First test of the new D 7200....

Well not quite but some tests of a D90 v a D7000 on another site got me thinking..... oh the D90 won !! ???

IF the new D7200 is 24 mp and has an expeed 3 processor how much better will it be than the 7000 or is it worth me spending money??

Well I have a 24MP expeed 3 Nikon ..its called a D3200..So with the same lens /aperture/ISO subject which one tested better ....

The D7000 by a small margin..........
Now let Tom Hogan cause confusion ...Today was the first time he mentioned the D9000 and is talking DX at 36 MP .

So anyone else got a 3200/7000 to compare.

pistnbroke said:

Well not quite but some tests of a D90 v a D7000 on another site got me thinking..... oh the D90 won !! ???

IF the new D7200 is 24 mp and has an expeed 3 processor how much better will it be than the 7000 or is it worth me spending money??

Well I have a 24MP expeed 3 Nikon ..its called a D3200..So with the same lens /aperture/ISO subject which one tested better ....

The D7000 by a small margin..........
Now let Tom Hogan cause confusion ...Today was the first time he mentioned the D9000 and is talking DX at 36 MP .

So anyone else got a 3200/7000 to compare.

Click to expand...

Where did you see this report?

absolutely,, we are beginning to split hairs in quality..


and it is interesting to see independent reviews versus the rags.. or sources that are biased to be promoting always the latest and greatest....

As far as the Exceed 3 vs 2,,, the 7000 is fast enough for most users.

USB3 would be nice for quicker download, but that is kinda a don't care, so it takes longer to load to the computer,,

The newer models are not going to magically improve a photograph or photographer..

I was driven to the D800,, just for the shear crazy of having a SLR match a medium format in quality, but,, now I am sitting back... and will skip a generation maybe a D1000?

I always joke that a D70 6Meg DSLR is all that is needed for web views, when you have to downsize so far.

Where image size matters it comes to printing. If you are doing poster size prints,, then the newer cameras make a difference.

I would have no problems, buying a used D300 if I was starting off in Nikon land.

D90 v D7000 Well I saw it on Nikonians and the D90 was better ..however the discussion went all haywire when I suggested the setting should be the same on each camera including the sharpness adjustment .....well its just another setting to me but the moderator got all upset about it and pulled my free membership so in effect banned me ....sorry Marcel you got me !!!

pistnbroke said:

D90 v D7000 Well I saw it on Nikonians and the D90 was better ..however the discussion went all haywire when I suggested the setting should be the same on each camera including the sharpness adjustment .....well its just another setting to me but the moderator got all upset about it and pulled my free membership so in effect banned me ....sorry Marcel you got me !!!

Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean to catch you, but would have liked to read it on my own.

In terms of overall IQ, i can not see how the D90 beats the D7k. Mind you, i am getting really sick and tired of nit-picking over such marginal differences between some of todays cameras. And that is what it is, nit-picking and pixel peeping. The sensor in the 5200 and the 3200 is one example. Seriously, to see any sort of difference, you would have to pixel peep. It's getting ridiculous and i think people need get a grip - or get a life. Splitting hairs is time consuming, but a waste of time and energy.

I found the thread, and note that the last post sort of killed the conversation. I do not see debate as 'nit picking' but helping measure which of the current models to purchase when in the market ... as I am!

I have used Nikon in many formats over the years, moved to other products and want to return to the Nikon products.

But I have a few questions for such an expert panel ...

Do the older lenses (FT, F, etc) fit the new models?

If you were starting from scratch, for personal photography, HD movie capture, holidays and the like, what would you buy?

The D5100 or D5200 look more than adequate, but I like the "weather resistant" capability of the D7200. But I expect the difference in price does not represent value?

Hop[in gyou can help me in this decision.

​Peter

Peter, I am not an expert by any means, especially on lens. I have the 5100 and find I can do anything (pretty much, still cannot get it to make breakfast) that I want for my photgraphy, and I am still learning. The 7100 (note, there is no 7200) offers better image quality, more robust build, more weather resistance as you noted, dual card slots and other more advanced options. The one big edge that they have is the body has a focus motor. I mention this as you asked about older lens. For the 5100/5200, you can use older lens but they will NOT AF unless it is an AF-S lens.

Another option to look at is the D7000... Gives most of the advantages to the 7100 (sensor is 16mp as is the 5100) with a less steep price tag.

Pat in NH

Thanks for the education Pat, it is appreciated. Your points are well made. Given features, models, warranty and longevity (I found some great articles on backwards and forwards compatibility) , I am attached to the idea of a current model, as opposed to a previous model. The Expeed 3 engine is a compelling benefit over the previous versions, but once again this is a feature that helps sway me.

The most compelling argument I have found is about the relevance of the comparative features in the 3200, 5200 and 7200 that a "normal" user like me would use, versus those I would not. It appears that the 5200 offers a more than adequate range of relevant functions with a few limitations in some "nice to have" features. The weather proofing is attractive in the 7200, but I reckon I can cope with this by using it in the same manner as I do any other camera.

It would seem I have talked myself into a D5200!

Peter

Peter, might pay to start your own thread as your sort of hijacking this one