Mescalamba: - Camera is bulky when compared to mirrorless rivals
Aaand? Like, you know.. its dSLR? Why the heck you put this into cons. Its dSLR so its normal that its not flat. Kinda obvious, logical and whatnot.
Its like saying, lemon is sour and apple is sweet so apple is better.
Plus show me comparable AF in mirrorless. No? Why? Well, maybe cause they are mirrorless? :D
You know, when you argue that "its not in score" or "just for you to know" why just pick one and not include whole "difference against mirrorless due nature of technologies".
It wouldnt hurt to just pick "compare everything to mirrorless" or "compare only within same type of camera".
@Mescalamba: that looks a little *reductio ad absurdum*, to me.
There might be a middle ground between: 'I will only buy a DSLR' and 'I must have the smallest camera possible.' The comment is something to consider, for anyone in the middle ground.
Because, with the advent of the likes of the 70D and NX1, the difference between mirrorless and DSLR is narrowing (from both directions).
I genuinely believe that some people will be considering cameras regardless of underlying technology, and that the decreasing performance differences will increase the proportion of people doing so, even within the life-span of this review.
As has always been the case with Pros and Cons (and every aspect of a review), you have to decide which aspects are relevant to *you*. If the mirror allows the D7200 to do something you need (something I've hopefully identified in the Pros), then it shouldn't be challenging to ignore that particular Con.
There are people concerned about weight and size and, now that you can get some (all?*) of the performance of a D7200 from smaller cameras, then it may be a Con to some people.
*This may depend on individual requirements.
redhed17: “…Nikon shooters have been awaiting the arrival of a D400, or some kind of replacement for the D300S. We think that camera is the D7200. It offers the same continuous shooting performance as the D300S (but now at 24MP) while adding a significantly better AF system …. Build quality isn't quite in the same league but practically speaking it's very close.”So at the 3rd time of asking Nikon has not matched the 6 year old D300S in fps without using a crop mode, is still not as fast as the D300S with the grip, and is still not a ‘Pro’ body. But Canon have raised the bar (for fps at least) by the 7DII, and yet DPReview consider the D7200 a good replacement for the D300S. :-/ Canon are more likely to get my money, as they have actually brought out a ‘Pro’/Enthusiast camera. Nikon seem to have ceded that sector, because the D7200 is on a par with the 70D, not the 7DII. And it is certainly not a proper successor to the D300S. Imho.Keep following the Nikon party line though DPReview.
I think the way that section is phrased can be interpreted as meaning 'this is an appropriate substitute' or 'this is the closest thing in Nikon's lineup.' I've re-written it slightly to clarify our intention (and point out that it's closer to D90 money than D300S).
I'd agree that the D7200 isn't a direct substitute for the D300(S) type of camera and recognise that it's disappointing for some users that Nikon appears to have ceded that ground.
However, for the (probably larger), less high-end audience, who might few years ago would have bought a D90, the D7200 is really impressive.
It's not our intention to follow the party line, it's our aim to write reviews that are most useful for the target audience. The D7200 is an underwhelming D300S replacement but is a really impressive D90 replacement.
It was also 30% less expensive, at launch, than the D300S was, which should make its short-coming a little easier to swallow for some buyers who'd have preferred a D400. At which point, it's hard to justify attacking a camera that's really good at what it is for not being something it isn't intended to be.
Pandimonium: Bulky compared to mirrorless? It's not mirrorless so don't compare.
@pkosewski - if you exclude the shooting experience page, there should be very little in the review that's about concepts: most of the references in the conclusion are to specific rivals (regardless of technology).
The shooting experience is more about the concept because it's my personal experience of spending a lot of time shooting with the Nikon having mainly shot mirrorless for a while. The things that stood out, both for better and worse about the experience were mainly down to the Nikon's inclusion of a reflex mirror, however, I needed to make clear that some of the issues weren't specific to this camera but to DSLRs generally.
I'll bear you point in mind, in future, though.
Hugo808: Well of course it's bulky compared to mirrorless camera's. It's got a mirror in it.
Why is that listed as a negative?
Because if size is an important consideration for you, then there are smaller cameras that offer very similar capabilities.
We listed the benefits of having a mirror in the pros section, so it's fair to list the disadvantages in the cons. Whether that matters to you is up to you: the pros and cons are just factors you might wish to consider (they're not all factored into the score).
If Aston Martin or somebody else made a shooting brake with similar performance for less money, then I'd probably try to consider the Labrador-hauling contingent.
The wheels tend to fall off automotive metaphors as soon as you start the engine, but if you're only considering sports cars, then you already know that you want a sports car, so being reminded that they're not always very practical is unlikely to be too distracting.
EXX: Why did they not compare it to the Sony A77-II in stead of the A6000? The A77-II is much more in the same corner as the D7200.
There isn't room to make every possible comparison and, of the two cameras Sony makes aimed at a similar audience, the a6000 offers a more distinct alternative.
Don Sata: What's the relationship between scores and awards? You have the highest image quality and best autofocus APS DSLR with great ergonomics. Video is not stellar but this is not a video camera.
The two are related but not directly connected. Otherwise they'd just be telling you the same thing with different degrees of precision.
[This article should give more detail](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained).
In short, though: the score represents a relatively objective assessment of the camera's strengths and weaknesses, whereas the award is the reviewer's perspective of the camera as a whole.
While the IQ and AF are excellent (and the camera scores highly, as a result), we didn't feel it stood out enough to be a Gold.
Henrik Herranen: Page 13: "The ISO 100 shot pushed by 5EV is essentially indistinguishable from the native ISO 3200 shot, even down to the darkest tones in the image."
What?They are not even remotely indistinguishable. ISO100+5EV is purple and ISO3200 is gray. It's not even close!
Don't get me wrong. I really respect the concept of ISO invariance and that DPreview has chosen to make it a Big Thing. In time, it will force my camera maker of choice, Canon, to improve. Still, if you give zero attention to obviously different colour, then what we are eventually going to get is that no-one will care about colour anymore. We'll get even weaker colour filter arrays, missing IR filters, etc.
Suggestion:How about making sensor spectral response a part of the standard things to test? That way we'd, with time, end up with better colour accuracy. While I respect high-ISO capability, I think it has been "good enough" since Canon's 5D2. All this while colour fidelity, which used to be pretty good, has suffered.
Essentially indistinguishable in terms of noise. As [Horshack details below](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7200?comment=7967724524), the magenta case is likely to be (at least in part) an Adobe Camera Raw calibration error which can be corrected for, to a good degree, not a sensor problem.
Your points about spectral response is a fair one (the ability for a camera to distinguish colour is clearly important, even if the *accuracy* of its JPEG output isn't, necessarily).
It's not a Canon, either, so am I not allowed to compare to that?
There are more mirrorless options at this price point than DSLRs, it seemed reasonable to offer context for anyone who might be deciding between all their options.
Anyone only considering DSLRs will probably be able to weight the pros and cons accordingly.
ttran88: So is it 83% or 84% silver award. I'm seeing two different scores. 84% in conclusion and 83% in latest review section.
That's interesting - must be a bug of some sort. The *correct* answer is 84% - I'll speak to our developers to find out where the wrong number is being pulled from.
justmeMN: It's funny how companies often choose not to improve obvious flaws. In Nikon's case, that's Live View performance.
I suspect, at this point, the limitation is that most Nikkor lenses aren't designed for contrast detect autofocus, so they'd need to refresh the entire lens range (or add dedicated lenses, comparable to Canon's 'STM' lenses).
Tommygun45: You couldn't make it past the second sentence without a grammatical flaw? Come on now!
"It's a offers slightly more flexible Raw files (due to lack of banding), a slightly better action shooter..."
Fixed. Sorry about that.
zodiacfml: another high quality article from you guys.
a bit off topic but from my perspective noise is becoming less of an issue these days especially with the CMOS sensors.
from these noise control developments, I discovered that i place more value now on highlight behavior than noise. viewing an image on an excellent but small screen such as smartphone or tablet, noise is not much of problem. in short, I appreciate the highlight handling of CCD cameras regardless of screen size or sensor format.
i hope you could also look into this as I believe there is a difference between CCD and CMOS regarding this aspect. i'm sure Leica fans would love to read such an article.
I don't know of any technical reason why CCD behave differently, in terms of hightlights.
When either type of sensor clips to white, it clips to white and neither technology, as they're currently used, has any means of rolling-off that transition (it's a linear response all the way up to clipping). Any recoverable highlight detail beyond this point comes down to slight differences in color filters.
Dynamic range is the gap between the hard cut-off of highlights and the darkest usable tone before the signal-to-noise ratio drops to an unacceptable level. Consequently, caring about dynamic range is to care about noise.
nutraman: in the second image, how could both shots be 1/100s and F8? One shot was at ISO100 and the other at ISO3200... so the incorrect label should have a shutter speed 5 stops different.
The whole point is to give both photos the same amount of light but then apply different levels of amplification to what's captured by the sensor.
The ISO3200 shot has applied 32x amplification, whereas the second is at base ISO (minimal amplification) and was then selectively brightened (amplified) in software.
armandino: I still do not get this:The Seattle sunset shot above is wonderful, but the aggressive NR is quite a turn off. Why not bracketing instead? Why not choosing for such articles truly meaningful photos for real practical situations? Cameras and applications like Lightroom make true HDR shots painless and vastly superior for this sort of compositions.
We hope to replace the second image with a more compelling example. As always, what you do with the potential your camera offers is where the interesting aspects of photography begin.
GRUBERND: can dpreview please moderate (= delete) all comments containing the words "equiv*", "match*", "fullframe" et al on all news items about any sensor smaller than 8x10" fullframe? thank you.
or the team could push the thought of "it's a tool, choose wisely and use accordingly" a bit more. ;)
back on topic: wow, that 7-14 looks like an awesome lens. =)
I agree, it's not an absolute *measure* of performance, but it does accurately represent how much light is available to the sensor, which is a useful thing to know.
It's a meaningful property of the lens.
coyot3: I tested on my nikon d3100 and the results are at iso 100 1" f4 underexposing 4 ev and later recovering in Darktable(linux) give less noise than iso 3200 1/30 f4 no exposure changes.
I dont know if i understand right the article xD im going to re read ._.
¿Some thoughts on my results?
The difference in shutter speed (and hence [shot noise](http://bit.ly/shotnoise)) will explain the results you're seeing.
Coheritier: Ok. I understand what you are saying. However, I have a technical question. Since photons travel in random patterns and according to your explanation; the more volume of photons that hit the sensor the better.
What happens when one adds time into the equation? Do I benefit more from having a longer exposure (slower shutter speed) than I do with a larger aperture (for any given correct exposure, whether it is TTR or not)?
My thinking is this; There is more change of having more photons hitting your sensor with a longer exposure than there is with a larger aperture. Is this correct?
Both result in more photons hitting your sensor - this is the reason you get the same brightness increase by opening up your aperture by 1 stop as you do for doubling the shutter time.