Hello. About to buy first DSLR, have a couple of Q's..

[Incastone]

Hi everyone.

Photography has a little unexpectedly bloomed into a major interest for me over the last year and a half.
I've become more and more dedicated to it and am considering trying to pursue it professionally (I'm sure you've all heard that before!).

I've been using a bridge camera that's pretty ancient by today's standards - a Panasonic FZ38. Up until now it has been fine as I've been learning the basics first in terms of exposures, subject, composition and timing.
By timing I mean what I've seen written as 'f8 and being there', which is quite apt as the FZ38 only has an aperture range of 2.8 - 8

I'm happy with what I've been able to achieve so far given the camera's limitations, but I'm tired of the camera getting in the way of a shot rather than me (which to be honest is a fairly happy state of affairs).
Its sensor size (approx. 6mm x 4mm) and general feature set are holding me back, and although funds are limited, I need something I can progress along the learning curve with at a proper rate.

I'll link to a couple of images at the end of this post so you can see where I am now, and maybe that might help with suggestions?

I was pretty dead set on a Canon 700D, as it's affordable, has a decent feature set to grow into, and having played with a friend's Canon and another friend's Nikon, I preferred the Canon control layout/menus/interface much more straight off the bat, felt more intuitive to me.
This isn't a deal breaker though for the Nikon side as I know that owning either will gain me familiarity.
I'm also quite keen on the Nikon D7100 on paper (the Nikon I tried was a D5300), and although I'm not buying into the 'what's best - Canon or Nikon' debate (yet), I want to make sure I'm not missing a trick if I go for the Canon.

It's important to me to get this choice right because I won't be able to afford to lose money on it, and I'm living in Spain but will be ordering from the UK and don't have opportunities or funds to rent cameras to try.

I like the 700D because it's compact - I like to have my camera with me as often as possible, so the lighter and easier to move around with the better, but I'm worried about the meagre number of focus points compared to the Nikon. Is this going to plague me in the future?

I've also read a lot of things about the sensors from these two brands, and as far as I can make out, people prefer the colour tones of the Canon but the overall resolution of the Nikon.
Do they both deal with higher ISO settings well? The FZ38 craps out at 400 which always compromises me so anything better than that is going to be a bonus to be honest!

I like to shoot a broad range of subjects, from animals to architecture to landscapes (the latter disappointingly at the moment with the FZ38) but I'm pretty sure that either of the models I've mentioned will do them justice.

I know this is probably the millionth 'which camera do I get' thread, but your input would be hugely valuable to me and very much appreciated.
As an aside, I didn't create this thread as a subversive way of displaying images for feedback - I know I'm in the wrong game if I need approval! But of course, if I'm deluding myself about being right in wanting to take this further (always possible), feel free to put me right.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[LesPalenik]

No camera is perfect, and whatever is perfect for you, may not be ideal for someone else.

I would recommend buying a used Canon T2i or Nikon D5100 for a few hundred dollars and start that way. Both of these cameras are great value for money and take excellent pictures. I wouldn't worry about the number of focus points, that aspect is a way overrated, and it depends also on the type of shooting. Consider it a very inexpensive way to get into the dSLR game. As you shoot more, you'll find out which features are most important for you, and then you can buy some newer and more capable gear.

[Tony Jay]

I think you need to take a further step back and think about an entire system.
The camera part of the equation is actually the cheapest by some way.
It is the lenses and other accessories where the expense really lies.

You need to decide what kind of photography you are doing and plan your lens requirements accordingly.
Part of the that planning process almost certainly will need to factor in future requirements as well as current needs.
Once you do that you may be surprised how certain systems exclude themselves and other possibilities come to the fore.

In generic terms DSLR covers a broad range of possibilities in technical terms do not exclude some of the newer mirrorless possibilities from say Sony are very attractive options for some genres.
As an example of what I am talking about: FE mount lenses for say the Sony A7r are somewhat limited but if you want to shoot portrait, wedding or landscape then a combination of available FE mount lenses and either Canon or Nikon lenses for some applications via Metabones adaptors is a definite option.
However, for an out and out wildlife or action sports shooter the Sony mirrorless offerings are currently a very poor fit.

Particularly if you do want to turn professional then do the hard yards and research your needs on a system level. Spend the time and effort on this and you will save tens of thousands of dollars in the future.

Tony Jay

[Incastone]

Thanks for the replies so far.

A few hundred dollars is what I will have to spend, the 700D is a Rebel T5i in the States, I can get this new with the standard 18-55 kit lens (the newer STM type) for the equivalent of USD 550 delivered which is a steal at European price rates.
I appreciate that an older model will still give me the improvements that I need the most (higher ISO shooting, interchangeable lenses, bigger sensor etc), but with that kind of deal available getting an older model doesn't make much sense, especially as I'm on a learning curve and I'm going to be hitting the shutter hard, so actuation-wise even a few thousand extra shots is going to make a difference, which is at least what I'll lose if I buy 2nd hand.
I haven't begun to specialise in anything yet subject-wise, but I have to admit that no matter how shoddy the camera I have, it always seems to love animals, I find it hard to take a bad animal portrait. I'm a fully paid up subscriber to the Robert Pirsig concept of 'Quality' that he outlines in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (bear with me!) - so the fact that the camera always empathises with my (normal, healthy) love of animals   is not lost on me.

I'm aware of all the options re system types, but am very limited by budget, and can't afford a mirrorless at current prices.
Also, as I've been restricted to live view all this time (the EVF on the FZ38 is pants and I never bother with it), I want an optical viewfinder as I much prefer the feeling of being 'in the scene' that you get from composing/framing shots this way. Maybe the novelty will wear off in the future but for now, it's what I want.

Lens-wise I will want primes in the future of course, but again right now there just isn't the money for it - with youth unemployment hitting 55% in this region of Spain and overall unemployment over 30%, I feel lucky to have anything at all to spend. Eventually I will get nicer portrait, macro and tele lenses but at the level I'm at now, the bundled 18-55 won't hold me back.

I can feel I'm just looking for validation for the choice I've all ready made in my mind (700d/T5i), which quite rightly I'm not going to get. It will do the job for now. I can afford it and it'll allow me to go out and shoot in confidence, and at this stage I need to shoot, shoot and shoot some more.

Thanks for the input.

[mcbroomf]

The Nikon sensor is noticeably better than the Canon at every measure
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-700D-versus-Nikon-D7100___870_865

[Incastone]

Ah. This is the kind of in-depth side-by-side I haven't seen.
I can take great pictures with the Canon, I know this, but I'd be lying if I said that those kinds of sensor differences didn't matter to me, especially the dynamic range and ISO performance.

I've also noticed that the 7100 has twice the shutter speed of the 700D at 1/8000, although even 1/4000 is 4 times better than I currently have.
Now you've got me looking closer at the Nikon, from another site I've just noticed it has twice the shot count of the 700D on a single battery, over 900 in theory as opposed to 450.
I didn't think of checking this because the advantage I have had with my FZ38 is that I've never run out of battery even when shooting all day, it just doesn't use that much power.

The shot count alone trumps the articulated screen/built-in wifi etc of the Canon.

If I consider the 7100, I would buy body only, new, which would be 50% more than the Canon with lens.
It's now worth holding off a little to get more money together, I think.

Could you recommend a good place to look for 2nd hand DX lenses, i.e. is there a known good classifieds site where professional users sell their old/unwanted gear?
Pros tend to look after their stuff properly and I'd feel more comfortable buying from the photog equivalent of SoundOnSound than ebay for example.

Is this forum worth looking at in that sense for someone that's based in Europe?

Thanks very much for the heads-up.
 

[Ken Bennett]

The thing about DxO and all of the other measured test numbers is that they look very authoritative on paper. Of course after reading that you want to get a Nikon, since it must be soooooo much better. Numbers don't lie, right? That's why every professional photographer in the world switched to Nikon as soon as those test numbers were released. (<----this is sarcasm )

There is much more to a camera than the results of testing by one company. The reality is that any current DSLR, and most every model in the last few years, is significantly better than most photographers. You could go into a camera store and throw a dart at the display models, and get very good results from whichever random camera it struck.

How the camera feels in your hand, and how well you adapt to the controls, is actually very significant, and I would argue more so than just raw sensor test numbers. I've been shooting Canon for more than 30 years, and while I can shoot with a Nikon, they have never felt comfortable in my hands. I also shoot with Fujifilm cameras, as they feel right while shooting. All of them provide excellent results -- certainly for me the camera is not the limiting factor

If you decide to pursue photography in any serious way, especially if you want to make a living at it, any consumer camera and lens that you buy now will need to be replaced anyway. You're not getting married to your camera system at this stage of your development as a photographer.

Good luck, and happy shooting.

[mcbroomf]

As Les said above you could opt for a Nikon 5100 (or any of the 5000 bodies) that could save some money, especially if you buy used
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5300-versus-Nikon-D5200-versus-Nikon-D5100___919_850_698

In addition to DXO you can check dpreview for in depth reviews and descriptions, and sample photos.

I do buy used lenses, but with caution; requesting image samples, good return policy etc
Lula buy and sell, and also;
fredmiranda
KEH
getdpi
and of course ebay (not always possible to get a sample of a photo taken with the lens)
If you decide to look for an older model (Nikon 5100 or the Canon) then you may find used deals at your local camera shop, and be able to negotiate a whole package so that you can get a lens immediately.

Lastly k bennet has good points about current/recent camera quality and ease of use (for you).  I also shot Canon for many years and still have trouble with my D800, although I just blame the Canon for that 

[geezerhood]

Considering that you will be spending quite a bit on lenses, why not get a used Nikon D800e? There are some pretty decently priced used bodies out there that I have seen since the D810 and Pentax 645z came out. Under $1600 sometimes.

[dwswager]

The thing about DxO and all of the other measured test numbers is that they look very authoritative on paper. Of course after reading that you want to get a Nikon, since it must be soooooo much better. Numbers don't lie, right? That's why every professional photographer in the world switched to Nikon as soon as those test numbers were released. (<----this is sarcasm )

No, but Nikon has eroded a 17% market gap with Canon in DSLRs to under 7% in one year!  And Sony got some of Canon's buyers too.  Just saying...

[dwswager]

I know this is probably the millionth 'which camera do I get' thread, but your input would be hugely valuable to me and very much appreciated.
As an aside, I didn't create this thread as a subversive way of displaying images for feedback - I know I'm in the wrong game if I need approval! But of course, if I'm deluding myself about being right in wanting to take this further (always possible), feel free to put me right.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Bottom Line: The quality of the images you make is more determinent on your skill, technique and creative vision than which camera you choose.  It is just a tool that helps you achieve your goals.  But, remember, you are buying into a whole system for an extended period of time, unless you can justify replacing current purchases in the future.

First, figure out what features you need and try to come up with some measure of what is most important.  This is hard to do sometimes, especially since you don't have any history to go on.

I am a Nikon shooter and prefer their layouts and operation to Canon.  Almost every friend I shoot around have Canon and when they ask for help it is a chore trying to figure out the Canon terminology.  But if you prefer the Canon way, then mark that down as a plus for the Canon side.

You mentioned the 700D and D7100.  The D7100 is $250 more than the 700D.  That said, it is a much better camera overall and compares closer to the 7DmkII.  I actually use that camera having previously shot a D300s.

I personally think Canon screws up the reds while Nikons screw up the greens/yellows.  However, overall, the image quality from the sensor in the D7100 beats the 700D and the 7DmkII at all ISOs.  They get closer at high ISO, but under 800, the D7100 is the clear winner.

DxOMark Side by Side 700D versus D7100 

Also think about the rest of the lenses and accessories you might buy.  Most of the pissing and moaning about brands is because we long time users of one brand or another (amateurs) tend to be stuck in that brand due to legacy purchases.  Once you accumulate $5,000 or $10,000 worth of stuff, it is somewhat unappetizing thinking of changing.

I switched from Canon to Nikon when Canon moved from the FD to the EOS mount.  It wasn't that I was totally pissed at Canon for obsoleting my investment though I was disappointed.  It just happened to be a moment of opportunity to reevaluate since I no longer had legacy baggage.  I chose Nikon for their glass.  I preferred the rendition of Nikon lenses to Canon at the time.  Nikon also had better flash system which was important to me at the time, less so now.  I also ended up using N90s Film bodies for an extended period of time.  They were awesome.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My advice would be that if you are shooting at low ISO-s and under challenging light conditions a camera with Sony sensor may be your best choice. If you shoot at higher ISO the advantage of the Sony sensor will be lost.

Overall, I guess that Canon may be better made, but at low ISO the Nikon has the better sensor.

Best regards
Erik

Ps. Shooting Sony and Hasselblad P45+, no pony in this race…

Hi everyone.

Photography has a little unexpectedly bloomed into a major interest for me over the last year and a half.
I've become more and more dedicated to it and am considering trying to pursue it professionally (I'm sure you've all heard that before!).

I've been using a bridge camera that's pretty ancient by today's standards - a Panasonic FZ38. Up until now it has been fine as I've been learning the basics first in terms of exposures, subject, composition and timing.
By timing I mean what I've seen written as 'f8 and being there', which is quite apt as the FZ38 only has an aperture range of 2.8 - 8

I'm happy with what I've been able to achieve so far given the camera's limitations, but I'm tired of the camera getting in the way of a shot rather than me (which to be honest is a fairly happy state of affairs).
Its sensor size (approx. 6mm x 4mm) and general feature set are holding me back, and although funds are limited, I need something I can progress along the learning curve with at a proper rate.

I'll link to a couple of images at the end of this post so you can see where I am now, and maybe that might help with suggestions?

I was pretty dead set on a Canon 700D, as it's affordable, has a decent feature set to grow into, and having played with a friend's Canon and another friend's Nikon, I preferred the Canon control layout/menus/interface much more straight off the bat, felt more intuitive to me.
This isn't a deal breaker though for the Nikon side as I know that owning either will gain me familiarity.
I'm also quite keen on the Nikon D7100 on paper (the Nikon I tried was a D5300), and although I'm not buying into the 'what's best - Canon or Nikon' debate (yet), I want to make sure I'm not missing a trick if I go for the Canon.

It's important to me to get this choice right because I won't be able to afford to lose money on it, and I'm living in Spain but will be ordering from the UK and don't have opportunities or funds to rent cameras to try.

I like the 700D because it's compact - I like to have my camera with me as often as possible, so the lighter and easier to move around with the better, but I'm worried about the meagre number of focus points compared to the Nikon. Is this going to plague me in the future?

I've also read a lot of things about the sensors from these two brands, and as far as I can make out, people prefer the colour tones of the Canon but the overall resolution of the Nikon.
Do they both deal with higher ISO settings well? The FZ38 craps out at 400 which always compromises me so anything better than that is going to be a bonus to be honest!

I like to shoot a broad range of subjects, from animals to architecture to landscapes (the latter disappointingly at the moment with the FZ38) but I'm pretty sure that either of the models I've mentioned will do them justice.

I know this is probably the millionth 'which camera do I get' thread, but your input would be hugely valuable to me and very much appreciated.
As an aside, I didn't create this thread as a subversive way of displaying images for feedback - I know I'm in the wrong game if I need approval! But of course, if I'm deluding myself about being right in wanting to take this further (always possible), feel free to put me right.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[dwswager]

If you buy by the 22nd of November, you can get the D5200 for $496!  The D7100 is $946!  Both Nikons are 24MP and have similar sensors.  Features and sealing are different.

DxOMark Side By Side 700D verus D5200 Versus D7100

[Incastone]

Thanks very much for all the comments.

I just deleted a couple of sentences moaning about how people in the States and Canada always get electronics so much cheaper than in Europe, but looks like the gap has closed - both the 700D and the 7100 are cheaper to buy new here than in the US! That's a turn up for the books. Suits me.

@geezerhood - the D800e is just too rich for my taste at the moment unfortunately. The cheapest 2nd hand I can find in the UK/Europe is double the cost of a new 7100. As well as the body I will need at least one lens, a decent tripod, a filter or two, remote shutter release, fast SD cards etc, so I can't stretch.

@dwswager - can't buy until Jan, so any special pricing is out, and I don't want to come in with a model any lower than the ones I mentioned from either line.
Saying that, I completely agree with this:

Bottom Line: The quality of the images you make is more determinent on your skill, technique and creative vision than which camera you choose.  It is just a tool that helps you achieve your goals.

There is a caveat here though which is that if your goal is to achieve professional quality prints at decent sizes rather than just have something that looks ok on Facebook or a forum, then the hardware takes on a whole new significance. This is not GAS (and I'm very familiar with that from the audio world  ) - in the last year and a half I've been using a 2nd-hand bridge camera from 2009 that falls short in just about every department, and before that I've only ever had point and shoots.

So yes, any DSLR is going to be a big step up. But I want to buy once, buy right, within my means anyway, without having to wait months saving up for a higher end model. I want to be out shooting, not sitting indoors saving

First, figure out what features you need and try to come up with some measure of what is most important.  This is hard to do sometimes, especially since you don't have any history to go on.

Yes, I need to be careful here. I've all ready caught myself worrying about not having an articulated touch screen if I go for the 7100.. Is this really so important in the grand scheme of things? No, it isn't. Better battery life is way more important to me for example.

I am a Nikon shooter and prefer their layouts and operation to Canon.  Almost every friend I shoot around have Canon and when they ask for help it is a chore trying to figure out the Canon terminology.  But if you prefer the Canon way, then mark that down as a plus for the Canon side.

What K Bennett wrote about this same thing has been causing me a dilemma. The only DSLRs I have actually taken any pictures with (for just a few mins) are the Nikon D5300 and the Canon 5Dmk II.

The 5D felt more familiar, and more 'enjoyable'(?), but I'm wondering how much of that experience was expectation bias, as I knew of the calibre of the 5D in advance, plus it felt like a 'real' camera compared to the 5300.  
What wasn't imaginary was the control layout feeling much more intuitive and quicker to operate, maybe because it was more similar in layout to the Panasonic I have.

Because I have no real experience of either platform, I reckon that it doesn't matter if I go Canon or Nikon. Once I've put enough hours in on either, it should become second nature.

@K Bennett - I am wary of going by numbers on spec sheets alone, you're right to warn people about that, but all the subsequent reviews I've read place the 700D behind the 7100, in major areas.
 

Also think about the rest of the lenses and accessories you might buy.  Most of the pissing and moaning about brands is because we long time users of one brand or another (amateurs) tend to be stuck in that brand due to legacy purchases.  Once you accumulate $5,000 or $10,000 worth of stuff, it is somewhat unappetizing thinking of changing.

I might have got this mixed up, but this actually sounds like another plus for starting with Nikon.
If I start with Canon, and then decide to move to Nikon, then any Canon lenses I buy will be useless with a Nikon body, but if I start with Nikon and move to Canon, I can use the Nikon lenses on a Canon body with an adapter. Is this correct?

I've swung from Canon to Nikon in just a few posts  
I guess I'm fortunate being a newb in that I'm not completely predisposed to one or the other and haven't invested anything yet.
So there are some benefits to being a beginner

Thanks so much for all your insights and comments, you're making this a lot easier for me.

I'm really excited about getting this camera, so I'm sorry for writing so much, but I don't have many enthusiast friends where I am. I only know two professional photographers, both in different countries so I can't really bang on about it here without boring people to death  
Southern Spain has to be one of the best places for a budding photographer to be, there is so much incredible imagery here and I can't wait to shoot more of it.
Here's a couple more images of two different festivals in Spain, they sure know how to put on a spectacle!

Semana Santa (Easter week) in Sevilla this year


Morros y Cristianos festival in Xixona last year

[mcbroomf]

There are 2 types of adapters to allow use of Nikon on Canon. 
One is for non G and non E lenses.  It's a straight adapter, aperture control is adjusted on the lens.  No AF, no stabilization if the lens has one.
There is a 2nd (more expensive) that is for G lenses (will work OK on non G as well).  Aperture control is managed by a lever on the adapter as the lens control will not shut down the aperture.  The lever does not have markings on it.  No AF or IS.
E lenses need electronic aperture control and there isn't one that can manage that.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

You said DSLR but if you are thinking about crop cameras I would go smaller. Olympus OM-D EM5 is due for replacement. Get a used one cheap (in jan) and a few lenses. Great in body stabilisation. Better sensor than the bigger brother E-M1. Weather sealed. Great looking and more stealthy than a DSLR.

Why? DX is getting no love from Nikon they will push you to FX if they can. And then the system is a chore to bring along.

[Incastone]

Thanks for the details about lens compatibility MIke, I'll bear those things in mind.

Torbjörn, the 4/3 camera you mentioned can all ready be had for around 300 GBP without lens, which is a good deal.
It's funny how relative things can be - if I had been using a dslr all this time, I would probably be happy to consider a more 'stealthy' camera
But after only ever having had a camera in my hand that I've sometimes had to remind myself is there, I'm actually looking forward to having something more hefty!

[Paulo Bizarro]

I have been using Canon EOS for more than 20 years, so I do understand about familiarity:)

The truth is, these days, any camera, DSLR or mirrorless, FF, APS-C, or 4/3 sensor size, will be able to give you high quality results. Camera technology has reached a pretty high level. So you should choose a system based on your requirements.

From what you say, any mid-level DSLR, new or used, will be able to accompany your growth as a photographer in the mid-term, say for 5 years. For example, have you looked into a used Canon 60D? Pretty good camera. Have you looked into Pentax at all? They make great cameras, quite a lot of them are weatherproof, for example, look into a used K5/K5MKII; Pentax also make great lenses.

As expected, a few people have mentioned the advantage of Sony sensors married to the Nikon cameras, and supported that with DXO ratings. Fine, I will not argue that. Just bear in mind that camera and sensor technology is just one step in the whole processing image workflow, and you need to perfect all of the steps. Of course it helps to start with good data to work with, hence the advantage of Sony sensors.

But, IMO, today, as a landscape and travel photographer, I feel my Canon 6D and 16-35 f4 L lens are extremely good. This new lens is really good, and so far I have not been limited by the sensor on my 6D. How many shots do you really take where you need to open up the shadows 3 or 4 stops? Just to put things in perspective.

Things do keep changing, so maybe in 5 years time, I will be using a Sony FF mirrorless, who knows. But they do need to come out with more lenses...

[kitalight]

There are 2 types of adapters to allow use of Nikon on Canon.  
One is for non G and non E lenses.  It's a straight adapter, aperture control is adjusted on the lens.  No AF, no stabilization if the lens has one.
There is a 2nd (more expensive) that is for G lenses (will work OK on non G as well).  Aperture control is managed by a lever on the adapter as the lens control will not shut down the aperture.  The lever does not have markings on it.  No AF or IS.
E lenses need electronic aperture control and there isn't one that can manage that.

You said DSLR but if you are thinking about crop cameras I would go smaller. Olympus OM-D EM5 is due for replacement. Get a used one cheap (in jan) and a few lenses. Great in body stabilisation. Better sensor than the bigger brother E-M1. Weather sealed. Great looking and more stealthy than a DSLR.

Why? DX is getting no love from Nikon they will push you to FX if they can. And then the system is a chore to bring along.

Good points...and yes, no AF but MF is nice...easy with Nikkors...

I used Nikkors on Canon bodies for 8 years with great results...the only (minor) issue is focusing and metering @ the shooting aperture...but the Nikkors are great @ 1-2 stops down from wide open so it doesn't get too dark through the VF....  

...still, after 8 years, Nikon FX got me this month as I got the 610....I already have a bag full of Nikkor primes so it wasn't much of a leap...learning the system will be a bit of learning though....

The advantage of using Nikkors on a Nikon FX body is that it's easier to focus and on the FX sensor there are more options available re: depth of field/focus..."less is more" if that's clear.  

[dwswager]

But, IMO, today, as a landscape and travel photographer, I feel my Canon 6D and 16-35 f4 L lens are extremely good. This new lens is really good, and so far I have not been limited by the sensor on my 6D. How many shots do you really take where you need to open up the shadows 3 or 4 stops? Just to put things in perspective.

Things do keep changing, so maybe in 5 years time, I will be using a Sony FF mirrorless, who knows. But they do need to come out with more lenses...

I have been a Nikon shooter since the Canon FD to EOS mount switch.  While I'd like to say I never looked back, there was a time after Nikon squandered their lead from the D1 that Canon (switching 1st to CMOS sensors), just kicked Nikon's butt.  Now the roles have reversed and Nikon has the sensor quality lead thanks in large part to the Sony Sensor.    Who knows what will happen down the road.

For the guy trying to decide.  I will say that I started in DX since I am an Amateur and could not afford justify the cost of the early FX Nikon cameras.  I shot the D300s for 5 years and currently shoot the D7100.  But the goal was always to get back to full frame understanding that my preferred output is print and the nature of the technology was that at the same pixel density a larger sensor would give better performance.  With the goal in mind, I purchased only 1 DX lens over the 7 years I've been shooting that format.  I had some legacy lenses from film days and have purchased several FX lenses that I used on the DX bodies.  I have a D810 now and am prepared with the appropriate lenses to support it because I planned it that way!

My advice is to decide where you want to go and map a long term course to get there.  It will determine how many MPs you want, sensor size, camera size/weight, features, etc.  But most importantly, it will determine what accessories you need.  Stuff that lasts a lifetime!  $280 seemed like a lot for my Arca Swiss B1 ballhead, but 20 or so years later, I'm still using it.  I paid $850 for a used AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D (3rd iteration, tripod mount).  When I bought the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G, I sold that 80-200mm to a friend for $750 after having used it for 17 years!  There are times to go 'cheap' and times to go 'quality' and figuring out which is which is sometimes difficult.   My daughter's homecoming dress helped me pick a tripod.  How did that work?  My wife spent $150 on dress that might get worn twice.  Figured $1000 for a Really Right Stuff TCV-34L tripod that I would use 50 times a year for the rest of my life was a good deal!