Rudy Pohl
Veteran Member
D7200 vs D7100
Back in November 2015 when I traded in my two D7100s and bought a D7200 a few folks on this forum asked me to comment on what differences I was finding between the two cameras. I said that I would be glad to do that once I've had more time to shoot with the D7200 so I could make an informed comparison.
Over the past 4 months I have used it 2 to 3 times a week and have put 7,000 clicks on the shutter (I put 110,000 clicks on my D7100). I shot mostly White-tail Deer and Wild Turkeys in the Fall in the forest unusually in dim at sunrise light, and from late December to the present I have shot mostly Snowy Owls and Snow Buntings often on dark cloudy/snowy days, plus a few Blue Jays and Cardinals, all of which can really put a camera to the test, especially in terms of dynamic range, colour subtleties and above all focus tracking. More than half the bird shots that I processed and kept are flight shots so focus tracking is a huge thing for me.
Here's what I found...
1. Focus Tracking: I would say that there is a noticeable improvement in the D7200. Just yesterday I shot a Snowy Owl flight sequence that included 20 shots with the bird coming almost straight at me and veering slightly to the left to land on a fence post. All 20 shots were in focus and 17 were very sharp. The Snowy image I posted below is from that sequence. Also focus reacquisition is fast and accurate. Keep in mind I shoot on a tripod on a fluid-filled video head so it's very smooth with great control... hand-held will not give you these results.
2. Buffer capacity: For me as a BIF shooter focus tracking and buffer capacity go hand-in-hand are really important. The buffer on the D7200 is simply fabulous compared to the D7100, I don't think I have ever missed a shot with the D7200 while I have missed many shots with the D7100 (I'm talking about long flight sequences of 4 or more seconds). Like the D7100, the D7200 buffer clears very quickly.
3. Noise: While there's still way too much noise with the D7200 for my liking (both low and high ISO noise), it's a finer grained noise which is much easier to remove than the courser grainy noise produced by the D7100. I shoot birds and mammals in a way so you can usually see every feather or individual hair, so noise really wrecks my image quality. Some people say the D7200's has great high ISO noise capability, but that's not much help to me for my kind of close-up and close crop shots. Anyways, the D7200 still noisy, but it's a better quality noise than the D7100 and it's easier to work with.
4. No banding in the shadows: I only deal with banding when I shoot landscapes which is not very often, but I did shoot quite a few last year with my D7100, and since I shot a lot of sunrise and sunset shots I ran into the banding issue quite often. I have not yet had to rely on that capability with my D7200 but it's great to know there won't be a problem when I do need it.
5. All other features and capabilities are pretty much the same with the D7200 and the D7100 as far as I can tell.
Upgrade and buy recommendations:
At first I wasn't all that excited about the D7200 but now that I've used it in all kinds of weather and poor lighting conditions and shot many challenging flight sequences I can honestly say I like it and am glad I have it. I'm sure that when I start shooting Loons at sunrise in a few months from now (always in poor light and often fog), the D7200 will produce noticeably better results than the D7100. However, having said that the D7100 is one heck of great camera and if you have good focus tracking technique, wait for slightly better light, and learn to live with a small buffer (I did), there is no need at all to upgrade unless you get a really good deal, which is why I upgraded.
What about the D500?
As many of you know I have been waiting for a new Pro-DX camera from Nikon for over 2 years, and in fact I got so tired of waiting that I bought a Canon 7DMKII in November and after 5 days I chickened out and returned it for a D7200. I didn't want to learn a whole new camera system nor go through all the hassle and cost of selling off my Nikon lenses and other gear. I have been reading all the material on the D500 and lurking on the DP Review Pro-DX forum to find out all I can, not because I will be buying one anytime soon - I won't, but just because I'm interested. Here in Ottawa, as far as I know every one of my Nikon wildlife buddies have pre-ordered the D500, there's a lot of buzz.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I think when the dust settles and the D500 images start coming in, plus we read the credible reviews and hear people's first hand experiences with this new camera, you're going be hard-pressed to choose between getting a D7200 at less than half the cost or getting a D500. For pros and semi-pros who actually get some revenue from their photography this will probably be a no-brainer - they'll get the camera, but for the average hobbiest here in Canada, you'll need to pony up an additional $1600 after taxes for the D500 over and above the D7200. However, my guess is that there will not be very many shots or very many shooting situations that the D7200 won't be able to handle almost just as well, if not the same, as the D500. Therefore, if budget is an issue you don't need to hesitate about getting the D7200, it will easily produce National Geographic quality images time and time again.
I'm sure you've already read all this before from various people, but this is my 2 cents in the hat.
Cheers,
Rudy
--
Back in November 2015 when I traded in my two D7100s and bought a D7200 a few folks on this forum asked me to comment on what differences I was finding between the two cameras. I said that I would be glad to do that once I've had more time to shoot with the D7200 so I could make an informed comparison.
Over the past 4 months I have used it 2 to 3 times a week and have put 7,000 clicks on the shutter (I put 110,000 clicks on my D7100). I shot mostly White-tail Deer and Wild Turkeys in the Fall in the forest unusually in dim at sunrise light, and from late December to the present I have shot mostly Snowy Owls and Snow Buntings often on dark cloudy/snowy days, plus a few Blue Jays and Cardinals, all of which can really put a camera to the test, especially in terms of dynamic range, colour subtleties and above all focus tracking. More than half the bird shots that I processed and kept are flight shots so focus tracking is a huge thing for me.
Here's what I found...
1. Focus Tracking: I would say that there is a noticeable improvement in the D7200. Just yesterday I shot a Snowy Owl flight sequence that included 20 shots with the bird coming almost straight at me and veering slightly to the left to land on a fence post. All 20 shots were in focus and 17 were very sharp. The Snowy image I posted below is from that sequence. Also focus reacquisition is fast and accurate. Keep in mind I shoot on a tripod on a fluid-filled video head so it's very smooth with great control... hand-held will not give you these results.
2. Buffer capacity: For me as a BIF shooter focus tracking and buffer capacity go hand-in-hand are really important. The buffer on the D7200 is simply fabulous compared to the D7100, I don't think I have ever missed a shot with the D7200 while I have missed many shots with the D7100 (I'm talking about long flight sequences of 4 or more seconds). Like the D7100, the D7200 buffer clears very quickly.
3. Noise: While there's still way too much noise with the D7200 for my liking (both low and high ISO noise), it's a finer grained noise which is much easier to remove than the courser grainy noise produced by the D7100. I shoot birds and mammals in a way so you can usually see every feather or individual hair, so noise really wrecks my image quality. Some people say the D7200's has great high ISO noise capability, but that's not much help to me for my kind of close-up and close crop shots. Anyways, the D7200 still noisy, but it's a better quality noise than the D7100 and it's easier to work with.
4. No banding in the shadows: I only deal with banding when I shoot landscapes which is not very often, but I did shoot quite a few last year with my D7100, and since I shot a lot of sunrise and sunset shots I ran into the banding issue quite often. I have not yet had to rely on that capability with my D7200 but it's great to know there won't be a problem when I do need it.
5. All other features and capabilities are pretty much the same with the D7200 and the D7100 as far as I can tell.
Upgrade and buy recommendations:
At first I wasn't all that excited about the D7200 but now that I've used it in all kinds of weather and poor lighting conditions and shot many challenging flight sequences I can honestly say I like it and am glad I have it. I'm sure that when I start shooting Loons at sunrise in a few months from now (always in poor light and often fog), the D7200 will produce noticeably better results than the D7100. However, having said that the D7100 is one heck of great camera and if you have good focus tracking technique, wait for slightly better light, and learn to live with a small buffer (I did), there is no need at all to upgrade unless you get a really good deal, which is why I upgraded.
What about the D500?
As many of you know I have been waiting for a new Pro-DX camera from Nikon for over 2 years, and in fact I got so tired of waiting that I bought a Canon 7DMKII in November and after 5 days I chickened out and returned it for a D7200. I didn't want to learn a whole new camera system nor go through all the hassle and cost of selling off my Nikon lenses and other gear. I have been reading all the material on the D500 and lurking on the DP Review Pro-DX forum to find out all I can, not because I will be buying one anytime soon - I won't, but just because I'm interested. Here in Ottawa, as far as I know every one of my Nikon wildlife buddies have pre-ordered the D500, there's a lot of buzz.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I think when the dust settles and the D500 images start coming in, plus we read the credible reviews and hear people's first hand experiences with this new camera, you're going be hard-pressed to choose between getting a D7200 at less than half the cost or getting a D500. For pros and semi-pros who actually get some revenue from their photography this will probably be a no-brainer - they'll get the camera, but for the average hobbiest here in Canada, you'll need to pony up an additional $1600 after taxes for the D500 over and above the D7200. However, my guess is that there will not be very many shots or very many shooting situations that the D7200 won't be able to handle almost just as well, if not the same, as the D500. Therefore, if budget is an issue you don't need to hesitate about getting the D7200, it will easily produce National Geographic quality images time and time again.
I'm sure you've already read all this before from various people, but this is my 2 cents in the hat.
Cheers,
Rudy
--
