Which Nikon prosumer DSLR should I get?

Well, after maybe two decades, I'm interested in getting back into the scene. I have tons of Nikkors, some Tamron and a mryiad of odds and ends from fish eyes to paralax-correcting bellows.

My camera history includes 6x7s, 4x5s, several 35mm from Canon AE-1, Pentax K-1000 to my favorite Olympus OM-1. Since I made a big investment in Nikon, I went that route with everything from an FM2 to a couple F3s and finally an F4.

Those bodies have long been sold off leaving me with either my iPhone 6 or my Canon G11. Now I want to start using my old Nikkors again again, well actually a Nikon body again and I'm just blown away by the sheer number of options out there. Higher numbers don't necessarily mean more capable cameras I take it.

I'm focusing (pun intended) on the D5500 right now because it's listed as a DX type camera (whatever that means) with the same stats as its magnesium-bodied professional cousin, the D700. Since I don't plan on going to Syria to shoot for National Geographic, I don't really think I need all that metal armor when the D5500's carbon fibre chassis seems like it should suffice. It does for Formula 1 cars at least.

Before I start shelling out a bunch of Benjamins however, I wanted to check here first to see what you guys think. The kit I'm looking at has a couple of VR (vibration reduction - who'da thunk?) lenses I guess would suffice for most things. I know they're nothing close to my 300mm f2.8 glass but what the heck.

Your thoughts?

My first DSLR was a D200 and I used that for years until I moved to a D700. Last year I did heavy research to buy a second body and went with the D810. For me, at least, the FX format allows for better low-light shots, when I am often working, and the high resolution allows for very sharp shots when down-sampled for the web. It also allows some digital zoom when needed on many of the bird shots I do. I just got back from a trip to Vietnam and used both the D700 and D810 a lot. I use the D700 for landscape and the D810 for just about all wildlife shots. http://fradale.net/La_Dolce_Vita/SE_...ietnam_16.html

I'm a canon guy.. but if I was in the market for a big camera I would get the best full frame body I could afford. Full frame + 50mm fixed lens=perfect setup, 90% of the time IMO. My father in law has the Nikon DF, way too rich for my blood, and no video, but I've shot it and its AMAZING! Even has the retro look of the older cameras I'll think you'd appreciate: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pro.../nikon-df.html

All of my pix are taken with a D800. I highly recommend it or the current model (D810?)

FX is worth it. Get a full frame sensor no matter what brand you go with. Ignore the crop sensor bodies.

So FX is the way to go?

DX is crop frame, FX is full frame. FX is considered more pro. However, crop frame being crap and full frame the way to go is a thinking of the past. Modern crop frame has amazing iso performance these days. The difference is starting to become more and more negligible. Rather than buying the best body you can buy, save up and buy the best glass you can buy since that is what really matters. Glass will last a lifetime but bodies come and go.

The D500, the newest DX from Nikon, performs very well at high ISO; prior to that, however, I would not have agreed with the above statement, at least in the Nikon world.

It does depend, in part, on what glass you own and what shots you take. If, for example, you have legacy wide-angle FX glass, using them on a DX body makes them not very useful. Conversely, if you've some fast long glass (300/2.8) and use them on the DX body the 1.5 crop factor extends the reach for wildlife shots.

I take two bodies on trips with me, both FX. With my lenses it adds up to a bit of weight but I deem it worth it for the shots I take. YMMV.

I've taken everyone's advice and started looking at FX cameras but damn, even the lowest, D610 is about $1500. In the old days, I wouldn't have minded that price for an F4 but nowadays, I'm just not that much into photography to spend that kind of money for casual snapshots at car shows for instance. That super nice D810...forget it!

This whole DX, FX thing has me worried though. I do have a lot of "legacy" Nikkor lenses from the past; too much money invested in those to jump to a different brand.

So I take it the latest DX cameras, let's say if I went up a notch to the D7200 would negate some of the superiority of the FX type a little bit?

May I suggest looking at a used FX body? There are B&M stores that specialize in selling used equipment, there are also quite a few reputable forums where people sell very frequently (I browse and buy off the FredMiranda classifieds, their user feedback system is nice). It seems the D700 is selling for around $700-900 depending on condition and shutter actuations. I love my D700, it's a workhorse, I'd probably buy another if mine were to crap out but it shows no sign of doing that anytime soon.

I looked up the D700 on Amazon and eBay just to gauge things. Wow, didn't know cameras come with a shutter-count odometer. It looks like price varies with this count and I see everything from 20K+ clicks to over 100K. What is a reasonable number of clicks before the camera would be considered well worn and nearly due for service? No D700 would have a warranty of any kind.

D700 shutter life is 150,000. That's just average so it might give out sooner or way later. No real way of telling. I tend to not buy anything over 30,000 unless the price is cheap.

Every Nikon DSLR has a shutter count, down to the cheapest old D40 from 10 years ago.

In 12 years of shooting somewhat seriously, I've sent in a camera for warranty work once. Lack of warranty is not something that would bother me.

I dunno man... $900 for a used D700 with a shutter count of over 100,000 would make me worried every time I took a picture. I mean, I'm not opposed to a used D700 but for a casual shooter, would I really regret not going FX? I noticed on the Nikon site, both DX and FX cameras use the same Xpeed4 processors and the only other difference I see is number of focusing points.

Being brand new, again, to digital SLRs, is there something fundamental I'm overlooking?

I think that would depend on the lens you are using. Do you already own anything faster than f2.8? If you have fast primes, I don't think you would regret not getting FX. I shoot full-frame, but the only advantage I see is slightly more Bokeh and slightly better ISO performance.