet.

A better analogy of DSLRs isn't that they're dinosaurs, which is obviously not true since they're still the dominate form of interchangeable lens camera, it's that they're gasoline cars that you drive yourself. Still the best for most things for now, but that will be changing over the next few years - however, in the meantime, would you rather have the best option at your disposal and move in 3-5 years when all of the remaining issues with mirrorless are worked out, or move now and deal with the teething issues now?

in short: is mirrorless the future? Yes, absolutely. Is it the current state of the art? No, it'll need at least 1-2 more generations (2-4 more years) to reach DSLR parity. And in the meantime, I'm shooting away with my state of the art D500.

 

[bob100]

This is a great example of the FUD being spread around about DSLR. They're not going anywhere and still handily outsell mirrorless and will for the next 1-2 years, and the lens install base is enormous (80+ million Nikkor F mount alone, not counting third party). But let's break down the arguments:

Mirrorless are smaller and lighter. Well, mirrorless are not necessarily smaller or lighter, what they are is thinner. A D5600 weighs less than an X-T3 and has better ergonomics and focusing, for instance, but the deep F mount with flipping mirror means it can't be as thin; most of that is empty space though, and doesn't add substantially to the weight. Another trick is that most mirrorless cameras also have smaller batteries to get that weight - the X-T3 has a lower capacity battery than the D5600 (not in shots, just pure capacity, and DSLRs are more miserly with power), and when you add in the weight of a second and third battery to the X-T3 to bring it to the same still shots per outing, it weighs the same as the D7500, and the D7500 (and D5300) are handicapped in its battery rating by an internal flash that's fired every other shot during testing.

ALenses bring up the one size advantage mirrorless do have hands down: wide angle lenses. Because of the deep DSLR mounts, lenses need to be strongly retrofocal and therefore larg​

nd don't get me wrong, it's not that mirrorless cameras are bad - they're not. They are absolutely where things are going, and I think we'll see the Nikon D6 and Canon 1DX III be the last true flagship DSLRs at the 2020 Olympics where they'll be the dominate cameras, with mirrorless having taken over by the 2024 Olympics (pro level DSLRs are released every 4 years to coincide with the Olympics). The fact that the two largest ILC manufacturers only now tipped their hats into the .

LOL !

spoken like a true dinosaur Nikon DSLR user ... LOL !
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
.
.
.
(yes, mirrorless is smaller and lighter and can easily use DSLR lens .... hint: it's "there" - not the dinosaurs )

 

[jec6613]

LOL !

spoken like a true dinosaur Nikon DSLR user ... LOL !

But one with both the numbers (weights and CIPA shot life cited above) and thousands of mirrorless images and experience under my belt who moved from the D7200 to D500 as my primary shooter only after the Z6/Z7/RF launches and having tried Sony's A9 with native glass, as well as the Fuji system, because I was doing a body+glass upgrade this past fall so it was the right time to do it, and I worked with camera stores and rented and tried things out. And one who isn't calling you names for choosing mirrorless, even after going through your flickr gallery and seeing how many times you missed focus by 3-6".

So, yes, I had the chance, tried it, and since the best APS-C mirrorless focus system's hit rate (total in focus frames per second) is only up to matching where DSLRs were six years ago with the D7100 (which is still very good), decided against it. And that's not even discussing the fact that Sony and Fuji have yet to match the Nikon 20 MP APS-C sensor in high ISO and are still sitting at D7200 image quality (which is also very good), or that the UI on Sony still doesn't match what Canon and Nikon do (though Fuji's is easily as good).

And, FYI, if you ask me what lens to get, I'll 100% say to get ones that will adapt to a mirrorless body easily, like the AF-P Nikkors, pretty much any Nikon/Canon exotic telephoto, or macro/PC-E lenses that won't exist in native FE/Z/R for quite some time or make little difference when adapted, and only get non-adapting glass on the cheap (used/refurb/low grade). The D500 will almost certainly be my last DSLR, and the OP's next will almost certainly be their last as well, but if you want the best today for stills, the modern SLR has a three decade head start and it still shows.

 

[bob100]

glass, as well as the Fuji system, because I was doing a body+glass upgrade this past fall so it was the right time to do it, and I worked with camera stores and rented and tried things out. And one who isn't calling you names for choosing mirrorless, even after going through your flickr gallery and seeing how many times you missed focus by 3-6".
So, yes, I had the chance, tried it, and since the best APS-C mirrorless focus system's hit rate (total in focus frames per second) is only up to matching where what Canon and Nikon do (though Fuji's is easily as good).
A exotic telephoto, or macro/PC-E lenses that won't exist in native FE/Z/R for quite some time or make little difference when adapted, and only get non-adapting glass on the cheap (used/refurb/low grade). The D500 will almost certainly be my last DSLR, and the OP's next will almost certainly be their last as well, but if you want the best today for stills, the modern SLR has a three decade head start and it still shows.

LOL !
spoken like a true dinosaur Nikon DSLR user ... LOL !
(working with the camera stores! )

hint: mirrorless is smaller and lighter and can easily use DSLR lenses

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[jec6613]

OP, if you have any more questions about the cameras you asked about (or any others) from somebody who's actually shot with them, feel free to ask anything you would like.

 

[havoc315]

I want to address this whole "must get mirrorless" thing.

I'm a fan of mirrorless. The industry is definitely moving in that direction and mirrorless has many innate advantages.

That said -- traditional dSLRs are a long way from dead. Particularly for amateur sports shooters, dSLRs offer many advantages:

I know Canon, Nikon and Sony very well. I know Fuji and the others less well, so I'm mostly going to stick to the big 3:
-Canon has full frame and aps-c mirrorless, but they each use entirely different mounts. The camera speed and focus systems are not up to the task for sports/action shooting. End of story.

-Nikon only has full frame mirrorless, with their cheapest mirrorless camera being $2000. They have no native telephoto lenses yet. The focus system is questionable for sports, especially in low light. The speed (burst rate, buffer, etc), is ok at best... but cannot rival the immediacy of a dSLR.

-Sony: Full frame and aps-c. And honestly, of the big three, they are the only ones that offer cameras and lenses that are capable of fast sports action shooting. The Sony A9 is a top of the line, pro sports shooter, that can keep up with any camera. But it's around $4,000!! The only more affordable Sony full frame cameras -- You can get a Sony A7ii for $1000 -- but it's totally not up to the task of sports.
So the only affordable aps-c mirrorless camera from the big three brands, that I would see as really a top notch sports performer, is the Sony A6400.

OP -- it may be worth looking at the A6400. It offers a few advantages over the others, including 11 fps shooting, a super fast "AI" autofocus system...

But that doesn't mean I would take it over a Nikon D500 or D7500. The ergonomics of a D500 or D7500 are much better. The D500 or D7500 offer far superior battery life.
And getting to indoor sports shooting: You need a 70-200/2.8. You already have one. The Sony version runs $2500!!!!
So while the A6400 is an excellent camera... you would find it much cheaper to stay within Nikon, and the Nikon cameras would give many advantages.

Yes -- Mirrorless is the future. And for many uses and types of shooters, I would strongly recommend mirrorless. But all comes down to use, budget, etc. Traditional dSLRs are still excellent cameras, there are many uses where they may still be superior, and definitely uses where they are more affordable. (in the looooong term, mirrorless cameras will be cheaper than dSLRs, but they don't yet have the huge library of used and affordable lenses you can get for dSLRs).

 

[bob100]

"end of story"

LOL !

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

there's a reason most pros shoot with Canon !

 

[havoc315]

"end of story"

LOL !

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

there's a reason most pros shoot with Canon !

Actually... that’s not true. But depends on type of pro.
To the extent Canon is popular with sports pros — it’s about the support system and exotic lens availability, has almost nothing to do with the camera bodies or consumer lenses. (An $11,000 400mm/2.8 isn’t going to be relevant to many consumers).

But secondly, and most critically, there are virtually no pros shooting Canon mirrorless. Maybe a few travel pros... but you won’t find wedding photographers or photo journalists shooting with the Canon Rf, and you won’t see a single sports photographer as the Super Bowl with a Canon mirrorless.

Among working pros, you will find a good number of Sony shooters— for wedding photographers, portrait photographers, Sony mirrorless is doing extremely well.

For sports shooting, you’ll find a small but growing number of Sony a9 shooters. But the overwhelming majority of the sports pros are using Canon and Nikon DSLRs. Sony mirrorless being a distant third. Canon and Nikon mirrorless being non-existant in that space. (Things May be very different in 3-5 years).

 

[bob100]

Actually... that’s not true. But depends on type of pro.
To the extent Canon is popular with sports pros — it’s about the support system and exotic lens availability, has almost nothing to do with the camera bodies or consumer lenses. (An $11,000 400mm/2.8 isn’t going to be relevant to many consumers).
But secondly, and most critically, there are virtually no pros shooting Canon mirrorless. Maybe a few travel pros... but you won’t find wedding photographers or photo journalists shooting with the Canon Rf, and you won’t see a single sports photographer as the Super Bowl with a Canon mirrorless.
Among working pros, you will find a good number of Sony shooters— for wedding photographers, portrait photographers, Sony mirrorless is doing extremely well.
For sports shooting, you’ll find a small but growing number of Sony a9 shooters. But the overwhelming majority of the sports pros are using Canon and Nikon DSLRs. Sony mirrorless being a distant third. Canon and Nikon mirrorless being non-existant in that space. (Things May be very different in 3-5 years).

actually true but I've heard of a sony wannabe professional ....

(mirrorless can easily use DSLR lens)

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

 

[Meshell2002]

Sorry it has taken me a while to get back to this thread (my real job calls, LOL). I appreciate all the feedback. I know the mirrorless are coming/ the future but since I already have some nikon lenses for now sticking with nikon is probably my best option. I do shoot raw and have started editing in LR. I have a few photos floating around on this board from my first trip to WDW that I just got around to processing (6 years later....HA I didn't have LR then just shot raw + jpeg "just in case"). There is also a thread on photographing gymnastics where you can see how the d5100 performed (mostly just white balance and exposure adjusted in LR). With proper timing I did get some keepers but I want improved AF in low light, I had some great framed shots that were out of focus last season. It appeared that my autofocus had trouble due to the subject and background not having a lot of contrast and low light.

The d7500 does seem to fit me and jec6613's point about the difference in memory cards is valid. The buffer on the d5100 is very small (like maybe 8 frames in RAW). The d500 looks great but I would probably enjoy having a less pro body on the d7500 due to the menus being similar (faster learning curve for me) and the smaller price tag. With the price difference (to the d500) I could add a used nikon 24-70 2.8 (and sell my kit lens). Gymnastics/ theatre doesn't allow flash and most of my travel pictures are during the day/ outside, so the attached flash would be nice so I don't have to carry one for the rare occasion I want fill flash. Since meet season starts in August this gives me time to consider the budget. The only negative about the d7500 I don't think it has a battery grip option and I kind of wanted a battery grip but I don't use one now so I guess I won't know what I'm missing. I do try to shoot vertical with gym some.

I guess my main question is the d7500 autofocus leaps and bounds better? the d7200 bodies are really coming down in price.

 

[jec6613]

In static subjects and slow moving basic tracking (birds in flight on a sunny day) no it's not much better, but the 3D tracking, group AF, face detection (and at close distances even eye detection) is leaps and bounds better, and is much better in low light. Most of that is due to the metering sensor going from 2k pixels to 180k pixels and Expeed 5 coupling it to the AF sensors - basically, it uses the AF sensors of a high end DSLR with the tracking systems of a mirrorless camera. I went with the rented approach to try it out so I only had a few days, but there was no question it was better than my D7200. The more important upgrade though is that in raw, the D7200 is only a 5 FPS camera - barely better than the 4 FPS D5100. The D7500 is an 8 FPS camera, the same as the 7D and D300s, with a much deeper buffer and card offload. Even in 14 bit lossless compressed raw, you can expect to get 8 seconds at 8 FPS, about double that (in time) of the D7200 doing only 5 FPS. The AutoISO program is also improved significantly, so that it's really fully usable with sports - set your shutter and aperture and the camera handles the ISO for proper exposure, and that flicker reduction is a Godsend under gym lights.

I'm not saying that the D7200 is bad - it isn't, it's a fantastic camera that I'd recommend in a heartbeat if it were the right one for someone, but for sports and continuous shooting, the AF improvements, deeper buffer, and other small tweaks make the D7500 leaps and bounds better.

As for the battery grip, I do own and sometimes use one. The D7200, D7500, and D500 are all much taller cameras than your D5100, and so the first two don't really require it for ergonomics unless you have really big hands, and the D500 doesn't require it even then (it's a big body). The EN-EL15 battery also has twice the capacity of the EN-EL14 you're used to, which will be a big help as well. Don't skimp out and get third party batteries though - they don't last nearly as long as genuine Nikon ones if you're shooting continuously. If you live near a Best Buy, they frequently have D7500's that you can pick up and see how big they are, but coming from a D5100 it's not a contest which is nicer to pick up and hold, because they're all so much better.

Lastly, the lens ... you can get a Nikon 24-70, but unless you're planning on getting a full frame DSLR in the next year or two, I'd skip it. And I wouldn't recommend getting a full frame DSLR after that - by then you should be looking at a Z6 or similar, and the Nikon 24-70 adapts poorly to mirrorless systems, even Nikon's own. Even used they're expensive, and really not appropriately sized on a DX body, and honestly their acuity wide open on DX just isn't that good. Plus, if you sell your kit lens (which you'll get about nothing for) you don't have any wide angle at all, only getting to a 35mm equivalent. If you want a faster midrange, as much as I don't like third party lenses normally, the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 is a better choice, and going for 1/3 of the price new of the lowest used 24-70 f/2.8G. If you really feel that the 50-70mm range is important to your shooting though (it isn't for me as it isn't a very big gap), the Nikkor 16-80 f/2.8-4 is a much better choice and available refurbished or as a kit lens with the D7500 for about $600. It's a stop slower at the long end, but a heck of a lot sharper and the rendering is much better using the new Nikkor design philosophies, and it's still faster than your kit lens. And if you want fast low light lenses for high shutter speeds, the 50 f/1.8 or 85 f/1.8 are absolute speed demons for indoor sports at very affordable prices. You could get the 16-80 and a prime and still come in for significantly less money than the 24-70 is used. Oh, and the 16-80 adapts just fine to Nikon's mirrorless bodies, aside from being a DX lens (I'm crossing my fingers that we get a DX mirrorless camera!)

 

[Meshell2002]

In static subjects and slow moving basic tracking (birds in flight on a sunny day) no it's not much better, but the 3D tracking, group AF, face detection (and at close distances even eye detection) is leaps and bounds better, and is much better in low light. Most of that is due to the metering sensor going from 2k pixels to 180k pixels and Expeed 5 coupling it to the AF sensors - basically, it uses the AF sensors of a high end DSLR with the tracking systems of a mirrorless camera. I went with the rented approach to try it out so I only had a few days, but there was no question it was better than my D7200. The more important upgrade though is that in raw, the D7200 is only a 5 FPS camera - barely better than the 4 FPS D5100. The D7500 is an 8 FPS camera, the same as the 7D and D300s, with a much deeper buffer and card offload. Even in 14 bit lossless compressed raw, you can expect to get 8 seconds at 8 FPS, about double that (in time) of the D7200 doing only 5 FPS. The AutoISO program is also improved significantly, so that it's really fully usable with sports - set your shutter and aperture and the camera handles the ISO for proper exposure, and that flicker reduction is a Godsend under gym lights.

I'm not saying that the D7200 is bad - it isn't, it's a fantastic camera that I'd recommend in a heartbeat if it were the right one for someone, but for sports and continuous shooting, the AF improvements, deeper buffer, and other small tweaks make the D7500 leaps and bounds better.

As for the battery grip, I do own and sometimes use one. The D7200, D7500, and D500 are all much taller cameras than your D5100, and so the first two don't really require it for ergonomics unless you have really big hands, and the D500 doesn't require it even then (it's a big body). The EN-EL15 battery also has twice the capacity of the EN-EL14 you're used to, which will be a big help as well. Don't skimp out and get third party batteries though - they don't last nearly as long as genuine Nikon ones if you're shooting continuously. If you live near a Best Buy, they frequently have D7500's that you can pick up and see how big they are, but coming from a D5100 it's not a contest which is nicer to pick up and hold, because they're all so much better.

Lastly, the lens ... you can get a Nikon 24-70, but unless you're planning on getting a full frame DSLR in the next year or two, I'd skip it. And I wouldn't recommend getting a full frame DSLR after that - by then you should be looking at a Z6 or similar, and the Nikon 24-70 adapts poorly to mirrorless systems, even Nikon's own. Even used they're expensive, and really not appropriately sized on a DX body, and honestly their acuity wide open on DX just isn't that good. Plus, if you sell your kit lens (which you'll get about nothing for) you don't have any wide angle at all, only getting to a 35mm equivalent. If you want a faster midrange, as much as I don't like third party lenses normally, the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 is a better choice, and going for 1/3 of the price new of the lowest used 24-70 f/2.8G. If you really feel that the 50-70mm range is important to your shooting though (it isn't for me as it isn't a very big gap), the Nikkor 16-80 f/2.8-4 is a much better choice and available refurbished or as a kit lens with the D7500 for about $600. It's a stop slower at the long end, but a heck of a lot sharper and the rendering is much better using the new Nikkor design philosophies, and it's still faster than your kit lens. And if you want fast low light lenses for high shutter speeds, the 50 f/1.8 or 85 f/1.8 are absolute speed demons for indoor sports at very affordable prices. You could get the 16-80 and a prime and still come in for significantly less money than the 24-70 is used. Oh, and the 16-80 adapts just fine to Nikon's mirrorless bodies, aside from being a DX lens (I'm crossing my fingers that we get a DX mirrorless camera!)

Wow! what an awesome response. You answered my questions and anticipated what would suit me better for lens choices. I had considered the 16-80 also (for just family shooting/ walk around not really for sports) and considering I'm going to probably keep this camera for a long time. I really like the reach of a DX so unless she quits gymnastics I doubt I will consider an upgrade to FF (unless dx goes away) anytime soon. As a parent not being allowed behind the barrier (or use flash) most shots are at about 70-120mm on DX, but the awards/ podium shots can be a wider angle to get the whole group (to be honest I actually used my 70-200 for the events and pulled out my phone for the group shots). I've considered those primes for shooting meets and I may go that route if the tamron performs poorly on the new body, I assumed it was my (old) camera but you never know, i've read mixed reviews on the tamron for autofocus, though it seemed about the same speed as my regular zoom and was better with the exposure since it was faster. As far as the grip I will probably be fine without it if the grip is a little larger than the d5100, I'm a woman but I have long fingers (I'm 5' 10"). So now I'm thinking to check for used 16-80/ primes.

 

[jec6613]

I would get the 16-80 new, but in a kit with the D7500 body. Nikon uses minimum advertised pricing so everybody will be within a few dollars of each other, and the kit is available from at least BBY, Adorama and B&H, so you can pick your preferred retailer. It's the same price as a pretty bargain used copy of the 16-80, and then you get an actual new lens, which is always a nice feeling. I've never tried the 16-80 in person, but I have the older 16-85 (and the 17-55 f/2.8) and aside from aperture wouldn't hesitate to shoot indoor sports with the 16-85. Every report of the 16-80 is that it's much better in speed and obviously a full f stop faster, and the photos I've seen do look better with it than the 16-85. And every E type lens I have always is much more consistent in exposure and smoother to run than my D and G types.

If you're always shooting in the 70-120 mm range (lightroom can check for you), the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 may be a tempting lens, but don't get it, because the AF just doesn't track that well either, particularly on the outer sensors. But if you reach that point where the lens' motor is the problem, post again because the D7500 opens up a lot of other possibilities with screwdriver (AF-D) lenses, and also it opens up the primes to a lot of older models as well.

On FX, 70-120mm does however become 105-180 on an FX body, which is of course eminently do-able. The problem is, the cheapest FX body that does well with indoor sports is something like a D850 or used D3/D4, with the D750 being basically the same as the D7200 but with less AF coverage. That sort of jump to a single digit body or D800 series incurs a huge penalty in cost (2x the price of the cheapest), you're back to XQD or CF cards, and it's not as fast for either focusing or continuous as the D7500 unless you get a D850 with grip or D5. Oh, and they're heavy as all heck, all for a one stop noise improvement at the sensor that can be easily overcome by just using an f/1.8 prime over an f/2.8 zoom. And that's why I shoot DX myself of course.

Speaking of primes, check refurbs first because they're often cheaper than used The price delta on the 50 f/1.8G is very little to a new lens (it's a cheap lens), but the 85 f/1.8G can be had for over $150 less than new for refurb or used. Adorama tends to have the best selection of refurbished Nikon gear, I've found it to be usually lower than used prices at KEH. However, now that you can use screwdriver AF lenses, the older 50 f/1.8D is dirt cheap nowadays, even brand new. It won't AF on the D5100, but for the price, so what? It's not as good in bright light because of sensor reflection issues (it's a lens from the film era) but in low light it's a good bargain performer for indoor use, and is super light weight and snappy to focus. For the 85mm lenses, they're all extremely good, even the much older versions, and all focus fast. The F mount lends itself to an 85mm lens being easy to get right.

 

[jec6613]

One other thing, my wife is 5'10 and she finds the grip on my D500 to be big for her taste - the D7200 was better, but though she never tried the D7500 it has much more finger space than the D7200 for longer fingers.

 

[Meshell2002]

I checked LR and it appears that there was only one meet last season where I used (and really needed) the full 200mm, so 80% of my gym shots were within 70-120mm. If I had thought about it I could have moved a little closer by standing along the wall or kneeling along the barrier, so a 50/ 85 combo would possibly work very well for that focal length on DX. We tend to go to the same venues every year for the lower levels (my DD is only 6 years old) in our region.

 

[bob100]

I checked LR and it appears that there was only one meet last season where I used (and really needed) the full 200mm, so 80% of my gym shots were within 70-120mm. If I had thought about it I could have moved a little closer by standing along the wall or kneeling along the barrier, so a 50/ 85 combo would possibly work very well for that focal length on DX. We tend to go to the same venues every year for the lower levels (my DD is only 6 years old) in our region.

getting close is key because if you're close enough you can use a cheap lens. Almost ten 10 years ago I shot a gymnastics competition with the original Canon Rebel XSi and original 50mm 1.8 with no problems.

Untitled by cyclo300, on Flickr

 

[jec6613]

FYI, I you haven't pulled the trigger yet, B&H is selling a refurb D7500 for $699 (the same price as a new D7200) today only as part of their dealzone: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1380709-REG/nikon_1581b_d7500_dslr_camera_body.html