# DXOMark Tests: Nikon D5200 Edges out the D7100?



## cgw

This came as a mild surprise, along with the D7000 still delivering slightly better dynamic range than the D7100. More of a surprise is the price differential between the D5200 and D7100, as well as the price difference(nearly 50%)between the D7100 and D7000. The D600 cruddy sensor issues, subsequent problems dealing with it, and pricing on what's really a D7000 with an FX sensor aren't helping Nikon. I'm no Nikon hater but this sort of thing tests customer loyalty.

Nikon D7100 gets DxOMark tested | Nikon Rumors

Funny but Fuji took its X-Trans sensor from the X-Pro1 and plunked into the slightly stripped down X-E1 and charged a good deal _less_ for it.


----------



## jake337

You are paying for the extra features in the body.  It's not all about the sensor.  Really though, there is not much difference in image quality between, alomost, any DSLR camera at base ISO levels.  If there is a difference, it is negligible.

in-body focus motor
metering with AIS, AI lenses
faster, better focusing
more focus points
larger, brighter viewfinder 
build quality, weathersealing
Button layout(no digging through menus)
1/8000 shutterspeed
7fps vs 4fps
dual SD slots
Triggering off camera flash(without radio triggers)
etc, etc, etc


It's not all about the sensor.  If any of the items above are must haves then you will pick the D7100.


----------



## bike4fun12

I completely agree with, Jake337 on this one. It's not just about the image quality. yes, image quality is important, but the D7100 provides a lot of features that many people look for.


----------



## KmH

Overall scores of 80, 81, 82, 83, and 84 are indistinguishable from each other in real life.

The point to take away is that the Nikon D3200, D5200, D7000, D7100, and Pentax K 5 IIs deliver virtually identical overall Raw image quality.

The D7100's Advanced Multi-CAM 3500DX auto focus module alone makes it worth the difference in price.


----------



## cgw

KmH said:


> Overall scores of 80, 81, 82, 83, and 84 are indistinguishable from each other in real life.
> 
> The point to take away is that the Nikon D3200, D5200, D7000, D7100, and Pentax K 5 IIs deliver virtually identical overall Raw image quality.



Thanks to Sony!


----------



## KmH

Sony makes image sensors using Nikon photo-lithography steppers. Stepper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, Sony thanks Nikon.



> *Stepper makers*:
> 
> 
> ASML
> Ultratech
> Nikon, Precision division
> Canon


----------



## TheLost

Isn't this the same debate we had with the D7000 vs. D5100?


----------



## KmH

Nikon Rumors as usual is well short of being helpful.


----------



## cgw

KmH said:


> Nikon Rumors as usual is well short of being helpful.



Nikon Rumors is just the messenger. Why shoot 'em? Inconvenient data, I guess.


----------



## TCampbell

I am not a big believer in DxO Mark.  You can look at DxO for their datapoint, but you really should read other reviews on the camera.  This would be like buying a car based on who makes the best fuel-injectors and ignoring all other attributes -- and to make matters worse... not even knowing how they test or score the fuel-injectors.

I came to this skepticism when I started to see results from DxO that didn't make sense compared to (a) other reviews and (b) looking at actual test shots (which DxO doesn't show) as well as real world results.  At first I just thought it was one datapoint, or possibly just the variability of sensors coming off the line (two adjacent sensors being manufactured are not really identical... even if they're meant to be identical.  One will always be fractionally different than another.)

DxO says they test only the sensor.  You can see from their full reports that they look at several aspects (dynamic range, ISO/noise, etc.) but they aren't very detailed or specific as to how they conduct a test.  For example... there are Nikons and Sonys with the same sensor.  Sony has a mirror which doesn't move.  That mirror cuts about 1/3rd of the light from reaching the sensor.  It stands to reason that when looking at the cameras "as a whole" a Sony which loses 1/3rd of the light should NOT be able to get the same quality image as the Nikon which gets ALL of the light when taking a shot in the same room.  Sony would need to boost the ISO by 1/3rd of a stop to compensate and this will generate more noise.

So what does DxO do in this case?  We don't know.  They're not specific.  We don't know if they remove the mirror from the Sony body.  We don't know if they tweak the score to put the cameras on an "level playing field" so that they can truly just compare the "sensors" and ignore impact caused by features of the "body".  

An article recently revealed that if two cameras have differing resolutions, DxO resamples the image to give both sensors the same resolution.  The problem here is that there are many algorithms to resample and you can't resample without doing some pixel averaging and pixel averaging naturally removes noise.  It's something that really needs to be disclosed (e.g. camera a scored better than camera b after resampling, but but camera b scored better prior to resampling.)  At least then the reader can make a judgement as to how important this might be.  

Treat DxO as a datapoint... if you see a DxO 'score' for one sensor which is wildly different (e.g. the other sensor is "twice as good") then that's probably meaningful.  If the 'score' shows one sensor is a few pennies' worth out of the dollar better, that's probably not very meaningful as there are too many factors that can influence that score and DxO doesn't spell out WHY they score one better than the other.  DxO explains in rough terms (without being too specific) what they do... but they never disclose the score accorded to each attribute they test.  So you never know how the score is weighted and/or if you'd agree with it.


----------



## KmH

TCampbell said:


> DxO says they test only the sensor. You can see from their full reports that they look at several aspects (dynamic range, ISO/noise, etc.) but they aren't very detailed or specific as to how they conduct a test. .



DxOMark - What is DxOMark?



> ....To ensure highest precision and reliability, measurements are performed at DxO Labs&#8217; dedicated testing laboratories, where conditions are controlled as in standard metrology labs. Read more...
> 
> ...To ensure that measurements for all lenses and cameras can be reliably compared, we have developed detailed protocols that are systematically repeated for all equipment we test. These protocols are detailed on the site so that anyone interested in performing measurements can do so. Read more....
> 
> ....Finally, DxOMark has no ties to or interests of any sort with camera or lens manufacturers, which means that we are completely independent from them.


----------



## orb9220

Yep see this all the time. Especially with newbies or Sensor Only considerer's when evaluating cameras.
And obsessing over technical details blinds you to other real world shooting needs that has nothing to do with sensor performance.

With little thought given or considered about other real world features and uses. 
Like more dedicated controls,superior AF stage and more AF points. In body motor and flash commander.etc...etc.. 
The list goes on... 

And for daily real world shooting would take a D300,D90 or even a D200 over the stripped down entry cameras.
With the missing everyday features and controls that allow me to get the shot. 
Occasionally I need higher iso but is minimal for me.

Now if I shot a lot of night,low light clubs and nightlife.
Then would give more serious weight to the newer sensors as a major point for consideration.

And the majority seems obsess about the high iso performance.
Then I see all or the majority of their images are shot at 200 iso anyways. 
So I guess I just don't get it.
.


----------



## cgw

_"And the majority seems obsess about the high iso performance.
Then I see all or the majority of their images are shot at 200 iso anyways. 
So I guess I just don't get it."


_So buy a D3200? Thom Hogan(4/23) has quite a bit to say on this and the DX-vs-FX debate:

Thom Hogan's Nikon Camera, DSLR, Lens, Flash, and Book site


----------



## goodguy

orb9220 said:


> Yep see this all the time. Especially with newbies or Sensor Only considerer's when evaluating cameras.
> And the majority seems obsess about the high iso performance.
> Then I see all or the majority of their images are shot at 200 iso anyways.
> So I guess I just don't get it.
> .



Interesting, I never made any survey about the ISO people use, I do know what I use and 3200ISO is a setting I use quite a lot on my D7K.

Overall the D7100 is better, it offers so much more then the D5200 and if the D5200 has few small advantages in some areas then that great but you really need to look at the big picture.
If you cant afford the D7100 then the D5200 is a good camera but in the crop sensor world as a whole the D7100 is simply better.

BTW the D600 blows both of them out of the water and in today prices if you are considering the D7100 its well worth going for a refurbish D600!


----------



## Ballistics

orb9220 said:


> Yep see this all the time. Especially with newbies or Sensor Only considerer's when evaluating cameras.
> And obsessing over technical details blinds you to other real world shooting needs that has nothing to do with sensor performance.
> 
> With little thought given or considered about other real world features and uses.
> Like more dedicated controls,superior AF stage and more AF points. In body motor and flash commander.etc...etc..
> The list goes on...
> 
> And for daily real world shooting would take a D300,D90 or even a D200 over the stripped down entry cameras.
> With the missing everyday features and controls that allow me to get the shot.
> Occasionally I need higher iso but is minimal for me.
> 
> Now if I shot a lot of night,low light clubs and nightlife.
> Then would give more serious weight to the newer sensors as a major point for consideration.
> 
> And the majority seems obsess about the high iso performance.
> Then I see all or the majority of their images are shot at 200 iso anyways.
> So I guess I just don't get it.
> .



Because those that can't shoot above low ISOs don't?

I never shot @ ISO 3200 with my D7000 because noise reduction looked like crap. I just did 3 shoots @ 3200/6400 the entire time with my D800 and it cleans up very well.



> Now if I shot a lot of night,low light clubs and nightlife.
> Then would give more serious weight to the newer sensors as a major point for consideration.



You'd be surprised what you decide to shoot when you finally have the ability to do so. You may not need high ISO capability,
but some people want to have that option there, in the event you're in the position that you do need it and don't have it.


----------



## cgw

"_BTW the D600 *blows both of them out of the water* and in today prices if you are  considering the D7100 its well worth going for a refurbish D600!_"

Not sure how you quantify that. As I read Hogan and others the D600's superiority doesn't extend much beyond slightly better hi-ISO performance( a stop?). The D600 is no better-made than the D7000/D7100, crams the AF points into center of the screen, and has suffered from QC issues not seen in the later DX cameras.


----------



## Derrel

cgw said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overall scores of 80, 81, 82, 83, and 84 are indistinguishable from each other in real life.
> 
> The point to take away is that the Nikon D3200, D5200, D7000, D7100, and Pentax K 5 IIs deliver virtually identical overall Raw image quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to Sony!
Click to expand...


Ummmm. I 'think" the sensor in the D5200 is actually made by TOSHIBA, not Sony...


----------



## Derrel

TCampbell said:
			
		

> SNIP>
> 
> DxO says they test only the sensor.  You can see from their full reports that they look at several aspects (dynamic range, ISO/noise, etc.) but they aren't very detailed or specific as to how they conduct a test.  For example... there are Nikons and Sonys with the same sensor.  Sony has a mirror which doesn't move.  That mirror cuts about 1/3rd of the light from reaching the sensor.  It stands to reason that when looking at the cameras "as a whole" a Sony which loses 1/3rd of the light should NOT be able to get the same quality image as the Nikon which gets ALL of the light when taking a shot in the same room.  Sony would need to boost the ISO by 1/3rd of a stop to compensate and this will generate more noise.
> 
> So what does DxO do in this case?  We don't know.  They're not specific.  We don't know if they remove the mirror from the Sony body.  We don't know if they tweak the score to put the cameras on an "level playing field" so that they can truly just compare the "sensors" and ignore impact caused by features of the "body".



Your conspiracy theories cast aside, you're missing an incredibly large, important part of the equation. it's not just the "sensor" that determines image quality...the electronics, the entire filter array in front of the sensor, and the software and hardware that process the image make an utterly HUGE impact on the technical image quality.

Case in point: The Sony A900, and the Nikon D3x. Now, the light-sensitive part, the sensel (sic), was a 24 megapixel affair, built by SONY using Nikon-designed steppers. The same sensel was in both the A900 and the D3x. Buuuuuut....Nikon priced the D3x at $8,000, while SONY shot for a $2400,later discounted to $1800 full-frame 24 MP body. WHat accounted for the difference in retail price, and why did the Nikon kick the A900's around???

The difference lies,hugely, in the filter array, the electronics, and the software. Nikon took the same, exact part, and produced a camera with MUCH, much better HIGH-ISO performance and much more-realistic, consistent color across a wide spectrum of ISO levels. SONY on the other hand, was limited to ISO 400 and lower, and also had some very, very "weird" color.

The D3x manages more than 1.5 EV more dynamic range, and has significantly better real-world HIGH ISO performance--and offers 14-bit capture, whereas the Sony was locked down at 12-bit max. In low light, the Nikon's score is like 500 points higher than the SONY's...and that jibes with real-world tests from multiple testers, around the world.

Net result???? DxOMark score that's 10 points higher for the NIKON camera. All sizes | DxOMark results overview - Nikon D3X vs Canon 5D Mark II vs Sony A900 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The conspiracy theories you offer about DxOMark from time to time seem to stem from your unwillingness to dig a bit Tony....if you really WANT to learn how DxOM ark tests, head to The Luminous Landscape and read their series of articles on DxOMark and its testing procedures, and how they are evaluated by an expert. You keep saying that they offer no insight into how they test; they actually DO offer a lot, and it has been discussed ad naauseum. You apparently, have not been willing to spend the effort required to look into DxO Mark's procedures.

DxOMark talks PLENTY about how they test. But no, they do not tell regular internet Joe's every single thing about how they test. But this tired old line that they are lying, or concealing...it's tiresome,and ridiculous. Just stop with the conspiracy theories,okay?

dxOMark Explained

And an excellent source, from 2011:

DxOMark Camera Sensor



An d his earlier article:

DxOMark Sensor For Benchmarking Cameras


----------



## AutofocusRoss

It seems some are prepared to pay a premium for D7100 despite the D5200 being seen, in image quality terms, at the very least, the equal of it. That's fine, pay the extra (near double the price) if that's what you want, but to me, the other (UK £400+) is much better spent on a lens, or a lens upgrade.

Don't forget, until recently the D7000 was being similarly hailed, and now the D5200 has inherited it's Multicam Focus system, and it's superior exposure system. If that were not enough, it has the very useful tilt and flip LCD screen. Now, I don't know how many of you are into macro / still life work, but that feature alone is to die for. It is one of the reasons I bought into the D5100 and now upgraded to the D5200.

I can't help feeling a little smug at the DXo findings, it bears out many other 'official' reviews, so it is no fluke.  I won't argue that the 7100 may well be quicker to adjust with more direct access to controls, but let's be reasonable, the menu system on the 5200 is hardly the krypton factor, and once you know your way around, like anything else, it is pretty quick.

No sir, I will use my saved £400+ for making trips and upgrading lenses etc etc.

God bless Nikon, a serious camera at a budget price, wonderful, love it!  (and don't blame DXo!)


----------



## CaptainNapalm

cgw said:


> "BTW the D600  blows both of them out of the water and in today prices if you are  considering the D7100 its well worth going for a refurbish D600!"
> 
> Not sure how you quantify that. As I read Hogan and others the D600's superiority doesn't extend much beyond slightly better hi-ISO performance( a stop?). The D600 is no better-made than the D7000/D7100, crams the AF points into center of the screen, and has suffered from QC issues not seen in the later DX cameras.



Having owned the D7000 for a while and having shot with the D7100 a few times I second the fact      that the D600 is a far superior camera when it comes to low light performance and image quality.  I was getting unusable photos from my D7000 at ISO 1600 to 3200 where as my D600 images at ISO 6400 are coming out great. That to me is a monumental difference.  The D600 has also other things going for it that make it superior to the D7k such as responsiveness, better grip, better dynamic range, etc.


----------



## pixmedic

AutofocusRoss said:


> It seems some are prepared to pay a premium for D7100 despite the D5200 being seen, in image quality terms, at the very least, the equal of it. That's fine, pay the extra (near double the price) if that's what you want, but to me, the other (UK £400+) is much better spent on a lens, or a lens upgrade.
> 
> Don't forget, until recently the D7000 was being similarly hailed, and now the D5200 has inherited it's Multicam Focus system, and it's superior exposure system. If that were not enough, it has the very useful tilt and flip LCD screen. Now, I don't know how many of you are into macro / still life work, but that feature alone is to die for. It is one of the reasons I bought into the D5100 and now upgraded to the D5200.
> 
> I can't help feeling a little smug at the DXo findings, it bears out many other 'official' reviews, so it is no fluke.  I won't argue that the 7100 may well be quicker to adjust with more direct access to controls, but let's be reasonable, the menu system on the 5200 is hardly the krypton factor, and once you know your way around, like anything else, it is pretty quick.
> 
> No sir, I will use my saved £400+ for making trips and upgrading lenses etc etc.
> 
> God bless Nikon, a serious camera at a budget price, wonderful, love it!  (and don't blame DXo!)



as a few people have mentioned, the D7000 and D7100 have features that the D5100 and D5200 just do not have. 
on of the biggest being an in body focus motor. while this might not be a concern to everyone, especially if you ONLY have af-s or G lenses, actually having that in body motor opens a whole world of lenses you could not otherwise autofocus with. the ability to pick up older AF and AF-D pro glass and have it AF on your camera is a huge deal for some. 

sure, you might save $400 on the body. but imagine the money saved buying  a $200 50mm 1.4D instead of a $400 1.4G,  a $300 85mm 1.8D instead of a $500 1.8G,
and an $800 80-200 f/2.8 instead of a $2000 AF-S 70-200 f/2.8. 
sure, sometimes the newer lenses actually offer a noticeably better image, but when you have an in body motor, you actually have the choice of getting the older pro glass instead of having to buy the newer lenses.


----------



## KmH

The Advanced Multi-CAM 3500DX auto focus module in the D7100 is another big improvement from a D5200.
With the D7100 you can choose a wider variety of raw file options, and have 5 AEB instead of only 3 AEB with the D5200.

Add the second command wheel, more external buttons that help minimize menu diving, and the D7100 is a much more versatile camera.

A 1 point difference in the overall DXO Mark image sensor Raw image quality score won't be detectable by a human eye.


----------



## goodguy

Don't forget the Fine Tune the D7100 has which might be the difference between taking camera to Nikon spa.
Just yesterday I checked my 50mm 1.8G and found I needed to fine tune -2
And one personal point the D5200 looks so small, to me the D7100 is by far an advantage.

Still in no way am I putting down the D5200 I think its a great camera, for the money its the best camera you can get and its very close to the D7100 in many ways.
If you don't mind loosing some stuff by all means get the D5200.


----------



## astroNikon

pixmedic said:


> as a few people have mentioned, the D7000 and D7100 have features that the D5100 and D5200 just do not have.
> on of the biggest being an in body focus motor. while this might not be a concern to everyone, especially if you ONLY have af-s or G lenses, actually having that in body motor opens a whole world of lenses you could not otherwise autofocus with. the ability to pick up older AF and AF-D pro glass and have it AF on your camera is a huge deal for some.
> 
> sure, you might save $400 on the body. but imagine the money saved buying  a $200 50mm 1.4D instead of a $400 1.4G,  a $300 85mm 1.8D instead of a $500 1.8G,
> and an $800 80-200 f/2.8 instead of a $2000 AF-S 70-200 f/2.8.
> sure, sometimes the newer lenses actually offer a noticeably better image, but when you have an in body motor, you actually have the choice of getting the older pro glass instead of having to buy the newer lenses.



That is EXACTLY the route I went, being a former N80/D70 user (and Canon AE-1, but I won't mention that) and getting older pro glass and high quality lens.

I also found out that on manual focus the LCD just did not allow me to get 100% focused.  So a flip screen actually did me no good, especially if it was really bright outside.  I tried a 5100 and never could get a 100% focused item as well as I could through the view finder.  I don't know if this was a "one off" but I have the same issue with the D7000.  I only focus through the viewfinder (unless it's video).

FYI, I do quite a bit manual focus on my larger lenses/telescopes.

FYI2, I really liked the 5x00 series too.  It was my top choice until I tested it for what I needed it for then I had to go for the d7000 much to my 'charing of not getting lens that I was going to get


----------



## AutofocusRoss

Seems like all the reviews of the D5200 are wrong then, I must throw mine in the skip first thing in the morning... note to self, buy a 7100 by the weekend... don't worry about eating, petrol, mortgage... as long as I can get an 'inferior image' the world will start turning again...

Methinks those who have shelled out for the 7100 are going to keep kicking a camera that Nikon kindly proffered to those who want a quality image, but at a sensible price. That many reviews confirm the equality of the image puts the cap on this 'debate'.

The 5200 in my bag has no focus problems in live view, regardless of if the LCD is flat to the camera back, or flipped out and turned in any direction - no issue at all. I do use the viewfinder too, in case you were wondering!  My point was this - the wonderful, amazing, bestest camera in the DX range up until recently was the D7000... true!  now that the focus system, the exposure system, and the D800 Expeed 3 system is built into the D5200 the D7000 is beginning to look a bit silly, as a new purchase.

Suddenly, a few extra focus points and removal of an AA filter makes the 7100 a must buy?  I don't think so, not when most of the reviews are telling us the two models are on a par (5200 and 7100) regarding image quality. The ability to hook on older lenses which don't have autofocus motors onboard, is, to me, questionable anyway... vendors like Nikon, Canon, et al, have to improve their lenses over time, as resolution goes higher. Time is coming when no Nikon will have in camera focus motor... it is just a matter of time.

We live in a bubble.. at the moment, unless you can spring for a full frame, it seems the two models compete with one another. If you reallly need the features of the 7100, hit the plastic.

I know what makes me happy... it's in me camera bag.. let's hope the forecast for a few more hot days due to arrive soon, is correct... a few sunsets and landscapes to round off the autumn would be a nice way to run my D5200 in. Any 5200 owners with me on this?


----------



## pixmedic

AutofocusRoss said:


> Seems like all the reviews of the D5200 are wrong then, I must throw mine in the skip first thing in the morning... note to self, buy a 7100 by the weekend... don't worry about eating, petrol, mortgage... as long as I can get an 'inferior image' the world will start turning again...
> 
> Methinks those who have shelled out for the 7100 are going to keep kicking a camera that Nikon kindly proffered to those who want a quality image, but at a sensible price. That many reviews confirm the equality of the image puts the cap on this 'debate'.
> 
> The 5200 in my bag has no focus problems in live view, regardless of if the LCD is flat to the camera back, or flipped out and turned in any direction - no issue at all. I do use the viewfinder too, in case you were wondering!  My point was this - the wonderful, amazing, bestest camera in the DX range up until recently was the D7000... true!  now that the focus system, the exposure system, and the D800 Expeed 3 system is built into the D5200 the D7000 is beginning to look a bit silly, as a new purchase.
> 
> Suddenly, a few extra focus points and removal of an AA filter makes the 7100 a must buy?  I don't think so, not when most of the reviews are telling us the two models are on a par (5200 and 7100) regarding image quality. The ability to hook on older lenses which don't have autofocus motors onboard, is, to me, questionable anyway... vendors like Nikon, Canon, et al, have to improve their lenses over time, as resolution goes higher. Time is coming when no Nikon will have in camera focus motor... it is just a matter of time.
> 
> We live in a bubble.. at the moment, unless you can spring for a full frame, it seems the two models compete with one another. If you reallly need the features of the 7100, hit the plastic.
> 
> I know what makes me happy... it's in me camera bag.. let's hope the forecast for a few more hot days due to arrive soon, is correct... a few sunsets and landscapes to round off the autumn would be a nice way to run my D5200 in. Any 5200 owners with me on this?



i dont think anyone here said that the D7100 was a "must buy", nor did they imply the the D5200 was not a good camera. 
that being said, it is simply a fact that the D7100 offers features that the D5200 does not. 
IF those extra features are needed or even wanted by a prospective buyer, the the D7100 is indeed the camera they should buy. 

why did you buy a D5200 when the D5100 is a perfectly capable camera for less money? there must have been something that you wanted in the D5200 that made it worth the extra money. the same thing applies to people that opted for the D7100.


----------



## cgipson1

AutofocusRoss said:


> Seems like all the reviews of the D5200 are wrong then, I must throw mine in the skip first thing in the morning... note to self, buy a 7100 by the weekend... don't worry about eating, petrol, mortgage... as long as I can get an 'inferior image' the world will start turning again...
> 
> Methinks those who have shelled out for the 7100 are going to keep kicking a camera that Nikon kindly proffered to those who want a quality image, but at a sensible price. That many reviews confirm the equality of the image puts the cap on this 'debate'.
> 
> The 5200 in my bag has no focus problems in live view, regardless of if the LCD is flat to the camera back, or flipped out and turned in any direction - no issue at all. I do use the viewfinder too, in case you were wondering!  My point was this - the wonderful, amazing, bestest camera in the DX range up until recently was the D7000... true!  now that the focus system, the exposure system, and the D800 Expeed 3 system is built into the D5200 the D7000 is beginning to look a bit silly, as a new purchase.
> 
> Suddenly, a few extra focus points and removal of an AA filter makes the 7100 a must buy?  I don't think so, not when most of the reviews are telling us the two models are on a par (5200 and 7100) regarding image quality. The ability to hook on older lenses which don't have autofocus motors onboard, is, to me, questionable anyway... vendors like Nikon, Canon, et al, have to improve their lenses over time, as resolution goes higher. Time is coming when no Nikon will have in camera focus motor... it is just a matter of time.
> 
> We live in a bubble.. at the moment, unless you can spring for a full frame, it seems the two models compete with one another. If you reallly need the features of the 7100, hit the plastic.
> 
> I know what makes me happy... it's in me camera bag.. let's hope the forecast for a few more hot days due to arrive soon, is correct... a few sunsets and landscapes to round off the autumn would be a nice way to run my D5200 in. Any 5200 owners with me on this?



I currently have a D800 and a D7000. But if I was buying another crop sensor.. it would be the D7100, not the D5200... if for nothing else, the additional features the D7100 offers.

If you can only afford a D5200... which seems to be the gist of your message above, fine... shoot with it! It is a good entry level body... nothing wrong with it! But don't call those who can shell out more cash "idiots" (my interpretation of your post) just for spending that extra bit, for features you have probably never used... and therefore don't miss!

You say they (D7100 owners) knock the 5200 since they paid more... and yet you are knocking the D7100 because it costs more? SURE! Whatever!


----------



## goodguy

AutofocusRoss said:


> Seems like all the reviews of the D5200 are wrong then, I must throw mine in the skip first thing in the morning... note to self, buy a 7100 by the weekend... don't worry about eating, petrol, mortgage... as long as I can get an 'inferior image' the world will start turning again...
> 
> Methinks those who have shelled out for the 7100 are going to keep kicking a camera that Nikon kindly proffered to those who want a quality image, but at a sensible price. That many reviews confirm the equality of the image puts the cap on this 'debate'.
> 
> The 5200 in my bag has no focus problems in live view, regardless of if the LCD is flat to the camera back, or flipped out and turned in any direction - no issue at all. I do use the viewfinder too, in case you were wondering! My point was this - the wonderful, amazing, bestest camera in the DX range up until recently was the D7000... true! now that the focus system, the exposure system, and the D800 Expeed 3 system is built into the D5200 the D7000 is beginning to look a bit silly, as a new purchase.
> 
> Suddenly, a few extra focus points and removal of an AA filter makes the 7100 a must buy? I don't think so, not when most of the reviews are telling us the two models are on a par (5200 and 7100) regarding image quality. The ability to hook on older lenses which don't have autofocus motors onboard, is, to me, questionable anyway... vendors like Nikon, Canon, et al, have to improve their lenses over time, as resolution goes higher. Time is coming when no Nikon will have in camera focus motor... it is just a matter of time.
> 
> We live in a bubble.. at the moment, unless you can spring for a full frame, it seems the two models compete with one another. If you reallly need the features of the 7100, hit the plastic.
> 
> I know what makes me happy... it's in me camera bag.. let's hope the forecast for a few more hot days due to arrive soon, is correct... a few sunsets and landscapes to round off the autumn would be a nice way to run my D5200 in. Any 5200 owners with me on this?



Actually I can even ask why not go for the D3200 ?
Its a great camera-it really is, why not get it over the D5200 ?
True the D5200 has few more features and is better in low light but really its not a world apart and the D3200 is so much cheaper.
You resent the D7100 but then D3200 owners might resent the D5200 just as much.

We all made our decisions, to each his own and personally I was thinking long and hard about both the D520 and D7100 and I was thining if the D5200 should be my camera or should I go for the D7100 and pay extra 300$
For me the choice was the D7100 and I am happy with it, I think its worth that extra money, you made your choice and you are obviously happy with it.
So enjoy your camera and we (the owners of the D7100) will enjoy ours.


----------



## ToddnTN

My wife has a D5200 and I have a D7100. They are both great cameras.
The sub command dial and the focus motor are the two things I really like about the D7100.

Real world example of buying older lens that won't autofocus with the D5200:

Nikon 180mm f/2.8 AF-d for $299
Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-d for $250

There is no way I would have been able to buy anything even close to those two lenses that would autofocus on the D5200 for those prices.


----------



## AutofocusRoss

I needed the extra resolution with a view to cropping out landscape shots (when screwing up composition and it's too late to re-visit venue) and I already said the flip out LCD screen is an essential once you've experienced it. Nothing to do with money, not really, though, I have to say, I would be feeling a bit peeved if I had shelled out near twice the price for a D7100 (over this D5200) only to find it doesnt produce better images, all things being equal.

I fear the D7100 camp are becoming hostile to me, so I'll drop it now, with just one parting shot... when the D5300 sees the light of day, and incorporates the amazing, huge, wonderful, increase in autofocus abiltiy, from the measly 39 points it now has to the phenomenal 51 points of the 7100.... well! need I go on?  I can see 7100 owners leaping off buildings in dismay 

At least if my 5200 gets dropped, breaks, or gets stolen, I can buy another one and just about have spent the same as a 7100 purchaser... and if the insurance company coughs up for the loss, I am in profit..

Just a thought guys, don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## AutofocusRoss

cgipson1 said:


> I currently have a D800 and a D7000. But if I was buying another crop sensor.. it would be the D7100, not the D5200... if for nothing else, the additional features the D7100 offers.
> 
> If you can only afford a D5200... which seems to be the gist of your message above, fine... shoot with it! It is a good entry level body... nothing wrong with it!
> 
> 
> But don't call those who can shell out more cash "idiots" (my interpretation of your post) just for spending that extra bit, for features you have probably never used... and therefore don't miss!
> 
> You say they (D7100 owners) knock the 5200 since they paid more... and yet you are knocking the D7100 because it costs more? SURE! Whatever!



It was all going so well until the word 'whatever' 

A little good old fashioned photographic snobbery is raising it's head here, I fear, with the 'if you can only afford' jibe - but I have to point out that the D800E is a fantastic camera, but if you can only afford a D800 then fine, it is a good entry level FF camera. Go for it!

Meanwhile, back on planet earth... We are comparing image quality between the two products, 7100 and 5200, that is ALL. No one can contest that the two models are on a par in the image department, not after the DXo and quite a few other reviews, all saying the same thing. If anything, the 5200 is coming off slightly better.

I'm not attacking the 7100.. nor am I defending the 5200... the simple fact is, neither will outperform the other in image quality, so, anyone interested in photography, rather than equipment, will do a lot better getting a 5200 and a decent bit of glass for the same cash.

I fell into this trap in the late 1980's by buying a camera which cost twice the price of another with much the same specification, but lacking shutter priority mode. Though I had that camera for years, and enjoyed using it, it was on Av mode for 99.9% of the time, the shutter mode (and program mode) were never used.

I am only warning people who have not yet made their purchase to think hard.. all those extra features (err... what are they again?) may be available, and you can hold your head up in the camera club, and the pub, as you broadcast them to all and sundry... but when you're alone, out there, with your tripod, getting the shot... are you using ANY of them?


As to entry level... three years ago I recall sitting down to a formal dinner and the guy next to me was a keen photographer. I remember his astonishment when I mentioned that Sony had just brought the first >20Mp camera onto the market... I think it was nudging three thousand pounds UK at the time... and here we are just 60 months later, with a 24+ Mp 'entry level'? anyway, it's an upper entry level, so I can hold my head up in the camera club again!


----------



## pixmedic

Why is it you seem to think people buy cameras with more features just for bragging rights?  Is it not possible they buy them because they actually WANT those extra features? Thats like saying you only bought a car with power windows and door locks so you could brag about it.  If you dont want the extra features of the higher models thats fine, but theres no need to knock them if you just dont understand their usefulness. 

As for the D5300...im sure it will be top dog.... Until the D7200 comes out.


----------



## sashbar

Derrel said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overall scores of 80, 81, 82, 83, and 84 are indistinguishable from each other in real life.
> 
> The point to take away is that the Nikon D3200, D5200, D7000, D7100, and Pentax K 5 IIs deliver virtually identical overall Raw image quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to Sony!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm. I 'think" the sensor in the D5200 is actually made by TOSHIBA, not Sony...
Click to expand...



D7100 has a Toshiba sensor as well.


----------



## goodguy

AutofocusRoss said:


> Meanwhile, back on planet earth... We are comparing image quality between the two products, 7100 and 5200, that is ALL.



No, you are the one that sticks to talking about image quality and refuses to listen to all the other advantages the D7100 has over the D5200.
We all know the image quality is about the same but we want MORE, if we didnt we would get the D5200.
You dont want more then thats fine, some people think what the D5200 is offering is not enough for them and for them the D7100 is the right tool for their needs.
You cant take one part of what the camera is offering (as important as it is) and not look at the whole machine as a whole.
You refuse to understand the D7100 is a different camera, it is directed to different photographers who want more then just image quality, they want more features, they want a bigger camera, they want a better battery life, they want fine tuning, they want more dials and play less with camera menues, Magnesium body, weather sealing, In camera Auto Focus motor ...........and the list goes on and on.

You said "back on earth", maybe its time you WILL come back to earth and see this is way more then just image quality issue, if all a photographer is looking for is image quality then your point would be just but it is much more then that.

As I said when I got my D7100 I was debating which camera I want to get, I respect the D5200 and knew its about the same but I wanted more and I think the price differen is justified, I wanted more, I paid for it and I got more and I am happy.
Apparently the extra features of the D7100 is not important to you so you chose the D5200 so for you the D5200 is the right tool for what you need, why wouldnt you accept not everybody think like you do ?


----------



## sashbar

AutofocusRoss said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, back on planet earth... We are comparing image quality between the two products, 7100 and 5200, that is ALL. No one can contest that the two models are on a par in the image department, not after the DXo and quite a few other reviews, all saying the same thing. If anything, the 5200 is coming off slightly better.
> 
> I'm not attacking the 7100.. nor am I defending the 5200... the simple fact is, neither will outperform the other in image quality, so, anyone interested in photography, rather than equipment, will do a lot better getting a 5200 and a decent bit of glass for the same cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In real life on planet Earth there are lots of situations where you will take a better shot with D7100 than with D5200, even though both have similar IQ.  Simply because D7100 allows a much faster operation. If, as you say, you are shooting from tripod, and have all the time you need to take a shot, then yes, there is no difference. But when your time is limited, you simply will not bother to swith to bracketing or cont. shooting or change your WB simply because it takes too much time to browse through the D5200 menu.. And you will not bother to quickly switch to your U1 or U2 presets, because there are no such presets on D5200. So it depends on your photography. Some will enjoy D5xxx for years and will never need anything "better", some will suffer from it's limitations very soon. D5200 is a beginners camera and it was designed so on purpose - to be a slow in operation but able to produce great images that would inspire a beginner to go on and improve. And then to realize that his camera is limited.. And then to spend twice as much on a faster one.  So beginner pays twice.
Click to expand...


----------



## CaptainNapalm

AutofocusRoss said:


> I needed the extra resolution with a view to cropping out landscape shots (when screwing up composition and it's too late to re-visit venue) and I already said the flip out LCD screen is an essential once you've experienced it. Nothing to do with money, not really, though, I have to say, I would be feeling a bit peeved if I had shelled out near twice the price for a D7100 (over this D5200) only to find it doesnt produce better images, all things being equal.
> 
> I fear the D7100 camp are becoming hostile to me, so I'll drop it now, with just one parting shot... when the D5300 sees the light of day, and incorporates the amazing, huge, wonderful, increase in autofocus abiltiy, from the measly 39 points it now has to the phenomenal 51 points of the 7100.... well! need I go on?  I can see 7100 owners leaping off buildings in dismay
> 
> At least if my 5200 gets dropped, breaks, or gets stolen, I can buy another one and just about have spent the same as a 7100 purchaser... and if the insurance company coughs up for the loss, I am in profit..
> 
> Just a thought guys, don't shoot the messenger.



The flip out LCD screen is absolutely useless.


----------



## astroNikon

AutofocusRoss said:


> .... and I already said the flip out LCD screen is an essential once you've experienced it...





CaptainNapalm said:


> The flip out LCD screen is absolutely useless.



I think that depends upon the demographics of the people using it.

I first thought the flip out screen was great.  A family taking a self portrait they can flip out the screen and see what they are taking a picture of.
Or putting it above a scene and still being able to see that scene with a flip out screen.

The feature layout of the D5200/5100 is much different than the feature layout of the D7000/7100
They are designed for a different market demographics.

Personally, I do not like going through the menu of the 5000 series but then I have a short history using older Nikons like the D70 (and N80).  Some use programmable keys to aid them.

I also don't like focusing with the LCD, even on my D7000 the focusing is not accurate through the LCD (so I think most LCDs are useless unless you do video).  Keep in mind I do all of manual focusing in astrophotography.  But the 5x00 series is feature rich at a price point that the market it was designed for.  The 7x00 series is for a different demographic market and price.

In the end, from everything I've heard, that it is mostly the photographer and then the equipment.  For basic image the 5000 & 7000 series are equivalent.  After that it depends upon which features you want.  Kind of like buying a car .. do you want a hatchback, coupe, sedan, convertible, what size engine, and with or without bluetooth .. is the engine ECU programmable or not ?

And what about the D300S .. it's only 12.3 mp  but body, etc is designed more for durability and constant use .. oops .. that's different features.


----------



## cgipson1

AutofocusRoss said:


> I already said the *flip out LCD screen is an essential once you've experienced it*.



Really? Is that why is on all the PRO camera bodies? Oh wait.. it isn't on PRO camera bodies... only entry level, amateur bodies! Why is that I wonder?

If you know how to use a camera, you don't need that silly flip out LCD screen, trust me! Although it is a big marketing tool for the entry level market! (marketing... maybe that is why some people think it is a indispensable tool?)


----------



## cgipson1

AutofocusRoss said:


> A little good old fashioned photographic snobbery is raising it's head here, I fear, with the 'if you can only afford' jibe - but I have to point out that the D800E is a fantastic camera, but if you can only afford a D800 then fine, it is a good entry level FF camera. Go for it!



The D800E was not available when I purchased my D800... which was within days of it even being on the market! Or I would have gotten the D800E! I almost bought the D4 (had it on order), but changed my mind when I found a D800 locally that was available.. since for the majority of what I shoot, the D800 is a better choice. As I said, whatever!


----------



## cgipson1

AutofocusRoss said:


> Meanwhile, back on planet earth... We are comparing image quality between the two products, 7100 and 5200, that is ALL. No one can contest that the two models are on a par in the image department, not after the DXo and quite a few other reviews, all saying the same thing. If anything, the 5200 is coming off slightly better.



D5200 vs D7100 vs whatever! 

When will people learn it is not the  equipment that makes GOOD photographs... it is the photographer! Good  equipment can help... but it is stuff between the photographers ears  that actually makes for good images, the camera is just how it is  captured.

In the real world, the comparative statistics you speak of are so close together as to be meaningless! 

Want  to prove to us that your D5200 is indeed better? Post some images that  prove it! D7100 owners... feel free to post image that prove yours are  better! (does this remind anyone of Elementary School?)

(Since I would typically expect a D7100 owner to be a  higher level of enthusiast, and probably have more knowledge than the  average D5200 owner.... this might get interesting!)

The images produced are all that really count... not the body, not the lenses... nothing else! We have many here that can "Talk" a good photo all day long, but can't take one! We also have those that don't say much... but their works speaks for them! Which do you want to be?


----------



## AutofocusRoss

pixmedic said:


> If you dont want the extra features of the higher models thats fine, but theres no need to knock them if you just dont understand their usefulness.
> 
> As for the D5300...im sure it will be top dog.... Until the D7200 comes out.



Oh, I understand them alrighty! but no one seems interested in the actual theme of this thread, which I constantly return to, and, that is, the 5200 has been found to produce identical or better images than the next one up the food chain. What on earth are the compelling reasons to spend near double the money, what are you gaining, when it comes to hanging a photo on the wall, that is my only real message.  Would be 5200 owners should be reasurred that this 'entry level'  model WILL give them the same quality image as the one costing twice the price.

This is quite fun, I recall having a similar discussion with some D7000 owner who looked at my D5100 and made me feel like I was a vagrant. You did read my comment (above) about being (effectively) a D7100 purchaser, back in the late 80's?  I sprung for a model which had all the gadgets (sorry, features) and after a period of gaining familiarity with them all, stuck the thing on AV and it stayed there for 15 years.

That was my point - and I would be less 'enthusiastic' to ask 'why buy a 7100' if the price was a tad closer, say, just a third more expensive. So far, notably, no one has mentioned a feature on the 7100 that they cannot live without, apart from one person into old lenses.  I would be lost without the tilt / flip LCD on the D5200, which is a feature I always use when doing macro, or, on a tripod, or even, sometimes, on a monopod, with a cable release, with the camera nearly 5 feet above my head... all good fun!

So, given these things produce the same identical quality images, what are the must have features of the 7100 that I am missing in my life...?


----------



## astroNikon

what features ... here's a few that I found I cannot live without:

screw drive - yes for older lenses (see my sig)

weathersealing - the other day a lens rolled into a creek, my camera also got dipped, and survived.  It also gets rained on from time to time at night.

separate aperture & shutter dials.  In manual mode I find this so necessary to spend as little time as possible in setup.  With the moon , jupiter/saturn flying through space time is of the essence.  And also of animals, and creeks when the sun is going down so quickly.

ISO / WB buttons - I think the d5000 may have had one or both if I recall - all these buttons dials are great for not taking ones face off the viewfinder, as I find it more accurate of the photo - more detailed than the LCD, even when doing my pictures of creeks. Especially when I use manual focusing to get specific imaging.

off camera lighting

a nice 2nd battery grip for verticals

all the other buttons that I've learned to use that may not be on the 5100/5200 series

I can also see what you would be lost without the tilt-flip screen.  I think it's a great feature myself.
Oddly enough, when I was using a friends 5100 (or 5000) my 24mm lens would not work on it, it would just error.  It worked fine on my 50 and 75-300 all on Manual.


----------



## goodguy

astroNikon said:


> what features ... here's a few that I found I cannot live without:
> 
> screw drive - yes for older lenses (see my sig)
> 
> weathersealing - the other day a lens rolled into a creek, my camera also got dipped, and survived.  It also gets rained on from time to time at night.
> 
> separate aperture & shutter dials.  In manual mode I find this so necessary to spend as little time as possible in setup.  With the moon , jupiter/saturn flying through space time is of the essence.  And also of animals, and creeks when the sun is going down so quickly.
> 
> ISO / WB buttons - I think the d5000 may have had one or both if I recall - all these buttons dials are great for not taking ones face off the viewfinder, as I find it more accurate of the photo - more detailed than the LCD, even when doing my pictures of creeks. Especially when I use manual focusing to get specific imaging.
> 
> off camera lighting
> 
> a nice 2nd battery grip for verticals
> 
> all the other buttons that I've learned to use that may not be on the 5100/5200 series
> 
> I can also see what you would be lost without the tilt-flip screen.  I think it's a great feature myself.
> Oddly enough, when I was using a friends 5100 (or 5000) my 24mm lens would not work on it, it would just error.  It worked fine on my 50 and 75-300 all on Manual.


We named all these before and more but somehow he refuses to understand for us this is money well spent, we had the option to choose D5200 but went for the D7100.
The argument-opppss sorry debate is pointless, he sticks to his ongoing theme of picture quality and refuses to see the big picture.
To me it looks more like ego and less photography, the ability to put yourself in other people shoes and not stand like a big oak tree keep repeating same old mantra.
Reminds me of me trying to explain things to my kids when they were small, sometimes they would argue with you just for argument sake and refuse to listen to logic, thats when I took a step back knowing this will not lead anywhere.

I think this argument-Arrrrr debate will not lead to anywhere!


----------



## cgipson1

astroNikon said:


> what features ... here's a few that I found I cannot live without:
> 
> screw drive - yes for older lenses (see my sig)
> 
> weathersealing - the other day a lens rolled into a creek, my camera also got dipped, and survived.  It also gets rained on from time to time at night.
> 
> separate aperture & shutter dials.  In manual mode I find this so necessary to spend as little time as possible in setup.  With the moon , jupiter/saturn flying through space time is of the essence.  And also of animals, and creeks when the sun is going down so quickly.
> 
> ISO / WB buttons - I think the d5000 may have had one or both if I recall - all these buttons dials are great for not taking ones face off the viewfinder, as I find it more accurate of the photo - more detailed than the LCD, even when doing my pictures of creeks. Especially when I use manual focusing to get specific imaging.
> 
> off camera lighting
> 
> a nice 2nd battery grip for verticals
> 
> all the other buttons that I've learned to use that may not be on the 5100/5200 series
> 
> I can also see what you would be lost without the tilt-flip screen.  I think it's a great feature myself.
> Oddly enough, when I was using a friends 5100 (or 5000) my 24mm lens would not work on it, it would just error.  It worked fine on my 50 and 75-300 all on Manual.



I would argue the flip screen, but all the rest are valid point! But to someone that has never used them, or may not even know what they are.. they are meaningless! Hence this silly argument, lol!


----------



## AutofocusRoss

astroNikon said:


> what features ... here's a few that I found I cannot live without:
> 
> screw drive - yes for older lenses (see my sig)
> 
> weathersealing - the other day a lens rolled into a creek, my camera also got dipped, and survived. It also gets rained on from time to time at night.
> 
> separate aperture & shutter dials. In manual mode I find this so necessary to spend as little time as possible in setup. With the moon , jupiter/saturn flying through space time is of the essence. And also of animals, and creeks when the sun is going down so quickly.
> 
> ISO / WB buttons - I think the d5000 may have had one or both if I recall - all these buttons dials are great for not taking ones face off the viewfinder, as I find it more accurate of the photo - more detailed than the LCD, even when doing my pictures of creeks. Especially when I use manual focusing to get specific imaging.
> 
> off camera lighting
> 
> a nice 2nd battery grip for verticals
> 
> all the other buttons that I've learned to use that may not be on the 5100/5200 series
> 
> I can also see what you would be lost without the tilt-flip screen. I think it's a great feature myself.
> Oddly enough, when I was using a friends 5100 (or 5000) my 24mm lens would not work on it, it would just error. It worked fine on my 50 and 75-300 all on Manual.



OK I see. So, do you regulary throw your camera gear into creeks, or is this just a one off? 

Separate dials for shutter speed and aperture? Why bother, turn the dial on the D5200 for aperture, then hold down the +/- button near the shutter release to set shutter speed. easy peezy!

The 5200 has a programable FN button, which you can set for iso, wb or a number of things. Surely your wb would be set for a session at the beginning, and only changed if the light changes during the session?  On the D5200 you can change iso using the fn button and the dial together, or, the WB with two button presses in the menu - not a problem once you are familiar with the camera. You can re-assign the wb to the FN button instead if you like, and use the menu to change iso instead.

I am interested that, despite the souped up, highly improved, 51 point autofocus multicam of the 7100, you are using manual focus... hmmm... ok.

Off camera lighting... no problem, as long as you don't mind buying non nikon accessories. I have a master and two slave flash units all in synch and using TTL - and the D5200 uses Nikons CLS flash systems too!

Battery grip? again, no problem, Meike, and a few other third party companies, produce a grip which stores the battery compartment door inside the vertical battery post, and houses two batteries beneath the camera, and also has a tripod / quick shoe socket should you want to mount the whole kaboodle on a tripod.

So.. so far I am not seeing four hundred quids worth (or nearly double the price of the D5200) justified in the street prices I am seeing here in the UK, maybe the 7100 is a lot cheaper in the USA?  I would consider anything up to 30% more than a D5200 price would be ok, given they produce the same quality.

I think your shutter speed goes up to 1/8000th, but the D5200 is limited to 1/4000th, and the high speed shooting, I can get 5 fps, I think you can get 7fps, but on the 7100 that 7fps is only in a cropped format, not using the full 24mp sensor... what is the fps when you ARE using the full sensor?

All this is in good natured banter, hope you're seeing this in my phrases, British humor can sometimes be hard to get...


----------



## AutofocusRoss

Goodguy! all I can say to that is, I hope I am not around when your wife finds out that you can only get the same picture quality with the D7100 that I can get with the 5200... just hide the ammunition and keep telling her how much you love her... It may work, but sit near a door just in case!


----------



## AutofocusRoss

cgipson1... I've been a photographer since 1988... what's all this nonsense about not knowing what these features are... this thread is NOT about features anyway, refresh your memory, it is about the two cameras producing identical picture quality... which... you are ignoring... so, what do you think about that?  your thoughts on the identical picture quality in less than 40 words please...


----------



## pixmedic

AutofocusRoss said:


> Oh, I understand them alrighty! but no one seems interested in the actual theme of this thread, which I constantly return to, and, that is, the 5200 has been found to produce identical or better images than the next one up the food chain. What on earth are the compelling reasons to spend near double the money, what are you gaining, when it comes to hanging a photo on the wall, that is my only real message.  Would be 5200 owners should be reasurred that this 'entry level'  model WILL give them the same quality image as the one costing twice the price.
> 
> This is quite fun, I recall having a similar discussion with some D7000 owner who looked at my D5100 and made me feel like I was a vagrant. You did read my comment (above) about being (effectively) a D7100 purchaser, back in the late 80's?  I sprung for a model which had all the gadgets (sorry, features) and after a period of gaining familiarity with them all, stuck the thing on AV and it stayed there for 15 years.
> 
> That was my point - and I would be less 'enthusiastic' to ask 'why buy a 7100' if the price was a tad closer, say, just a third more expensive. So far, notably, no one has mentioned a feature on the 7100 that they cannot live without, apart from one person into old lenses.  I would be lost without the tilt / flip LCD on the D5200, which is a feature I always use when doing macro, or, on a tripod, or even, sometimes, on a monopod, with a cable release, with the camera nearly 5 feet above my head... all good fun!
> 
> So, given these things produce the same identical quality images, what are the must have features of the 7100 that I am missing in my life...?



You say the features are not what the thread is about, then ask what the features are? 

The added features have been covered already. A bunch. If you ONLY care about end run image quality, then none of the added features of the d7xxx line matter.


----------



## astroNikon

The creek hopefully was a one-off.  The lens rolled into it.  And the camera, on the the strap as I was moving around got dipped a bit as I slipped.
The lens dried up and was fine.  Camera fine too.

WB & ISO .. sunrise / sunsets, moving around ... lighting changes.  It's nice for them to be on separate buttons so one doesn't have to reprogram it.

When you attach the camera to manual focus things .. like Reflex lenses, telescopes etc one has to be in manual mode.  So 11, 51, 39 or 10,000 focus points doesn't matter.

but, nonetheless.  You like your 5200.  I like my D7000


this reminds me of a flash review thread ...


----------



## AutofocusRoss

jake337 said:


> You are paying for the extra features in the body. It's not all about the sensor. Really though, there is not much difference in image quality between, alomost, any DSLR camera at base ISO levels. If there is a difference, it is negligible.
> 
> in-body focus motor
> metering with AIS, AI lenses
> faster, better focusing
> more focus points
> larger, brighter viewfinder
> build quality, weathersealing
> Button layout(no digging through menus)
> 1/8000 shutterspeed
> 7fps vs 4fps
> dual SD slots
> Triggering off camera flash(without radio triggers)
> etc, etc, etc
> 
> 
> It's not all about the sensor. If any of the items above are must haves then you will pick the D7100.



Hi Jake, actually the FPS on the D5200 is 5 FPS full frame, the D7100 is 7 FPS but not in full frame, that is achieved only by cropping the image down while shooting.


----------



## AutofocusRoss

astroNikon said:


> The creek hopefully was a one-off. The lens rolled into it. And the camera, on the the strap as I was moving around got dipped a bit as I slipped.
> The lens dried up and was fine. Camera fine too.
> 
> WB & ISO .. sunrise / sunsets, moving around ... lighting changes. It's nice for them to be on separate buttons so one doesn't have to reprogram it.
> 
> When you attach the camera to manual focus things .. like Reflex lenses, telescopes etc one has to be in manual mode. So 11, 51, 39 or 10,000 focus points doesn't matter.
> 
> but, nonetheless. You like your 5200. I like my D7000
> 
> 
> this reminds me of a flash review thread ...



So you jump in a creek, set the camera to manual focus, shoot jupiter and venus, throw the lot into the water, dry it out, and go home?  When are you going out next, can I come along? how much budwieser should I bring?


----------



## Derrel

I saw that this thread had been resurrected, and checked out a few posts. Some good points. But, back to the title, the idea that the D5200 edges out the D7100 in DxO Mark score...basically, the Dynamic Range in RAW mode is 0.2 EV better for the D5200, and the low light/high-ISO performance is something less than 1/2 of an EV 'better' on the D5200. Those differences are minute; it's not like the average 2.0 EV difference lead Nikon has over competing Canon cameras in most categories. 2/10 of a stop is not worthy of note. Two FULL f/stops is a big deal.

The old marketing phrase of, "Good, better, best," comes immediately to mind with the D3200, D5200, D7100 feature set and pricing. And there ARE some significant feature differences that, I think, tend to be more- or less-attractive to differing levels of shooters. For example, those who value the better AF module and 51-point autofocus of the D7100 are also more-likely to have some older AF- or AF-D Nikkor lenses either in their current lens set, or planned as lower-cost acquisitions; ToddTN specifically mentioned the 300mm f/4 AF-D Nikkor, which was made for over a decade, and can be purchased for under $400 these days, and he mentioned the 180mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor, which can be had in rough cosmetic shape for around $300-$325 these days with some looking; the price of a D7000, or D7100 is small potatoes when it gives a user the ability to buy a lot of AF-D autofocus lenses, rather than needing to step up to the newer AF-S lenses like say the 300mm f/4 AF-S as the 300mm offering, which costs as much as an entire D7100 body.

The flip screen concept: many beginners and younger users, who are totally used to composing at arm's length OR on an LCD screen on the back of the camera, really LIKE the flip screen design. so do some low-angle shooters, and of course, a lot of video shooters...and, and this is not a joke, the whole self-portrait crowd loves the flip screen concept. It is NOT without at least some utility. The second control wheel on the higher-emnd Nikon's is a big selling point. One of the worst problems with the one-button cameras is that pressing the release button and spinning the wheel can cause the exposure compensation button to be pressed instead; this issue comes up fairly often, as beginners get confused. Making ONE control wheel SHARE two,different control functions is a lot like making a car with a combined gas pedal/brake pedal, or a single-input shower head HOT/COLD water temp. control...at times, there can be mistakes made.

But bottom line, the entry-level Nikon line is a good, better, best situation, all the way. The winners are Nikon's buyers and owners, who get basically, two more full EV worth of dynamic range than Canon owners, pretty much across the entire camera range. But Nikon has now standardized on very GOOD sensors in ALL of its new APS-C cameras. But the body controls, features, and modes of operation are tailored for different user groups. 

The crowd that WANTS a low-cost, AF 80-200mm AF-D, or a 300mm f/4 AF-D, or a 180mm f/2.8 AF-D lens, with AUTOFOCUS, for a low,low price, sees immediately the value of the D7000 or D7100 models. Yeah, I've mentioned the D7000 yet again; it's got a lot of value for dollar spent compared against the D7100. Doesn't have the newer AF system, but has most of the D7100's advantages, and is available now at $896 body only, while the D7100 is $1,196; the D5200 is currently on a $100 discount, so it's now $696 (all prices B&H Photo).


----------



## goodguy

AutofocusRoss said:


> Goodguy! all I can say to that is, I hope I am not around when your wife finds out that you can only get the same picture quality with the D7100 that I can get with the 5200... just hide the ammunition and keep telling her how much you love her... It may work, but sit near a door just in case!


Currently both these wonderful cameras abilities surpass my very rough talent but I am working hard on improving it and enjoying the process a lot.
If your photographic abilities are as good as your ability to argues about nonsense then I will be happy to learn from you because that will mean you are an amazing photographer, as for taking advice from you about marriage and relationship let me take that with a grain of salt as it doesn't look to me like you really know what the hell you are talking about.
Try to stick to photography


----------



## gsgary

I just don't know why people keep looking at these stupid charts


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> I just don't know why people keep looking at these stupid charts



If people shot film, they wouldn't have to worry about any of them.


----------



## astroNikon

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't know why people keep looking at these stupid charts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people shot film, they wouldn't have to worry about any of them.
Click to expand...


I just look at my pictures and try to improve them.

A chart of this and that won't help me until I get to a point where "the equipment matters" as I know I have a good camera.
And that point is a long ways off ....  But i'll have fun getting to that point.


----------



## Derrel

Speaking of these stupid charts, and the Canon owners and users who CONSTANTLY try to "prove" that DxO Mark's measurements have no validity, and have NO real-world implications...I spent a few hours a few weeks back looking very carefully at the DxO Mark scores and graphs for some of the cameras that I actually OWN, and have shot EXTENSIVELY....for literally YEARS with each individual model.

Actually OWNING and having USED the cameras below, I can tell you that the DxO Mark measurements give a pretty damned good real-world indication that shows where the various cameras have real 'issues', and where the newer models are measurably better.




And here are the last three Nikon bodies that I bought, and which I still currently own.



In each and every case, the DxO Mark figured accurately and truthfully illustrate where each camera is weak. The degrees of difference between the cameras in my comparisons are BIG, and are blatantly obvious, and spending time researching the DxO Mark figures, scree-capping them, and looking at the folder of results has confirmed, and proven to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the DxO Mark results are extremely accurate and have real-world application for people who do not have an agenda to try and "prove". The differences between the D5200 and the D7100 _sensor performanc_e are TINY, meaningless differences.


----------



## AutofocusRoss

goodguy said:


> AutofocusRoss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goodguy! all I can say to that is, I hope I am not around when your wife finds out that you can only get the same picture quality with the D7100 that I can get with the 5200... just hide the ammunition and keep telling her how much you love her... It may work, but sit near a door just in case!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently both these wonderful cameras abilities surpass my very rough talent but I am working hard on improving it and enjoying the process a lot.
> If your photographic abilities are as good as your ability to argues about nonsense then I will be happy to learn from you because that will mean you are an amazing photographer, as for taking advice from you about marriage and relationship let me take that with a grain of salt as it doesn't look to me like you really know what the hell you are talking about.
> Try to stick to photography
Click to expand...


Well, I say!  the last Canadian I crossed swords with was blessed with a great sense of humour.. I can only apologise.

The D5200 is still the best camera though, and NOT just for beginners... someone who knows how to use a camera will get great results with either.


----------



## Dao

gsgary said:


> I just don't know why people keep looking at these stupid charts



What are you talking about, those charts are essential.  Without them, I won't be typing right at this seconds.  Without them, I could not waste good 5 mins reading this thread which I could do something more meaningful.  Without them, people may be feel insecured. (Did I make the right choice. .. did I  ... )


----------



## goodguy

AutofocusRoss said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AutofocusRoss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goodguy! all I can say to that is, I hope I am not around when your wife finds out that you can only get the same picture quality with the D7100 that I can get with the 5200... just hide the ammunition and keep telling her how much you love her... It may work, but sit near a door just in case!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently both these wonderful cameras abilities surpass my very rough talent but I am working hard on improving it and enjoying the process a lot.
> If your photographic abilities are as good as your ability to argues about nonsense then I will be happy to learn from you because that will mean you are an amazing photographer, as for taking advice from you about marriage and relationship let me take that with a grain of salt as it doesn't look to me like you really know what the hell you are talking about.
> Try to stick to photography
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I say! the last Canadian I crossed swords with was blessed with a great sense of humour.. I can only apologise.
> 
> The D5200 is still the best camera though, and NOT just for beginners... someone who knows how to use a camera will get great results with either.
Click to expand...


If said with a smile then apology accepted.
Actually I am an immigrant in this amazing country called Canada so that's a point to be taken.

Don't really care which camera is better, its not a contest nor a race, I LOVE my D7100 and I am very happy to see you love your D5200, if you think the D5200 is better then my D7100 then god bless you, I don't care!


----------



## Gavjenks

> If people shot film, they wouldn't have to worry about any of them.


?  Film has noise, film has diffraction limits, film has MTF charts, film has dynamic range (may vary by developer too but still measurable), etc.

Not sure what you mean here.

If you don't WANT to worry about them though, this is a fantastic website here where you can pull up any cameras and compare their actual images side to side in RAW or JPEG:
*Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review*

As for DxO Mark, Their actual data seem pretty good.  Their "overall" and "overall sub" scores or whatever you call them (everything on that page with the picture of the camera and the bar graphs) is pretty much crap, though. I know exactly how they calculate each (they advertise how), and every one of them is dumb. Just as one example, the dynamic range score takes into account ONLY dynamic range at their base rate ISOs, and then completely throws out the other 90% of the data they themselves collected, ignoring it for the score.  Why? No particular reason given.  This is bafflingly idiotic. Why would they make their score only relevant to people who never shoot anything but ISO 100?  The other scores have even weirder issues.

And frankly, due to how incompetently I know they handle their score calculations (something that should be an incredibly simple matter of, for instance, averaging raw measurements over ISOs...), I don't have a lot of faith in their research methods on the other stuff under the hood. Why would they be super careful and reasonable about that, but not the final calculations?  Seems unlikely. Their underlying measurements do, admittedly, seem to do a better job than their overall scores at reflecting my actual experience using cameras and looking at real shots, though, so I have not lost _all _faith in them.  Just avoid the scores screens.

Still, the link I just posted above, with the studio shot comparisons that you can just look at yourself, has been gradually earning more of my attention recently.


----------



## Derrel

It's almost ALWAYS Canon shooters who try so,so,so hard to "disprove" and "discredit" DxO Mark scores, or their testing procedures, or some aspect of the laboratory testing and evaluation work that DxO Mark labs publishes...I mean today, now that Canon has lost the lead in sensor technology to Sony-made and Toshiba-made sensors, both of which use newer, more-capable, more-sophisticated .18 micron process sensor fabrication, instead of Canon's outdated .50 micron technology. Back when Canon was in the lead, before the D3 generation was released, the Canon fanboys were CONSTANTLY trumpeting about the fact that Canon cameras had better sensor technology than the other camera makers had. But now that Canon has lost its lead....well...spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt, FUD, is the new operating procedure for the Canon fanboy types.

I'm pretty sure somebody here is aware of what psychological* defense mechanisms* are at play in this constant struggle to discredit DxO Mark's sensor test results...

It's amusing....but since I have been shooting d-slr cameras since 2001, and have owned many different models, from three different brands, I'm acutely aware of how ACCURATE and "real-world" the DxO Mark scores actually are. But then again...I bought a $10,000 Canon system to go with my Nikon system, and have actual ownership and actual USE experiences to evaluate DxO Mark data against...so...it might just be my actual ownership and use that makes me understand that, yes Virginia, there actually ARE better and lesser products offered for sale, and the differences are actually real to people who can accept the fact that some sensors are better than others--by a whole bunch at times...OR by "not much at all".


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> Speaking of these stupid charts, and the Canon owners and users who CONSTANTLY try to "prove" that DxO Mark's measurements have no validity, and have NO real-world implications...I spent a few hours a few weeks back looking very carefully at the DxO Mark scores and graphs for some of the cameras that I actually OWN, and have shot EXTENSIVELY....for literally YEARS with each individual model.
> 
> Actually OWNING and having USED the cameras below, I can tell you that the DxO Mark measurements give a pretty damned good real-world indication that shows where the various cameras have real 'issues', and where the newer models are measurably better.
> 
> View attachment 55995
> 
> And here are the last three Nikon bodies that I bought, and which I still currently own.
> 
> View attachment 55996
> 
> In each and every case, the DxO Mark figured accurately and truthfully illustrate where each camera is weak. The degrees of difference between the cameras in my comparisons are BIG, and are blatantly obvious, and spending time researching the DxO Mark figures, scree-capping them, and looking at the folder of results has confirmed, and proven to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the DxO Mark results are extremely accurate and have real-world application for people who do not have an agenda to try and "prove". The differences between the D5200 and the D7100 _sensor performanc_e are TINY, meaningless differences.



While you wasting your time with those charts i was out shooting  and drinking beer


----------



## Gavjenks

Derrel said:


> It's almost ALWAYS Canon shooters who try so,so,so hard to "disprove" and "discredit" DxO Mark scores, or their testing procedures, or some aspect of the laboratory testing and evaluation work that DxO Mark labs publishes...I mean today, now that Canon has lost the lead in sensor technology to Sony-made and Toshiba-made sensors, both of which use newer, more-capable, more-sophisticated .18 micro process sensor fabrication, instead of Canon's outdated .50 micro technology. Back when Canon was in the lead, the Canon fanboys were CONSTANTLY trumpeting about the fact that Canon cameras had better sensor technology than the other camera makers had.
> 
> I'm pretty sure somebody here is aware of what psycholigcal defense mechanisms are at play in this constant struggle to discredit DxO Mark's sensor test results...
> 
> It's amusing....but since I have been shooting d-slr cameras since 2001, and have owned many different models, from three different brands, I'm acutely aware of how ACCURATE and real-world the DxO Mark scores actually are. But then again...I bought a $10,000 Canon system to go with my Nikon system, and have actual ownership and actual USE experiences to evaluate DxO Mark data against...



This is not very impressive logic in terms of defending DxO. Even though you're totally right about psychological biases, all of your arguments here ALSO apply just as well to people who do own and/or primarily cameras DxO scores highly. Since there are just as many well known psychological biases in that direction, too. (confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, etc. apply to both). Owning some of each is helpful, but does not eliminate preconceptions.

Anyway yes, as a Canon owner perhaps I am slightly more motivated to care in the first place about it versus if I shot another brand.  But being a Canon owner does not change the fact that it's _really really stupid to summarize 10 datapoints by just publishing the first one_, for example. No amount of de-biasing will cause that to make any sense.  Please, find me any decent scientific peer reviewed articles in any field where they view "listing the first number that we happened to measure" as a valid summary statistic.  Median? Sure. Mean? Sure. Mode? Weird in this case, but maybe useful. Range? Sure. Mean, weighted by how often people shoot at each ISO from some surveys? Awesome. "First number on the list?" No.


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> It's almost ALWAYS Canon shooters who try so,so,so hard to "disprove" and "discredit" DxO Mark scores, or their testing procedures, or some aspect of the laboratory testing and evaluation work that DxO Mark labs publishes...I mean today, now that Canon has lost the lead in sensor technology to Sony-made and Toshiba-made sensors, both of which use newer, more-capable, more-sophisticated .18 micron process sensor fabrication, instead of Canon's outdated .50 micron technology. Back when Canon was in the lead, before the D3 generation was released, the Canon fanboys were CONSTANTLY trumpeting about the fact that Canon cameras had better sensor technology than the other camera makers had. But now that Canon has lost its lead....well...spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt, FUD, is the new operating procedure for the Canon fanboy types.
> 
> I'm pretty sure somebody here is aware of what psychological* defense mechanisms* are at play in this constant struggle to discredit DxO Mark's sensor test results...
> 
> It's amusing....but since I have been shooting d-slr cameras since 2001, and have owned many different models, from three different brands, I'm acutely aware of how ACCURATE and "real-world" the DxO Mark scores actually are. But then again...I bought a $10,000 Canon system to go with my Nikon system, and have actual ownership and actual USE experiences to evaluate DxO Mark data against...so...it might just be my actual ownership and use that makes me understand that, yes Virginia, there actually ARE better and lesser products offered for sale, and the differences are actually real to people who can accept the fact that some sensors are better than others--by a whole bunch at times...OR by "not much at all".



Someone should tell one of the best photographers alive about these charts he uses a really bad performer
Canon Professional Network - Salgado's Genesis project


----------



## cbarnard7

I feel like my "C" grade in undergrad Physics is holding me back from understanding all of this mess...either that or I'm very uninterested.


----------



## Derrel

gsgary said:
			
		

> Someone should tell one of the best photographers alive about these charts he uses a really bad performer
> Canon Professional Network - Salgado's Genesis project



Gary...I bought and used the Nikon D2x camera beginning on May 3, 2005. It is a HORRIBLE performer once the ISO levels are moved above about ISO 320...the image quality in multiple metrics declines VERY rapidly...the sensor has VERY bad noise, except at Base ISO level, which is 100. Color richness declines rapidly as the ISO goes up.Dynamic Range drops very quickly too. And yet, despite the sensor's weak performance, at ONE TIME, the D2x was considered a good camera, especially at Base ISO level. Despite the limitations, I made many nice photos with the D2x...poor sensor and all. However, the Canon 5D and the Nikon D3x that I moved to are better, and extraordinarily better, and the DxO Mark figures confirm real-world experience.

*The D5200 and D7100 cameras are a virtual DEAD-HEAT, according to DxO Mark sensor test results.
*
I bought a Canon 5D back in 2007, because, frankly, the image quality the 5D offered was REMARKABLY more-consistent across a wider,more-useful range of ISO levels than what the D2x could deliver...the 5D has pretty reliable, steady imaging performance from base ISO, all the way up to 1600 ISO. and the DxO Mark graph illustrates that...the 5D has a wide-rtanfge, steady performance..the D2x starts off well, but goes to hell, FAST.




Now, the NEWEST full-frame sensor cameras from Canon and Nikon...well, the sensor technology and overall performance has improved to a HUGE degree from what we had a few generations back. And in fact, the better APS-C cameras equal, or out-perform the older-technology full-frame cameras in most respects. Like Gavjenks's brand new Canon 6D...it's got an *excellent* sensor in it.


----------



## gsgary

I wonder how bad my next digital camera is on those charts, M9 or MM i bet it stinks


----------



## Derrel

gsgary said:
			
		

> Someone should tell one of the best photographers alive about these charts he uses a really bad performer
> Canon Professional Network - Salgado's Genesis project



So...Mr. Salgado's old full-frame Canon professional body has image quality that is just a tiny bit better than a Nikon D5200, in some areas, and is equal in color range and tonality, but the newer-sensored Nikon has better dynamic range than his older Canon. Is "that" your point?

"My point" is that a new, APS-C sensor Nikon has equal, or better, sensor performance, than what you call the "really bad performer", the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III...a formerly $7,995 camera, versus a currently available $600 entry-level Nikon...


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should tell one of the best photographers alive about these charts he uses a really bad performer
> Canon Professional Network - Salgado's Genesis project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...Mr. Salgado's old full-frame Canon professional body has image quality that is just a tiny bit better than a Nikon D5200, in some areas, and is equal in color range and tonality, but the newer-sensored Nikon has better dynamic range than his older Canon. Is "that" your point?
> 
> "My point" is that a new, APS-C sensor Nikon has equal, or better, sensor performance, than what you call the "really bad performer", the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III...a formerly $7,995 camera, versus a currently available $600 entry-level Nikon...
> 
> View attachment 56004
> 
> View attachment 56005
Click to expand...


No i'm saying it does not matter how good a camera performs in thoses charts a pro will use what feels best he could have any camera he wanted, people worry too much about high iso and noise


----------



## JacaRanda

gsgary said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's almost ALWAYS Canon shooters who try so,so,so hard to "disprove" and "discredit" DxO Mark scores, or their testing procedures, or some aspect of the laboratory testing and evaluation work that DxO Mark labs publishes...I mean today, now that Canon has lost the lead in sensor technology to Sony-made and Toshiba-made sensors, both of which use newer, more-capable, more-sophisticated .18 micron process sensor fabrication, instead of Canon's outdated .50 micron technology. Back when Canon was in the lead, before the D3 generation was released, the Canon fanboys were CONSTANTLY trumpeting about the fact that Canon cameras had better sensor technology than the other camera makers had. But now that Canon has lost its lead....well...spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt, FUD, is the new operating procedure for the Canon fanboy types.
> 
> I'm pretty sure somebody here is aware of what psychological* defense mechanisms* are at play in this constant struggle to discredit DxO Mark's sensor test results...
> 
> It's amusing....but since I have been shooting d-slr cameras since 2001, and have owned many different models, from three different brands, I'm acutely aware of how ACCURATE and "real-world" the DxO Mark scores actually are. But then again...I bought a $10,000 Canon system to go with my Nikon system, and have actual ownership and actual USE experiences to evaluate DxO Mark data against...so...it might just be my actual ownership and use that makes me understand that, yes Virginia, there actually ARE better and lesser products offered for sale, and the differences are actually real to people who can accept the fact that some sensors are better than others--by a whole bunch at times...OR by "not much at all".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should tell one of the best photographers alive about these charts he uses a really bad performer
> Canon Professional Network - Salgado's Genesis project
Click to expand...


Wow, I have 3 of the same lenses and the extender.  I feel less of an idiot!


----------



## Derrel

gsgary said:
			
		

> SNIP>> people worry too much about high iso and noise



Well, yes and no. Or alternately, no, and yes! I grew up and learned to shoot on B&W film of ISO 125, Plus-X Pan. High-speed B&W film was 400 ASA Tri-X, and 400 ASA is pretty useful. It was, I believe, the summer of 1977 or '78 when 400 ASA color print film was invented. ASA 400 or Kodak High Speed Ektachrome looked pretty grainy, and was expensive.

But what has happened in the last five years is that top-level d-slr image quality has gone wayyyyyyyyyyyy, wayyyyyyyy up at very high ISO levels, like 6,400, and 12,800, and 25,600, and so on; a few years ago, ISO values above 3200 were utter rubbish, but today, the newer d-slr cameras offer MUCH better quality than ANY film can. So, to people who want to use smaller lenses, or shoot in lower light, or push the boundaries of what is possible, the NEWER d-slrs have expanded the range of what is possible.

But your example is interesting: a cheap Nikon crop-body now produces basically, about the same technical image quality as a formerly $8,000 Canon full-frame body. What the newer High-ISO capable cameras have done is made "f/4" lenses "the new f/1.4" lenses...and that is why we're seeing more new pro-grade f/4 zooms, like the new ones from Canon and Nikon. Canon's new 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM lens and Nikon's new 16-35mm f/4 VR-II lens are good examples of pro-grade lenses that are now being made because High ISO performance has improved so,so remarkably as of late.


----------



## AutofocusRoss

gsgary said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should tell one of the best photographers alive about these charts he uses a really bad performer
> Canon Professional Network - Salgado's Genesis project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...Mr. Salgado's old full-frame Canon professional body has image quality that is just a tiny bit better than a Nikon D5200, in some areas, and is equal in color range and tonality, but the newer-sensored Nikon has better dynamic range than his older Canon. Is "that" your point?
> 
> "My point" is that a new, APS-C sensor Nikon has equal, or better, sensor performance, than what you call the "really bad performer", the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III...a formerly $7,995 camera, versus a currently available $600 entry-level Nikon...
> 
> View attachment 56004
> 
> View attachment 56005
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No i'm saying it does not matter how good a camera performs in thoses charts a pro will use what feels best he could have any camera he wanted, people worry too much about high iso and noise
Click to expand...


You hit the nail on the head. Put an idiot in a Ferrari, what do you get, a bent Ferrari. Give an idiot a D7100 / D800 what do you get... well, it begins with c, ends in p, and there are two letters missing. However, give a genius a D3100 and you'll get stuff worthy of the National Geographic Magazine. That's a sad fact, the camera is only a tool to help you achieve something wonderful - when the camera itself becomes the most important thing, we are in danger of losing ourselves and our hobby.

That said, I am still glad I waited to see all the reviews of both of these cameras before getting the 5200. Now I can relax and enjoy learing all it's little tricks and nuances... a 240 page manual is worrying, fortunately my 30 years of using Av on SLR's puts me in good stead, and no reciprocity failure to worry about... or Kodachrome for that matter.

Happy days!


----------



## Derrel

Gavjenks said:
			
		

> Anyway yes, as a Canon owner perhaps I am slightly more motivated to care in the first place about it versus if I shot another brand.  But being a Canon owner does not change the fact that it's _really really stupid to summarize 10 datapoints by just publishing the first one_, for example. No amount of de-biasing will cause that to make any sense.  Please, find me any decent scientific peer reviewed articles in any field where they view "listing the first number that we happened to measure" as a valid summary statistic.  Median? Sure. Mean? Sure. Mode? Weird in this case, but maybe useful. Range? Sure. Mean, weighted by how often people shoot at each ISO from some surveys? Awesome. "First number on the list?" No.



Um, dude, are you even aware that there are breakouts, graphing the performance across the ENTIRE ISO range of the tested cameras? (The Nikon D70 for example, has a range from 200 to 1600 ISO, no more at all, no ISO expansion,etc..)

Once again, your *disingenuous attempts to slant the facts* is showing...

As one can easily see, DxO Mark shows a whole RANGE of data  points. Cough,cough,cough. Oopsies!



Pretty much the ENTIRE ISO range of all tested cameras is tested and graphed out. But, then hey, who's paying attention to the facts? Your attempt to try and discredit the validity and or utility or usefulness the test results surely cannot be because you're unaware that the WHOLE data spectrum *is actually available*..I mean, you're smarter than that,right? And yet...you conveniently forget to note that the ENTIRE set of data points is *available* with just a mouse-click or two! Hmmm....I doubt your motives, seriously, I do.


----------



## Gavjenks

Derrel said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway yes, as a Canon owner perhaps I am slightly more motivated to care in the first place about it versus if I shot another brand.  But being a Canon owner does not change the fact that it's _really really stupid to summarize 10 datapoints by just publishing the first one_, for example. No amount of de-biasing will cause that to make any sense.  Please, find me any decent scientific peer reviewed articles in any field where they view "listing the first number that we happened to measure" as a valid summary statistic.  Median? Sure. Mean? Sure. Mode? Weird in this case, but maybe useful. Range? Sure. Mean, weighted by how often people shoot at each ISO from some surveys? Awesome. "First number on the list?" No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, dude, are you even aware that there are breakouts, graphing the performance across the ENTIRE ISO range of the tested cameras? (The Nikon D70 for example, has a range from 200 to 1600 ISO, no more at all, no ISO expansion,etc..)
> 
> Once again, your *disingenuous attempts to slant the facts* is showing...
> 
> As one can easily see, DxO Mark shows a whole RANGE of data  points. Cough,cough,cough. Oopsies!
> 
> View attachment 56007
> 
> Pretty much the ENTIRE ISO range of all tested cameras is tested and graphed out. But, then hey, who's paying attention to the facts? Your attempt to try and discredit the validity and or utility or usefulness the test results surely cannot be because you're unaware that the WHOLE data spectrum *is actually available*..I mean, you're smarter than that,right? And yet...you conveniently forget to note that the ENTIRE set of data points is *available* with just a mouse-click or two! Hmmm....I doubt your motives, seriously, I do.
Click to expand...



Considering that A) I mentioned these above in this thread already, and B) you mainly began posting the breakout graphs after I complained about you not doing it multiple times, yes, I'd say it's safe to say that I am aware of those graphs.

And like I said, these raw measurements do indeed seem to do a better job of matching real experience than the scores.  If you're going to cite DxO, you should definitely cite the graphs, as you have been doing.




HOWEVER,

A company's reputation is a holistic thing. Why should I believe that they acted like complete idiots in their summary statistics, and yet somehow acted like wise, careful professionals in everything else they do for gathering the raw data itself? If somebody does one set of things that are really dumb, it reflects on their professionalism and knowledge and level of laziness in general, across ALL areas.

That single series of multiple major statistics errors very reasonably casts doubt on the scientific skills of the ENTIRE organization and EVERYTHING else that they do. Especially since it is the main set of numbers that they advertise by default to anybody on their site.

In other words, I am assuming that they acted similarly carelessly in their raw data collection. The fact that the raw data is more accurate seeming could merely be a consequence of fewer errors having piled up on top of one another than in the overall scores.


----------



## yioties

Not all new dslr users are idiots and take crap images. The D7100 so you know Ross isn't that much of a difference from my D5100. The D7100 is still an entry level camera that anybody can learn with a little practice and reading. 

It's not rocket science to learn how to use any DSLR. 
Anyway if was in your position I would have gotten the D5200 as well over the D7100. The price difference of both camera kits with a 18-105 is $500 so you can get a prime (35mm or 50mm 1.8g) and a 70-300 vr used and have a great setup.


----------



## Dao

Beside the DXO charts,  I think new dpreview tool is quite nice.


Welcome to our studio test scene: Digital Photography Review


Just look at the Sony DSC-RX1R, it is quite nice (of course the price too expensive for me) and the cheaper RX100II is not bad either especially for a point and shoot camera.


----------



## JacaRanda

Dao said:


> Beside the DXO charts, I think new dpreview tool is quite nice.
> 
> 
> Welcome to our studio test scene: Digital Photography Review
> 
> 
> Just look at the Sony DSC-RX1R, it is quite nice (of course the price too expensive for me) and the cheaper RX100II is not bad either especially for a point and shoot camera.



Interesting.  Looking at the 5DIII & D800 noise jpeg vs raw on each.


----------



## Gavjenks

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review <-- this online tool, also by dpreview, has more cameras available to compare than the other one does, by the way.


----------



## AutofocusRoss

thing that people are missing is this, not everyone buying 5200's are beginners... it is a great camera in its own right, and just because it isn't in the high price bracket - it doesn't mean it is only for beginners, that is so incredibly far from the truth it is beyond words... if you love photography either camera will do, one is sturdier than the other but, at twice the price...??


----------



## cgipson1

AutofocusRoss said:


> thing that people are missing is this, not everyone buying 5200's are beginners... it is a great camera in its own right, and just because it isn't in the high price bracket - it doesn't mean it is only for beginners, that is so incredibly far from the truth it is beyond words... if you love photography either camera will do, one is sturdier than the other but, at twice the price...??



NO.. TWICE THE FEATURES! I guess you are missing that! It has been mentioned!


----------



## goodguy

cgipson1 said:


> AutofocusRoss said:
> 
> 
> 
> thing that people are missing is this, not everyone buying 5200's are beginners... it is a great camera in its own right, and just because it isn't in the high price bracket - it doesn't mean it is only for beginners, that is so incredibly far from the truth it is beyond words... if you love photography either camera will do, one is sturdier than the other but, at twice the price...??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO.. TWICE THE FEATURES! I guess you are missing that! It has been mentioned!
Click to expand...

No, he didnt miss it he just deliberatly avoid this point because this will drop the basis of his claim the D5200 is a better camera then the D7100.

Its like saying a Ford has 3 trim grades

Base 
XLT
Limited 

And someone is arguing the Base model is better then the Limited because its basically same vehicle but without looking at all the add ons the Limited will have and then saying the Base is better because its 10000$ cheaper for the same car.
He has no ground to stand on just same line saying both cameras has more or less same pic quality, a point by the way that no one argues about.

This is becoming old, repetitive and most of all boring argument and as much as people are trying to tell him you cant look at just one part of the camera and conclude from that it is better then an other camera.
A camera is a machine that is made of all its parts and you cant pick and choose a part you want and walk around saying because of that this camera is better, thats a childish argument.


----------



## astroNikon

How does the D4 16.2 mp camera compare to the D5200?
it doesn't even have a built in flash ... nevermind ...


----------



## goodguy

astroNikon said:


> How does the D4 16.2 mp camera compare to the D5200?
> it doesn't even have a built in flash ... nevermind ...



It has less MP so the image quality must be not as good as the D5200 :mrgreen:


----------



## AutofocusRoss

Guys, Guys, Guys! Behave yourselves! at the end of the day, when the cameras go back into the bag, and all that now remains is the images taken with them....

The two cameras both have the same image quality!

Who cares - at that point - which one was used to make the images?

Seems to me those that have paid out nearly double for 'features' and are getting no improvement in quality are just a bit peeved at Nikon (and me) for putting this on the market.

There is a saying in the UK, you get what you pay for. My only point is that the questionable 'features' on what would be an upgrade for me, would leave me paying a similar amount of money, again, to trade 'up' to a camera that does not offer me the slightest improvement in image quality. Whatever anyone has to say, contra to this, is illogical.

The 'lesser' of the two models does offer pretty much everything the 'better' model does, apart from weathersealing, use with older lenses, and a brighter viewfinder. We already dispelled the 7fps 'advantage' as you have to drop to 16mp to get it, using a cropped area, not the whole frame.

Here, in the real world, we buy products based on a number of factors. I concede and agree that, you pay your money and make your choice, but my only serious point is this - the price difference is too great. Going back a few years, a 24mp camera, tested to give you this kind of quality image, would have set you back several thousand UK pounds (even more in USD).

Yet, Nikon have put this wonderful product out there, into the hands of people who can't, or won't pay twice the price, simply to get this kind of image quality, and to be fair, camera quality too.

I don't know how many of the '7100' fan club in here have actually picked up, let alone used the 5200. I have tried both, I spent over an hour choosing between the two models. I can tell you now, money was not an issue. My only concern was to evaluate between the two. I was tempted by the 7100 but I have no old lenses, and have no intention of buying any. As I run this as a business, I can claim purchases against income, and depreciate the value of them against tax, over a number of years. That makes it easier, not harder, to justify the more expensive camera, yet, when I stood in the Nikon dealer's with the pair, it just seemed ridiculous to pay double money, for no image boost in the slightest.

These features everyone keeps ranting on about... I accept that to some people (but I doubt everyone) one or two of them can be important. I might have been swayed to go for the 7100, but only in the following scenarios... the price was 50% more, and it had a tilting and rotating LCD.... or.... the price was 30% more, as it is.

Having used the (three) D5200's for two months, shooting weddings, commercial advertising, and personal stuff, this photographer has no regrets. The others on our team have borrowed one of them from time to time and are close to replacing their own bodies, in the next six months or so. One is using the D5100 which was my own former camera. Nothing wrong with it at all, I loved it. We do rent a Hassleblad for special jobs that require the finished print to be 'huge' but the bottom line is, 20 x 16" prints from the 5200 are mindblowing... as long as the subject is a good one, properly focussed and exposed etc etc etc.

I know how nice it is to have the latest, greatest, I've made those mistakes before. I got an SLR which, even in 1988, cost over six hundred UK pounds, with a 50mm F 1.4 lens, and though it turned out good quality images, there was one model above it, and four models below it, in the line, all of which, with that f1.4 lens fitted, produced identical images. After a year or less, in use, the 'features' I had paid so much money for, were never used or needed. At the time, I could have bought 2 or 3 cameras for the one I actually got. For those who are old enough to remember kodachrome, reciprocity failure, and real film, the camera was a Canon A1. At the time the range comprised of Canon AV1 AT1 AE1 AE1p A1 and F1. All six were limited to the same image quality.

It seems we have come full circle. To be honest, I don't think Nikon intended the 5200 to be quite so good as to compete so strongly with their 7100. What we may be missing, however, is the niche range of this model vs the Canon (and to a lesser extent, other brands). From what I've read, which admittedly, is very little, Canon have no answer to the D5200 at the moment, so new photographers will have a no brainer choice at the camera store. Not in the price range anyway.

Those who want a great camera capable of great images should not be put off by some of the posts you may have read in this thread. I would be miffed if I had bought a 7100 at twice the price, only to find Nikon's lesser model equals or outperforms it, it is perfectly understandable. The 5200 may be touted as an upper entry level camera, there is the 3200 and 5100 below it, but don't let that fool you, it is a capable camera, and, with a little jiggery pokery in learning the menu system well, equals many of the features you'll find on the higher models.

For example, much has been made of the 7100 having two dials, for when you shoot manual exposures. OK the 5200 has just one.. so... set the camera mode to M, turn the dial to set the shutter speed, then, hold down the button near the shutter release marked +/- (exposure compensation when in one of the automatic modes) and turn the same dial again to set an aperture.

Is that really a deal breaker? This holds true for many of the other features, you just need to familiarise with the method of the control system. I can tell you, the interface is better and faster than the older D5100, access is much quicker with the new layout on the menu via the LCD and toggle/OK controls, and easier to follow.

There is a pride of ownership thing going on, call it camera snobbery, if you like, we've all met people toting very expensive gear who probably get it out for holidays, christmas and birthdays, and then store it away again for the rest of the year. I can tell you that if you are a real photographer, either of these models will fit the bill, you have to decide between them. For me, I could not justify the high cost of a 7100... I would spend a little more and go for the D600 instead, given the pricing point between the two - the 600 and the 7100, that is.

Rumors abound that the 600 is due an upgrade, to fix production problems with sensors getting dirty in use (and even out of the box in some cases) so if you are hovering between models but leaning towards a 7100, if you can hold on for the 600 replacement, that could be a plan!


----------



## enerlevel

Time has taught me that DXO should not be your only point for deciding a camera. All canon cameras score really bad on dxo but they are not that bad. At some point I had a tough time deciding between the nikon d7000 vs 60D and went for d7000 because of the better image quality the whole internet talked about.. In the end I had major issues with 35 1.8G and focusing problems .. I then went for the 60D and to be honest I could not see any difference in IQ between the two. 
Two months down I now own a nikon D600 just because dxo rated the sensor third best .. But in reality I am struggling to make the images look better than the 5d mark III.. (See my thread) 

As for the d5200 vs d7100, manual controls always cost more .. No wonder d90 was such a major success and still sells for £300+ preowned 
And then there is a built in motor in the D7100 which opens up possibilities to use cheaper lens... I mean if u end up buying 3-4 G lens vs the cheaper ones , you would exceed the price difference of a d7100 anyway ...


----------



## goodguy

AutofocusRoss said:


> Guys, Guys, Guys! Behave yourselves! at the end of the day, when the cameras go back into the bag, and all that now remains is the images taken with them....
> 
> The two cameras both have the same image quality!
> 
> Who cares - at that point - which one was used to make the images?
> 
> Seems to me those that have paid out nearly double for 'features' and are getting no improvement in quality are just a bit peeved at Nikon (and me) for putting this on the market.
> 
> There is a saying in the UK, you get what you pay for. My only point is that the questionable 'features' on what would be an upgrade for me, would leave me paying a similar amount of money, again, to trade 'up' to a camera that does not offer me the slightest improvement in image quality. Whatever anyone has to say, contra to this, is illogical.
> 
> The 'lesser' of the two models does offer pretty much everything the 'better' model does, apart from weathersealing, use with older lenses, and a brighter viewfinder. We already dispelled the 7fps 'advantage' as you have to drop to 16mp to get it, using a cropped area, not the whole frame.
> 
> Here, in the real world, we buy products based on a number of factors. I concede and agree that, you pay your money and make your choice, but my only serious point is this - the price difference is too great. Going back a few years, a 24mp camera, tested to give you this kind of quality image, would have set you back several thousand UK pounds (even more in USD).
> 
> Yet, Nikon have put this wonderful product out there, into the hands of people who can't, or won't pay twice the price, simply to get this kind of image quality, and to be fair, camera quality too.
> 
> I don't know how many of the '7100' fan club in here have actually picked up, let alone used the 5200. I have tried both, I spent over an hour choosing between the two models. I can tell you now, money was not an issue. My only concern was to evaluate between the two. I was tempted by the 7100 but I have no old lenses, and have no intention of buying any. As I run this as a business, I can claim purchases against income, and depreciate the value of them against tax, over a number of years. That makes it easier, not harder, to justify the more expensive camera, yet, when I stood in the Nikon dealer's with the pair, it just seemed ridiculous to pay double money, for no image boost in the slightest.
> 
> These features everyone keeps ranting on about... I accept that to some people (but I doubt everyone) one or two of them can be important. I might have been swayed to go for the 7100, but only in the following scenarios... the price was 50% more, and it had a tilting and rotating LCD.... or.... the price was 30% more, as it is.
> 
> Having used the (three) D5200's for two months, shooting weddings, commercial advertising, and personal stuff, this photographer has no regrets. The others on our team have borrowed one of them from time to time and are close to replacing their own bodies, in the next six months or so. One is using the D5100 which was my own former camera. Nothing wrong with it at all, I loved it. We do rent a Hassleblad for special jobs that require the finished print to be 'huge' but the bottom line is, 20 x 16" prints from the 5200 are mindblowing... as long as the subject is a good one, properly focussed and exposed etc etc etc.
> 
> I know how nice it is to have the latest, greatest, I've made those mistakes before. I got an SLR which, even in 1988, cost over six hundred UK pounds, with a 50mm F 1.4 lens, and though it turned out good quality images, there was one model above it, and four models below it, in the line, all of which, with that f1.4 lens fitted, produced identical images. After a year or less, in use, the 'features' I had paid so much money for, were never used or needed. At the time, I could have bought 2 or 3 cameras for the one I actually got. For those who are old enough to remember kodachrome, reciprocity failure, and real film, the camera was a Canon A1. At the time the range comprised of Canon AV1 AT1 AE1 AE1p A1 and F1. All six were limited to the same image quality.
> 
> It seems we have come full circle. To be honest, I don't think Nikon intended the 5200 to be quite so good as to compete so strongly with their 7100. What we may be missing, however, is the niche range of this model vs the Canon (and to a lesser extent, other brands). From what I've read, which admittedly, is very little, Canon have no answer to the D5200 at the moment, so new photographers will have a no brainer choice at the camera store. Not in the price range anyway.
> 
> Those who want a great camera capable of great images should not be put off by some of the posts you may have read in this thread. I would be miffed if I had bought a 7100 at twice the price, only to find Nikon's lesser model equals or outperforms it, it is perfectly understandable. The 5200 may be touted as an upper entry level camera, there is the 3200 and 5100 below it, but don't let that fool you, it is a capable camera, and, with a little jiggery pokery in learning the menu system well, equals many of the features you'll find on the higher models.
> 
> For example, much has been made of the 7100 having two dials, for when you shoot manual exposures. OK the 5200 has just one.. so... set the camera mode to M, turn the dial to set the shutter speed, then, hold down the button near the shutter release marked +/- (exposure compensation when in one of the automatic modes) and turn the same dial again to set an aperture.
> 
> Is that really a deal breaker? This holds true for many of the other features, you just need to familiarise with the method of the control system. I can tell you, the interface is better and faster than the older D5100, access is much quicker with the new layout on the menu via the LCD and toggle/OK controls, and easier to follow.
> 
> There is a pride of ownership thing going on, call it camera snobbery, if you like, we've all met people toting very expensive gear who probably get it out for holidays, christmas and birthdays, and then store it away again for the rest of the year. I can tell you that if you are a real photographer, either of these models will fit the bill, you have to decide between them. For me, I could not justify the high cost of a 7100... I would spend a little more and go for the D600 instead, given the pricing point between the two - the 600 and the 7100, that is.
> 
> Rumors abound that the 600 is due an upgrade, to fix production problems with sensors getting dirty in use (and even out of the box in some cases) so if you are hovering between models but leaning towards a 7100, if you can hold on for the 600 replacement, that could be a plan!



From all your replies this one is the only one which I feel you spoke from your heart.
Still all I can read is how you dont see the value in many of the features the D7100 has over the D5200 and you simply dont get it, YOU dont value them as important others DO value them and are willing to pay more to get them, what is the big deal ?
Why cant you let it be ?
Accept this and move on ?

Let me try to explain this in an other way, let me ask you a question do you wear a watch ?
If you do what is the rough value of this watch ?
I like watches, I spent much more on watches then on my camera equipment, most people dont get what is so special about these watches that will make me spend the money on them.
My few friends that appreciate watches "get it" the others dont, either way I bought my watches for me and I dont care what others think about watches wether they agree or disagree with my choice to buy them.

Why do you feel the need to "allow" me to buy the D5200 and not the D7100, why dont you get the fact others see things differently then you.
I dont question your choice in cameras but yet you have such a strong need to tell others what camera they should buy.
You said you have a saying in UK, well in Canada we have a saying too "different strokes for different falks".

I said it few times and will say it again, I dont think like you and apparently those who bought the D7100 and not the D5200 dont think like you either, we value things in our camera that you dont get, why wouldnt you respectfully agree to disagree and move on ?

If you are a pro I could tell you what I think of a pro coming to a wedding with a silly little camera like the D5200 snapping around with his silly little thing in his hands.
I could but I wouldnt, you know why ?
Because I DONT CARE, if a pro comes to a wedding and does his job and the customer is happy who the heck am I to judge but yet and agin and again you find the need to judge others on their choices which apparently you dont get and dont respect.

Your constant crying over the D5200 vs D7100 is honestly annoying, somehow I find myself sucked into your posts trying to explain again and again I value things you dont, I like things in the D7100 that you dont, there is nothing you can say that will make me go "darn I made a mistake I should have went with the D5200".
I dont try to argue about camera with you just to try to say I see things differently, why cant you let it be ?


----------



## AutofocusRoss

yioties said:


> Not all new dslr users are idiots and take crap images. The D7100 so you know Ross isn't that much of a difference from my D5100. The D7100 is still an entry level camera that anybody can learn with a little practice and reading.
> 
> It's not rocket science to learn how to use any DSLR.
> Anyway if was in your position I would have gotten the D5200 as well over the D7100. The price difference of both camera kits with a 18-105 is $500 so you can get a prime (35mm or 50mm 1.8g) and a 70-300 vr used and have a great setup.



Yioties, you are very wise, and very correct. I traded up from my D5100 a few months ago for one reason only - to give me more crop options if and when the need arose. It does, sometimes, as we all make mistakes with composition etc.

The extra money to buy more or better glass is also the thrust of my reasoning... despite a raft of opposition from mostly 7100 owners, or so it seems.  Simple to make a choice, are any of the 7100 features, as they stand, absolute must-have, or are they features you may never use?  I think mr average photographer is wasting money, given that both cameras produce the same quality image at the end of the shoot.

The D5100 is a fantastic camera, I would recommend it any day, and if I didn't need the possibility of cropping somtimes, or the ability to get huge prints, I would have stuck with it for the forseeable future. I have spent quite some time in a dealer looking at the 7100 and 5200 before making the choice - even the dealer conceeded the 7100 was a little ott for most purposes...

Nice to meet someone a bit like minded, glad to read your comments.


----------



## astroNikon

Yup,
The other day after the creek "dip" incident I put my D7000 back into the backpack, fully functioning.  If I had a D5x000 I think I would have been putting a dead D5x000 body back into the camera bag.  Not to mention most of my lenses wouldn't work with it anyways.  
You get what you pay for, and you buy what you "need".


----------



## pixmedic

astroNikon said:


> Yup,
> The other day after the creek "dip" incident I put my D7000 back into the backpack, fully functioning.  If I had a D5x000 I think I would have been putting a dead D5x000 body back into the camera bag.  Not to mention most of my lenses wouldn't work with it anyways.
> You get what you pay for, and you buy what you "need".



how submerged did the camera and lens actually get?  i have heard lots of stories of cameras getting a lot less wet, and coming out a lot more dead.


----------



## astroNikon

pixmedic said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup,
> The other day after the creek "dip" incident I put my D7000 back into the backpack, fully functioning.  If I had a D5x000 I think I would have been putting a dead D5x000 body back into the camera bag.  Not to mention most of my lenses wouldn't work with it anyways.
> You get what you pay for, and you buy what you "need".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how submerged did the camera and lens actually get?  i have heard lots of stories of cameras getting a lot less wet, and coming out a lot more dead.
Click to expand...


The top half up to the lens - lens never got wet submerged.  It was a "quickie" but still.  As I slipped the camera basically slid down my leg as I bent down to get myself so the strap got loose, the camera flipped rolling down my leg.  Dipped a bit and as I stood back up a bit it came back out.


----------



## pixmedic

spending the extra $600 on the D7100 instead of the D5200 saved me THOUSANDS of dollars not having to replace my Af and AF-D pro lenses with AF-S in order to not lose autofocus.  Please explain how this was NOT a win for me?


----------



## pixmedic

astroNikon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup,
> The other day after the creek "dip" incident I put my D7000 back into the backpack, fully functioning.  If I had a D5x000 I think I would have been putting a dead D5x000 body back into the camera bag.  Not to mention most of my lenses wouldn't work with it anyways.
> You get what you pay for, and you buy what you "need".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how submerged did the camera and lens actually get?  i have heard lots of stories of cameras getting a lot less wet, and coming out a lot more dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The top half up to the lens - lens never got wet submerged.  It was a "quickie" but still.  As I slipped the camera basically slid down my leg as I bent down to get myself so the strap got loose, the camera flipped rolling down my leg.  Dipped a bit and as I stood back up a bit it came back out.
Click to expand...


this is why i try not to shoot close to water. that is scary as hell. would have given me a heart attack.


----------



## AutofocusRoss

goodguy said:


> AutofocusRoss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys, Guys, Guys! Behave yourselves! at the end of the day, when the cameras go back into the bag, and all that now remains is the images taken with them....
> 
> The two cameras both have the same image quality!
> 
> Who cares - at that point - which one was used to make the images?
> 
> Seems to me those that have paid out nearly double for 'features' and are getting no improvement in quality are just a bit peeved at Nikon (and me) for putting this on the market.
> 
> There is a saying in the UK, you get what you pay for. My only point is that the questionable 'features' on what would be an upgrade for me, would leave me paying a similar amount of money, again, to trade 'up' to a camera that does not offer me the slightest improvement in image quality. Whatever anyone has to say, contra to this, is illogical.
> 
> The 'lesser' of the two models does offer pretty much everything the 'better' model does, apart from weathersealing, use with older lenses, and a brighter viewfinder. We already dispelled the 7fps 'advantage' as you have to drop to 16mp to get it, using a cropped area, not the whole frame.
> 
> Here, in the real world, we buy products based on a number of factors. I concede and agree that, you pay your money and make your choice, but my only serious point is this - the price difference is too great. Going back a few years, a 24mp camera, tested to give you this kind of quality image, would have set you back several thousand UK pounds (even more in USD).
> 
> Yet, Nikon have put this wonderful product out there, into the hands of people who can't, or won't pay twice the price, simply to get this kind of image quality, and to be fair, camera quality too.
> 
> I don't know how many of the '7100' fan club in here have actually picked up, let alone used the 5200. I have tried both, I spent over an hour choosing between the two models. I can tell you now, money was not an issue. My only concern was to evaluate between the two. I was tempted by the 7100 but I have no old lenses, and have no intention of buying any. As I run this as a business, I can claim purchases against income, and depreciate the value of them against tax, over a number of years. That makes it easier, not harder, to justify the more expensive camera, yet, when I stood in the Nikon dealer's with the pair, it just seemed ridiculous to pay double money, for no image boost in the slightest.
> 
> These features everyone keeps ranting on about... I accept that to some people (but I doubt everyone) one or two of them can be important. I might have been swayed to go for the 7100, but only in the following scenarios... the price was 50% more, and it had a tilting and rotating LCD.... or.... the price was 30% more, as it is.
> 
> Having used the (three) D5200's for two months, shooting weddings, commercial advertising, and personal stuff, this photographer has no regrets. The others on our team have borrowed one of them from time to time and are close to replacing their own bodies, in the next six months or so. One is using the D5100 which was my own former camera. Nothing wrong with it at all, I loved it. We do rent a Hassleblad for special jobs that require the finished print to be 'huge' but the bottom line is, 20 x 16" prints from the 5200 are mindblowing... as long as the subject is a good one, properly focussed and exposed etc etc etc.
> 
> I know how nice it is to have the latest, greatest, I've made those mistakes before. I got an SLR which, even in 1988, cost over six hundred UK pounds, with a 50mm F 1.4 lens, and though it turned out good quality images, there was one model above it, and four models below it, in the line, all of which, with that f1.4 lens fitted, produced identical images. After a year or less, in use, the 'features' I had paid so much money for, were never used or needed. At the time, I could have bought 2 or 3 cameras for the one I actually got. For those who are old enough to remember kodachrome, reciprocity failure, and real film, the camera was a Canon A1. At the time the range comprised of Canon AV1 AT1 AE1 AE1p A1 and F1. All six were limited to the same image quality.
> 
> It seems we have come full circle. To be honest, I don't think Nikon intended the 5200 to be quite so good as to compete so strongly with their 7100. What we may be missing, however, is the niche range of this model vs the Canon (and to a lesser extent, other brands). From what I've read, which admittedly, is very little, Canon have no answer to the D5200 at the moment, so new photographers will have a no brainer choice at the camera store. Not in the price range anyway.
> 
> Those who want a great camera capable of great images should not be put off by some of the posts you may have read in this thread. I would be miffed if I had bought a 7100 at twice the price, only to find Nikon's lesser model equals or outperforms it, it is perfectly understandable. The 5200 may be touted as an upper entry level camera, there is the 3200 and 5100 below it, but don't let that fool you, it is a capable camera, and, with a little jiggery pokery in learning the menu system well, equals many of the features you'll find on the higher models.
> 
> For example, much has been made of the 7100 having two dials, for when you shoot manual exposures. OK the 5200 has just one.. so... set the camera mode to M, turn the dial to set the shutter speed, then, hold down the button near the shutter release marked +/- (exposure compensation when in one of the automatic modes) and turn the same dial again to set an aperture.
> 
> Is that really a deal breaker? This holds true for many of the other features, you just need to familiarise with the method of the control system. I can tell you, the interface is better and faster than the older D5100, access is much quicker with the new layout on the menu via the LCD and toggle/OK controls, and easier to follow.
> 
> There is a pride of ownership thing going on, call it camera snobbery, if you like, we've all met people toting very expensive gear who probably get it out for holidays, christmas and birthdays, and then store it away again for the rest of the year. I can tell you that if you are a real photographer, either of these models will fit the bill, you have to decide between them. For me, I could not justify the high cost of a 7100... I would spend a little more and go for the D600 instead, given the pricing point between the two - the 600 and the 7100, that is.
> 
> Rumors abound that the 600 is due an upgrade, to fix production problems with sensors getting dirty in use (and even out of the box in some cases) so if you are hovering between models but leaning towards a 7100, if you can hold on for the 600 replacement, that could be a plan!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From all your replies this one is the only one which I feel you spoke from your heart.
> Still all I can read is how you dont see the value in many of the features the D7100 has over the D5200 and you simply dont get it, YOU dont value them as important others DO value them and are willing to pay more to get them, what is the big deal ?
> Why cant you let it be ?
> Accept this and move on ?
> 
> Let me try to explain this in an other way, let me ask you a question do you wear a watch ?
> If you do what is the rough value of this watch ?
> I like watches, I spent much more on watches then on my camera equipment, most people dont get what is so special about these watches that will make me spend the money on them.
> My few friends that appreciate watches "get it" the others dont, either way I bought my watches for me and I dont care what others think about watches wether they agree or disagree with my choice to buy them.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to "allow" me to buy the D5200 and not the D7100, why dont you get the fact others see things differently then you.
> I dont question your choice in cameras but yet you have such a strong need to tell others what camera they should buy.
> You said you have a saying in UK, well in Canada we have a saying too "different strokes for different falks".
> 
> I said it few times and will say it again, I dont think like you and apparently those who bought the D7100 and not the D5200 dont think like you either, we value things in our camera that you dont get, why wouldnt you respectfully agree to disagree and move on ?
> 
> If you are a pro I could tell you what I think of a pro coming to a wedding with a silly little camera like the D5200 snapping around with his silly little thing in his hands.
> I could but I wouldnt, you know why ?
> Because I DONT CARE, if a pro comes to a wedding and does his job and the customer is happy who the heck am I to judge but yet and agin and again you find the need to judge others on their choices which apparently you dont get and dont respect.
> 
> Your constant crying over the D5200 vs D7100 is honestly annoying, somehow I find myself sucked into your posts trying to explain again and again I value things you dont, I like things in the D7100 that you dont, there is nothing you can say that will make me go "darn I made a mistake I should have went with the D5200".
> I dont try to argue about camera with you just to try to say I see things differently, why cant you let it be ?
Click to expand...


Umm, actually, I don't wear a watch, I get cramp in my hands, doctor advised not to wear one a few years ago. I rely on my phone and even my camera to tell me the time, and I notice that your analogy indicates that to you, the 7100 is some kind of status symbol. What YOU don't get is that Nikon have put this fantastic image making machine within reach of many millions more prospective buyers than the 7100 would reach. Is it about the photographs you take, or really about the hardware (male jewelery) strung over your neck?

At our last wedding (on Saturday) we had a hdmi screen set up at reception with a selection of pictures running in a slideshow.

The reaction (to the high resolution) images was as usual, amazing. You have the same resolution in your 7100, be happy, you also have a nice bit of male jewelery to go with your watch 

Bye..


----------



## AutofocusRoss

pixmedic said:


> spending the extra $600 on the D7100 instead of the D5200 saved me THOUSANDS of dollars not having to replace my Af and AF-D pro lenses with AF-S in order to not lose autofocus. Please explain how this was NOT a win for me?



This is a pointless question, you are forced to get a body with a motor in order to keep those old lenses going.

But..

The reviews of the 50mm af-s 1.8 launched last year compared it to the previous 'D' and guess what?  the AF-S was judged better (see the digitalrev video).

So, maybe, with newer, high res sensors, you may be wiser to invest in some newer glass as funds become available, and get shot of the older stuff... 

Just a thought... I am thinking that eventually, Nikon will drop the in camera motor completely... wouldn't surprise me!


----------



## AutofocusRoss

astroNikon said:


> Yup,
> The other day after the creek "dip" incident I put my D7000 back into the backpack, fully functioning. If I had a D5x000 I think I would have been putting a dead D5x000 body back into the camera bag. Not to mention most of my lenses wouldn't work with it anyways.
> You get what you pay for, and you buy what you "need".



So, it comes down to this, if it had been me throwing my camera into the river, I would have been 'up the creek without a Nikon?'


----------



## pixmedic

AutofocusRoss said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AutofocusRoss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys, Guys, Guys! Behave yourselves! at the end of the day, when the cameras go back into the bag, and all that now remains is the images taken with them....
> 
> The two cameras both have the same image quality!
> 
> Who cares - at that point - which one was used to make the images?
> 
> Seems to me those that have paid out nearly double for 'features' and are getting no improvement in quality are just a bit peeved at Nikon (and me) for putting this on the market.
> 
> There is a saying in the UK, you get what you pay for. My only point is that the questionable 'features' on what would be an upgrade for me, would leave me paying a similar amount of money, again, to trade 'up' to a camera that does not offer me the slightest improvement in image quality. Whatever anyone has to say, contra to this, is illogical.
> 
> The 'lesser' of the two models does offer pretty much everything the 'better' model does, apart from weathersealing, use with older lenses, and a brighter viewfinder. We already dispelled the 7fps 'advantage' as you have to drop to 16mp to get it, using a cropped area, not the whole frame.
> 
> Here, in the real world, we buy products based on a number of factors. I concede and agree that, you pay your money and make your choice, but my only serious point is this - the price difference is too great. Going back a few years, a 24mp camera, tested to give you this kind of quality image, would have set you back several thousand UK pounds (even more in USD).
> 
> Yet, Nikon have put this wonderful product out there, into the hands of people who can't, or won't pay twice the price, simply to get this kind of image quality, and to be fair, camera quality too.
> 
> I don't know how many of the '7100' fan club in here have actually picked up, let alone used the 5200. I have tried both, I spent over an hour choosing between the two models. I can tell you now, money was not an issue. My only concern was to evaluate between the two. I was tempted by the 7100 but I have no old lenses, and have no intention of buying any. As I run this as a business, I can claim purchases against income, and depreciate the value of them against tax, over a number of years. That makes it easier, not harder, to justify the more expensive camera, yet, when I stood in the Nikon dealer's with the pair, it just seemed ridiculous to pay double money, for no image boost in the slightest.
> 
> These features everyone keeps ranting on about... I accept that to some people (but I doubt everyone) one or two of them can be important. I might have been swayed to go for the 7100, but only in the following scenarios... the price was 50% more, and it had a tilting and rotating LCD.... or.... the price was 30% more, as it is.
> 
> Having used the (three) D5200's for two months, shooting weddings, commercial advertising, and personal stuff, this photographer has no regrets. The others on our team have borrowed one of them from time to time and are close to replacing their own bodies, in the next six months or so. One is using the D5100 which was my own former camera. Nothing wrong with it at all, I loved it. We do rent a Hassleblad for special jobs that require the finished print to be 'huge' but the bottom line is, 20 x 16" prints from the 5200 are mindblowing... as long as the subject is a good one, properly focussed and exposed etc etc etc.
> 
> I know how nice it is to have the latest, greatest, I've made those mistakes before. I got an SLR which, even in 1988, cost over six hundred UK pounds, with a 50mm F 1.4 lens, and though it turned out good quality images, there was one model above it, and four models below it, in the line, all of which, with that f1.4 lens fitted, produced identical images. After a year or less, in use, the 'features' I had paid so much money for, were never used or needed. At the time, I could have bought 2 or 3 cameras for the one I actually got. For those who are old enough to remember kodachrome, reciprocity failure, and real film, the camera was a Canon A1. At the time the range comprised of Canon AV1 AT1 AE1 AE1p A1 and F1. All six were limited to the same image quality.
> 
> It seems we have come full circle. To be honest, I don't think Nikon intended the 5200 to be quite so good as to compete so strongly with their 7100. What we may be missing, however, is the niche range of this model vs the Canon (and to a lesser extent, other brands). From what I've read, which admittedly, is very little, Canon have no answer to the D5200 at the moment, so new photographers will have a no brainer choice at the camera store. Not in the price range anyway.
> 
> Those who want a great camera capable of great images should not be put off by some of the posts you may have read in this thread. I would be miffed if I had bought a 7100 at twice the price, only to find Nikon's lesser model equals or outperforms it, it is perfectly understandable. The 5200 may be touted as an upper entry level camera, there is the 3200 and 5100 below it, but don't let that fool you, it is a capable camera, and, with a little jiggery pokery in learning the menu system well, equals many of the features you'll find on the higher models.
> 
> For example, much has been made of the 7100 having two dials, for when you shoot manual exposures. OK the 5200 has just one.. so... set the camera mode to M, turn the dial to set the shutter speed, then, hold down the button near the shutter release marked +/- (exposure compensation when in one of the automatic modes) and turn the same dial again to set an aperture.
> 
> Is that really a deal breaker? This holds true for many of the other features, you just need to familiarise with the method of the control system. I can tell you, the interface is better and faster than the older D5100, access is much quicker with the new layout on the menu via the LCD and toggle/OK controls, and easier to follow.
> 
> There is a pride of ownership thing going on, call it camera snobbery, if you like, we've all met people toting very expensive gear who probably get it out for holidays, christmas and birthdays, and then store it away again for the rest of the year. I can tell you that if you are a real photographer, either of these models will fit the bill, you have to decide between them. For me, I could not justify the high cost of a 7100... I would spend a little more and go for the D600 instead, given the pricing point between the two - the 600 and the 7100, that is.
> 
> Rumors abound that the 600 is due an upgrade, to fix production problems with sensors getting dirty in use (and even out of the box in some cases) so if you are hovering between models but leaning towards a 7100, if you can hold on for the 600 replacement, that could be a plan!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From all your replies this one is the only one which I feel you spoke from your heart.
> Still all I can read is how you dont see the value in many of the features the D7100 has over the D5200 and you simply dont get it, YOU dont value them as important others DO value them and are willing to pay more to get them, what is the big deal ?
> Why cant you let it be ?
> Accept this and move on ?
> 
> Let me try to explain this in an other way, let me ask you a question do you wear a watch ?
> If you do what is the rough value of this watch ?
> I like watches, I spent much more on watches then on my camera equipment, most people dont get what is so special about these watches that will make me spend the money on them.
> My few friends that appreciate watches "get it" the others dont, either way I bought my watches for me and I dont care what others think about watches wether they agree or disagree with my choice to buy them.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to "allow" me to buy the D5200 and not the D7100, why dont you get the fact others see things differently then you.
> I dont question your choice in cameras but yet you have such a strong need to tell others what camera they should buy.
> You said you have a saying in UK, well in Canada we have a saying too "different strokes for different falks".
> 
> I said it few times and will say it again, I dont think like you and apparently those who bought the D7100 and not the D5200 dont think like you either, we value things in our camera that you dont get, why wouldnt you respectfully agree to disagree and move on ?
> 
> If you are a pro I could tell you what I think of a pro coming to a wedding with a silly little camera like the D5200 snapping around with his silly little thing in his hands.
> I could but I wouldnt, you know why ?
> Because I DONT CARE, if a pro comes to a wedding and does his job and the customer is happy who the heck am I to judge but yet and agin and again you find the need to judge others on their choices which apparently you dont get and dont respect.
> 
> Your constant crying over the D5200 vs D7100 is honestly annoying, somehow I find myself sucked into your posts trying to explain again and again I value things you dont, I like things in the D7100 that you dont, there is nothing you can say that will make me go "darn I made a mistake I should have went with the D5200".
> I dont try to argue about camera with you just to try to say I see things differently, why cant you let it be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, actually, I don't wear a watch, I get cramp in my hands, doctor advised not to wear one a few years ago. I rely on my phone and even my camera to tell me the time, and I notice that your analogy indicates that to you, the 7100 is some kind of status symbol. What YOU don't get is that Nikon have put this fantastic image making machine within reach of many millions more prospective buyers than the 7100 would reach. Is it about the photographs you take, or really about the hardware (male jewelery) strung over your neck?
> 
> At our last wedding (on Saturday) we had a hdmi screen set up at reception with a selection of pictures running in a slideshow.
> 
> The reaction (to the high resolution) images was as usual, amazing. You have the same resolution in your 7100, be happy, you also have a nice bit of male jewelery to go with your watch
> 
> Bye..
Click to expand...


since you do weddings and commercial work, I can only assume you are using all AF-S pro glass on your D5200 since you obviously would NOT want to use any variable aperture "kit" lenses (especially superzooms) that do not have the resolving power to take full advantage of the D5200's 24mp sensor. (this presumption based on your priority for image quality)
given the cost of those lenses, how many people for whom the D5200 is priced for do you think can afford $8000 worth of pro lenses to shoot weddings with?
I am still using my older AF and AF-D pro glass to shoot weddings. they still perform great, but they need a camera with an in body motor to autofocus with. 
perhaps if I had the money to replace all those lenses with brand new AF-S pro lenses like you have, the D5200 might have been an option for me. 

for ME though, i saved 10 times the difference of the price of those cameras being able to continue using my AF-D f/2.8 zooms. 
I still fail to see how this is not a completely valid reason to buy a D7100 over a D5200. 
I get the same amazing image quality as your camera, but i saved THOUSANDS of dollars reusing my AF-D glass. win/win. 

this is why camera manufactures make different model cameras with different features. Because different people have different needs.


----------



## Dao

It is all personal choice.   I do not think "good or bad" and "Win or lose" can apply here.   At the end of the day, if the equipment you have meet your expectation, that's all matter.

Just happens you choose a cheaper model, it does not mean it is bad. For the same token, the more expensive model does not mean better automatically neither.  

I like orange color, it does not mean pink is bad.  It is just not my color.  Of course I can say pink is for girl and it is a ugly color, you should not use it.  But we are talking about personal choice here.   What's best for me does not necessary mean best for you.  There is really no need to argue about it.

If you guys really have a problem with dark side, I suggest switch to the  ...     w     ...   h . .. ... i  ... t .....   e ......  . .. ..  side.  <running as fast as I can .... to avoid being hit by rocks>


----------



## pixmedic

AutofocusRoss said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> spending the extra $600 on the D7100 instead of the D5200 saved me THOUSANDS of dollars not having to replace my Af and AF-D pro lenses with AF-S in order to not lose autofocus. Please explain how this was NOT a win for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a pointless question, you are forced to get a body with a motor in order to keep those old lenses going.
> 
> But..
> 
> The reviews of the 50mm af-s 1.8 launched last year compared it to the previous 'D' and guess what?  the AF-S was judged better (see the digitalrev video).
> 
> So, maybe, with newer, high res sensors, you may be wiser to invest in some newer glass as funds become available, and get shot of the older stuff...
> 
> Just a thought... I am thinking that eventually, Nikon will drop the in camera motor completely... wouldn't surprise me!
Click to expand...


newer is often better. 
but by how much?
TECHNICALLY speaking, you can see the differences on a computer chart...but in actual practice? not so much. 
cost effectiveness is another issue. will you replace EVERY lens you own EVERY time a new version comes out?
im sure SOME people....but I doubt it is very many. 

and how is my question pointless? it is completely valid BECAUSE....as of right now, nikon has NOT stopped producing cameras with in body motors. 
maybe nikon WILL drop in body motors. but, until they DO, yours is a completely invalid argument because that scenario does not exist yet. 
the scenario of using older pro glass on a camera with a motor however, DOES exist, and is an extremely cost effective way of getting pro glass on a smaller budget.


----------



## astroNikon

AutofocusRoss said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup,
> The other day after the creek "dip" incident I put my D7000 back into the backpack, fully functioning. If I had a D5x000 I think I would have been putting a dead D5x000 body back into the camera bag. Not to mention most of my lenses wouldn't work with it anyways.
> You get what you pay for, and you buy what you "need".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, it comes down to this, if it had been me throwing my camera into the river, I would have been 'up the creek without a Nikon?'
Click to expand...


I hear a song coming ...  oh wait, this isn't Monty Python   :lmao:


----------



## Braineack

I just bought a d5100 body to replace my d3100, and I know the d7100 and d5200 are on par with each other and rated higher than the d5100.  What do I win?


----------



## goodguy

AutofocusRoss said:


> Umm, actually, I don't wear a watch, I get cramp in my hands, doctor advised not to wear one a few years ago. I rely on my phone and even my camera to tell me the time, and I notice that your analogy indicates that to you, the 7100 is some kind of status symbol. What YOU don't get is that Nikon have put this fantastic image making machine within reach of many millions more prospective buyers than the 7100 would reach. Is it about the photographs you take, or really about the hardware (male jeweler) strung over your neck?
> 
> At our last wedding (on Saturday) we had a hdmi screen set up at reception with a selection of pictures running in a slideshow.
> 
> The reaction (to the high resolution) images was as usual, amazing. You have the same resolution in your 7100, be happy, you also have a nice bit of male jewelry to go with your watch
> 
> Bye..


You are becoming very predictable, I figured you will judge me for my second hobby, you don't know me but yet you already put me in a category that suits you and makes you happy.
The watches I wear are far from jewelry, they are mechanical, small and very, very boring looking, no one (except a watch fan) would recognize it as a high precision time tool that it is, I don't like jeweler nor do I ware one.
You just PERFECTLY proved my point that you stick your nose into other people decisions, you don't want to accept and understand that others has the right to their own opinion and look at things, if somebody doesn't agree with you and doesn't see things your way he is dead wrong no matter how right he might be, YOUR way is the right way and everyone else is WRONG.

What a great way to live life, you are always on the right and who ever disagree with you is wrong.
Your ego must be the size of a mountain.
You still has a L O N G way to go my young Paduwan Lerner

In my home country many people are like you, stick their nose in other people life style, decisions and everything else.
When I moved to Canada I saw a new world a different approach where no one sticks his nose into others affairs, no one cares if you ware a jacket or a sweater, no one cares if you have a GMC or BMW, no one cares if you live in a small condo or 4000 square feet house, no one would try to tell you a D5200 is better then a D7100.
Your friends are happy if you are happy and accept you and your choices without constant judging.
Sure if you ask for their opinion they will be happy to share it with you but not in a judgmental way like yours and most important they ACCEPT the fact I have the right to see things my way and they understand there isnt one answer to everything, different people, different coltures, different ideas and different ways to see the world.

Open your eyes, ears and most importantly your mind, see your truth is YOURS, others has the right to think differently and hay maybe you will see something through their eyes, maybe you will understand something new, maybe you will see YOU are the one that is WRONG.
I see many times I was wrong in things I said or did and I am not ashamed to admit that to myself, I grow from it, I learn and thus will not make the same mistake time and time again, try it, you just might find its a much better way to live life.


----------



## pixmedic

Braineack said:


> I just bought a d5100 body to replace my d3100, and I know the d7100 and d5200 are on par with each other and rated higher than the d5100.  What do I win?



you win the satisfaction of knowing you bought a camera within your budget that suits YOUR needs.


----------



## astroNikon

goodguy said:


> Let me try to explain this in an other way, let me ask you a question do you wear a watch ?
> If you do what is the rough value of this watch ?
> I like watches, I spent much more on watches then on my camera equipment, most people dont get what is so special about these watches that will make me spend the money on them.
> My few friends that appreciate watches "get it" the others dont, either way I bought my watches for me and I dont care what others think about watches wether they agree or disagree with my choice to buy them.





FYI, I love watches.  I used to collect a few Moon Phase watches.  I stopped after buying a nice grandfathers clock with Moon Phase on it.  It wouldn't fit on my wrist, without crushing my wrist


----------



## goodguy

Braineack said:


> I just bought a d5100 body to replace my d3100, and I know the d7100 and d5200 are on par with each other and rated higher than the d5100. What do I win?


No they are not, they are not par, these are 2 very different cameras in many ways.
They have same MP count and from a pure performance of ISO, Dynamic range they are very close but there are so many other things that the D7100 has and the D5200 doesnt which makes it a very different camera.
The D7100 is aimed at a different crowd that wants more then the D5200.

Enjoy your new D5100, with all the talking about the D7100 and D5200 we tend to forget the D5100 and D7000 are amazing tools in their own right


----------



## goodguy

astroNikon said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to explain this in an other way, let me ask you a question do you wear a watch ?
> If you do what is the rough value of this watch ?
> I like watches, I spent much more on watches then on my camera equipment, most people dont get what is so special about these watches that will make me spend the money on them.
> My few friends that appreciate watches "get it" the others dont, either way I bought my watches for me and I dont care what others think about watches wether they agree or disagree with my choice to buy them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, I love watches.  I used to collect a few Moon Phase watches.  I stopped after buying a nice grandfathers clock with Moon Phase on it.  It wouldn't fit on my wrist, without crushing my wrist
Click to expand...

Oh lets not get talking about watches, I am passioned about my watches as much as I am passionate about photography 
I LOVE mechanical stuff and a well made time machine on my wrist just make my day.
Moon complication is one complication I still didnt have, my favorite is power reserve but alas I currently dont own a watch with this complication.

Ok, ok enough this is a photography forum I stop talking about watches..............................now


----------



## astroNikon

goodguy said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to explain this in an other way, let me ask you a question do you wear a watch ?
> If you do what is the rough value of this watch ?
> I like watches, I spent much more on watches then on my camera equipment, most people dont get what is so special about these watches that will make me spend the money on them.
> My few friends that appreciate watches "get it" the others dont, either way I bought my watches for me and I dont care what others think about watches wether they agree or disagree with my choice to buy them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, I love watches.  I used to collect a few Moon Phase watches.  I stopped after buying a nice grandfathers clock with Moon Phase on it.  It wouldn't fit on my wrist, without crushing my wrist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh lets not get talking about watches, I am passioned about my watches as much as I am passionate about photography
> I LOVE mechanical stuff and a well made time machine on my wrist just make my day.
> Moon complication is one complication I still didnt have, my favorite is power reserve but alas I currently dont own a watch with this complication.
> 
> Ok, ok enough this is a photography forum I stop talking about watches..............................now
Click to expand...


Take pictures of your watches then


----------



## VABuckeye

This has to be one of the most elaborate troll threads I've seen. Judging people by how they choose to spend THEIR money is about as immature as one can get.


----------



## ToddnTN

VABuckeye, you sir win the prize.


----------



## goodguy

astroNikon said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, I love watches. I used to collect a few Moon Phase watches. I stopped after buying a nice grandfathers clock with Moon Phase on it. It wouldn't fit on my wrist, without crushing my wrist
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lets not get talking about watches, I am passioned about my watches as much as I am passionate about photography
> I LOVE mechanical stuff and a well made time machine on my wrist just make my day.
> Moon complication is one complication I still didnt have, my favorite is power reserve but alas I currently dont own a watch with this complication.
> 
> Ok, ok enough this is a photography forum I stop talking about watches..............................now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take pictures of your watches then
Click to expand...


Painful subject 
Watches are among the hardest things to shoot, my watch shots come out................blah, boring, no flavor, I still didn't crack the formula how to take good shots of watches and god knows I tried and tried.


----------



## goodguy

VABuckeye said:


> This has to be one of the most elaborate troll threads I've seen. Judging people by how they choose to spend THEIR money is about as immature as one can get.



Absolutely 100% agree with you, that's the point I was trying to make, this thread is all about how others spend their money (D7100 instead of D5200) and the point I was trying to make was everybody has the right to make their choices and non of us has the right to judge them if its right or wrong, it is indeed silly and immature.
And to make the point even clearer why would anybody really care and fight so hard about my choice of camera or anything else at that matter, why would anybody care is beyond me.
I am a Nikon guy but yet many people buy Canon, why would I care ?
Its their money, their choice, their life, it doesn't concern me at all.


----------



## ToddnTN

goodguy said:


> VABuckeye said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has to be one of the most elaborate troll threads I've seen. Judging people by how they choose to spend THEIR money is about as immature as one can get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely 100% agree with you, that's the point I was trying to make, this thread is all about how others spend their money (D7100 instead of D5200) and the point I was trying to make was everybody has the right to make their choices and non of us has the right to judge them if its right or wrong, it is indeed silly and immature.
> And to make the point even clearer why would anybody really care and fight so hard about my choice of camera or anything else at that matter, why would anybody care is beyond me.
> I am a Nikon guy but yet many people buy Canon, why would I care ?
> Its their money, their choice, their life, it doesn't concern me at all.
Click to expand...


The whole point of a troll post is to get under your skin. He has accomplished what he set out to do.
At this point he will make a post about how he is not a troll, and that his post are valid and yadayadayada...


----------



## goodguy

ToddnTN said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VABuckeye said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has to be one of the most elaborate troll threads I've seen. Judging people by how they choose to spend THEIR money is about as immature as one can get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely 100% agree with you, that's the point I was trying to make, this thread is all about how others spend their money (D7100 instead of D5200) and the point I was trying to make was everybody has the right to make their choices and non of us has the right to judge them if its right or wrong, it is indeed silly and immature.
> And to make the point even clearer why would anybody really care and fight so hard about my choice of camera or anything else at that matter, why would anybody care is beyond me.
> I am a Nikon guy but yet many people buy Canon, why would I care ?
> Its their money, their choice, their life, it doesn't concern me at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point of a troll post is to get under your skin. He has accomplished what he set out to do.
> At this point he will make a post about how he is not a troll, and that his post are valid and yadayadayada...
Click to expand...


You are correct, he definitely got under my skin, I should know better not to get sucked into pointless debates that lead nowhere with people I really have nothing in common.
As I pointed before in one of my replies I am not ashamed to admit to myself I am wrong and I was wrong getting sucked into this pointless, futile back and forth silly debate with this man.

Thanks


----------



## AutofocusRoss

goodguy said:


> AutofocusRoss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, actually, I don't wear a watch, I get cramp in my hands, doctor advised not to wear one a few years ago. I rely on my phone and even my camera to tell me the time, and I notice that your analogy indicates that to you, the 7100 is some kind of status symbol. What YOU don't get is that Nikon have put this fantastic image making machine within reach of many millions more prospective buyers than the 7100 would reach. Is it about the photographs you take, or really about the hardware (male jeweler) strung over your neck?
> 
> At our last wedding (on Saturday) we had a hdmi screen set up at reception with a selection of pictures running in a slideshow.
> 
> The reaction (to the high resolution) images was as usual, amazing. You have the same resolution in your 7100, be happy, you also have a nice bit of male jewelry to go with your watch
> 
> Bye..
> 
> 
> 
> You are becoming very predictable, I figured you will judge me for my second hobby, you don't know me but yet you already put me in a category that suits you and makes you happy.
> The watches I wear are far from jewelry, they are mechanical, small and very, very boring looking, no one (except a watch fan) would recognize it as a high precision time tool that it is, I don't like jeweler nor do I ware one.
> You just PERFECTLY proved my point that you stick your nose into other people decisions, you don't want to accept and understand that others has the right to their own opinion and look at things, if somebody doesn't agree with you and doesn't see things your way he is dead wrong no matter how right he might be, YOUR way is the right way and everyone else is WRONG.
> 
> What a great way to live life, you are always on the right and who ever disagree with you is wrong.
> Your ego must be the size of a mountain.
> You still has a L O N G way to go my young Paduwan Lerner
> 
> In my home country many people are like you, stick their nose in other people life style, decisions and everything else.
> When I moved to Canada I saw a new world a different approach where no one sticks his nose into others affairs, no one cares if you ware a jacket or a sweater, no one cares if you have a GMC or BMW, no one cares if you live in a small condo or 4000 square feet house, no one would try to tell you a D5200 is better then a D7100.
> Your friends are happy if you are happy and accept you and your choices without constant judging.
> Sure if you ask for their opinion they will be happy to share it with you but not in a judgmental way like yours and most important they ACCEPT the fact I have the right to see things my way and they understand there isnt one answer to everything, different people, different coltures, different ideas and different ways to see the world.
> 
> Open your eyes, ears and most importantly your mind, see your truth is YOURS, others has the right to think differently and hay maybe you will see something through their eyes, maybe you will understand something new, maybe you will see YOU are the one that is WRONG.
> I see many times I was wrong in things I said or did and I am not ashamed to admit that to myself, I grow from it, I learn and thus will not make the same mistake time and time again, try it, you just might find its a much better way to live life.
Click to expand...


What on earth is wrong in voicing an opinion, which was, in case we're all gettting a little sidetracked... the image quality of BOTH cameras is virtuallly identical.

Maybe you can at least agree they are both made by Nikon, and we can go from there?


----------



## pixmedic

AutofocusRoss said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AutofocusRoss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, actually, I don't wear a watch, I get cramp in my hands, doctor advised not to wear one a few years ago. I rely on my phone and even my camera to tell me the time, and I notice that your analogy indicates that to you, the 7100 is some kind of status symbol. What YOU don't get is that Nikon have put this fantastic image making machine within reach of many millions more prospective buyers than the 7100 would reach. Is it about the photographs you take, or really about the hardware (male jeweler) strung over your neck?
> 
> At our last wedding (on Saturday) we had a hdmi screen set up at reception with a selection of pictures running in a slideshow.
> 
> The reaction (to the high resolution) images was as usual, amazing. You have the same resolution in your 7100, be happy, you also have a nice bit of male jewelry to go with your watch
> 
> Bye..
> 
> 
> 
> You are becoming very predictable, I figured you will judge me for my second hobby, you don't know me but yet you already put me in a category that suits you and makes you happy.
> The watches I wear are far from jewelry, they are mechanical, small and very, very boring looking, no one (except a watch fan) would recognize it as a high precision time tool that it is, I don't like jeweler nor do I ware one.
> You just PERFECTLY proved my point that you stick your nose into other people decisions, you don't want to accept and understand that others has the right to their own opinion and look at things, if somebody doesn't agree with you and doesn't see things your way he is dead wrong no matter how right he might be, YOUR way is the right way and everyone else is WRONG.
> 
> What a great way to live life, you are always on the right and who ever disagree with you is wrong.
> Your ego must be the size of a mountain.
> You still has a L O N G way to go my young Paduwan Lerner
> 
> In my home country many people are like you, stick their nose in other people life style, decisions and everything else.
> When I moved to Canada I saw a new world a different approach where no one sticks his nose into others affairs, no one cares if you ware a jacket or a sweater, no one cares if you have a GMC or BMW, no one cares if you live in a small condo or 4000 square feet house, no one would try to tell you a D5200 is better then a D7100.
> Your friends are happy if you are happy and accept you and your choices without constant judging.
> Sure if you ask for their opinion they will be happy to share it with you but not in a judgmental way like yours and most important they ACCEPT the fact I have the right to see things my way and they understand there isnt one answer to everything, different people, different coltures, different ideas and different ways to see the world.
> 
> Open your eyes, ears and most importantly your mind, see your truth is YOURS, others has the right to think differently and hay maybe you will see something through their eyes, maybe you will understand something new, maybe you will see YOU are the one that is WRONG.
> I see many times I was wrong in things I said or did and I am not ashamed to admit that to myself, I grow from it, I learn and thus will not make the same mistake time and time again, try it, you just might find its a much better way to live life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on earth is wrong in voicing an opinion, which was, in case we're all gettting a little sidetracked... the image quality of BOTH cameras is virtuallly identical.
> 
> Maybe you can at least agree they are both made by Nikon, and we can go from there?
Click to expand...


actually, the sensors for the D5200 and D7100 are made by Toshiba.


----------



## AutofocusRoss

goodguy said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lets not get talking about watches, I am passioned about my watches as much as I am passionate about photography
> I LOVE mechanical stuff and a well made time machine on my wrist just make my day.
> Moon complication is one complication I still didnt have, my favorite is power reserve but alas I currently dont own a watch with this complication.
> 
> Ok, ok enough this is a photography forum I stop talking about watches..............................now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take pictures of your watches then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Painful subject
> Watches are among the hardest things to shoot, my watch shots come out................blah, boring, no flavor, I still didn't crack the formula how to take good shots of watches and god knows I tried and tried.
Click to expand...


Ahhh, now then, I have an idea... get a D5200 and use the tilt/flip screen, on a tripod in live view, with a half stop overexposure, and don't forget a polarising filter to fine tune reflection from the glass. Set the camera to delayed exposure (a one second hold after releasing the shutter) and use a remote ir trigger, or cable release (or self timer).

I think, with the right lighting and a plain background, that should do it. Remember to use a white card to bounce some light to the darker side, if using a window etc.


----------



## yioties

90% of all topics in this forum are hijacked Ross by wannabe professionals that think it's either their way or nothing! You started a thread asking about image quality of the d5200 and d7100 and got Nikon VS Canon (happens often when Derrel posts, Gavejenks needs to answer. after 4 pages we got back to topic somewhat ) watch talk, D lenses, focus motors and more! The trolling on this forum as a whole is insane and seriously needs to be addressed by the moderators because people like myself ask a question and out of 50 reply's get 3 valid answers! The good outweighs the bad so if i need to read 8 pages to get the answer I'm looking for I will, but really I shouldn't have to.


----------



## Dao

yioties said:


> 90% of all topics in this forum are hijacked Ross by wannabe professionals that think it's either their way or nothing! You started a thread asking about image quality of the d5200 and d7100 and got Nikon VS Canon (happens often when Derrel posts, Gavejenks needs to answer. after 4 pages we got back to topic somewhat ) watch talk, D lenses, focus motors and more! The trolling on this forum as a whole is insane and seriously needs to be addressed by the moderators because people like myself ask a question and out of 50 reply's get 3 valid answers! The good outweighs the bad so if i need to read 8 pages to get the answer I'm looking for I will, but really I shouldn't have to.



The problem is, without this type of drama, people will rather watching TV instead of browsing in TPF.


----------



## yioties

Very true Dao and actually really funny!


----------



## ToddnTN

Ross,

On the off chance that you are serious about everything you have posted. Let me sumarize so we can end this:

1) Yes, the D5200 and D7100 IQ is essentially the same; with the D5200 edging out the D7100 slightly in DXOMarks's test
2) You do not value the additional upgrades that the D7100 offers enough to pay the difference in price; others do.

The above two points is all any reader needs to get from this thread.

Thanks,
Everyone have nice day.


----------



## Gavjenks

People start talking about semi related side topics precisely *because* the question is so simple and was already answered like 20 times (they have nearly identical sensors and not identical features). After that, side topics are more interesting and worthwhile.


----------



## yioties

They might be interesting but they destroy a topic and become very tedious!


----------



## pixmedic

yioties said:


> They might be interesting but they destroy a topic and become very tedious!



the topic was "D5200 and D7100 have the same IQ"
which was pretty much covered in post #1. 
what other answers concerning that topic were you looking for?


----------



## yioties

I read the answers in the first posts pixmedia and wanted to read more views on the topic but then everything else but the kitchen sink was thrown into the thread!


----------



## astroNikon

yioties said:


> I read the answers in the first posts pixmedia and wanted to read more views on the topic but then everything else but the kitchen sink was thrown into the thread!



no one talked about cute little fuzzy bunny rabbits either.


----------



## pixmedic

yioties said:


> I read the answers in the first posts pixmedia and wanted to read more views on the topic but then everything else but the kitchen sink was thrown into the thread!



there really arent any "views" on the topic. 
the two cameras have the same sensor.  thats pretty much the end of the debate as far as sensors are concerned. 
the only other place to go is OTHER things that one camera has that the other doesn't. 
and bacon. 

i mean, if they have the same sensor, and image quality is indeed the same....what else is there as far as the sensor is concerned?


----------



## Derrel

Guess what!!!!!!!!!!!! The Nikon D5200 and D7100 have almost the SAME technical image quality. The original poster's title that the "D5200 edges out the D7100?" seems kind of like either a troll-bait title, or a simple misunderstanding of what a significant and "real" difference is in terms of DxO Mark scores.

The new Nikon lineup now has 24-MP sensors in the D3200, D5200, and D7100. It's the old Good, Better, Best marketing strategy, with solid image quality AND more megapixels than are found in ANY Canon camera, at any price, with a mix of features that target certain buying segments of the market. Very,very simple way to differentiate themselves from their competition: MORE megapixels, wider dynamic range, and a camera for almost any d-slr budget. The megapixel race, and the simple numbers, are what guide many consumers. 24 MP is "better than 18 mp", many buyers might think. Nikon's now playing "the megapixel game" that Canon played for so long. Adding focusing points is another simple way to make consumers yearn for a higher-priced camera. "More points means better!" many consumers would reason.

Pretty simple.


----------



## astroNikon

and the D600 24mp sensor, albeit FF


----------



## cgipson1

Shooting weddings with a D5200? (and probably low end glass, since good glass costs money! (and somebody doesn't like to SPEND money) And there is probably a chart somewhere showing some crappy low end glass is almost as good as pro glass, that could be used to justify buying low end glass)

Not someone I can take seriously! And no images to make me think otherwise.


----------



## goodguy

AutofocusRoss said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take pictures of your watches then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Painful subject
> Watches are among the hardest things to shoot, my watch shots come out................blah, boring, no flavor, I still didn't crack the formula how to take good shots of watches and god knows I tried and tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh, now then, I have an idea... get a D5200 and use the tilt/flip screen, on a tripod in live view, with a half stop overexposure, and don't forget a polarising filter to fine tune reflection from the glass. Set the camera to delayed exposure (a one second hold after releasing the shutter) and use a remote ir trigger, or cable release (or self timer).
> 
> I think, with the right lighting and a plain background, that should do it. Remember to use a white card to bounce some light to the darker side, if using a window etc.
Click to expand...

Thank you, appreciate the input.


----------



## goodguy

ToddnTN said:


> Ross,
> 
> On the off chance that you are serious about everything you have posted. Let me sumarize so we can end this:
> 
> 1) Yes, the D5200 and D7100 IQ is essentially the same; with the D5200 edging out the D7100 slightly in DXOMarks's test
> 2) You do not value the additional upgrades that the D7100 offers enough to pay the difference in price; others do.
> 
> The above two points is all any reader needs to get from this thread.
> 
> Thanks,
> Everyone have nice day.



Oh that will not work for him.
I pretty much tried this tactic but it didn't work, he likes to complicate things and pretty much repeat same old statement again and again.
But it does work for me


----------



## astroNikon

I briefly looked at the price of replacing my lenses with used AF-S VR f/2.8 lens so I could upgrade to a 5200.
But, I think I need another mortgage to cover the costs.


----------



## AutofocusRoss

astroNikon said:


> I briefly looked at the price of replacing my lenses with used AF-S VR f/2.8 lens so I could upgrade to a 5200.
> But, I think I need another mortgage to cover the costs.



Only Briefly?


----------



## AutofocusRoss

astroNikon said:


> yioties said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the answers in the first posts pixmedia and wanted to read more views on the topic but then everything else but the kitchen sink was thrown into the thread!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one talked about cute little fuzzy bunny rabbits either.
Click to expand...


I could have sworn I read something about bunny rabbits on page 2 of the thread, but it must have got deleted by the mod... for once something got so off topic it got blitzed (or so I am thinking).


----------



## astroNikon

AutofocusRoss said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I briefly looked at the price of replacing my lenses with used AF-S VR f/2.8 lens so I could upgrade to a 5200.
> But, I think I need another mortgage to cover the costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only Briefly?
Click to expand...


Yes, because fuzzy bunny rabbits started attacking me.  They were dragging a kitchen sink with them.  :lmao:


----------



## astroNikon

cgipson1 said:


> Shooting weddings with a D5200? (and probably low end glass, since good glass costs money! (and somebody doesn't like to SPEND money) And there is probably a chart somewhere showing some crappy low end glass is almost as good as pro glass, that could be used to justify buying low end glass)
> 
> Not someone I can take seriously! And no images to make me think otherwise.



Rockwell ?


----------



## astroNikon

Jafhmes said:


> It's not just about the image quality. yes, image quality is important, but the D7100 provides a lot of features that many people look for.



we all know that ... except one person

and for that, we only have to say

Soft bunny, warm bunny 
Little ball of fur. 
Happy bunny, sleepy bunny
Purr purr purr.



purr purr purr is referenced here http://blog.rabbitnetwork.org/?p=470


----------



## TheFantasticG

I tell ya... I'm extremely happy with my D7000 image quality but the Wife and I are trying to start a family... Kids... Yeah, I want a better AF system. I'm considering going down to the local camera shop and trading mine in for a D7100... Cause I ain't springing for a D800.


----------



## goodguy

TheFantasticG said:


> I tell ya... I'm extremely happy with my D7000 image quality but the Wife and I are trying to start a family... Kids... Yeah, I want a better AF system. I'm considering going down to the local camera shop and trading mine in for a D7100... Cause I ain't springing for a D800.



Well according to somebody on this forum you should get the D5200 because no matter what its the better camera then the D7100


----------



## SashaT

Man, read this whole thread and kept thinking one thing&#8230; It seems that the basic argument in this thread is the same as in any other hobby/passion/whatever you wish to call it. For example in the world of fly fishing, there is some really high end gear, low end gear and everything between. I often see some, for whatever reason try to justify their lower end gear by stating it is the same (or better) than the high end stuff. 

Then in typical fashion the owners of the higher end gear jump in and justify why they own their equipment. Followed by the owners of the lower end gear stating why their gear makes more sense to buy and that the higher end stuff doesn&#8217;t really warrant the price difference. Hell, I could even make the same observations about another hobby of mine firearms.

Every time I see stuff like this I think &#8220;who cares&#8221;. If somebody wishes to spend their money on something that they like; then what is the big issue. If one likes the 5200 well good for them, if another likes the 7100 well good for them as well. It does not make one stupid or an idiot to spend more on something that they want. Maybe the features of one system are important enough to that person. At the end of the day does it really matter?

For the record, I only have been bitten by the photography bug for a short time. I started with and still have and use a low end D3000. When I decided to upgrade a little while ago, I opted for the 7100. The reasons were simple for me: the motor to run my AF D glass (having to manually focus on a fish is a huge PIA), tougher body and not being so menu driven just to name a few. Hell the first two alone were worth it to me based on the fact I use my stuff out on and in the water while fishing. The point of me even bothering to type this out is that different people have different wants and needs. There is no reason that I can think of to bash one or the other, that is unless one enjoys trolling&#8230;


----------



## goodguy

SashaT said:


> Every time I see stuff like this I think &#8220;who cares&#8221;. If somebody wishes to spend their money on something that they like; then what is the big issue. If one likes the 5200 well good for them, if another likes the 7100 well good for them as well.


Thank you, thank you exactly my point, everybody has their view, their needs and their dreams, its their money and who cares what they choose.
I believe any action we make in life that does not have a negative effect on others is ok and no one elses business.

Let me chime in giving another example of basic, middle and good (and expensive).

I used to be all about fountain pens, I had hundereds of them and had a lot of money tied up into it, I started with cheap basic pens (some vintage some new) and in time I started to creep up to the more expensive limited edition models.
Eventually I got into a company called (to those who dont know) Montblanc which make really beautiful pens, I had their entire line of "Writers Series".
I loved it but there were those who always though buying pens from this company was a waste of money.
I understood from where they were coming, for them it was an expensive eye candy, something to Schlep around to make others "see" how rich you were, they thought "why buy a pen that is worth hundreds of dollars ?" when you can get a pen which worked just as good for a fraction of the cost of this limited edition Montblanc pen.
I always tried to explain that for me it wasnt about show off at all, I hardly ever took these pens out let alone try to impress others with it, the collection was in my room for my pleasure in their boxes, I never understood why they care so much about my decisions and my choices, it really could get nasty sometimes (yes funny how silly thing like fountain pen can cause such a strong reaction with some).

Live and let live I say, we all have our unique view of life and we should accept and respect other people decisions even if we disagree and think they are wrong.


----------



## astroNikon

Because some people think you shouldn't waste your money on trivial things like cameras, and instead put your money into more meaningful things like a boat.


----------



## SashaT

It sort of reminds me of a thread on another forum. In this thread somebody was basically trying to call people that purchased one fly rod stupid for paying that much. This is because the model that person purchased used the same blank as the more expensive rod. Like in this thread , the individual overlooked the additional features of the higher priced model. Also like in this thread the poster there did not grasp the concept that people can buy whatever the hell they want.

Personally, like I did with fly fishing, I approach my camera purchases from the following standpoint. When I first started I had basic low end equipment and as I got more proficient I upgraded to higher end equipment. The higher end equipment that I chose were ones that suited my needs and to a lesser extent my wants. I really don't see the problem in spending money (if you can afford it) on things you enjoy AND use.

Now as far as the boat thing I say why not get both


----------



## goodguy

astroNikon said:


> Because some people think you shouldn't waste your money on trivial things like cameras, and instead put your money into more meaningful things like a boat.


Nah, boats are tiny creatures, small potatoes in my book, I like BIG things like watches LOL


----------



## Tinderbox (UK)

well post a few photo`s from an D5200 and D7100 and see if anybody can tell which camera took what photo, i have had both camera`s and i could not tell the difference without looking at the exif data.

John.


----------



## goodguy

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> well post a few photo`s from an D5200 and D7100 and see if anybody can tell which camera took what photo, i have had both camera`s and i could not tell the difference without looking at the exif data.
> 
> John.



This is not how it goes John and you know it, the true magic happeneds behind the camera, the man that press the shutter button,
I have seen pictures that would blow you mind away taken with old 6MP Rebel Canon.
Cameras are not like Hot Rods where you put them on a drag strip and wait to see which car comes first.
Also everybody agrees the basic sensor/image quality is too close to notice, it really comes to the individual person to choose what camera is for him/her, are the added features worth the extra money or not.


----------



## astroNikon

goodguy said:


> Tinderbox (UK) said:
> 
> 
> 
> well post a few photo`s from an D5200 and D7100 and see if anybody can tell which camera took what photo, i have had both camera`s and i could not tell the difference without looking at the exif data.
> 
> John.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not how it goes John and you know it, the true magic happeneds behind the camera, the man that press the shutter button,
> I have seen pictures that would blow you mind away taken with old 6MP Rebel Canon.
> Cameras are not like Hot Rods where you put them on a drag strip and wait to see which car comes first.
> Also everybody agrees the basic sensor/image quality is too close to notice, it really comes to the individual person to choose what camera is for him/her, are the added features worth the extra money or not.
Click to expand...


Yes but drag strip racing is not just about the car.  The driver with the quickest reflex at the lights, fastest getting the car to grip, fastest through the gears while not losing anything and crashing, wins.

Oh yeah, the guy behind the camera analogy !!


----------



## goodguy

astroNikon said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinderbox (UK) said:
> 
> 
> 
> well post a few photo`s from an D5200 and D7100 and see if anybody can tell which camera took what photo, i have had both camera`s and i could not tell the difference without looking at the exif data.
> 
> John.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not how it goes John and you know it, the true magic happeneds behind the camera, the man that press the shutter button,
> I have seen pictures that would blow you mind away taken with old 6MP Rebel Canon.
> Cameras are not like Hot Rods where you put them on a drag strip and wait to see which car comes first.
> Also everybody agrees the basic sensor/image quality is too close to notice, it really comes to the individual person to choose what camera is for him/her, are the added features worth the extra money or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but drag strip racing is not just about the car. The driver with the quickest reflex at the lights, fastest getting the car to grip, fastest through the gears while not losing anything and crashing, wins.
> 
> Oh yeah, the guy behind the camera analogy !!
Click to expand...


Agreed, agreed, agreed, there is always the human facotr even in drag racing but thats the best analogy I could think of


----------



## AutofocusRoss

SashaT said:


> Man, read this whole thread and kept thinking one thing&#8230; It seems that the basic argument in this thread is the same as in any other hobby/passion/whatever you wish to call it. For example in the world of fly fishing, there is some really high end gear, low end gear and everything between. I often see some, for whatever reason try to justify their lower end gear by stating it is the same (or better) than the high end stuff.
> 
> Then in typical fashion the owners of the higher end gear jump in and justify why they own their equipment. Followed by the owners of the lower end gear stating why their gear makes more sense to buy and that the higher end stuff doesn&#8217;t really warrant the price difference. Hell, I could even make the same observations about another hobby of mine firearms.
> 
> Every time I see stuff like this I think &#8220;who cares&#8221;. If somebody wishes to spend their money on something that they like; then what is the big issue. If one likes the 5200 well good for them, if another likes the 7100 well good for them as well. It does not make one stupid or an idiot to spend more on something that they want. Maybe the features of one system are important enough to that person. At the end of the day does it really matter?
> 
> For the record, I only have been bitten by the photography bug for a short time. I started with and still have and use a low end D3000. When I decided to upgrade a little while ago, I opted for the 7100. The reasons were simple for me: the motor to run my AF D glass (having to manually focus on a fish is a huge PIA), tougher body and not being so menu driven just to name a few. Hell the first two alone were worth it to me based on the fact I use my stuff out on and in the water while fishing. The point of me even bothering to type this out is that different people have different wants and needs. There is no reason that I can think of to bash one or the other, that is unless one enjoys trolling&#8230;



SashaT that's 100% nailing it on the head. I was largely misunderstood by those who need 7100's - I was really trying to encourage would be 5200 buyers that though it is an inferior camera in some respects, it's strength is that the image quality is equal to the 7100 (DXo claim it is marginal but better, but in real world shooting I doubt you would ever see that). I hope that in some way, the thread will indeed encourage those, to whom the 5200 features are more than enough, to go ahead with their purchase, and enjoy making really wonderful images, with the resolution in hand to crop some of them, where a better image emerges from doing so.

Likewise, some or all of the features of the 7100 which have emerged here may encourage those who need it, to go for it instead. The features don't come cheap, and you won't get better images than those from the 5200 in normal circumstances, but maybe for fast moving sports and action photograpy, bad weather use, it will be the better option.

My first Nikon was the D5000 and at the time the next model up the line was the 7000. This was more tempting as it had most of the 7100 features, plus was 16mp not 12mp like the 5000. I saw more compelling reasons to look at it. Then the 5100 launched, and for me, cancelled out most of those reasons.

From here, the timing of model releases came into play. Had the 7100 come along first, I might well have sprung for one. As it was, the 5200 arrived some four or five months sooner, and even though I was very pleased indeed with the results from the 5100, that extra resolution was a clincher. It meant that if and when image crops became needed, I could ditch a third of the image and still have plenty of quality for large prints. The must have feature on all three models was the flip out LCD screen. It was poorly executed on the 5000 as it was hinged on the base of the camera making it hard to use on a tripod. Not impossible, but harder. The 5100 corrected that with the hinge on the left hand side, repositioning the classic position of Nikon control buttons onto the right hand side and the top plate of the camera.

5200 is all but identical externally, except now we have release mode on a direct button (single, 3fps, 5fps, self timer etc) plus the excellent 7000's autofocus system, plus of course, that lovely resolution, shared by it's sister the 7100.

When shooting portraits, the eyes sparkle so realistically, unlike anything I've seen before. Shots of brides reveal the most wonderful detail in the veil, embroidery on the dress, every petal on a bouquet etc.

That both cameras can do this is beyond question. They are equal, yet they are not equal, that is true to say. If you need the features go get the 7100, if you don't, and you also need to buy a better lens at the same time, then Nikon have kindly slotted the 5200 into the lineup for you, so you can have both for similar money.

Whichever way you go, bear in mind that this kind of resolution deserves, and demands, a better lens than the 'kit' one. If money is tight think about prime's. Apart from low light improved capability (f1.8) when used at f8 they blow the socks off cheaper zooms, and give 700.00 zooms a good run for the money. On the DX cameras the focal lenghts are approx 1.5x more, so the 35mm = 50mm, the 50mm = 75mm, the 85mm = 125mm approx. Remember you have a built in zoom with you all the time, its called a pair of legs!  It takes a while if you are a zoom only user, to get used to moving in, or away, from your subject.

Either camera will give you the results you are looking for. My parting shot (no pun intended) is that, unless you really need the features the 7100 offers, the 5200 deserves a very close look before you get the credit card out. Whichever you end up choosing, make sure you allow enough money in your budget for at least one high quality lens. This will last you through ownership of  several bodies over the years, and they say lenses are cheaper to repair than camera bodies (fortunately, I've been lucky so far and not had to have any repairs done).

Thanks to SashaT for bringing such a common sense opinion to the thread, I fully agree with it.


----------



## pixmedic

I think this thread has long run its course, and as much useful information as is going to be posted here has been already.


----------

