Upgrade from D3200 for low light performance

Eyon

Eyon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
101
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I’m currently shooting with a D3200 with a Sigma 10-20 F3.5, Nikkor 50mm f1.8 and a Tamron 70-300 tele lens. I tend to shoot photographs in low light without a tripod and find the high-iso performance of the D3200 to be very poor. I also often take photographs of fast moving subjects and the autofocus sometimes struggles to capture against the background.

With this in mind I feel I’m due a body upgrade. Naturally I wish to stick with Nikon due to my (small) lens collection. Initially I assumed the D7500 was the way to go, but I have few other options, namely the D7200, D500 or perhaps even going full frame.

I’d like to avoid full frame if I can, only because my currently lenses may not be suitable and the overall cost is higher, though the D750 seems tempting.

I’ve found the 7200 for a great price online, body only circa £600, is it worth the extra ~£400 for the D7500, or even the extra 600-700 for the D500?

I do not use the camera for any film work, only stills. As mentioned, low light and good focus is priority. Will the 7200 provide everything I need, or would it be worthwhile going 7500/500/750?

Thanks!
 
Eyon said:
Hi all,

I’m currently shooting with a D3200 with a Sigma 10-20 F3.5, Nikkor 50mm f1.8 and a Tamron 70-300 tele lens. I tend to shoot photographs in low light without a tripod and find the high-iso performance of the D3200 to be very poor. I also often take photographs of fast moving subjects and the autofocus sometimes struggles to capture against the background.

With this in mind I feel I’m due a body upgrade. Naturally I wish to stick with Nikon due to my (small) lens collection. Initially I assumed the D7500 was the way to go, but I have few other options, namely the D7200, D500 or perhaps even going full frame.

I’d like to avoid full frame if I can, only because my currently lenses may not be suitable and the overall cost is higher, though the D750 seems tempting.

I’ve found the 7200 for a great price online, body only circa £600, is it worth the extra ~£400 for the D7500, or even the extra 600-700 for the D500?

I do not use the camera for any film work, only stills. As mentioned, low light and good focus is priority. Will the 7200 provide everything I need, or would it be worthwhile going 7500/500/750?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you're going to see much difference in terms of high ISO noise level. Maybe a smidge but not worth it on its own. AF might be a bit better with a D7xxx. Assume you cannot use flash? Considered faster lenses?
 
Hi,

Stupid question - what are you considering high iso? I have a D7500 and if I get a chance (won't be until the weekend), happy to try some test shots for you? I did some shots recently at iso 1250 (which is probably not high enough for you) and was happy enough with the results (hand-held with a Sigma 150-600mm lens, so not the lightest lens either).
 
I mean, 50mm 1.8 should be pretty decent in low light?!?
 
There are online comparisons of those cameras that may help to decide, or hire a camera or try in a shop etc.

Probably not a good idea to ask people only but see with your own eyes and judge for yourself.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone.

@rackhs I was shooting last night at 1600-3200, whilst I managed to get the shots I wanted, they are very noisy on the D3200. I can clean up to a degree in post, but I dont want to loose all the details. I’m not sure what the performance of “better” cameras are like at 3200+ ISO, but I’d like to think an improved sensor will help having less noise.

My local Wex tells me that going to full frame will give me an extra stop of ISO for a given shutter speed, is this truth or are they up selling me?

@Daniel_Paul yes the 50mm f1.8 is great, but it’s effective 75mm focal length isn’t useful for the landscape photography I am using it for.

To give more background information, my use of the camera is used in the flightdeck of an aircraft. I’m never going to be a pro photographer but the likes of Christiaan van Heijst (https://jpcvanheijst.com/) produce the photographs I would like to achieve. He uses a full frame Nikon (not sure what model) and better lenses, but you get the idea that my shooting environment isn’t the easiest to to work in.
 
Should be able to get a good D700 for the sort of money that seems to be in the budget. You'll probably want a fresh UWA since the Sigma 10-20 is a DC/Dx lens but the other 2 are (I'm pretty sure) FF suitable.

Eyon said:
My local Wex tells me that going to full frame will give me an extra stop of ISO for a given shutter speed,
Click to expand...

Not sure what they mean by this TBH.

In general, FF will deliver cleaner files at high ISOs.
 
Nod said:
Should be able to get a good D700 for the sort of money that seems to be in the budget. You'll probably want a fresh UWA since the Sigma 10-20 is a DC/Dx lens but the other 2 are (I'm pretty sure) FF suitable.



Not sure what they mean by this TBH.

In general, FF will deliver cleaner files at high ISOs.
Click to expand...

I think they mean that, given a photo taken at, for example, ISO 1600, f3.2, 1/100, I could take the same photo at ISO 800 with the same settings and get the same result.

How does the D700 compare to more modern releases? I know the 50mm f1.8 is an FX lens and will give me the proper 50mm rather than the current cropped 75mm focal length, I’m happy to loose the 10mm and stick with a 15-30mm on the Sigma once it’s on full frame, not sure on the Tamron, it may well be designed for FX, but I’m not worried either way if I gain or loose 50% on the focal length.
 
I see what you mean now. I think even at FF 50mm will be very tight in a cockpit?! Might I suggest a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8? Very good in low light and super wide too. Might be worth renting one?
 
Eyon said:
I think they mean that, given a photo taken at, for example, ISO 1600, f3.2, 1/100, I could take the same photo at ISO 800 with the same settings and get the same result.
Click to expand...

No. I think that what they mean is that at ISO1600 FX will give similar noise to ISO800 on DX. But there's lots of 'depends' in there - so the very best DX sensors will now probably give the same or less noise than a very early FX sensor.
 
@Daniel_Paul I was going to get the Tokina 11-16 2.8, but I managed to pick up a used Sigma 10-20 3.5 for around £200 in great condition so I snapped it up. I’m happy with the lens but 10mm is a bit too wide, so even going full frame 15mm would be suitable.

50mm (at 75mm cropped sensor) is way too long for cockpit shots, it gets nice ones like this below, but no good for looking outside or getting a nice wide imagine of both in and out.


Thanks @ancient_mariner, that makes it much clearer. I’m often reluctant to listen to this sort of advice in shops due to up selling me an expensive camera. The 7200 sensor seems to get good reviews, but again it’s hard to see how it will work in my use case as it’s not a “normal” environment.
 
Eyon said:
@Daniel_Paul I was going to get the Tokina 11-16 2.8, but I managed to pick up a used Sigma 10-20 3.5 for around £200 in great condition so I snapped it up. I’m happy with the lens but 10mm is a bit too wide, so even going full frame 15mm would be suitable.

50mm (at 75mm cropped sensor) is way too long for cockpit shots, it gets nice ones like this below, but no good for looking outside or getting a nice wide imagine of both in and out.


Thanks @ancient_mariner, that makes it much clearer. I’m often reluctant to listen to this sort of advice in shops due to up selling me an expensive camera. The 7200 sensor seems to get good reviews, but again it’s hard to see how it will work in my use case as it’s not a “normal” environment.
Click to expand...

I'm just thinking light wise, you're getting a bit more light at 2.8 then you are 3.5. The focusing issue you may have to manually focus in Live View? This is how I do it for Astro stuff anyway. Guessing you can't plant a sticky go/pro style mount to the window for stability!?
 
Eyon said:
@Daniel_Paul I was going to get the Tokina 11-16 2.8, but I managed to pick up a used Sigma 10-20 3.5 for around £200 in great condition so I snapped it up. I’m happy with the lens but 10mm is a bit too wide, so even going full frame 15mm would be suitable.

50mm (at 75mm cropped sensor) is way too long for cockpit shots, it gets nice ones like this below, but no good for looking outside or getting a nice wide imagine of both in and out.


Thanks @ancient_mariner, that makes it much clearer. I’m often reluctant to listen to this sort of advice in shops due to up selling me an expensive camera. The 7200 sensor seems to get good reviews, but again it’s hard to see how it will work in my use case as it’s not a “normal” environment.
Click to expand...

Probably the biggest improvement in low-light images would be had with a couple of fast prime lenses, particularly since lower-end zooms aren't going to be offering their best quality wide open. But that's going to be *quite* an expensive upgrade, and trading up to FX plus a couple of more ordinary lenses will likely be cheaper.
 
Make a comparison here https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

After comparing the d3200 against the d500, d7200 & d7500 I would look at the d7200 or the d7500. One for price and at iso1600 the noise is equivalent to iso600 on the 3200.
I wouldnt look at the d500 there seems to be more noise than the d7200 and d7500
 
Last edited:
Thanks again for the replies everyone.

That's a really interesting website @dcash29, apart from the creepy as hell manikin. I see what you mean about the noise being better on the 7200/7500, but again I think I'm going to have to get one in my hands to try some night shots.

Here's a shot which I took last night (somewhere over Hanover), first time using the Sigma 10-20 so it was more experimenting what I could do with it given I'd never used a wide angle lens before. This was 10mm, ISO 3200, f/3.5 1/1.6. I'd really like to keep working to improve the clarity and composition, raising my view point bringing in the background of the image and ideally making the image less noisy whist still being able to use relatively fast shutter speeds as it's hand held (no space for tripod, or even monopod!)



I appreciate this is not a great photo, focus is out, composition is a bit naff, but I'm still a bit new to this photography game and as mentioned, first time with wide glass.


So, given what I'd like to achieve, how much really would I need to spend to get a real upgrade from my D3200?
 
Last edited:
Are you shooting in RAW? What programme are you using for PP?
 
Eyon said:
Thanks again for the replies everyone.

That's a really interesting website @dcash29, apart from the creepy as hell manikin. I see what you mean about the noise being better on the 7200/7500, but again I think I'm going to have to get one in my hands to try some night shots.

Here's a shot which I took last night (somewhere over Hanover), first time using the Sigma 10-20 so it was more experimenting what I could do with it given I'd never used a wide angle lens before. This was 10mm, ISO 3200, f/3.5 1/1.6. I'd really like to keep working to improve the clarity and composition, raising my view point bringing in the background of the image and ideally making the image less noisy whist still being able to use relatively fast shutter speeds as it's hand held (no space for tripod, or even monopod!)



I appreciate this is not a great photo, focus is out, composition is a bit naff, but I'm still a bit new to this photography game and as mentioned, first time with wide glass.


So, given what I'd like to achieve, how much really would I need to spend to get a real upgrade from my D3200?
Click to expand...

You're well into the laws of diminishing returns here. But some things to consider, you could use a camera and/or lens with stabalisation for this type of shot and see some good gains. Doesn't look like you need a high shutter speed so you might gain a stop or two.

I don't think you're going to see huge gains with any APSC sensor camera. Tech has moved on a bit but not that much. I'd be surprised if you even see a stop gain.

A full frame sensor is more than twice the area of a APSC sensor so for any given like for like exposure it is collecting twice as much light hence why you've been advised that it can give a you a full stop improvement. That is true if all else is equal but in reality some sensor tech is better than others so some APSC sensors punch above their weight and vice versa. I'm not sure that switching to an older generation full frame camera will gain you much at all.

You could gain something by switching to something like a D610 and swapping your sigma for something like a Tamron 15-30 2.8., That lens is stabalised and 2/3 of a stop faster than your Sigma. That could gain you a fair amount but would cost you a few quid.

By the way, not much wrong with your shot above. You're never going to get perfectly clean images with that light level.
 
gad-westy said:
You're well into the laws of diminishing returns here. But some things to consider, you could use a camera and/or lens with stabalisation for this type of shot and see some good gains. Doesn't look like you need a high shutter speed so you might gain a stop or two.

I don't think you're going to see huge gains with any APSC sensor camera. Tech has moved on a bit but not that much. I'd be surprised if you even see a stop gain.

A full frame sensor is more than twice the area of a APSC sensor so for any given like for like exposure it is collecting twice as much light hence why you've been advised that it can give a you a full stop improvement. That is true if all else is equal but in reality some sensor tech is better than others so some APSC sensors punch above their weight and vice versa. I'm not sure that switching to an older generation full frame camera will gain you much at all.

You could gain something by switching to something like a D610 and swapping your sigma for something like a Tamron 15-30 2.8., That lens is stabalised and 2/3 of a stop faster than your Sigma. That could gain you a fair amount but would cost you a few quid.

By the way, not much wrong with your shot above. You're never going to get perfectly clean images with that light level.
Click to expand...

Agreed,
 
Thanks for the continued advice everyone. I think the upgrade itch needs to be tamed then until I can justify a full frame camera. Perhaps a D750/810 is what I should aim for if I'm going to upgrade. I'm finding the 10mm of my Sigma to be a little useless and "converting" that to a 15-30mm would actually be better I feel by using it on a full frame.

For editing I use Photoshop CC, mostly in the RAW editor with the odd touch up in PS itself.

I have no space for a tripod, but would a monopod provide much stability when shooting slightly longer exposure times?

As a side note, the D3200 with Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 can still produce some great shots in the day. Here is one I grabbed yesterday passing over the southern tip of Iceland, really proud how it came out, though the 100+ I took that day there was only 2-3 worth using, thank god for digital!


photos uploaded
 
If you can't fit in a tripod, what about something like a gorillapod or beanbag-type thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top