# Thinking to buy Nikon D5200 DSLR. Is that a good choice??



## Pown (Feb 11, 2014)

Hi

After a long research I am just thinking to buy Nikon D5200 as my first DSLR, I have used my friend's Nikon D3100 before and i learnt something, I am not a beginner. . 

I am just looking for a mid range DSLR, so i thought D5200 suits me, Please advice.

Thanks


----------



## goodguy (Feb 11, 2014)

Nikon D5200 is a good solid camera, has same sensor as the D7100 so it has good IQ, good DR and good low light performance.
I think its an excellent value for money.

Good luck


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 11, 2014)

Pown said:


> Hi
> 
> After a long research I am just thinking to buy Nikon D5200 as my first DSLR, I have used my friend's Nikon D3100 before and i learnt something, I am not a beginner. .
> 
> ...



Can't go wrong with a d5200 - I own one, it's a great camera all the way around.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack (Feb 11, 2014)

Solid choice.


----------



## jaomul (Feb 11, 2014)

D5200 is nice, however at moment New D7000 seem to be same price. No rotating screen and 16mp but better in many ways. It's worth comparing before purchase.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Feb 11, 2014)

jaomul said:


> D5200 is nice, however at moment New D7000 seem to be same price. No rotating screen and 16mp but better in many ways. It's worth comparing before purchase.



Yup


----------



## PaulWog (Feb 11, 2014)

Pown said:


> Hi
> 
> After a long research I am just thinking to buy Nikon D5200 as my first DSLR, I have used my friend's Nikon D3100 before and i learnt something, I am not a beginner. .
> 
> ...



I own the D5200. It's a good camera. There are some features I miss that the D7100 could provide, but that price-jump does feel quite big between the two cameras.


----------



## Pown (Mar 5, 2014)

Thank you guys for the advice, Let me compare D7000 as on of the friend suggested, But my mind is chanting D5200 anyway


----------



## bigal1000 (Mar 5, 2014)

It's a good camera but I would get a D7100 it offers a lot more than just great IQ if you can afford it it's the way to go,but only my opinion !!


----------



## bigal1000 (Mar 5, 2014)

Pown said:


> Thank you guys for the advice, Let me compare D7000 as on of the friend suggested, But my mind is chanting D5200 anyway



D7000 has a lot of back focus problems,do a search on it.


----------



## Hivess (Mar 5, 2014)

I only had this camera for a short time (had to get the D7100 for its'  more advanced features). But I felt it's metering was very good, the AF  system offered much more flexibility than the D3200 I had been using and  the 24mp was useful to me, allowing some cropping flexibility in post,  if I needed it. I also liked how light it was - very convenient for day  hikes.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Mar 6, 2014)

Go for D5300 if you don't use older lenses!!


----------



## PaulWog (Mar 6, 2014)

Vince.1551 said:


> Go for D5300 if you don't use older lenses!!



In my opinion, the D5300 is too close in price to the D7100 to warrant the price hike over the D5200. The only reason to get the D5300 currently would be if you need 60 fps 1080p video.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

PaulWog said:


> Vince.1551 said:
> 
> 
> > Go for D5300 if you don't use older lenses!!
> ...



Well on the upside the D5300 does remove the AA filter and also adds both GPS and Wifi - so if someone were very interested in those features that might be something that would make it worth it for them. On the downside there is a confirmed problem with the D5300 and some of the Sigma lenses, they apparently have issues with autofocusing using live view as well as the OS feature not working properly with the D5300 on some Sigma lenses.

Sigma has offered a free update to the firmware that will fix the issue, but it does require on any sigma lens that doesn't have the ability to update via USB (which is a lot of them) you have to ship it back to Sigma and have them update it, which is kind of a pain. So me, sticking with my D5200, will wait for the D7200 to be released, and will then decide if maybe I should go D7200 or pick up a D7100 after the prices on the used ones drop like a stone because all the D7100 folks will be upgrading to the D7200 and selling off their old ones on Ebay.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Mar 6, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Well on the upside the D5300 does remove the AA filter and also adds both GPS and Wifi - so if someone were very interested in those features that might be something that would make it worth it for them. On the downside there is a confirmed problem with the D5300 and some of the Sigma lenses, they apparently have issues with autofocusing using live view as well as the OS feature not working properly with the D5300 on some Sigma lenses.  Sigma has offered a free update to the firmware that will fix the issue, but it does require on any sigma lens that doesn't have the ability to update via USB (which is a lot of them) you have to ship it back to Sigma and have them update it, which is kind of a pain. So me, sticking with my D5200, will wait for the D7200 to be released, and will then decide if maybe I should go D7200 or pick up a D7100 after the prices on the used ones drop like a stone because all the D7100 folks will be upgrading to the D7200 and selling off their old ones on Ebay.



True and true. I feel the D5300 is a good buy given that it uses the latest tech and also Expeed 4. IQ is comparable to D7100. My only real complains are there's no weather sealing and it can't AF older lenses. It has great value for a mid entry level cam. Price wise I think the D7100 has dropped but still quite far off from the D5300 no?


----------



## PaulWog (Mar 6, 2014)

Vince.1551 said:


> True and true. I feel the D5300 is a good buy given that it uses the latest tech and also Expeed 4. IQ is comparable to D7100. My only real complains are there's no weather sealing and it can't AF older lenses. It has great value for a mid entry level cam. Price wise I think the D7100 has dropped but still quite far off from the D5300 no?



The processor inside of the D5300 is inconsequential. What matters is what the camera can do. Instead of mentioning that it has an Expeed 4, I argue that it would be better to examine why it has an Expeed 4 and what that processing power is allocated to. In the case of the D5300, it comes down to 60fps 1080p video, and more complex image processing (that's essentially the long and short of it).

The D7100 is $1000 currently at many retailers. The D5300 is $800 at the lowest-priced retailer.  The D5200 is $600 at the lowest-priced retailer. It's a no-brainer. Anyone who buys a D5300 instead of the D7100 is making a mistake... unless if they're PURELY buying the D5300 for video. On the no-AA-filter end of things, that's really not going to make a huge difference... if someone is really that concerned with the AA filter, they're probably shooting very specific scenes such as specific macro scenes, specific landscape scenes, etc... in which case they'd probably be using a different camera altogether.

Anyways, what I'm arguing is that stripping out the AA filter and adding 60fps 1080p video are the reasons for the $200 price hike. If someone wants to spend $200 more for the video, then that makes sense. If someone wants to spend $200 more for the AA filter change, then they really have to be a niche photographer who's on a budget and knows exactly what they want. Otherwise, spend $200 more for a D7100, or $200 less for a D5200... better money spent in my opinion.

edit: GPS features are really a huge battery drainer, and on a camera like the D5300, I see it as useless. The Wi-fi feature makes sense. I suppose those might be selling features. I just see the D5300 as a budget camera just like the D5200... and the D5200 out-budgetifies the D5300. If someone wants to splurge for features, that's why I think the D7100 sits at a better position right now. That's why I just think the D5300 is that niche camera that appeals to people who mistakenly think these new features matter, or to someone who is part of a very select minority of knowledgeable buyers who needs specific features.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

PaulWog said:


> Vince.1551 said:
> 
> 
> > True and true. I feel the D5300 is a good buy given that it uses the latest tech and also Expeed 4. IQ is comparable to D7100. My only real complains are there's no weather sealing and it can't AF older lenses. It has great value for a mid entry level cam. Price wise I think the D7100 has dropped but still quite far off from the D5300 no?
> ...



Well for me the GPS and WiFi wouldn't be worth it either, but not everyone uses their camera the same way I use mine - so for some folks they might actually like those features and use them enough that it would be worth it for them.  I know one guy in particular who loves his and would buy it again over a D7100 even if the 7100 was the same price - he almost always shoots landscapes from a tripod and he uses a tablet as a remote, and for him the GPS feature is a must have because he geotags his stuff.  He is absolutely ga ga over his 5300.  Me I prefer the 5200, I think it's a better value for me because while I do like having the wifi - I just bought the plug in adapter and it suits my needs just fine.

I use the wifi feature with my tablet so I can view the photos I've taken while I'm still at whatever location I'm shooting.  The larger screen makes it easy to spot the ones that might have issues and require a reshoot, so I can get a few retakes in if I think it's needed.  The camera's built in LCD is so small that even when I zoom in it's hard sometimes to tell if there might be some issues with sharpness, etc.  They show up much better on the tablet.

So for me really I'm pretty much like you, if I were going to spend $800 on a 5300 I'd just go ahead and spend the extra $200 and get the D7100.  But not everybody has the same needs when it comes to cameras, so I can see where some folks might actually prefer the D5300 over the D7100.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Mar 6, 2014)

PaulWog said:


> The processor inside of the D5300 is inconsequential. What matters is what the camera can do. Instead of mentioning that it has an Expeed 4, I argue that it would be better to examine why it has an Expeed 4 and what that processing power is allocated to. In the case of the D5300, it comes down to 60fps 1080p video, and more complex image processing (that's essentially the long and short of it).  The D7100 is $1000 currently at many retailers. The D5300 is $800 at the lowest-priced retailer.  The D5200 is $600 at the lowest-priced retailer. It's a no-brainer. Anyone who buys a D5300 instead of the D7100 is making a mistake... unless if they're PURELY buying the D5300 for video. On the no-AA-filter end of things, that's really not going to make a huge difference... if someone is really that concerned with the AA filter, they're probably shooting very specific scenes such as specific macro scenes, specific landscape scenes, etc... in which case they'd probably be using a different camera altogether.  Anyways, what I'm arguing is that stripping out the AA filter and adding 60fps 1080p video are the reasons for the $200 price hike. If someone wants to spend $200 more for the video, then that makes sense. If someone wants to spend $200 more for the AA filter change, then they really have to be a niche photographer who's on a budget and knows exactly what they want. Otherwise, spend $200 more for a D7100, or $200 less for a D5200... better money spent in my opinion.  edit: GPS features are really a huge battery drainer, and on a camera like the D5300, I see it as useless. The Wi-fi feature makes sense. I suppose those might be selling features. I just see the D5300 as a budget camera just like the D5200... and the D5200 out-budgetifies the D5300. If someone wants to splurge for features, that's why I think the D7100 sits at a better position right now. That's why I just think the D5300 is that niche camera that appeals to people who mistakenly think these new features matter, or to someone who is part of a very select minority of knowledgeable buyers who needs specific features.



Good points. Then why spend another $200 on D7100 if the D5300 can do a better job? And please explain what the D7100 is better aside from weather sealing & being able to use AF on older lens (the only advantage worthwhile mentioning). And advance image processing is not important? Aren't we all trying to get the best IQ all the time? Lenses by itself is just part of overall IQ ;-) Batteries ... just bring spares plus you don't use GPS all the time.


----------



## CmazzJK (Mar 6, 2014)

Doesnt the D5300 perform better in low light than the D7100?  There are a ton of reviews comparing the two why not check them out or better yet to handle both at a store


----------



## PaulWog (Mar 6, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Well for me the GPS and WiFi wouldn't be worth it either, but not everyone uses their camera the same way I use mine - so for some folks they might actually like those features and use them enough that it would be worth it for them.  I know one guy in particular who loves his and would buy it again over a D7100 even if the 7100 was the same price - he almost always shoots landscapes from a tripod and he uses a tablet as a remote, and for him the GPS feature is a must have because he geotags his stuff.  He is absolutely ga ga over his 5300.  Me I prefer the 5200, I think it's a better value for me because while I do like having the wifi - I just bought the plug in adapter and it suits my needs just fine.



That one guy is exactly part of my point: He's a niche photographer of which there are few. For someone getting their first camera, or looking for a new camera, they'd really have to know what they want to improve on or be able to do in order to really justify the D5300.



Vince.1551 said:


> Good points. Then why spend another $200 on D7100 if the D5300 can do a better job? And please explain what the D7100 is better aside from weather sealing & being able to use AF on older lens (the only advantage worthwhile mentioning). And advance image processing is not important? Aren't we all trying to get the best IQ all the time? Lenses by itself is just part of overall IQ ;-) Batteries ... just bring spares plus you don't use GPS all the time.



The D5300, in all practicality, does an identical job to the D5200 or D7100. The removed AA filter doesn't improve dynamic range, or contrast, or anything really. The only thing it does is remove the AA filter, so if you're pixel peeping or printing the size of a wall, you'll get an ever-so-slight advantage. If you're pixel peeping, it's a waste. If you're cropping, there's still going to be basically no difference (if you are cropping so much so that you can tell the difference, your pictures will look like they were taken on a potato). If you're printing the size of a wall, you're probably a pro and a D800 would better suit you.

The D5300 doesn't really provide better photos. Not by leaps and bounds. Not even by a tenth of a margin, if we're measuring on some sort of scale. If its dynamic range were better, or ISO performance were better (and I'm talking by not like a 13.7 -> 13.9 sort of change), then we might have something to say.

For all intents and purposes, if the D5300, D7100, and D5200 were all metered the same way, set up for the same shot, same lens, same ISO, same focus, etc, and the shutter were pressed, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the three shots. Because they're *SO* similar in that way, you're better off looking at the features that get you to that shutter release.

The D7100 offers: Lens focus calibration, 1/8000 shutter, flash commander mode, 100% viewfinder, weather sealing, a vastly better focusing system, a much larger shutter life, 1/250 flash sync rather than 1/200, a nicer set of controls (arguably the D5300 is smaller & lighter and the controls are just as fast once you figure out how to use the fn buttons to switch the wheel functions... but on the whole the D7100 is better for controls), and it offers a faster continuous shooting speed. And, of course, the ability to use older lenses.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 7, 2014)

PaulWog said:


> That one guy is exactly part of my point: He's a niche photographer of which there are few. For someone getting their first camera, or looking for a new camera, they'd really have to know what they want to improve on or be able to do in order to really justify the D5300.



Well it might be worth noting my original recommendation was the D5200 - I merely responded when the question about the D5300 was raised and tried to give the OP a good breakdown of the differences between the two.  I guess you'll have to shoot me for that.  

I'm guessing that not everyone out there feels the same way you apparently do about the D5300, as they do seem to be selling quite a few of them.  Maybe these folks are interested in the better video features, maybe for them the GPS system or the Wifi being built in is worth the additional cost.  Who knows.  Not everyone uses a camera exactly the same way and as such not everyone finds certain features as valuable as others.  Me I have almost no use for GPS whatsoever and for what I use wifi for the $50 adapter works like a charm for me.  But other folks do use those features in a wide variety of ways.  The guy I referred to loves his - and no, he's not a "niche" photographer.  He does do a lot of landscape work but he does a lot of other types of photography as well.  For him the D5300 was a great choice because it fulfills his needs in all of those various situations.

I can also relate a story about another individual I knew who bought a D7100 and used it for a while, then sold it and replaced it with a D5200.  She didn't like the D7100 at all, she hated having the control buttons on the back of the camera because she kept hitting them accidentally.  For her having all the extra controls was a downside, not an upside to the camera.  Me I'd rather have the external controls - but again, not everyone feels the same way about things like that.  

So on the whole when I do recommend cameras I try to give the OP the information they need and let them make the final determination as to which camera would be the best for them based on the features they want, not the features I think they should have.


----------



## pebbleheed (Mar 7, 2014)

I would opt for the D7000 instead of the D5200 if you're on a budget, or if you can up the cash the D7100. 

I'm speaking as someone who recently bought a D5300 and two months later it's gone. I now have a D7100 and it's an awesome camera. 

The D5200 will take decent pictures if used right, but you'll get more for your money with a 7000/7100. It's more of a camera to grow in to. 

I personally found the gps and wifi on the 5300 to be something I used once and no more. The 4 processor over the 3 makes no odds, the 7100 is faster and better at pretty much everything. 

Best thing to do is visit a store and play with them. See which you prefer. I wish I'd done this as the 5300 was lacking for me and the 7100 has plugged that gap after a couple of months.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 7, 2014)

pebbleheed said:


> I would opt for the D7000 instead of the D5200 if you're on a budget, or if you can up the cash the D7100.
> 
> I'm speaking as someone who recently bought a D5300 and two months later it's gone. I now have a D7100 and it's an awesome camera.
> 
> ...



It's kind of a toss up really when looking at the 5200 vrs the 7000. The 7000 has the built in af motor, weather sealing and better external controls plus the dual sd slots which are all great features - but the 5200 has the 24 mp sensor and believe me when you need to crop a shot that makes a huge difference in and of itself.



Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## pebbleheed (Mar 7, 2014)

I agree re the sensor. I have the 7100 now and enjoy cropping thanks to that sensor.  I guess it's a case of what features are the most important.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 7, 2014)

pebbleheed said:


> I agree re the sensor. I have the 7100 now and enjoy cropping thanks to that sensor.  I guess it's a case of what features are the most important.



Pretty much.  The 7000 has a ton of great features, the 5200 has the much better sensor - and not a huge price difference between them any more.  I've got a 5200 and it is a great camera, but I'm looking at possibly getting a 7100 myself.  For now my plan is to wait until fall when the 7200 comes out, wait and see what it offers and at what price point - if it's to good to pass up I'll get it, if not then the prices on the 7100 will drop especially for the used ones being sold off on Ebay and I'll buy one then.


----------



## pebbleheed (Mar 7, 2014)

I'm cautious of eBay, lots of imports about. But I think you'll love the step up to the 7100. It's a whole new camera experience when you start to get used to it.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 7, 2014)

pebbleheed said:


> I'm cautious of eBay, lots of imports about. But I think you'll love the step up to the 7100. It's a whole new camera experience when you start to get used to it.



I buy a lot of stuff of Ebay - I'm careful to read the description and ask about anything important they don't specify so I have everything in writing before I bid, and I only deal with reputable sellers.  Never had a problem.

I'd love to get a 7100, but I think my best bet will be to wait until the 7200 comes out.  Who knows, if the 7200 is all that it's cracked up to be I might just go that route instead, whatever gives me the best bang for my buck.


----------



## pebbleheed (Mar 7, 2014)

If it's anything like the step up from the 7000 to the 7100 it should be awesome. And expensive


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 7, 2014)

pebbleheed said:


> If it's anything like the step up from the 7000 to the 7100 it should be awesome. And expensive



Lol the good stuff always does.  I've got one more lens on my wishlist that will pretty much round out my kit and cover all the various shooting situations I usually find myself in, then I can start putting some money towards eventually upgrading the body.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 7, 2014)

pebbleheed said:


> If it's anything like the step up from the 7000 to the 7100 it should be awesome. And expensive



Lol the good stuff always is.  I've got one more lens on my wishlist that will pretty much round out my kit and cover all the various shooting situations I usually find myself in, then I can start putting some money towards eventually upgrading the body.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Mar 8, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> I buy a lot of stuff of Ebay - I'm careful to read the description and ask about anything important they don't specify so I have everything in writing before I bid, and I only deal with reputable sellers.  Never had a problem.  I'd love to get a 7100, but I think my best bet will be to wait until the 7200 comes out.  Who knows, if the 7200 is all that it's cracked up to be I might just go that route instead, whatever gives me the best bang for my buck.



Go full frame. Don't upgrade to another APS-C. If you have lots of DX lenses then it might be really painful ...


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 8, 2014)

Well i don't have a lot of dx lenses, however for me I don't think full frame would really be all that cost effective.  For the vast majority of what I shoot the crop factor comes in very handy,  and I don't really think the lowlight improvement would really be worth the additional cost at least for what I do.

I might look at full frame at some point but for right now the aps-c has been doing the job fine.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vince.1551 (Mar 9, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Well i don't have a lot of dx lenses, however for me I don't think full frame would really be all that cost effective.  For the vast majority of what I shoot the crop factor comes in very handy,  and I don't really think the lowlight improvement would really be worth the additional cost at least for what I do.  I might look at full frame at some point but for right now the aps-c has been doing the job fine.  Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk



Cool. I've always believed in spending what is needed vs what is good to have. Camera built aside(unless I shoot in extreme weathers frequently) the main attraction of owning a full frame cam is obviously the better IQ which the 35mm sensor provides. ISO wise I think some of the mid level cams can do pretty well.


----------



## PaulWog (Mar 9, 2014)

Vince.1551 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Well i don't have a lot of dx lenses, however for me I don't think full frame would really be all that cost effective.  For the vast majority of what I shoot the crop factor comes in very handy,  and I don't really think the lowlight improvement would really be worth the additional cost at least for what I do.  I might look at full frame at some point but for right now the aps-c has been doing the job fine.  Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk
> ...



The D610 doesn't offer much of a significant IQ boost over something like the D5200. The main attraction to me for a full frame camera is a shallower depth of field, better lens options (ie. 35mm on a crop sensor has worse bokeh and overall performance than a 50mm on full frame), and better handling of high ISO.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 9, 2014)

Vince.1551 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Well i don't have a lot of dx lenses, however for me I don't think full frame would really be all that cost effective.  For the vast majority of what I shoot the crop factor comes in very handy,  and I don't really think the lowlight improvement would really be worth the additional cost at least for what I do.  I might look at full frame at some point but for right now the aps-c has been doing the job fine.  Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk
> ...



At least for me thus far the crop sensor has filled me needs wonderfully.  Having faster glass makes a huge difference at least in my experience.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the better lowlight of the full frame and for some pictures not having the crop factor might be nice, I just can't really justify the cost for what I do.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pown (Mar 10, 2014)

PaulWog said:


> Vince.1551 said:
> 
> 
> > Go for D5300 if you don't use older lenses!!
> ...



Please advice, How to setup video at 60 frames per second? I don't know where to change it. . Please advice. . 

And also I couldn't able to turn on HDR, it's grey out. . Please help me out on that too. . Thanks


----------



## Pown (Mar 14, 2014)

Pown said:


> PaulWog said:
> 
> 
> > Vince.1551 said:
> ...



Anyone here to help me


----------



## bigal1000 (Mar 19, 2014)

Pown said:


> Pown said:
> 
> 
> > PaulWog said:
> ...



It's all in your owners manual !!!!!!!


----------



## Vince.1551 (Mar 19, 2014)

bigal1000 said:


> It's all in your owners manual !!!!!!!



lol


----------

