Sony Worth?

[SeanDavis]

Hello all,

 

Currently, I have a Nikon D7200 with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and 50-100 1.8

 

Is the Sony lineup worth moving to (A7R/ A7R2 keep popping into my mind)? And how much would I be looking to pay to fully

switch over? I would most likely keep the 18-35 as it's a good video lens from what I've seen. The alternative would be to upgrade to the

D810/850 depending on when I decide to pull the trigger. I'm honestly looking for more dynamic range of my pictures, as low light noise isn't

terrible on the D7200, however, the dynamic range is trashy when trying to recover shadows. (this would mean selling off both lenses 

and purchasing something else, 24-70. 70-200 etc.)

 

I mostly do photo work, but have an occasional school project for video, and want to get further into it. My niche is

Automotive and Portrait with the occasional landscape. However, I want to get more into shooting events like weddings (tbh for the money)

Link to my website <--- Some of my work.

 

thanks in advance

 

ps: probably wouldn't make the move until later, couple months. 

still in high school and about to go to college. photography

is just a hobby that I happen to make money off of, and this

would be seen as an investment

 

 

[johnt]

I wouldn't bother with Sony. Just forget about them entirely.

 

Canon is better recognized for video features in their DSLRs. Keep that in mind if you really want to expand on your video skills. Nikon is okay in this department. I prefer Nikon for still shots. It's what I use for weddings. 

 

With that said. The Canon 5D mark 3 is an absolute beast of a portrait camera. The dynamic range is so brilliant it's almost unbelievable.  But the dynamic range of any full frame camera is going to be better than a crop sensor. The D850 is a serious camera as well. 

 

You have a decent eye for portraits in terms of lighting. Work on your composure and learn how to use the healing brush in Photoshop. You have some super easy edits to some of your photos where there are people in the background. Your edits to the automotive photos are tasteful. I'd say you have a reasonable career path if you really want to pursue it. Now your non-automotive photos are all over the place and I have nothing nice to say about them. Especially the dogs. What makes your dog photos special?

 

Here are three reasonable things I can recommend for you:

1) Forget Sony, for anything

2) Buy prime lenses first and then assess your need for fast zooms

3) Get rid of the dogs from your site

 

Answer this question: what do you want to be paid for? The answer is what you should showcase on your site. 

[.spider.]

38 minutes ago, JohnT said:

 

Canon is better recognized for video features in their DSLRs. [...] The dynamic range is so brilliant it's almost unbelievable.  But the dynamic range of any full frame camera is going to be better than a crop sensor. 

This is so wrong.

 

Canon has the worst video quality of all DSLRs and mirrorless while Sony offers the best quality.

 

Canon has the least dynamic range while Sony offers the highest dynamic range.

[johnt]

35 minutes ago, .spider. said:

This is so wrong.

 

Canon has the worst video quality of all DSLRs and mirrorless while Sony offers the best quality.

 

Canon has the least dynamic range while Sony offers the highest dynamic range.

Are you just looking at graphs and reviews, or have you actually used and edited stills from these cameras? I'm a photographer. Sony is highly laughable in this realm. Between Nikon and Canon, Canon has better features regarding video in their DSLRs. I'm not sure what you mean "video quality." Lenses are a big factor when it comes to results.

[xQubeZx]

23 minutes ago, JohnT said:

Are you just looking at graphs and reviews, or have you actually used and edited stills from these cameras? I'm a photographer. Sony is highly laughable in this realm. Between Nikon and Canon, Canon has better features regarding video in their DSLRs. I'm not sure what you mean "video quality." Lenses are a big factor when it comes to results.

I’d agree with @.spider. too. I’ve compared raw files from the 6D (an old body but I have not had access to a 5D body I suspect it not to differ to much (mark iii)) 

 

The files from the 6D got nice colors sure, but everything else is horrible. The file basically falls apart in editing compared to the files I’ve gotten out of my a6000 which has a low end Sony sensor. So if you want to push your files a lot in editing Canon is not the way to go, I thought this was pretty well known if you just read some articles and so on. 

 

And I don’t know if you have been living under a rock but Sony delivers some amazing video features. 4k 30p, 1080 120p, log profiles, peaking and zebras. The one thing Canon got going is their amazing Dual pixel AF and basic colors. There is probably a reason why the Sony mirrorless have been used for films as small run and guns or in places where the camera could get destroyed to complement the footage shot on high end cinema cameras. And finally, just because you are a working photographer does not mean you are always right in questions like this. 

 

OP, Sony could be a viable option for you but I would probably look at the A7iii since you said you want to do weddings. It got fast AF, dual SD slots and very good video features to just name a few. Sigma also just released their ART series of lenses for Sony FE too so you can get some amazing primes lenses for it too. 

 

If you don’t want to go Sony Canon and Nikon still does good cameras too. If you want a Canon I’d probably look at a 5D mark iv or a mark iii as its the most all round ff body on their side. For Nikon a D850 is nice but expensive, a used D810 could probably be found for a nice price. 

[.spider.]

50 minutes ago, JohnT said:

Are you just looking at graphs and reviews, or have you actually used and edited stills from these cameras? 

Both

[LaFemmeEnVert]

4 hours ago, SeanDavis said:

Hello all,

 

Currently, I have a Nikon D7200 with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and 50-100 1.8

 

Is the Sony lineup worth moving to (A7R/ A7R2 keep popping into my mind)? And how much would I be looking to pay to fully

switch over? I would most likely keep the 18-35 as it's a good video lens from what I've seen. The alternative would be to upgrade to the

D810/850 depending on when I decide to pull the trigger. I'm honestly looking for more dynamic range of my pictures, as low light noise isn't

terrible on the D7200, however, the dynamic range is trashy when trying to recover shadows. (this would mean selling off both lenses 

and purchasing something else, 24-70. 70-200 etc.)

 

I mostly do photo work, but have an occasional school project for video, and want to get further into it. My niche is

Automotive and Portrait with the occasional landscape. However, I want to get more into shooting events like weddings (tbh for the money)

Link to my website <--- Some of my work.

 

thanks in advance

 

ps: probably wouldn't make the move until later, couple months. 

still in high school and about to go to college. photography

is just a hobby that I happen to make money off of, and this

would be seen as an investment

 

 

the sigma lenses you own are for nikon?  if you keep the lenses then you need to buy a nikon to sony lens adapter that can cost between £50 for cheap versions and £200 or more for expensive makes because you cannot mount nikon lenses on sony cameras without adapting.  you say you are not satisfied with the dynamic range of the Nikon D7200?  it has a dynamic range roughly 14 stops that is similar to the dynamic range of the newest sony A7 camera and the nikon d850.  perhaps you need to consider investing in various filters and improve photo techniques.  gradient ND filters help with reducing the dynamic range gap between extreme bright and extreme darks for landscape phootgraphy. try investing in flash units or off camera lights and strobes to help with low light environment photography or perhaps tripod and timer for taking long exposures.  for video sony cameras, some canon cameras, some panasonic cameras come with better support for video than i think almost every nikon camera.  look at the specifications of sony cameras like the a6500 or A7 models vs the latest Canon 5D and 1D models and Panasonic GH4 and Gh5, you can see they have better codecs and color profiles than Nikon.  nikon doesnt record high bit rate video and doesnt have log gamma, but for your work do you need to record in higher bit rates or need to have log?  what i like about Sony cameras for video is that they are more affordable than Canon in certain areas.  you can buy a sony camera that films in 100mbps or more bit rate with their s-log profiles for approximately £1000 while a canon camera with similar capability will be more expensive.  but i don't like the color rendition and skin tones produced by most sony cameras, they look like reality tv.  this is where I prefer using canon or other cameras or if the production budget can afford to I rent a camera like the Sony F5 or F55 or F65.  though you likely do not need to care about these differences for your school projects.

 

i look at your website and i think you need to fix some issues like the menu not being visible when the image of the blue car appears.  i work with wedding, fashion, artistic photographers that do the sort of things you like to do and all of them invest time and money into properly setting up the light.  they don't just rely on the low light capabilities or dynamic range of the camera nor do they rely on fixing problems in photoshop.  photoshop is their last resort only after they get things right on the set.

[LaFemmeEnVert]

2 hours ago, JohnT said:

Sony is highly laughable in this realm. Between Nikon and Canon, Canon has better features regarding video in their DSLRs.

nikon has the lowest implementation of video between the brands but nikon and canon are similar in their consumer models.  only when you compare at the level of the 5D mark IV and newer do you see the significant differences where you get better codec and bit rate.  Sony already includes log gamma and fairly high bit rate filming starting from their mid range model like the a6300.  nikon doesnt seem to want to compete in the video market and even the D850 video recording is like they are targeting journalists who need video and photo in one camera.  but sony is not laughable for video at all but there are downsides i cant explain without ranting off.  canon doesn't always have better features but if you want something better from canon compared to a sony at least on paper you would have to spend more money. in photogaphy every photographer I know say sony and nikon and canon are similar.  the difference is cost availability of lens and size and obviously some people have their prejudices against one brand or another

[cc143]

To suggest offerings from any of these manufacturers are laughable is plainly idiotic.  Each has advantages and disadvantages and depending on your workflow could use any of them. I can address each argument specifically, but this not the time or place and this post is already too long. 

 

Above arguments aside, the glass you currently have is not only for nikon but aps-c. You have to consider that there is a cost to moving to FF glass, as well as the fact that nikon lenses don't really have smart adapters, even sigma's mc-11 only comes in Canon and Sigma mounts, and even then they really don't marry up that well, to the extent that I wouldn't rely on them in any professional situation, especially a wedding. The glass you have is also pretty great btw. 

 

That being said, my biggest reservation to switching to Sony would be the cost of the switch, specifically, glass. You simply don't yet have the options right now you have in the Canon and Nikon systems, especially in the used market.

 

To just replace what you have adequately lens wise, you would need an FE 24-70mm 2.8 and an FE 70-200mm f/2.8. Of course, this is true for going FF nikon (although I believe your current glass will mount and the camera automatically goes into crop mode) and Canon (I'm pretty sure its the same thing with Nikon, although, there is a caveat that depends on lens design, but I'm pretty sure I've seen people use the 18-35 on a 5d4). With the former 2, you can just go with tamron's excellent versions at half the cost of the Sony...  

 

Then there's the question of the a7r/a7rii, 1) I would go with the a7rii and strongly advise against the first a7 line. 2) Do you really need 40+ mp? It doesn't sound like you do from what you are doing. In that case, why not go with the a7iii? Resolution aside, its a much superior camera to either of the other 2. 

 

Why not a d500? 

 

What I would do personally at this point, given budget restrictions specifically and own experience and preferences, go for a 5d4 or a d850/d810. The 5d4 is a great all rounder, even though it does have significant disadvantages, however, it will do everything you want it to do and much more. The d810, is obviously the cheapest option, it has disadvantages as well, but they are offset by price. The d850 is a great camera all around, with the exception of in video AF. Then switch out the sigma lenses for a Tamron 24-70 and 70-200 G2 regardless of camera choice, hell, even the G1s are great and go quite cheap now. 

 

And just so I don't have to go 12 rounds with everyone afterwards for daring to suggest someone buy a canon camera in 2018, The 5d4 is the best option if you need something that will help you get the results. It requires much less editing and work to get what you need. In-video AF is amazing and colour science great out of the box. Its also a formidable stills camera, even though it could and should have been much more than it is in light of the competition. Also, their price is pretty low on the used market due to all this bad rep in comparison.

[LaFemmeEnVert]

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

colour science great out of the box

canon has good color science and perhaps better than sony in many cases but with a little bit of work or in some cases a lot of work any different cameras can be matched

 

12 hours ago, SeanDavis said:

 I want to get more into shooting events like weddings

advice from a wedding photographer friend, "invest in lighting for on camera and off camera work and perhaps wireless triggers. you have good portraits but nothing will change by changing cameras.  nikon creative lighting system is very good".  she also said think about getting a macro lens for portraiture sometimes they are better for close ups and isolating the person from the background than wide aperture lenses

 

this is one of your photos

 

she said here it looks like you were exposing the shot for the couple and wasn't using a flash which is why the sky in the background is blown out.  if you set the camera to expose for the sky and used a flash to fill in the light for the couple you can get a better image

[cc143]

7 minutes ago, LaFemmeEnVert said:

canon has good color science and perhaps better than sony in many cases but with a little bit of work or in some cases a lot of work any different cameras can be matched

Canon's colour science is widely praised. Sure if you grade your footage, and if you do so correctly, then using a flat profile will mean you get better results (which is also available on the Canon or any other camera for that matter.) If on the other hand you don't grade, or even worse, you think you do but are shit at it, you end up with... well actually, I saw a video on yt that perfectly describes what I'm on about: Its at 8.20 somewhere. 

 

7 minutes ago, LaFemmeEnVert said:

advice from a wedding photographer friend, "invest in lighting for on camera and off camera work and perhaps wireless triggers. you have good portraits but nothing will change by changing cameras.  nikon creative lighting system is very good"

 I agree, but, flashes etc aren't the easiest thing to figure out for beginners. It takes a lot of research and practise. Also, There's much cheaper off brand stuff that is pretty well made, like Yongnuo or godox etc. that makes much more sense in most of the cases (I can get 4 yongnuo flashes for the price of 1 Canon equivalent, both similarly specced.)

[LaFemmeEnVert]

11 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Canon's colour science is widely praised.

you dont need the video, i already know this and I too like canon color science

 

11 minutes ago, cc143 said:

 I agree, but, flashes etc aren't the easiest thing to figure out for beginners. It takes a lot of research and practise.

he has to start practicing you don't pick up the skill by avoiding using flashes

[SeanDavis]

From looking at this, it seems that the 5d4/3, a7iii, or d810/850.

 

From price alone, I can take the 5d4, a7iii, and d850 out. The lenses and body would be too much investment for me at this time.

 

With that, a 5d3 is about $1500, D810 about $2000, and the Sony A7R1 is about $1000-1300. 

 

With that, how is the dynamic range of the 5d3 vs A7R1? For the prices I could get on these, the lenses are at 

least more reasonable. (lol @sony still) but Video is more of an afterthought, just want something easier to use that

shoots in raw so I can edit. Grading the current Nikon video is kinda impossible to make look natural/ good. 

 

Is lens quality between Sony and Canon pretty equivalent? I know they're both 'pretty much' equal in terms of sharpness. 

Mainly in terms of the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 (2.8i bc price for canon, f4 for sony bc price). These would be my main lenses

as I need the range for automotive photography as it is my main niche. 

 

Weddings are out of the picture for now, wouldn't be for a couple of years anyway. Couples have trust issues for hiring a 17 year old for their most important moment. More realistically, my work comprises 3/4 automotive and 1/4 portrait/other work. So the body would be a future proof move. And Mechanical Engineering is my major, photography is just a hobby I enjoy,  which also pays for food and graphics cards.

 

My instagram is better for pictures Instagram.com/sea.n_

My website is a little outdated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cc143]

1 minute ago, SeanDavis said:

From looking at this, it seems that the 5d4/3, a7iii, or d810/850.

 

From price alone, I can take the 5d4, a7iii, and d850 out. The lenses and body would be too much investment for me at this time.

 

With that, a 5d3 is about $1500, D810 about $2000, and the Sony A7R1 is about $1000-1300. 

 

With that, how is the dynamic range of the 5d3 vs A7R1? For the prices I could get on these, the lenses are at 

least more reasonable. (lol @sony still) but Video is more of an afterthought, just want something easier to use that

shoots in raw so I can edit. Grading the current Nikon video is kinda impossible to make look natural/ good. 

 

Is lens quality between Sony and Canon pretty equivalent? I know they're both 'pretty much' equal in terms of sharpness. 

Mainly in terms of the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 (2.8i bc price for canon, f4 for sony bc price). These would be my main lenses

as I need the range for automotive photography as it is my main niche. 

 

Weddings are out of the picture for now, wouldn't be for a couple of years anyway. Couples have trust issues for hiring a 17 year old for their most important moment. More realistically, my work comprises 3/4 automotive and 1/4 portrait/other work. So the body would be a future proof move. And Mechanical Engineering is my major, photography is just a hobby I enjoy,  which also pays for food and graphics cards.

 

My instagram is better for pictures Instagram.com/sea.n_

My website is a little outdated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of the 3 I'd go with the d810, I have a 5d3, its great, I love it, but the AA filter and significantly smaller resolution make it not something I'd recommend all things considered right now, unless you already have the glass for it. Keep in mind you can still shoot at crop mode, with your current glass for a while. 

 

But, I wouldn't be surprised if you could find used 5d4 s on ebay and so on for close to $2500 and its a much better all rounder and quite a lot of camera. 

 

I didn't make this clear enough earlier, but, don't touch the a7/a7s/a7r/a7ii with a 10 foot pole. All things considered the 5d and d810 are much better cameras. The a7iii is a different story. As far as glass is concerned, I find Canon's to be slightly better, with the caveat that there's debate on it, so they must be pretty close. (The 24-70mm 2.8L II for instance I saw recently people who are pretty hard into sony right now praise a lot vs the 24-70 GM). Also, keep in mind, the 70-200 Canon for instance will probably be upgraded this year, and is currently almost 10 years old! The fact it still competes says something about the glass I think. 

 

For the time being, what I would do is go for the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 VC and SP 70-200mm f/2.8 VC, or the G2 versions if you can afford them. I own the latter and its supposed to be close to the Canon, I'm fine with it, especially given how much I paid for it in comparison. Also keep in mind I have heard hardcore Nikon fans diss the 70-200mm 2.8 nikkor quite a lot, even going as far as saying the tamron is the better lens (the angry photographer comes to mind). The set could probably be found used for ~$1200. 

 

For the 16-35mm, If you do go Canon I'd suggest going for the f/4 instead of the 2.8, its sharper, has IS and you probably won't be shooting under f/4 most of the time anyway for the time being. (Weddings maybe you'd need it for). 

 

Its common for younger photographers to enlist with experienced people to shoot weddings to learn and overcome that issue. Maybe try doing that instead. 

[LaFemmeEnVert]

26 minutes ago, SeanDavis said:

just want something easier to use that

shoots in raw so I can edit

you mean raw for photo right?  because raw for video is not available in canon, nikon and sony unless you spend thousands.  the cheapest raw video camera is the black magic pocket cinema camera that cost 1000USD and the next cheapest after that is the Ursa Mini 4K that is 3000USD.  and your d7200 doesnt capture raw images? i thougth all dslrs can shoot raw for photo.

 

26 minutes ago, SeanDavis said:

Grading the current Nikon video is kinda impossible to make look natural/ good. 

i advise you never to shoot video with nikon for grading.  if you use a nikon for video make sure you get it right in camera and avoid relying on post production color grading.  in this area even video with a Sony A6300 or 6500 that has log gamma profiles i dont advise anyone to film for post production color grading if they can help it.  the codec in them are not ideal for color grading work less you are willing to transcode them to another codec or use an external device like an atomos recorder to capture in prores or dnx.  xavc-s at 100mbps is not truly ideal for log gamma work

 

26 minutes ago, SeanDavis said:

my work comprises 3/4 automotive and 1/4 portrait/other work

it doesnt matter if you wont be taking on wedding gigs, lighting and setting up the lights is still important.  its the same for photography and video.  they help you get a better final result of the image.  i look at your automative photography on both your website and instagram and compare to what I find on google, the best ones I see on google search shows photographers who play with lighting

[LaFemmeEnVert]

16 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Its common for younger photographers to enlist with experienced people to shoot weddings to learn and overcome that issue. Maybe try doing that instead. 

not just younger photographers and not just for photography.  during film school and even after graduating most take up assistant work with seasoned professionals. unless very talented, gifted and very creative its hard to start on your own where there is a lot of competition or where people have little faith and awareness of your abilities unless you undercut the competition by charging less and get other professionals mad at you for undercuting their prices but from experience these amateurs dont last long as their work rarely satisfies the customer

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, SeanDavis said:

From looking at this, it seems that the 5d4/3, a7iii, or d810/850.

 

From price alone, I can take the 5d4, a7iii, and d850 out. The lenses and body would be too much investment for me at this time.

 

With that, a 5d3 is about $1500, D810 about $2000, and the Sony A7R1 is about $1000-1300. 

 

With that, how is the dynamic range of the 5d3 vs A7R1? For the prices I could get on these, the lenses are at 

least more reasonable. (lol @sony still) but Video is more of an afterthought, just want something easier to use that

shoots in raw so I can edit. Grading the current Nikon video is kinda impossible to make look natural/ good. 

 

Is lens quality between Sony and Canon pretty equivalent? I know they're both 'pretty much' equal in terms of sharpness. 

Mainly in terms of the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 (2.8i bc price for canon, f4 for sony bc price). These would be my main lenses

as I need the range for automotive photography as it is my main niche. 

 

Weddings are out of the picture for now, wouldn't be for a couple of years anyway. Couples have trust issues for hiring a 17 year old for their most important moment. More realistically, my work comprises 3/4 automotive and 1/4 portrait/other work. So the body would be a future proof move. And Mechanical Engineering is my major, photography is just a hobby I enjoy,  which also pays for food and graphics cards.

 

My instagram is better for pictures Instagram.com/sea.n_

My website is a little outdated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do not get a first gen A7r, just don’t. Its painfully slow to use and is only useful for landscape and slow studio work where you got a lot of time and don’t need super fast AF. So really, I don’t think its worth it to you to switch to a Sony unless you can shell out for a a7iii. 

 

I liked the option given above to get a D500 if you are fine with a cropped body as your lenses are pretty good and then you would not need to invest in new ones. 

 

If you badly want to switch to FF either the 5D mark iii or a D810 would be a solid choice imo. It’s more important what glass you put in front of those later. 

[SeanDavis]

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

Of the 3 I'd go with the d810, I have a 5d3, its great, I love it, but the AA filter and significantly smaller resolution make it not something I'd recommend all things considered right now, unless you already have the glass for it. Keep in mind you can still shoot at crop mode, with your current glass for a while. 

 

3 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

If you badly want to switch to FF either the 5D mark iii or a D810 would be a solid choice imo. It’s more important what glass you put in front of those later. 

 

Okay, so narrowed down to the 5d3 and d810. d500 is also a consideration, however, I'd like to move to FF if possible. 

So besides the megapixel difference and AA filter, what are some other key differences?

How is the high noise performance for both of these? Dynamic range? 

 

What about the 6d2? Should I consider this at all over the 5d3? 

[cc143]

30 minutes ago, SeanDavis said:

 

 

Okay, so narrowed down to the 5d3 and d810. d500 is also a consideration, however, I'd like to move to FF if possible. 

So besides the megapixel difference and AA filter, what are some other key differences?

How is the high noise performance for both of these? Dynamic range? 

 

What about the 6d2? Should I consider this at all over the 5d3? 

In my experience and opinion I am quite happy with noise performance on the 5d3. I have shot concerts with it and its performance was quite fine. I also find (from samples and reviews I have seen) noise patterns to be more pleasing on the Canon cameras over the nikons, but that is sort of subjective. 

 

The 5d3 will probably be better for video work than the d810. But for stills overall, the d810 would be superior due to those 2 reasons. 

 

I wouldn't go with the 6d2, because of the very small AF coverage (the points cover a very small percentage of the frame) and the fact it only has 1 card slot. 

 

Honestly, the d500 might actually be your best choice for the time being, its a great camera. 

[LaFemmeEnVert]

3 hours ago, cc143 said:

Honestly, the d500 might actually be your best choice for the time being, its a great camera. 

changing from a nikon D7200 to a D500 will not change anything for the op.  the major features the d500 has better than the d7200 are 4K video, higher iso capability and more continuous shooting frame rate but it wil not make the op take better photos than what he already does.  neither will switching his system to a camera like the 5D3 or 4 and spending more money on replacing lenses. if he wants to make better looking photos he should invest in lighting systems and learn how to set up lights. if he replaces his camera he will still be shooting the same way that he has been shooting with his current camera, nothing changes.

[johnt]

1 hour ago, LaFemmeEnVert said:

changing from a nikon D7200 to a D500 will not change anything for the op.  the major features the d500 has better than the d7200 are 4K video, higher iso capability and more continuous shooting frame rate but it wil not make the op take better photos than what he already does.  neither will switching his system to a camera like the 5D3 or 4 and spending more money on replacing lenses. if he wants to make better looking photos he should invest in lighting systems and learn how to set up lights. if he replaces his camera he will still be shooting the same way that he has been shooting with his current camera, nothing changes.

These aren't film cameras. There are noticeable differences between crop sensors and full frame sensor cameras, and their respective lenses. Particularly when comparing bokeh or high ISO noise. 

 

Will a new camera or lens help the op? Maybe. I agree lighting would be more beneficial, but lighting and modifiers costs a lot of money, and it's not really important to hobbyists... as the op is claiming to be. In his position, I would focus more on prime lenses before new bodies or lighting. 

 

In some regards the D500 is a better camera for lighting as it includes RF transmitters for off camera flashes. The D7200 only has IR. Plus, Nikon's prosumer cameras are more comfortable to hold and feel nicer in hand.

[SeanDavis]

Lighting for my style of automotive work is not necessary. However, it is a future investment. I'd rather upgrade my body now. 

[LaFemmeEnVert]

4 hours ago, JohnT said:

There are noticeable differences between crop sensors and full frame sensor cameras, and their respective lenses. Particularly when comparing bokeh or high ISO noise. 

the d500 is still a cropped sensor camera and yes there will be differences because of differences in generations of sensor and image processing chip or if he buys a 5D some other differences because of sensor size  there will not be much difference if the op takes a picture of a car in the same exact or similar environment.  exposure setting on the camera will be similar with probably about 1 stop difference for shutter speed but he will still get blown skies.  changing cameras doesnt imply he will change the way he takes photos.  lighting does not have to be expensive, even one light like a flash unit thats better than the pop up flash on a camera and a single wireless trigger or off shoe cable set will set him back between 200-600.

[cc143]

I disagree, the d500 is notoriously good in both dynamic range and high iso capability, in fact I would argue due to architecture differnces, it will perform as well if not better in both than the 5d3 or d810. 

 

What you also have to consider is that artificial lighting is not always the answer, it certainly isn't always possible to set up. In a busy car show or for landscape shots for instance, which seems to be a large part of what OP does. 

 

OP I assume you are already using a tripod and nd filters for landscape shots? 

 

 

[LaFemmeEnVert]

24 minutes ago, cc143 said:

the d500 is notoriously good in both dynamic range and high iso capability

a lot of reviewers and those who tested the d500 say that the camera is similar to the d7200. so the op will be trading one cropped sensor camera for another with similar ratings for dynamic range. he should either get different lenses like someone wrote or consider seriously some lights even if its just one light unit. in video production that i mostly do even shining one light on the subject is tons better than having no light.  for landscape tripod, filters and a remote shutter trigger will be more essential than a light but I'm talking about for his portraiture and other photos where the subject is close to the camera. amd artificial lighting is usually the answer and if you have the right lights and know how to use them you can usually overwrite the behavior of natural or ambient light.

 

this video suggests getting a polarizr filter which i think is a good idea