Review D7100 vs D7200 Low to High ISO

[cbay]

I think one would need both cameras shooting at the same scene at the same time of day to really determine that.
I could do 1600 without much of a problem with my 7100 if the light is bright enough and not have to do much cropping, where as a 7200 would look worse at the same ISO shotting in low light with a dark subject.

That's exactly what i'm finding. Iso 2000 can have stunning image quality and then a few clouds can move in or shoot in shade and iso 100 can look terrible in comparison.

 

[mikew_RIP]

I think one would need both cameras shooting at the same scene at the same time of day to really determine that.

I could do 1600 without much of a problem with my 7100 if the light is bright enough and not have to do much cropping, where as a 7200 would look worse at the same ISO shotting in low light with a dark subject.

I'm sure all things being equal the 7200 beats the 7100, but by how much? I dunno.

Chris has sent me a few raw 1600s to play with,as you say you need exact duplication of shots for a 100% answer but after working D7100 raw files for a year i can say the d7200 raw 1600 ISOs are cleaner and dont doubt that is about a stop better.

 

[J-see]

Chris has sent me a few raw 1600s to play with,as you say you need exact duplication of shots for a 100% answer but after working D7100 raw files for a year i can say the d7200 raw 1600 ISOs are cleaner and dont doubt that is about a stop better.

If I check the SNR across the ISO range, the signal is close to identical when it comes to noise. There is about 1dB difference at lowest ISO while the rest is almost a perfect match. The main difference is not the sensor itself but what happens afterwards during A/D conversion and amplification. It's a cleaner result of a similar signal.

For it to be a stop better at ISO, it should have the same dB at a certain ISO as the D7100 at its next stop. It doesn't.

 

[mikew_RIP]

If I check the SNR across the ISO range, the signal is close to identical when it comes to noise. There is about 1dB difference at lowest ISO while the rest is almost a perfect match. The main difference is not the sensor itself but what happens afterwards during A/D conversion and amplification. It's a cleaner result of a similar signal.

For it to be a stop better at ISO, it should have the same dB at a certain ISO as the D7100 at its next stop. It doesn't.

No idea what your talking about,all i know is its cleaner and ime sticking with that.

 

[J-see]

No idea what your talking about,all i know is its cleaner and ime sticking with that.

That's true; it's cleaner. I never gave it much thought but when you start checking the SNR of all cams it is quite revealing. It's always said (by me included) that an FX is at least two or three stops better than the DX when it comes to low light performance but when I check the numbers, it's hardly more than a stop. At least in terms of the signal the sensor receives.

The main difference between the cams does not seem to be the sensor but what is done afterwards. It also explains the difference between FX and DX quite simple: to get the same quality of signal with a DX, you need twice the light as an FX.

 

[Woodyg3]

I think the newer Expeed 4 processor is certainly a part of the equation. It's not just the sensor, as J-see indicated. Bottom line, though, is what Mike said. Practical experience seems to be showing cleaner images with the D7200.

 

[mechanical eye]

I've shot both of these two, D7200 is visibly better at higher ISO,though I used different lenses, I can see less noise in D7200 (most reviews say it's minimal, I say it's 'visible')

sent from my Moto G using tapatalk