Comparing my D7200 with my D610

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
toomanycanons Forum Pro • Posts: 13,409
Comparing my D7200 with my D610
4

24 mp each. I've been hiking with the D7200 (one of many cameras I own and it just doesn't get much use as I'm usually shooting with my D850 for work) with my sharpest DX lens on it, a Sigma 17-50.

The screen in back is bright and colorful and the jpegs are punchy as heck. I've shown pics of my hikes on other forums as mostly SOOC jpegs.

Anyway, I started wondering if I would get the same images with my D610/24-85. I thought the D610 might be at a disadvantage as the D7200 doesn't have an AA filter so maybe it would be sharper and more detailed.

SOOC jpegs from both, even though both cameras were set to Vivid (!), revealed washed out lame uninteresting images from the D610, bright punchy images from the D7200. I was wondering about bring both up from raws (I only work with raws for my work images).

But then I wouldn't know unless I did a direct comparison. And...

The D610/24-85 was sharper from corner to corner and, incredibly, even in the center. The 24-85 VR doesn't get much love so I wasn't expecting it to be sharper...but it was. Putting raws from both cameras into Lightroom and matching settings the D610 was the winner. Colors were the same, details were more detailed from the D610 raws. I frankly was surprised. Even with the D7200 having no AA filter the D610 was sharper.

I'm not going to put up pics here because that never ends well. I found out what I was curious about and now you know as well. But I can say that for simple hiking pics that need no processing, the D7200 works just fine.

And the 24-85 VR is better than you've read. Guess now I should compare the 24-85 VR against my Sigma 24-70 OS on my D850...hmmmmm....it never ends.

edit:  I know everyone's needs are different but here's what I need:  sharp corner to corner at f/10 at ISO 100 or 64.  That's how I shoot for work, usually in bright daylight, sometimes in early morning or blue hour.  You might shoot at f/2.8 all the time and require a fixed aperture lens.

Given how I shoot, it doesn't matter that my 24-85 VR starts at f/3.5 and is variable.  'Cause I'll shoot it at f/10 if my Sig 24-70 fell in a river and I was desperate to complete the shoot.

So it turns out I already did do a comparison between these two lenses on my D850.  There it was on one hard drive, totally forgotten.  The 24-85 VR was almost identical from far left to center to far right as the Sig.  It's true that the Sig was a bit sharper in some areas at certain focal lengths but not by much and I think I concluded that I'd need to shoot with the sharpest lens for work and that's the Sig.  But not by much.

Again, I was surprised, upon further review, how good my copy of the 24-85 VR is.  I have no qualms about using it as a backup to my Sig.

Nikon D610 Nikon D7200 Nikon D850
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
bjn70 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,121
Re: Comparing my D7200 with my D610

Anyway, I started wondering if I would get the same images with my D610/24-85. I thought the D610 might be at a disadvantage as the D7200 doesn't have an AA filter so maybe it would be sharper and more detailed.

I can't help you on the colors, contrast, etc.  Both cameras have the ability to set to various picture controls and to customize each different picture control, and if you're going to PP then OOC JPG really don't matter anyway.

But regarding sharpness I managed by coincidence to do a similar comparison.  I was using a D7200 with Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a D750 with Tamron G1 24-70 f2.8.  I took photos of our city skyline with both combinations from the same location using equivalent zoom settings.  Comparing the OOC JPG files at 100% the D7200 appears to have more fine detail and this is what you would expect by it not having the AA filter.  On the D750 the AA filter appears to soften fine detail a bit.  If you zoom out a bit the images look pretty much the same.

I posted these comparisons here a couple of years ago and in the resulting discussion I learned that some of the apparent fine detail in the D7200 images was false detail due to aliasing.  I did a little sharpening of my D750 images and that made them look much more similar to the D7200 images.

You liked the 24-85, and I've read good things about it from other people, but apparently there is a lot of sample variation.  I would question the lens that you used on your D7200, it should have done better.

Your conclusions are what I've read from other people- the DX camera can capture detailed images so it is not a handicap in that regards, it all depends on the lenses.  But the FX camera can capture colors better, and probably has a little bit more headroom if you are trying to recover shadows.  I've seen people post comparison images of the colors and to me it didn't seem to be much difference.

Shunda777 Junior Member • Posts: 42
Re: Comparing my D7200 with my D610
5

The D610 and the 24-85vr are both very under rated pieces of equipment, they are hidden gems and very good value.

 Shunda777's gear list:Shunda777's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D5100 Nikon D610 Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +10 more
bflood Senior Member • Posts: 2,107
Re: Comparing my D7200 with my D610
1

bjn70 wrote:

You liked the 24-85, and I've read good things about it from other people, but apparently there is a lot of sample variation.

This overlooks another issue - photographer variation. Comparing sharpness of images taken by different photographers using different cameras and lenses has three sources of differences in performance - the camera body, the lens, and the skill of the photographer.

It's easy to blame performance variations on the hardware maker, but the photographer has always been maybe the most significant factor in the resulting images. And what a specific photographer can achieve can easily change over time. I can't hand-hold a camera very well any more - arthritis has changed everything for me, and I use a monopod or tripod for almost 100% of my shooting, regardless of what lens I'm using. I have become the weakest link (I like to think I haven't always been the weakest link).

Example images that are sharp at the center and soften toward the edges show a lens effect - if the softness was the photographer's technique, the center wouldn't be sharp. Variation in shooting technique becomes more apparent with longer focal length lenses. The reader of reviews of such lenses has no way to tell if disappointing image results are due to the lens or the user.

 bflood's gear list:bflood's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D610 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR +3 more
OP toomanycanons Forum Pro • Posts: 13,409
Re: Comparing my D7200 with my D610
1

bflood wrote:

bjn70 wrote:

You liked the 24-85, and I've read good things about it from other people, but apparently there is a lot of sample variation.

This overlooks another issue - photographer variation. Comparing sharpness of images taken by different photographers using different cameras and lenses has three sources of differences in performance - the camera body, the lens, and the skill of the photographer.

It's easy to blame performance variations on the hardware maker, but the photographer has always been maybe the most significant factor in the resulting images. And what a specific photographer can achieve can easily change over time. I can't hand-hold a camera very well any more - arthritis has changed everything for me, and I use a monopod or tripod for almost 100% of my shooting, regardless of what lens I'm using. I have become the weakest link (I like to think I haven't always been the weakest link).

Example images that are sharp at the center and soften toward the edges show a lens effect - if the softness was the photographer's technique, the center wouldn't be sharp. Variation in shooting technique becomes more apparent with longer focal length lenses. The reader of reviews of such lenses has no way to tell if disappointing image results are due to the lens or the user.

Sometimes I'll compare different copies of the same lens on one body, on a tripod.  I'm only interested in finding out which copy is the "sharpest" to be used as my #1, the other as a backup.

At other times, like the testing between my D610 and D7200, I'm only interested in how both bodies/lenses perform handheld, a real world sampling.  So here we had the same photographer using the same technique.  The jpegs that came out (same settings on Vivid) showed radically different results.  I was surprised how vibrant and pleasing the D7200 jpegs were and how dull and lame the jpegs from the D610 were.

I knew that wasn't a strike against the D610 so I took the same/same raws into Lightroom 6 and tweaked them till they looked nearly identical (Your Testing and Processing Procedure May Vary).  Those results demonstrated that, indeed, if I'd taken my D610/24-85 VR out on the same trails I'd have come up with basically the same images but it would take processing the raws instead of just the SOOC jpegs from the D7200.

And, ya know, if I'm just taking snapshots and I can get satisfactory images from SOOC jpegs, that's basically a win.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads