D7200 Pre release and early adopters discusion

manhattanboy

So has anyone pre ordered the D7200?

Pre-ordered the 300f4 the very first minute I could and am happy (!!) with that lens, but the 7200 is not as exciting. I'm holding out on this one and will join the D400 dreamers for the rest of the year...

Ironheart

So has anyone pre ordered the D7200?

I'm gonna wait until it is in stock at my local shop, and negotiate the value of my D7000 trade-in in person.

nukuEX2

Pre-ordered the 300f4 the very first minute I could and am happy (!!) with that lens, but the 7200 is not as exciting. I'm holding out on this one and will join the D400 dreamers for the rest of the year...

I was one of those D400 dreamers But I woke up and smelled the coffee. I'd pre order D7200 but I rather go down to the local camera shop with my friend and buy it in person. More fun that way and you support your local small business too and last but not least I want to hear the initial reports about D7200. I'd be an early adaptor but not THAT early. :P )

Photobug

@Ironheart-one would think local dealers would love having the D7000 on the shelf, especially if the # of shutter activations is low.

@PitchBlack - I know..early adopters can get stung. My D750 is in NY for the flare issue and my D7100 was purchased 9 months after it was introduced and no issues. Lets hope their track record improves.

@nukuEX2 - Contgrats for waking up and smelling the coffee on the D400. You also make a very good point about where to buy. That is why the wife and I got her D5500 + 18-140 at the local dealer. If everyone bought mail order the local dealer would not survive. I did not need the freebies and the local dealer price matched - they did not have the $200 instant combo deal. This also gives me leverage with the store manager - he brings home lens or DSLR's and I come over and used them for an afternoon.

Capt_Spaulding

No preorder here. The initial specs alone don't convince me it's all that much of a D7100 killer. Most of what I do and the way(s) I do them don't benefit from most of the changes. Depending of the performance of the new sensor and the revised AF I may bite. Otherwise, I'll probably go for the 7100. Now, the waiting on the reviews starts.

nukuEX2

Now, the waiting on the reviews starts.

I'll be waiting for those early reviews as well. I'm trying to avoid the case where I must send my camera to Nikon all the way to NY in the first place.

One_Oh_Four

So has anyone pre ordered the D7200?

Nope. For my airplane photography I'd still like to have the non-existant D400 but I have bought the D800 instead, over a year ago.

The D800 is a great all-round camera to do landscape, city and architecture. It is also very good for my plane pics when I screw on the batterygrip with the D4 battery. It then has the D7200's 6fps and a very decent buffer when set to DX-format. I end up with a 15 Mp sensor which is slightly less then on my D7000 but with the better AF module.

So, I don't need the D7200 as prime body and to buy it as a second body seems like a waste of money to me. If the D800 suffers a malfunction "on the road", the D7000 is still more than competent enough to take over!

If the D7000 would die on me, that would be a different situation...

Nikonhotep

I would contemplate replacing my D7100, but not without seeing full-res sample photographs at high(er) ISOs from the D7200. I don't understand what they are waiting for.

donaldejose

For the closest thing we have at this time to full res images from the D7200 which you can directly compare to other current Nikon bodies go to Imaging Resources

http://www.imaging-resource.com/

Put your curser over Camera Reviews and a drop down menu appears. Click on Compare Images. This takes you to a split screen where you can select two cameras. Select the Nikon D5500 in the first half of the screen and select the D7100 in the second half of the screen. Scroll down to Still-life 12800 which is the same image shot at 12800 ISO on both bodies. You will see a small image from both bodies. Click on Full Size image and then you will be able to compare a full resolution image of the same subject from both bodies. You will observe that the D5500 image is dramatically cleaner than the D7100 image. Amazingly so, in my opinion. Of course, you are looking at jpegs produced by the camera which means they contain the camera's noise reduction. A RAW file processed to your liking may be able to do better or to better reflect your preferences.

People on NRF don't pay much attention to the D5500 because we are more interested in the higher level bodies. However, we should be able to safely assume image quality from the D7200 will be at least as good as image quality from the D5500. Thus, the D5500 is the best proxy we have at this time for the D7200.

In my opinion image quality, especially at high ISO, from the D7200 is going to be most impressive and may be a sufficient reason for many to purchase it.

DaveyJ

I haven't pre-ordered the D7200 as my money is being spent elsewhere. Also I projected ahead to my upcoming trip to the Florida Keys and did not see that the D7200 was going to do much that my D7100 and best lens won't do.I will have to have some farm project money coming in to justify the purchase. I mostly would be upgrading for slightly better video performance. Most of our video is being publicized from other lighter 4K cameras.

Photobug

Thanks @Donaldejose - excellent tip. I checked out one image and will be back there to look at more.

The wife has only had her new D5500 for two weeks and the images are really good. I can tell you from shooting over 100 images at ISO 4000 last Friday that they were good. Agree with you about NRF doesn't pay much attention to the D5500. IMHO, it's an excellent mid-range DSLR.

heartyfisher

Like i said in the other thread I played with the D5500 and a D7100 in the shop .. and I think the D5500 actually focuses faster than the D7100. Can someone else confirm this ?

manhattanboy

Like i said in the other thread I played with the D5500 and a D7100 in the shop .. and I think the D5500 actually focuses faster than the D7100. Can someone else confirm this ?

This is no doubt true as it has a faster Expeed processor. The same happened for 800 to 810. That still doesn't speak to AF accuracy which is dependent on the underlying AF module.

donaldejose

KR now has some images up of the same shot at all the ISOs so you can judge how high you can go with a D5500. I say you can go up to ISO 12,800. ISO 25,600 looks too smeared from the noise reduction software. The sensor in the D7200 should be as good, if not better, than these sample jpgs.

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5500.htm#perf

DaveyJ

The Camera Store has a review of the D7200 and the comparison with the D7100 is going to plague Nikon pretty badly. Their conclusion is that if you own a D7100 there is not enough here to warrant the upgrade. It does focus faster in low light. The video controls have not changed much. The Expeed 4 processor does make a difference. Coming from maybe a D7000 the improvement is worth it. D7100 to D7200 is fairly ho-hum.

Ryukyu

So given that the next camera up the chain that has the 51 point focus system and the Expeed 4 processor is the D750, is the difference between the FX and DX sensors worth $1100?
I know it's not quite that simple, but having never shot with an FX camera, I'm really curious what those who have think.

donaldejose

I think of FX vs. DX as FX basically giving you:

1. One stop better clean his ISO. Do you need that ability now that DX can shoot clean up to 6,400 or 12,800 ISO?
2. Better detail (or maybe I should say better micro detail) because a DX sensor surely will show a single human hair in a half body portrait. Do you really need sharpness beyond a single human hair?
3. Better ability to print larger than poster size. How many times will your digital files be used to print larger than 24 x 36 inches?

Another way to look at it is that the latest DX bodies, D5500 and D7200, essentially give you all the image quality the FX D3 did with more resolution. Do you really need more than that?

Is the FX sensor really worth an additional $1.100. No, if you shoot for magazine covers or one page spreads or 8x10 prints. Yes, if you shoot to print at poster size. For most people it isn't worth the money but for a few people it is very much worth the money and is essential.

But here is my bottom line. I WANT two three bodies, one with the best DX image quality and one with the best FX image quality and one intermediate 24mp FX body whether I NEED them or not. Thus, I want a D7200, a D750 and a D810. I have none of them and shoot with a DX D7000 for quick things which won't print larger than 8x10, with an FX D600 for things which will be printed to about 16 x 24 and with a D800 for things which will be printed poster size. When money becomes available I will purchase a D7200 (or D400), a D750, and a D810. I will never purchase a D4s because I don't need 11 fps or a shutter that lasts for 300,000 clicks. Everyone has their own wants and needs with will best serve how they shoot.

nukuEX2

Let's just talk about D7200 here. We don't need to degenerate into FX vs DX fights. FX: Good for Wide angles/landscape, large Prints, and Lowlight. (though the latest DX sensors make FX sensor run for it's money.) DX: Faster frame rate, Higher pixel density, better suited for closeup and portraits, Last but not least easier on the pocketbook.

There is place for both FX and DX.

JonMcGuffin

Despite having what many would call the "consumer" build the D7200 is by all means an exceptionally capable camera that would have been the envy of photographers all around the world just a mere 5-6 years ago and I'm pretty sure amazing pictures were made back then. In my view, at $1199 probably represents the absolute best bang for the buck in the photography world as far as camera bodies are concerned.

Forget the whole FX/DX thing, that is such a tired argument. This is a very sophisticated and exceptionally capable imaging device that in many respects is the absolute ideal and perfect tool for the job at hand and even in those that some may say it is not suitably built, it will in fact do the job quite nicely. Portraits, sports, wildlife, indoor, outdoor, live performance, candid, street, etc, etc. If this were the last and only camera on the earth all genres would be shot with it without issue or problem.

Fear not, it's not the tool that will limit you, it's the brain sitting right behind the viewfinder that is going to be your impediment. Most "professional" photographers (and that is a loose term) would all tell you that the glass is more important than the body for a myriad of reasons and they'd all be correct. The body matters, but all things considered, go for the glass!

manhattanboy

That's what i said about the D810. It didn't seem like much. Now when I try to use my D800 I just get aggravated by it's sluggish response. The new processor makes using it much nicer. The Expeed 3 is a dog in comparison. It's like using Photoshop on an older computer. The results are identical, but getting there is much more pleasurable.

The 810 does have more improvements throughout though. The shutter is much much better. The fps is slightly boosted. The ergonomics have been tweaked. No doubt the increased processor speed and group focus addition and larger buffer just like the 800 to 810 transition make the 7100 to 7200 transition nicer. But it still feels like Nikon did not really do that much for this camera.

DaveyJ

manhattanboy's conclusion is quite the same as the Camera Store Review. I do also agree with PitchBlack's comment on the cost of the D7200 compared to the D300. Still have my D300 and it sits in my bookshelf as a moment in time. The D7000 was a step up from the D300. The D7100 did have an incremental improvement but not earth shaking. So here is another small step for the Nikon Mankind. When the D400 comes out I WILL NOT be buying one as it will be expensive beyond my specific uses. I myself though hope that Nikon DOES NOT ignore DX. And if I get my hands on more money I may just buy a D7200.

Photobug

@manhattanboy: I'm not sure that the D7200 was released to try to convince people to upgrade from the D7100. I think it's just something that Nikon does with DX camera; that is, tweak them fairly often. Also, one of the constant whines from people wanting a D400 has been the buffer, and that's pretty well fixed. Seriously, I just want to smack anyone complaining that it's not a D400. It's an amazing camera and it costs just 1200 bucks. That's 500 non-inflation-adjusted dollars cheaper than the D300 was when it came out and the D7200 is so much better. Just buy it and be done with it.

Edit: not you. all those waiting for a D400. Do it. Buy it. Now.

+1 Well said PitchBlack on the D7200 and especially your comment on those waiting for the D400.

spraynpray

@manhattanboy: I'm not sure that the D7200 was released to try to convince people to upgrade from the D7100. I think it's just something that Nikon does with DX camera; that is, tweak them fairly often. Also, one of the constant whines from people wanting a D400 has been the buffer, and that's pretty well fixed. Seriously, I just want to smack anyone complaining that it's not a D400. It's an amazing camera and it costs just 1200 bucks. That's 500 non-inflation-adjusted dollars cheaper than the D300 was when it came out and the D7200 is so much better. Just buy it and be done with it.

Edit: not you. all those waiting for a D400. Do it. Buy it. Now.

That's right to a degree, but those waiting for a D400 and who said the D7200 isn't a D400 aren't saying the D7200 is the price of a D400 but the D7200 isn't up to the performance level expected. They would pay more for the D400 to get those features. I believe they said it isn't a D400 because they are still waiting for one and the D7200 is not a D400.

sevencrossing

..... the comparison with the D7100 is going to plague Nikon pretty badly......

I would imagine D7100 owner is not Nikons target market
The target market will be people upgrading from a P&S
who might be tempted by a Canon

donaldejose

D7200 vs D400. When they both exist we can all compare them and select between them according to our needs and uses. RIGHT NOW, there is no choice and thus any comparison is a flight of fantasy. If you need or want to purcase a camera right now so you can get shooting just buy the D7200. No brainer. If you can wait 6 month to a year the D400 may become available. I think we will see it out late this year but I surely don't know.