Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Woodyg3" data-source="post: 441285" data-attributes="member: 24569">The D7100 buffer is painfully small, I agree. The D7200 is greatly improved. The D7 Mk II and D7200 both fill their buffer after 3 seconds of continuous shooting assuming highest quality RAW. So, again, it's the fps that is the difference. If you need/want 30 shots in that 3 seconds as opposed to 18, then the Canon is the winner for you. I would never debate that.My "naked eye" can certainly see the difference in 2.8 EVs of dynamic range, and the D7200 scores that much better than the D7 MkII. The D7200 also scores 250 ISO better in low light response according to DXO Mark scores. The bottom line here, is that the D7200 has a better sensor/processor for image quality than the Canon. Again, I know what many  people were hoping for was a bulkier, more heavy duty Nikon with a great DX sensor, a zillion focus points,  and 10 fps or even more. I agree that it would be totally cool. I really hope Nikon comes out with just that camera! People seem to think that Nikon is simply "denying" us this camera. Maybe the engineers at Nikon simply haven't got the tech assembled for such a camera yet. I think the idea that the D7200 is somehow an inferior camera that is not worthy of being called a good wildlife camera is off base. Even my D7100 with it's buffer limitations is a great wildlife camera. I've got a hard drive full of pictures to prove it. The main limitations I face are my own as a photographer, not due to any specs that my camera doesn't live up to.Again, guys, these are just my viewpoints. I hope this post doesn't come off as confrontational or anything. I really respect everyone's opinion here.</blockquote>

Verification