>>3445272>More range = less noiseAbsolutely not, especially with Nikon and Sony since those cameras only have one ISO setting (100), and the sensitivity is just an arbitrary multiplier on the digital signal, the same as pushing exposure in LR. If you really want specs look at dxomark's ISO performance and dynamic range charts.
>d800 is oldThat's why it's going to cost you $700 second hand while having 90% of the functionality. The d800's sensor was a monumental step up from the d700, since then we've had mostly incremental improvements and some improvements to autofocus. If you want the highest specs, get a Sony. But fair warning: Sony cameras will have other issues like battery life, handling, bad menu system, narrow selection of mediocre lenses, and questionable long time support since Sony is known for putting out a new iteration every two years instead of fixing problems with firmware updates.
Cameras aren't like other gadgets in the sense that breathtaking images can be captured even with a shitty one if the photographer knows how to use it to its fullest potential. They're not like smartphones where a higher res and brighter screen will instantly translate to a better experience, or a pair of headphones where if they have a better frequency response they will sound better.
Take your shot for example. It's a nice shot of a cat, you hit the focus, the subject isn't moving, the camera isn't shaking, exposure is fine, angle and framing are good. You could have edited it better, but you'll learn, and you can always come back to re-edit it later. If you just showed someone this 1200x800 scaled down image would they be able to tell that your camera only has 11.1 stops of dynamic range and a dxo ISO score of 2293 whereas a sony A7iii would have 14.7 and 3730? Of course not. No one would even think about the equipment, they would think about the photo. And a dim forest is still pretty bright as far as a modern dslr behind a fast stabilised lens is concerned.
