New camera dilemma

[JohnBoy1966]

Okay, so way back in 2012, I bought a Nikon D5100 as a "kit" with 2 lenses. 18-55mm and 55-200mm "Kit" APS lenses. £599 plus second battery but with free shoulder carry case and lens cloth.
I bought the D5100 as at that time, the 16mp sensor in the D5100 seemed to be gaining legendary status. Indeed I would have bought the D7000 which used the same sensor, but at that time, my budget just wouldn't stretch that little bit further.
I was impressed by the fact that Nikon was following a policy of using the exact same lens mount that they'd always used. I realised that some full frame lenses with Nikon F mount would not auto focus and some would extend too far into the body. I realised that the inbuilt autofocus motor of the D7000 would have overcome at least one of these limitations.
I grew to love my D5100. Even though the colours were a bit flat even compared with my Fuji HS-20EXR bridge camera.
I uploaded some stuff to the stock people and some have become incredibly successful.
I swapped my 18-55mm kit lens for the 18-105mm kit lens which was and still is the best thing I've ever done. Just about the right amount of range for a "walk about" lens.
I seldom use the 55-200mm lens, but when I do, the results are fantastic for me.
I added the incredibly cheap 35mm f1.8 lens and this lens challenges me. The full frame equivalent of a nifty fifty, this lens makes me want to move my position to improve my composition.
I then added the Tamron 10-24mm ultra wide angle lens which satisfies my landscape ambitions. (Who doesn't wanna be a Thomas H?)
But......
12 month ago, I bought a (second user) Nikon D7200. (£450)
I now have a camera fully compatible with my existing lenses. The extra megapixels means that I can crop more aggressively whilst meeting the stock agencies minimums.
The D7200 has much better vibrancy of colours.
I don't care too much about video - my Google Pixel 4A mounted on a pocket gimbal works fine for you tube videos.
So, the question is this.....
What are my upgrade options and why would I want to upgrade?
Cost of living crisis, I don't have 4 figures to spend.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

Is your equipment holding you back? Do you feel a change would in some way improve your photography? If not save your money and keep what you’ve got.

 

[Erty]

Sigma 17-50 stabilised (latest version) for £2-300. Excellent image quality but you lose the extra reach of your current lens.
The 70-300 AF-P VR lenses are really good but it doesn't sound like you need them.

In terms of image quality, the D7200 is about as good as anything out there in APSC. The more modern cameras are a bit better above ISO 1600 but the basic sensor isn't any better. I had a look at a D7500 today and the controls looked close to my D7200 apart from the touch screen. So not much to be gained there for me at least.

Mirrorless sounds too expensive and full frame DSLR would still cost lots to get you where you currently are, even with rapidly dropping prices on some lenses. If you don't need the low light ability of full frame (D750 or whatever) then there is not much to gain.

 

[lindsay]

I can't answer better than Andy above, but I'd like to offer a welcome to TP, that's an interesting first post. It would be good to see some of your images in time, and I for one am curious about the sort of things you've had success with via stock agencies. Well done, goes to prove that the most expensive kit isn't necessary to achieve something.

 

[JohnBoy1966]

I'm not obsessed with buying the newest or latest gear and the Nikon D7200 certainly isn't holding me back.
What I do occasionally worry about is, if the D7200 broke, what could I replace it with?
Frankly, other than another D7200, there is nothing else I could replace it with. Unless I was willing to spend several thousands of pounds.
I was told that "glass lasts a lifetime" but to replace my D7200 with something "better" I'd have to replace all my glass, whether I stayed with Nikon or jumped ship to another brand.
The Nikon D7500 is just about hanging in there as a current model, but the sensor is 20 megapixel and from a cropping point of view would be a big step down from my 24 megapixel D7200.
The Z30, Z50, Zfc, same story.
Going full frame to a Z7 or changing to another maker would both require me to replace all my lenses. And spend several thousands of pounds.
Low light - this seems to be getting a bit out of hand for most purposes! Even my D5100 with 12 year old technology can give great hand held results inside dim churches. And for most purposes, a tripod seems to me to be a much cheaper way of being able to use lower ISO settings - I seldom photograph things in dark places which need fast shutter speeds!

Moving on to stock - the stuff I've had most success with are completely random.
A deserted street scene in Chester during lockdown has done reasonably well - it even got featured by a Yorkshire newspaper in an article about lockdown in York.
Shops and business premises.
My bathroom. I didn't clean it for several weeks and the cistern lid was broken.
A piece of craft paper bought from the poundshop has earned a weeks wage and continues to sell.
It's impossible to earn a wage from just stock photography, but it is fun, it's a great excuse to "get outside" and it's intriguing to discover my mundane photographs being used in every corner of the world.

 

[steveb]

So, the question is this.....
What are my upgrade options and why would I want to upgrade?

I suspect you have all you need for your typical usage. If you haven't already got a sensor wet cleaning kit including a loupe, it's worth having having it handy. To suit my photography I carry 3 bodies with lenses attached for speed of use and convenience. I haven't cleaned a sensor for a long time. Which agency are you with, mine is Alamy.

 

[swanseamale47]

Also check out the Sigma 17-70mm, more reach than the 17-50, but a bit slower. That said it does a great macro as well, focus stupid close IMHO. Also optically very good.

 

[Don Fischer]

I think modern camera's cause a delima by simply hitting the market. Remember the old Kodax Instamatic? They were successful because they were simple to use and anyone could take a picture with them. Then lot's of people out grew them and got better cameras that were actually better without being obscene! Today there is a cell phone to learn on then step into a DSLR and all the stuff even an entry level will do blows the mind! The technolodgy in camera's is mind blowing and people are always looking for the best bang for their buck. That just might be a point and shoot for around $300-$400! Compared to even an entry level DSLR, it really ain't much to brag about but it's light years ahead of the old instamatic! And more important is it's easy to shoot. I used to keep one in a pouch on my belt everywhere I went if I didn't have a DSLR along. And now the big wow seems to be the mirrorless cameras. I've decided I'm not even gonna look at one. All I want to do is take picture's and I don't know how to use my DSLR all that well yet!