Nikon D90Nikon 16-85VRNikon 70-300VRSigma 10-20Sigma 150 2.8 MacroSlik 330EZ Lightweight TripodNikon SB800Canon S95
No Hotshoe. So much for the premium branding...
One point that is not hammered enough is the portability of a smart phone. This is why all of the money is being dumped into this sector. This is the same trend as to why DSLR's continue to get smaller, and the serious introduction of the 4/3rds because of size. The bulk of consumers and enthusiasts alike are getting tired of all of the bulky equipment that needs to be lugged around in order to take a shot. I've always been a Nikon DSLR fan, and have my share of investment in decent glass. That said, I'm always on the lookout for a bridge cam with a great lens, larger sensor, and the ability to catch action, in order to replace everything that I have. The Sony RX10 that was just release is very close, but not close enough for me to make a switch. I can however tell that it won't be long before a couple more revisions are released and I make the switch as well.
If I had $2800 to kick around, I'd get one. Although not completely ideal in many categories, I do like the retro look and its blocky physique. That said, wouldn't be my first camera that I'd buy, but just on an enthusiast level. This is where the camera will fail, and I'll get a good price down the road.
Edmond Leung: FF is the future.Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, Pentax..... Wake up!Where are your FF?Do you want to quit the camera market?
Future for whom? The 5% of the market that actually make money with their gear, or the other 95% that doesn't know what FF is, and could frankly care less? If the camera is small, takes a few lenses, and is competent on the soccer field and birthday parties, that is good enough for the masses.
Looks great. Smart phones are getting very close to regular digital camera quality for travel photography. I see more and more people wondering why they are lugging their DSLR's around. You may not get the same DOF or low light performance that you get with a DSLR, but the compact trade off can be worth it.
Maybe they finally need to get rid of that dud Ashton Kutcher as the faceman of this product line. He lays a steamy pile everytime he touches something. Although, I did like the Butterfly Effect. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.
cmvsm: How does the Canon score a Gold Award at 78%, yet the Nikon D5200 scored 79%, but received a Silver Award? Furthermore, all other cameras reviewed within the last year, that scored a 79 or above, all received Gold Awards, except for the Nikon D5200.
I really could care less either way, just trying to understand DVR's scoring/rating system, as its a bit inconsistent.
Shawn states - "Awards are not based on numerical scoring, but on perceived value in the category." If this is the case, then the reviews need to be consistent across the board, if the scoring is not going to coincide with the overall award. As I stated in my post, any camera rated over the past year by dpreview, that came in at a 79 or under, all received Silver Awards, except for this review of the Canon. So how exactly does that make sense for someone looking to purchase, that holds weight in your reviews? Sure, there is no substitute for holding it and using it, but many don't have that luxury.
If a camera, Nikon, Canon, or otherwise, deserves an award, then so be it. But the measurement to get there must have a baseline of consistency. If the scoring has nothing to do with the overall award, then maybe it needs to be reconsidered, as it is a bit contradictory.
How does the Canon score a Gold Award at 78%, yet the Nikon D5200 scored 79%, but received a Silver Award? Furthermore, all other cameras reviewed within the last year, that scored a 79 or above, all received Gold Awards, except for the Nikon D5200.
marike6: The review is extremely misleading regarding the D5200's video quality. Video is dramatically improved over the D5100, yet surprisingly the D5200 and D5100 scores for video are identical. And the T3i / 600D scores significantly higher for video performance in spite of significant moire/aliasing, poor almost unusable AF and no HDMI-out. This is unfortunate.
Here is what EOSHD said about the D5200:
"The Nikon D5200 is the best mid-range Nikon yet for video. What is more of a surprise is the relish in which it takes on the much more expensive 5D Mark III, Panasonic GH3 and Nikon’s own flagship the D800 and D4."
He goes on to say "The D5200 is particularly welcome for budget shooters, since Canon have stagnated with their Rebel line. Now it is pay back time because the best selling DSLRs for video – the 7D, 60D and 650D – are firmly out-performed by the Nikon D5200. "
@ET2 - I'm not sure why you keep putting so much stock into the Red.com lawsuit against Reid, as it was dismissed. That means that there was not enough evidence to support the case. I don't think that Reid claims to be a Pro film maker. As I said before, he specializes in DSLR video. Seems as if you don't know the difference yourself. And, at the end of the day, one thing is for sure. You knew who Reid was because of his blog, but doubtful he knows who you are. From visiting his site, he seems to be very interactive, posting different articles almost every day. That takes a lot of work to keep that going on a regular basis, and that's something that I'm very familiar with. Maybe that's where your insecurity comes from? Either way, who cares? Move on with your life.
Justin Francis: Why in the world would anyone get the D7100? Maybe 2% might need the extra features in the D7100.
Wireless triggers operate more effectively than Commander mode, and can be had for about $30. Two command dials are certainly more convenient, but not a deal breaker. The D5200 actually has things laid out very nicely where access is easier than cameras of the past.
rfsIII: The one question I have is why does everyone denigrate articulated LED screens like they are only for video shooters and amateurs? It is a truth oft repeated that all the really good photographs exist at very awkward angles; greatness can only be achieved when the camera is either too high, too low, too sideways, but definitely not at normal eye level 1.5 meters above the ground. So why the hating of a feature that makes it easier to stand out from the mediocre photos crowd? Is it that people are too inhibited artistically to look beyond their normal field of view? Are they afraid that using unique and compelling angles would make them look foolish to their peers? Are they ashamed of producing something truly beautiful?
Articulated screens should be on EVERY Nikon made. I can't understand why they are not. It opens up creativity to a whole new dimension for stills and video.
@ET2 - Andrew Reid specializes in DSLR video, which is effectively what his entire website is about, and why Dpreview is interested in his opinions. He doesn't look to be a professional film maker, but that is the beauty of the new breed of film makers, as they have the power of film making in a $700 camera, versus spending thousands on traditional equipment. You sound like you are not understanding the flexibility that DSLR film making is giving the industry and individuals alike.
We can get an extensive preview of this thing, but no full Nikon D5200 review. What gives?
Why is the D5200 full review taking so long? You all previewed it in February, yet still no full review 3 months later. The D7100 was previewed at the first of April, with a full review by the end of April. What gives?
ashwins: After reading all these comments, I feel that (for the sake of consistency of the DPR reviews—and eventually—creditability of this site) the reviewers should re-write the conclusion part and omit the LiveView AF comparisons to mirrorless cameras. So, just compare apples to apples (like in the case of scorings, cameras within the same category).
Also, statements of the kit lens's inability to resolve all 24MP without evidence are not very scientific. Photozone.de wrote in the verdict of the test of 18-55 VR, that:
"…there's not really much to complain about its performance regarding center sharpness, CAs and also vignetting. On the current high resolution sensors however the border and corners resolution falls a bit behind."
So, depending on the object of shooting, the 18-55 VR could do the job just fine.
ET2 is just getting his Sony fanboy rage out. He lost faith when the wheels fell off of the Sony HX20V Review.
Looks like Nikon has finally worked out the rolling shutter issue. I'm sure that this video tech will cascade down to the D7000 replacement. I might finally be game to upgrade my D90.
Very challenging shot with the neon lighting and shadows. Very impressive!
I downloaded the original as well. I think that the level of legible detail this small sensor is capturing at this high of sensitivity is outstanding. My D70 and D80 certainly were not up to this level of quality. Not anywhere near it. Nikon did it right. Now let's see the speed.
If you think this is the quality of a typical compact at ISO3200, you don't know what you are talking about. The WB looks to be off a bit, but show me an entry level DSLR that does any better. I was very skeptical when I read about this little sensor, but maybe Nikon has outsmarted us all. Nice job. I still want to see the speed and some sporting event shots. Then I'll be convinced.
bbbinohio: PHENOMENAL !!!
I don't know what's wrong with the rest of your eyesight, but that lens is amazing on the NEX-7!! It produces better photos than ANY of the Nikon DSLR's (with the possible exception of the D3x)!!! And just so that you know, I owned a D700 and a 24-70mm and a 14-24mm.
In my opinion, there is nothing close to this combo.
I am buying it FOR SURE. (and getting rid of the rest of my equipment).
This is the way to go.
I am already planning my trips!!!
Bob from Ohio
Let's see, 8 people say the NEX 7's pictures have issues, and you say its 'amazing'. I'd be checking either my monitor or eyesight if I were you. If you think these photos rival that of a D700, then your demands for a good photo must be sub ground level. Good luck with this POS.