GNM1: Hired one of these to shoot Kingfishers with a 400mm F2.8 + 2x Tce-III. Having a D3s, I was looking for more pixels for cropping. Having used the D200 / D700 / D3s, I hated the D7200. Mainly because I like to see what the ISO is doing, on the screen viewfinder and in review on the back LCD after the shot. The viewfinder would only show ISO value up to the point of focusing, after that you had now idea what it was going to be based on the half shutter focus press. Using LCD review, the D3s you press the up arrow and work through the detail, focus point, full picture, Graph - but I could not get this on the D7200 (I was looking for the ISO). The buffer, I held my finger on the button and I had a du,dudu...du,du,...du not the machine gun approach of the D3s. Not used to a stutter when shooting continuous - I expected a full six with a little wait, not over 10 seconds to clear the buffer. Maybe it's me with the short time I had it but I'll try the 750 for comparison. Not for me I'm afraid.
Raw and JPG selected - it is slowing down the camera. Why jpg's? You can easily make a full jpg-conversion of all pictures afterwards.
Ozgur Ay: I have read that some of us are comparing D7200 vs 7DmII and saying that built-in GPS + 10fps shooting speed + more focus points available in 7DmII makes it a better alternative and blaming Nikon for not implementing those in D7200 as a competitor.
But nobody is talking about the price.7DmII is $500 more expensive than D7200. (I am comparing body-only price)
So are those features so important for all of us ?Is everybody willing to pay 40% more for these additional features ?I do not think so...
Thom Hogan says: "The D7200 is really just a D7100 with a few minor tweaks that really wouldn't have taken two years to develop."
Solmeta Geotagger Pro 2 is absolutely not a practical GPS-solution, taking the flash mount and using a cord etc. That is excactly what you can avoid with a built-in solution. This is not a question of price alone, but of a DX-camera that is up to date.
It is very disappointing to the Nikon customers to offer us just a minor update without new developments. Thom Hogan is right in his critics.
kk123: Do NOT buy D7200. It is just a minor upgrade of the D7100 according to Thom Hogan.
Instead, wait for the Nikon competitor to Canon 7D MkII.
We need to show Nikon that they don't deliver what we want and force them to come with the right camera.
Strike against D7200. Boycott Nikon until they come up with a 10 fps DX camera with GPS built in! Nothing less.
They try to outsmart us customers with this minor upgrade. When you have bought it, they issue the D400 and we have to buy again.
So drop the in-between camera D7200. That will force Nikon to hurry up with the D400.
Nikon fool themselves.
Do NOT buy D7200. It is just a minor upgrade of the D7100 according to Thom Hogan.
kk123: I won't buy D810. Stick to my D7100 until a D400 or D9300 with at least 8 fps comes.
The buffer size of the D7100 is not an issue, since the D7100 has very high write-speed to the card. With a 95MB/S card solved.
D810 "only" 38 Mp. D7100 24MPx2,25= 54MP in pixel density comparison. D7100 has much higher resolution, ideal for cropped pics. Of course the same discussion, where D7100 is the winner for long distance bird and animal photos as an example.
I won't buy D810. Stick to my D7100 until a D400 or D9300 with at least 8 fps comes.
RRJackson: Here's something I don't understand at all. Metering on modern cameras can break the frame down into thousands of segments for complex metering calculations...but nobody can seem to make a metering system that prevents highlight clipping. No way at all to reduce the exposure if the highlights are clipping? Really? In 2014 we can't make that happen? The system can analyze 91,000 segments of the frame, but can't tell if one of them is clipping?
The active lighting in Nikon is inserted before the AC/DC conversion and means a correction of measurements of the low and high end. The dynamic range is thereby decreased in 0 and 255 areas. (Forced picture underexposure and increased selection of lightest areas in the darkest part of the picture.) A smart. but not always very efficient method. A more direct change to a more appropriate ISO in parts of the picture seems better. I.e. adapted exposures of each segment of metering.
LucaPCP: Old cameras had big lenses, and relatively small bodies around them (because film did the trick). This D4s is ugly: a tiny lens attached to a huge black brick that contains the circuitry. It's starting not to make sense. I wish they gave me a light lens+sensor combo, tethered to the rest of the computer that I could keep in my backpack. It's like taking a photo while handholding a desktop computer.
The body is too big, too heavy. Why on earth can't they make this camera smaller and more handy? The battery is not the full explanation. In any case, to little to upgrade for from D3s.
JDThomas: I have both the D5200 and the D7100. For all practical purposes the image quality is the same. The only real difference that I've noticed between the two is that the D7100 is really starting to show the limitations of Nikon's lenses. The flagship DX lens, the 17-55 f/2.8G is almost unusable at f/2.8 because if the apparent softness. The D7100 retains detail, but the image is veiled in a soft glow similar to a diffusion filter.
What Nikon really needs to start working on is updating their pro lenses to match their sensors. My 14-24 just got back from NPS repair so I haven't had a chance to test it out, but so far the only two lenses I have that are holding up wide open are the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 C.
???? I've used the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR II and the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR with D7100. Not only names and prices of these lenses are impressive, but certainly also the results with D7100.
I keep my D3S.
And I am still waiting for the D400:Lightweight DX 18MP8fps without battery packageBuilt-in GPSFaster AF than D300/s
kk123: D600 - unfortunately not the answer for replacement of the D300/s -D7000.
- Too low fps 5,5 isn't good enough!- Too low resolution for DX - only 24mp/2,25, not more than 10mp in the DX area.
Nearly useless for bird photos.
Maybe I should buy an old D2X - with 8 fps.
Why on earth isn't Nikon listening to its customers? I refuse to buy D600!
And where is an update of the 80-400mm? And a 300 f4 with stabilizer. And I could use a 500 f5,6. Come on NIKON!!
Yes - but D600 ??? Why can't Nikon make the D400? How long are we going to wait? I sold my D300, bought D7000 as a camera in between. Very many want a 10fps DX camera with say 17mp and fast AF. Ideal for bird and animal shooting.
D600 - unfortunately not the answer for replacement of the D300/s -D7000.
I think you will be amazed when you compare AF on 400+2x converter with a pure 800mm, especially on fast moving subjects like birds in flight. I have tested that for 300 f2,8 + 2x compared to 600 f4, and can assure you much better AF and higher quality. I asume the same will be the case for 400/800mm.
If you reallly believe you get the same sharpness with the converter, especially on long distances, I think you also should do some homework.
D800 cropped = D7000 in resolution. None of them an answer to the D300 as a folllow up DX camera.
Finally Nikon replies Canon. Why is Nikon so slow? VR came too late, 800mm too late. I sell my 600 VR and by the 800 for sure. And I am still waiting for the D300 follow-up. The good thing with the 800 by the way, is the "light" weigth compared to the magnifying capacity. And a 400 mm with 2x converter is not an issue. The converter ruins the quality of the photo, and AF does not work nearly as well as it should with converter. Fast AF is a must for a bird photographer.
WilliamJ: To everybody, here is something to read when thinking about a big telephoto-lens : http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml
Informative, meaningful yet quite funny as always with the proud Michael Reichmann's analysis.
But Nikon 500mm and 600mm now both have stabilizers, so this must be some years old.