SmilerGrogan: Please do your part to keep Ken Rockwell-isms out of DPR. If you're going to use the term "coma" please also use the right term for sunstars.
It is my understanding that the correct term is "diffraction spikes."
Are people who use the word Tammy instead of Tamron suffering from Ken Rockwellism too ? Personally I find this more annoying than sunstars vs diffraction spikes.
lorenzo de medici: It's an incremental upgrade from the D7100, which I owned and then sold. Aptly named, and the improved buffer and low light focusing will be appreciated, I'm sure. DX Nikons just don't have any place in my camera bag any longer. Wildlife shooters who need 750mm equivalent focal lengths will enjoy this camera quite a bit, no doubt. Sorry but I don't care what claims they make or what DPR says, since it has just become a marketing arm of Amazon. DX sensors can't get the job done when it comes to the edge of the performance envelope. Buy a D750. If you dig down to the bottom line of DX advocates, no matter what they claim, the bottom line is they can't afford FX bodies or FX lenses. Cameras with little sensors are just a cheaper alternative to the real thing. Period. In ten years we'll all be shooting mirrorless full frame cameras, and DX cameras will still be what they are now - consumer grade equipment.
Your generalization is appalling. Explain why you think DX sensors can't get the job done. "Performance envelope". What is that supposed to mean ? Do you honestly think your FX camera has taken your photography to another level of creativity ? At the least your post is very condescending.
stevemogg: Its a clear case of hobbling to me. The D7100 is a very good camera and if made substantially better would clearly be a threat to the FX line. So instead of being innovative and making the best camera they can for their customers, Nikon appear arrogant based on past glories and drip feed changes so as not to upset the status quo of their range. If this is the case, it appears shortsighted as a strategy and patronising to the consumer. The different attributes of DX v FX are clear and consumers are more than capable of making a choice that suits them. Nikon should concentrate on making each product line the best they can be and recapture the initiative. Their lens range is similarly constrained with a confusing array of models that often offer no clear differentiators and lack lustre performance. With shipments of DSLR in 2014 running at barely 50% of what they were just two years earlier, you would think someone in NikCan would wake up and do something !
I agree. Why would they want 3 different cameras in their DX lineup with none of them being pro level is beyond me. They should concentrate on quality not quantity like they once did.
Aur: I'll never undererstand the argument some ppl use about weather sealing. Afaik, none of the DX lenses have weather sealing, only FX lenses have it. Are people really putting $2000 lenses on a crop sensor?
If you want weather sealing, you should be looking at Pentax, they have $200-$1000 lenses with weather sealing. Nikon only has weather sealing in their most expensive lenses, and even on those, Nikon seems very reluctant to tell users how much they can withstand, the info is really hard to find. Pentax has no problem telling it's users which lenses are fully weather proof and they even show it off in promotional videos.
Ppl take these cameras on safaris and then complain about dust on their pictures with Nikons, yes..because none of the DX lenses are weather sealed, so your body being weather sealed is completely irrelevant.
"Are people really putting $2000 lenses on a crop sensor?" Absolutely!
ozturert: I'll hold my comment until I see the DxO Mark point. I just have to see the god..mn number to feel comfortable. I know that it's way better than all Canons but if I can see the point with my own eyes, I'll come back and fire!DxO is just everything to me... wouldn't live without it...
@Aur: interesting as in geeky.
HeyItsJoel: No articulating screen. Just brilliant.
@Midwest: It's invaluable when you shoot video. I expected it on the 7200. Your size argument is mote. They do it on some smaller, cheaper DX models with comparable bodies. My "old" D5100 had it and the body was nearly identical.
GarysInSoCal: BINGO... D7200 has EXACTLY what I was looking for in next upgrade. (D300 owner)
No AA Filter... WINNER! I've done comparisons on 24MP sensor with and without AA Filter... much sharper images IMO... just make sure you're usin quality glass.
BIGGER buffer with 1/8000 shutter and 1/250 flash sync... WINNER! Sports and fast action boys will be happy campers now. Darker skies in outside strobe shots too.
The 51 point AF with -3EV and 'Face Detection'... WINNER! No more AF searching in lower light. I shoot models and actors headshots... 'face detection' is HUGE benefit.
Locking exposure mode dial and built-in auto focus lens motor... WINNER! No locking exposure mode dial was a D7000 screwup... too easy to change that accidently... built-in focus motor keeps all my older lenses still in the game.
Dual card slots and longer battery life... WINNER! Now you have a backup card for super important images combined with higher image storage capacity and longer shooting time.
I think it's a pretty good product but It's still not enough to replace the D300. The D300 had a much better, more practical body (more buttons for important settings without delving in the menu). At the least I would have hoped Nikon would have included a swivel LCD like the D750. Shooting video with a long lens attached without support is difficult without the swivel LCD.
jadmaister2: Small but significant upgrades keep the DX Nikons ticking over JUST.My gripe (since gripe is what we do best here it seems) is that Nikon fail to support wide angle shooters with suitable quality glass at a sensible cost.Yes Nikon have a good lens range, but recent releases do seem to favour DX shooters. Since my interest in landscape has increased I think the 7200 and it's lenses have just persuaded me to make the jump to a D750:)
If you are looking for ultra wide, you can't go wrong with any of these lenses: Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 8-16mm and Tokina 11-16mm. I've had all 3 and ended up preferring the Tokina but by an almost insignificant margin. If you are looking for just wide, get the new Sigma 24mm.
rrccad: They aren't the first full frame camera for astrophotography.
there's a ton of full framed based astro cameras based upon the Kodak KAI11002 CCD.
now they are right that it's the first full framed DSLR's with a company based IR filter "tweak" for hApha.
since it's also just a narrow band filter for hAlpha - it's a lot more limited as not everything photographed by a astro camera is based upon hAlpha emissions.
@LSE: Consumer wins only if the cameras have no QC/design issues. Otherwise the consumer is paying for the company's lack of "road testing".
(unknown member): This deserves a Gold Award. Until then, it has my sincere smile. :) :) :)
P. S.: very good news for AsPh.
More like a raspberry award.
EricAotearoa: I do not understand all the silly chatter here about this camera. It is a specialised piece of equipment, not your everyday digital camera. It is used for astrophotography, and a specialised subset of that. If you want a camera that does something else, well, this isn't for you. Why complain just because it is not what you are after. It would be like Ford producing their Falcon sedan, and then producing a ute version, then having people complain that the ute wasn't sporty or able to seat more than two people.
Businesses are driven by need. Most people here (I include myself) don't think there is a real need for this camera especially when one thinks of the photographic equipment that Nikon could put out that would be more popular, more easily marketable. That Nikon came out with this camera could interest a few people no doubt but certainly not as much as a top end DX or a revised D750 that has no manufacturing issues. A redone Ford Falcon would have people scratching their heads wondering why. This camera announcement has the same effect. Many people are expecting new announcements from Nikon. This ain't one of them.
I applaud Pentax for announcing products that are in development even if they are months or a year away. Nikon on the other hand likes to keep everybody in the dark until the very last minute.
arrow501: In response to the coments regarding mobile phones and digital zoom. Digital zoom is not a substitute for optical zoom. There is more to zoom than just getting closer. Digital zoom does not compress a scene like optical zoom does.
Zoom with your feet. There's no substitute for that.
I don't want to sound cynical but did we really need more compact cameras ? The market seems to be literally flooded with them to the point that it's almost impossible to distinguish one from the other. I hope the more serious announcements are coming from Nikon.
CameraLabTester: The moment a photography enthusiast removes the concept of "upgrade" in his/her mind... the more enjoyable that photography enthusiast and hobbyist's picture taking would be.
Upgrade spreads the curse of inadequacy, a useful tool of marketing.
Exactly ! A marketing tool is all it really is. And it works.
Carlos Loff: When the budget is limited it makes sense to go for an FF Camera and just buy our most precious Fixed Focal Lenth lens, not spending loads of money on a whole array of new lenses
What I just can´t understand, and would like somebody to explain it to me, is how an affordable FFs, like the D750 for example - affordable yet costing quite a bit - How can they need to limit shutter and flash sync speed to make them affordable ?
My question is about spec-price, I could buy an affordable FF and be happy without 1/8000 and 250 sync, but should´t ANY "affordable" option like that cost much less than what a D750 costs ?
I repeat, is not about the need of those specs is about the relation spec-price
Shouldn´t ANY camera, nowadays, that costs more than 2.000€, have something so simple as 1/8000 and 250 sync ? Or are these specs so expensive on an FF that to be "affordable" must be ditched aside ?
That's not very hard to understand from the manufacturers point of view. They want their customers to have an unending upgrade path. They cripple the "lower" end cameras to make you want the next one which is of course to come in a year with a few functions "uncrippled".
I've always felt that for the most part, DX only lenses are compromised on optical quality to meet a certain price point (exception Sigma 18-35mm ART perhaps). That's why I shoot many expensive FF intended lenses on my Nikon DX bodies. The author never mentions this. I might go FX one day but I feel no need for it at this point. Still, I like the optical quality I get with many quality FF lenses and I've had my share of DX only lenses as well. To the author it might make little sense to have many FF lenses on a DX body but it does to me for this reason amongst others.
I'm glad the author wrote about this subject. To many people, anything "below" FF is not professional and they are persuaded that an FF camera will make them better photographers while DX (or smaller) is for amateurs and people who are learning.
rkodama1: Yet another blatant example of Canon crippling their non-pro cameras. How long do we have to wait until the 7D series gets a state-of-the-art voice recorder?
You are being sarcastic I hope.
sleibson: I was happy to see this review because it has the ring of truth to it. This pro photographer brings her biases to her review, just like any reviewer. She is a full-frame shooter. She has a color preference. She knows what she likes and what she doesn't like. I found her review of the 7DII very credible based on that. She noted the fast AF and the fast burst speed. She noted controls she didn't like. She also noted how she sets the camera up for her work. In all, this is as informative a working review of a camera as you can hope to get and I appreciate the even-handed, easy-to-read tone.
And no, Canon didn't pay me to write this.
But how can it be credible when she says she is a full frame shooter and hated the older Canon crop sensor pro camera ? It's like asking a citizen to be the member of a jury when he declares the suspect guilty before the trial even begins.
Scorehound: First of all, she is a FF shooter and from the get-go she is going to slam the camera based on this fact. It should be a non issue. It isn't a FF camera, so don't use the lack of FF as a negative on the camera.
Second, it wasn't much of a review. She spend a little time talking about how much she hated the 7D and went on about how she didn't like the lack of audio notation (a feature most people don't care about).
She didn't discuss the quality of the images she got out of the camera, didn't discuss her opinions on the noise and ISO performance in the shots she made, and didn't spend a lot of time talking ergonomics and features. She touched on points, and that was it.
I, for one am disappointed in this. I was expecting a balanced review based on a $1800 camera, and not a comparison to a $7,000 camera (or a $3500 camera at that). It was a useless review IMHO and didn't tell anyone anything different than what you can read online. I want a real review. This was not it.
It's not a review. It's a quick opinion from somebody who obviously doesn't like APS-C based cameras.