Nikon D3300 to D7500

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Bill Schone

Bill Schone

Well-known member
Member's gallery
Looking for some input. Currently have a Nikon D3300, have had for many years, love the camera, not disappointed in anyway. Naturally the D7500 does have several built in features that exceed the D3300. My primary photography is landscape and Astro photography. Certainly wildlife when we’re in the National Parks, which in non-pandemic times, maybe twice a year. I think I have decent glass, Rokinon 14mm, Nikkor 35mm, both primes, & the kit lenses, and a refurbished Nikon 70-300, so I’m more than set there, at least in my thoughts.
my primary question is given landscape & Astro photography, using my current glass and my skills, such as they are, could I expect materially better photos from the D7500 over the D3300?
Thank you sincerely for the thoughts & suggestions. Bill Schone
 
Member's gallery
My daughter and I both have D7500s. She upgraded from D5500 a few months ago, and I went from D7000 to D7500 about a year ago. Both of us really like the D7500 (although I just added a D850.) I've used mine for wildlife, landscapes, aviation, and candids. She tends towards automotive, macro, and creative. Although photography is more about the photographer than the equipment, we both have seen improvement in sharpness and color, over our previous cameras (using the same lenses).
If you have not checked out Steve's D7500 review, I highly recommend it. Steve's D7500 Review. I bet I watched that about 10 times before and after buying mine. (Thanks Steve)
 
Member's gallery
My wife used a D3300 until recently. My view is that it has a pretty capable sensor, even though it's older technology. She certainly made many very good images with it. I have a D7500. The D7500 has lower noise under high ISO conditions. In terms of the kind of photography you do, you may not see much of an improvement with the D7500 versus D3300 in all respects.

In the parks the D7500, with its extra features and easier accessibility of those features blows the D3300 out of the water for wildlife action photography.
For landscape and astro-photography, I cannot think of many scenarios where the D7500 will allow me to make better images than the D3300, unless it's in low light conditions where the better high ISO performance of the D7500 is required.

Tree2tree mentioned better sharpness with the D7500 versus his older D7000. The D7000 was known for back-focusing, resulting in less sharp images. I fine-tuned the autofocus on my D7000 with all my lenses. I did the same with my D7500. The result was that both cameras were equally sharp. There was no discernible difference between them for sharpness.
 
Member's gallery
Rassie, Wish I was able to do that with my D7000. On the focus tool (angled, graduated card) nothing was sharp (tripod-mounted, mirror up, timer, VR off, various lenses)! I tried all the things I read about to get better focus, and decided I had marginal copy. The better results you got with the D7000 and that I get with the D7500 might confirm that.
Bill, One other observation: My daughter was concerned with having to get used to the new control and screen layout, but had no trouble.
 
Member's gallery
I don't doubt you for a minute. My D7000 was back-focusing so badly that with most of my lenses I had focus fine-tune set to between 15 and 20 (can't remember whether it was + or -). If any one of the lenses now was off by a bit as well it would have compounded the problem to a point where plus or minus 20 just would not suffice. No other camera I had after that (D7100 and D7500) required nearly as much fine-tuning.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Rassie, thank you for the comparison you have. Do you think the 7500 better iso performance in low light would have a material impact as compared to the D3300 for Milky Way photos? I’ve kind of bounced all around on the iso setting on my D3300 going from 800 to 6400. I haven’t gotten completely ahold of that issue and what setting might be the best and for what reason? If that makes sense. I’m not selling photos, would like to print more for my home use, so I do want a good photo. But honestly a lot of the fun is just going out & shooting pictures. So I guess my real question is, as I ramble along, would the newer technology of the D7500 provide a material better photo? Thanks again for you thoughts. Bill
 
Member's gallery
Bill, Here's the milky-way shot with the D7500 and no noise reduction applied. The first is the full pic, reduced to 1080 pixels on the horizontal. The second is at 100% but cropped so that the horizontal is about 1080. Picture shot with Tamron 10-24 lens at 10mm; 20 sec; f/3.5; ISO 6400. Both long exposure and High ISO noise reduction turned off in camera. Hopefully Rassie has a direct comparison, but if not, perhaps you can compare to your D3300.

Not a great composition, but I was experimenting . . . .
D75_5659-1.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


D75_5659-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Tree2Tree, I've attached a couple of shots we got about a week ago. The first one has been ran through DxO PhotoLab 3, with only an increase in exposure. All of the shots are just 5 second exposures, this one and the next are @ 1600 iso, 35mm, f/2.8.
The second shot is this first one, but edited in PhotoLab 3.
The third shot is also edited in PL3, slightly different composition, but as I mentioned shot @ 3200 iso, 35mm, f/2.8.
Sorry both the 2nd & 3rd also had DxO Prime Noise reduction applied, but they are single shots. I also stack shots on occasion.

Give me your thoughts on these as compared to yours. I'm also going to upload a landscape from Lake Louise that I captured last fall, also edited in PL3. The landscape was shot with the 18-55mm kit lens, shot @ 18mm, 1/40 sec exposure, f/11.

Actually I'm pleased with all of these shots, certainly as edited. I'm don't consider myself to be an advanced editor at all, so their pretty simply done. But I do like the results.

I appreciate any thoughts you might have. Now if I can only get them loaded in the order I have described.

Thank you sincerely, Bill

The landscape was too big, I'll re-export it & send it in a bit.
DSC_0696_DxO-exposure.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
DSC_0696_PrimeNoise_DxO.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
DSC_0707_DxO.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Have you considered the Nikon Z50? There are some great deals on it with the 2 kit lens 16-50mm and 50-200mm VR Lens. I believe it is on sale now for around $1100 usd. You can pick up the FTZ adapter on eBay relatively cheap too.

The Z50 gets great reviews, is a new 2020 model, and has great high iso performance.
 
Member's gallery
Bill, It's tough to compare them with the settings and processing being quite different. But it does reinforce what many have said: Good photography is more about the photographer than the equipment. Great pictures. Love the Lake Louise landscape!
 
Member's gallery
Casey said:
Have you considered the Nikon Z50? There are some great deals on it with the 2 kit lens 16-50mm and 50-200mm VR Lens. I believe it is on sale now for around $1100 usd. You can pick up the FTZ adapter on eBay relatively cheap too.

The Z50 gets great reviews, is a new 2020 model, and has great high iso performance.
Click to expand...
Casey, actually at some point in this project I had thought of that option. Stumbled across it is probably more accurate. That was prior to the sale price. The bodies alone cost the same, with the sale price. Looking at the pictures that thing is little. The two lens bundle would create a lot of overlap with my current glass. I could always use my current lens with the adapter, but for the two included, would I be better satisfied with the z lens. Probably, just need to get rid of the old overlap. Something more to think of, but a very good suggestion. Thank you.
 
Member's gallery
Tree2tree said:
Bill, It's tough to compare them with the settings and processing being quite different. But it does reinforce what many have said: Good photography is more about the photographer than the equipment. Great pictures. Love the Lake Louise landscape!
Click to expand...
Tree2Tree, thanks for compliments, but especially for your time looking at them. Casey threw out the Z50 option also. But again then Going back to my basic question, would either option provide a materially better result than I’m getting now? As usual I just need to think about it a bit more. Given that my wife & I are my primary audience, along with other family & friends, I’m tending to think I’ll stay put. It’d be much different if I didn’t like my results so that may actually tell me a lot about my answer. It’s fun to look though, but better than that heading out tomorrow night if clouds stay away for more pictures, that’s what really counts. Thanks sincerely, I truly appreciate all the input.
 
Member's gallery
Casey said:
Have you considered the Nikon Z50? There are some great deals on it with the 2 kit lens 16-50mm and 50-200mm VR Lens. I believe it is on sale now for around $1100 usd. You can pick up the FTZ adapter on eBay relatively cheap too.

The Z50 gets great reviews, is a new 2020 model, and has great high iso performance.
Click to expand...
Casey, I guess In the picture I saw of the Z50, the guy holding it must have big hands, looking at the actual specs the Z50 is almost exactly the same size as the D3300, except in depth, Z50 much less deep, but that’s not a problem. I don’t think. I had read the ftz adapter might interfere with quick release plate? Any experience there? Very interesting option, thank you for bringing it up. Bill
 
Member's gallery
I’m using a Z6, and have my quick release plate on the FTZ. I’m using Peak Design Plates, those mounted to the body do block the FTZ from being removed.
 
Member's gallery
Bill Schone said:
Rassie, thank you for the comparison you have. Do you think the 7500 better iso performance in low light would have a material impact as compared to the D3300 for Milky Way photos? I’ve kind of bounced all around on the iso setting on my D3300 going from 800 to 6400. I haven’t gotten completely ahold of that issue and what setting might be the best and for what reason? If that makes sense. I’m not selling photos, would like to print more for my home use, so I do want a good photo. But honestly a lot of the fun is just going out & shooting pictures. So I guess my real question is, as I ramble along, would the newer technology of the D7500 provide a material better photo? Thanks again for you thoughts. Bill
Click to expand...
That's a hard question to answer. I never compared images from the two cameras side by side. Perhaps the D7500 is one stop better with noise versus ISO setting than the D3300. How that actually translates into what the image looks like I don't know. Then again, how long is a piece of string? So how do you define a material better image?
 
Member's gallery
Rassie said:
That's a hard question to answer. I never compared images from the two cameras side by side. Perhaps the D7500 is one stop better with noise versus ISO setting than the D3300.
Click to expand...

I'd say it is in the order of 1 1/2 stops. I do mainly wildlife, often at high ISO, and the results from the D7500 are consistently better and require a less post-processing than the shots from the D3300. I also find them easier to process in Nikon NX-D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top