d5200 is as good as the d600!

Started Feb 8, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
nfpotter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,080
Who cares...
9

We all know you really like your D5200.  There's no need for you to make every one of your posts about it.

Adventsam OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: Who cares...

nfpotter wrote:

We all know you really like your D5200. There's no need for you to make every one of your posts about it.

This forum seems a bit tired, I dont own the d5200, but it seems to be a new benchmark with little if any interest from Nikon stalwarts. No wonder there stock is down, this is an impressive leap for aps-c and you are so negative and dismissive. Stick to the Sony sensor, but its looking tired.

nfpotter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,080
Re: Who cares...
5

Adventsam wrote:

nfpotter wrote:

We all know you really like your D5200. There's no need for you to make every one of your posts about it.

This forum seems a bit tired, I dont own the d5200, but it seems to be a new benchmark with little if any interest from Nikon stalwarts. No wonder there stock is down, this is an impressive leap for aps-c and you are so negative and dismissive. Stick to the Sony sensor, but its looking tired.

That's completely ridiculous.  Plenty of people still making great images with D40's, D300's, etc.  The D7000/D5100 is no where near "tired".  A few from last weekend, all hand-held.  Look "tired" to you?



Adventsam OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: Check these OOC, JPG's
jonrobertp Forum Pro • Posts: 12,594
D5200 images....sigh

Downloaded the samples from dpr...resized to equal...iso 12800...and no appreciable improvement, if anything, the D7k are slightly better color/contrast.  Too bad.

And similiar results from IR.    So...unless the AF is stellar (not expected...since the price range)...it's kinda...sigh.    I need hi iso for event shooting, and AF for same.  Ordinary results...like 400iso light...well, pretty well any cam does well there.

 jonrobertp's gear list:jonrobertp's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon PowerShot G3 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100 Canon EOS 70D
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD Forum Pro • Posts: 20,264
Really
1

jonrobertp wrote:

Downloaded the samples from dpr...resized to equal...iso 12800...and no appreciable improvement, if anything, the D7k are slightly better color/contrast. Too bad.

At iso 12800?  Your results bode well then .

From you more recent post....

And I have been negative about the D7k's af...thinking the 7D's was much more accurate...now I have cause to doubt that.

This may in fact work out better then.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Mannypr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,363
Re: Who cares...
2

Take two photos , one with a Nikon D40 and another one with the D5200 under the same exact conditions , nobody will be able to say with the naked eyes which came from which cameras with any statiscal relevent numbers . By the way...nfpotter ...great pics.

 Mannypr's gear list:Mannypr's gear list
Canon PowerShot A640 Nikon D90 Nikon D7000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +8 more
Adventsam OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: D5200 images....sigh

jonrobertp wrote:

Downloaded the samples from dpr...resized to equal...iso 12800...and no appreciable improvement, if anything, the D7k are slightly better color/contrast. Too bad.

And similiar results from IR. So...unless the AF is stellar (not expected...since the price range)...it's kinda...sigh. I need hi iso for event shooting, and AF for same. Ordinary results...like 400iso light...well, pretty well any cam does well there.

Looking at upto iso3200(6400 at a pinch) the d5200 seems quite comparable with Canon 6d, Nikon d600 and appreciably better than 5100/7000 and any of the Sony's. Iso 12800 is not an iso that is particularly useful for quality images

Adventsam OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: Who cares...

Mannypr wrote:

Take two photos , one with a Nikon D40 and another one with the D5200 under the same exact conditions , nobody will be able to say with the naked eyes which came from which cameras with any statiscal relevent numbers . By the way...nfpotter ...great pics.

I think you need new glasses, nfpotter images are excellent agreed.

Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD Forum Pro • Posts: 20,264
Concede

Mannypr wrote:

Take two photos , one with a Nikon D40 and another one with the D5200 under the same exact conditions , nobody will be able to say with the naked eyes which came from which cameras with any statiscal relevent numbers .

Having done just that with my D70 and D7000...I beg to differ unless we're limited to looking at the outputs on a cell phone.



It may be that I'm just used to the difference though...I would concede that.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Adventsam OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: Concede

Mako2011 wrote:

Mannypr wrote:

Take two photos , one with a Nikon D40 and another one with the D5200 under the same exact conditions , nobody will be able to say with the naked eyes which came from which cameras with any statiscal relevent numbers .

Having done just that with my D70 and D7000...I beg to differ unless we're limited to looking at the outputs on a cell phone.

Well I picked the d70 instantly, blown hl, limited dr?

It may be that I'm just used to the difference though...I would concede that.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 7,915
buzzz try again
3

Go back to the page you posted, set both the 5200 and the D600 to iso 6400 and get back to us.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7 +14 more
Mannypr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,363
Re: Who cares...

At low Iso the D40 might even have an advantage having those great big buckets that suck up light in great quantity , the less pixels the bigger they are , and the bigger they are more light gathering ability they have with less distortions. It would be indeed interesting to see a camera with those big sensors with up to date electronics available today that are capable of eliminating noise without softening details and changing colors.

Don't get me wrong. I sure the D5200 is a great camera and indeed it might even be the igual of some FF , but that does not mean cameras from the near past can't give you photos that are as good as the ones from the D5200 . Thats the reason we have to go to 100% magnification in order to see most of the differences between them . At normal sizes those differences evaporate . And by the standards we have had for quite some time now you can get pretty big photos even with 10 MP cameras .

PS...I'm 20 / 20 with my glasses on so I don't think I am blind , just practical and realistic.

 Mannypr's gear list:Mannypr's gear list
Canon PowerShot A640 Nikon D90 Nikon D7000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +8 more
Kerry Pierce
Kerry Pierce Forum Pro • Posts: 19,171
sorry, I don't see what you are claiming

Adventsam wrote:

Probably better

I really wish that this was true, but when I look at the RAW images in the studio shot comparison, the d600 is clearly about a stop better at high ISO, than the d5200.  IOW, to my eyes, ISO 3200 on the d5200 about the same as ISO 6400 on the d600. This is true at low ISO's as well. ISO 400 on the d600 looks like ISO 200 on the d5200, to me. The d600 files at ISO 200 are remarkably clean. No surprise there, really, because FX has always been better than DX at the same MPs.

At the 100% view, the d5100 files look better to me, than the d5200 files.  Perhaps when the d5200 files are downsized, they'll look as good as the d5100 files, I don't know.

All things considered, I'm quite impressed with the IQ of the d5200. I think that the Toshiba sensor does a pretty remarkable job, considering the number of pixels crammed into the sensor.  The low ISO photos look good, only a little less acuity than the d600 files, but a little more acuity than the d5100 files.

I don't see anything that would make me want to give up my d7000 or d5100 though. I'm rather disappointed, actually. I'd hoped that Nikon would significantly better the high ISO performance of their DX cameras.  It seems clear that they have the capability to build a better performing 16mp sensor at high ISO, but they've chosen instead to go for MP's.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that this new sensor is pretty good and will make a lot of folks happy, especially those that have no need for a lot of high ISO shooting.  I think it's very likely that Nikon and Toshiba will have a popular camera in the d5200.

Kerry

-- hide signature --

my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 Kerry Pierce's gear list:Kerry Pierce's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC +15 more
PerrimanSmythe Regular Member • Posts: 282
My thoughts exactly
2

D600 ISO6400 shots look awesome and they are definitely better noise-wise than D5200. I mean, it's really noticeable. And yes, I do use ISO6400 on D7000, so it's no small matter for me.

-- hide signature --
Mannypr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,363
Re: Concede

Hmmm...good point ...maybe I am wrong , but they do look quite similar , but the lower one is the better one and I should believe it is the one from the D7000. If Im wrong ...I'm calling my oftalmologist for an appointment.  .

 Mannypr's gear list:Mannypr's gear list
Canon PowerShot A640 Nikon D90 Nikon D7000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +8 more
Adventsam OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: Concede

Mannypr wrote:

Hmmm...good point ...maybe I am wrong , but they do look quite similar , but the lower one is the better one and I should believe it is the one from the D7000. If Im wrong ...I'm calling my oftalmologist for an appointment. .

Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD Forum Pro • Posts: 20,264
Thanks

Adventsam wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Mannypr wrote:

Take two photos , one with a Nikon D40 and another one with the D5200 under the same exact conditions , nobody will be able to say with the naked eyes which came from which cameras with any statiscal relevent numbers .

Having done just that with my D70 and D7000...I beg to differ unless we're limited to looking at the outputs on a cell phone.

Well I picked the d70 instantly, blown hl, limited dr?

Thought train just switched tracks...hadn't seen it that way but yes. And now looking back at my own galleries...dif in DR really pops out. Amazing how a few letters (DR) can cause me to see differently. Before it was the resolution that would catch my eye. You got me thinking...thanks

It may be that I'm just used to the difference though...I would concede that.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Mannypr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,363
Re: sorry, I don't see what you are claiming

For marketing reasons maybe Nikon is getting into the megapixel race instead of concentrating into designing a better performing 16 MP sensor . Canon did the same thing some time back and seems to have backed off some .

 Mannypr's gear list:Mannypr's gear list
Canon PowerShot A640 Nikon D90 Nikon D7000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads