# Anyone got the 7200 yet?



## Seventen (Mar 26, 2015)

Since November I have been considering the 7100 but kept putting it of in hopes of the 7200 coming out. Now its out and has some nice features that I think is much better than the 7100, but people keep saying its a bad upgrade from the 7100s features.

I still use a Nikon 5100 and I used the 7200 today for about 40 minutes testing all my lenses on it and oh wow it blew my mind how good it was, but this is being compared to a much older camera.

What I am trying to figure out here is is the Nikon 7200 priced at 1100 euros a wise move to make or should I settle for the older 7100 priced at 900 euros. In my mind the 7200 wins it for me, but I have never tried a 7100. 

What I am hoping is if anyone here has tried both of them or if someone who has the Nikon 7200 could give there thoughts on it. I have seen plenty about the 7100 but not many about the 7200 and the ones that are about are complaining about the minor upgrades being too little, no 4k, no touch screen etc.. 

After playing with it today I feel like I am in love for the first time again it really was amazing for me. 

Thank you,


----------



## ronlane (Mar 26, 2015)

If you've spent time shooting it and feel that it is the best for you, go for it. What others think don't matter. It's what YOU think and the images that you produce with them.

If you are happy with it, then you are going to get out and shoot with it.

Enjoy it.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

up grades aren't worth much unless you are a bird shooter hammering down on it enjoying the buffer space difference. imo it seems primarily a bird/sport shooter camera. I dont have the 7200 i have the 7100. Which is okay, for what it is. i have thought the lowlight iso noise sucked since i bought it though. The 610 for a few hundred extra might be worth the money depending on what you shoot.


----------



## otherprof (Mar 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> up grades aren't worth much unless you are a bird shooter hammering down on it enjoying the buffer space difference. imo it seems primarily a bird/sport shooter camera. I dont have the 7200 i have the 7100. Which is okay, for what it is. i have thought the lowlight iso noise sucked since i bought it though. The 610 for a few hundred extra might be worth the money depending on what you shoot.


This is the first time I've seen the word "sucked" associated with the 7100, so this might be the most valuable post on the camera for me, since I was looking forward to better low light shots. I'm in the same situation as Seventen, shooting with a 5100, which I mostly love, with Nikon 18-200, 10-24, 35 1.8 and the 18-55, and I was planning on upgrading to the 7100 now that the 7200 is out. How much of loss of quality would there be shooting my DX lenses on the 610 in DX mode compared to the 5100? I'd add FX glass if I got the 610, but wouldn't want to give up the lenses I have. More advice appreciated.


----------



## qleak (Mar 26, 2015)

Since you have DX lenses you are happy with I'd go for the newer camera.  The d7200 will likely be the flagship DX camera for a year or two.  Why not have the best if you can actually afford it?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

otherprof said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > up grades aren't worth much unless you are a bird shooter hammering down on it enjoying the buffer space difference. imo it seems primarily a bird/sport shooter camera. I dont have the 7200 i have the 7100. Which is okay, for what it is. i have thought the lowlight iso noise sucked since i bought it though. The 610 for a few hundred extra might be worth the money depending on what you shoot.
> ...


Using Nikon DX Lenses on FX Cameras

this explains it better than i could.


----------



## MOREGONE (Mar 26, 2015)

I'd say spend the ~200 now and get the camera that you waited for and were impressed with. That ~200 will be a lot easier to appreciate when the 7300 comes out and you're shooting with the last model instead of the even older 7100. Just my .02


----------



## Seventen (Mar 26, 2015)

Thanks for the fast replies.

The low light performance means a lot to me as I shoot in woodland areas, the 5100 really would never get a decent shot above ISO 800. I only used the 7200 in the shop but had a chance to use all my lenses on it and even the wife was like wow the images are so much clearer and detailed over some of my others ones. I really do think it is the camera for me and yes would be nice for once in my life to own something that is actually so new it can't get out dated for almost 2 years.

I did plan on setting out on its my choice and I will choose but searching the internet got the better of me and found myself reading negative points. (The wife and I talk about this often we have a one year old son and search the net often about behaviour and suggestions on a good diet etc. You only ever to seem to find negative comments as those happy rarely post about it, so maybe the same here)

The 610 in my mind is out of the question, I do like to have the extra reach from the DX line. The 610 really don't feel like a big jump up like the 7100 or 7200, maybe I am wrong people will see me as an blind idiot for missing some big details. But if I was going FX I would want to jump into a mid ranged model.

I will make a purchase tomorrow but which one still not decided but I am favouring the 7200 at the moment. I will keep searching tonight and looking through images people have taken with it.

I know the post might seem pointless to some people as my mind should have taken the 7200 today but thats a lot of money for me so getting some more opinions is quite nice.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 26, 2015)

On cameras: owners of OLDER models are very,very quick to take to the internet to proclaim that the new model they cannot afford is "not much of an improvement", for all who will listen. Keep that in mind.


----------



## MOREGONE (Mar 26, 2015)

Seventen said:


> Thanks for the fast replies.
> 
> The low light performance means a lot to me as I shoot in woodland areas, the 5100 really would never get a decent shot above ISO 800. I only used the 7200 in the shop but had a chance to use all my lenses on it and even the wife was like wow the images are so much clearer and detailed over some of my others ones. I really do think it is the camera for me and yes would be nice for once in my life to own something that is actually so new it can't get out dated for almost 2 years.
> 
> ...



yeah man, no matter which way you go that's some serious coin and deserves some consideration. I do believe either camera would be quite suitable but you will have to decide wether its worth the difference in price.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 26, 2015)

Given the choice id get the d7200, but factoring cost I might yield to d7100.

using tapatalk.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 26, 2015)

Seventen said:


> Thanks for the fast replies.
> 
> The low light performance means a lot to me as I shoot in woodland areas, the 5100 really would never get a decent shot above ISO 800. I only used the 7200 in the shop but had a chance to use all my lenses on it and even the wife was like wow the images are so much clearer and detailed over some of my others ones. I really do think it is the camera for me and yes would be nice for once in my life to own something that is actually so new it can't get out dated for almost 2 years.
> 
> ...



I don't know why you aren't getting usable shots above iso 800 on your d5100. If you find my thread today on my focusing rail, the pictures I took of the rail on and off the camera were taken with a nikon 1 J3 at 10 mm ISO 3200 and they cleaned up nicely with a little noise reduction in LR. The nikon 1 has a cx size sensor, smaller than a m4/3 sensor and much smaller than your APS-C sensor.
The trick  is to make sure your exposure is right. 3200 with good exposure is better than 800 that's underexposed. 

If i can get usable shots with my J3 at iso 3200, i have no doubt you can with your D5100


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

someone posted on here a couple times now a website that you can punch in the camera model and it compares noise levels at various isos. That could come in useful unfortunately i cant find it.


----------



## goodguy (Mar 26, 2015)

The D7200 is an upgraded D7100, the D7100 is already an excellent camera but its not perfect, it main issue was the small buffer, for me it was a non issue, even in sport shooting with some practice 6 shot buffer is enough but I am sure now the much bigger buffer will be a welcome improvement.
Image quality should be very close, low light performance looks like its a huge improvement with 25800 ISO natively but I think this is probably more of a gimmic, my D7100 was good up too 6400 iso but not more then that, I assume the D7200 will improve that but not by much for real world use.
AF is better but to be honest the one on the D7100 is already very good.
It also has some better video capabilities but I never bothered with that so I am not sure how good it is compared to the D7100

Is the D7200 worth the 200 euros is something only you can decide, if you had the D7100 I would say keep the D7100 but you don't but a jump form the D5100 will be a faily big jump.
I would get the D7200 but either way both cameras are very good!

Good luck


----------



## MOREGONE (Mar 26, 2015)

It's tough question to pose because people with the 7100 aren't probably running to the stores to buy the 7200. It's an incremental upgrade really. So it would be hard to find someone with extensive use on both cameras let alone the 7200 with how new it is.

I'll mention this though, I just got my D610 after having a D600 and though the specs are mostly the same, I swear there is some extra mojo in the D610 that isn't captured in the specs.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 27, 2015)

Maybe Austin Powers made your D610.


----------



## qleak (Mar 27, 2015)

MOREGONE said:


> It's tough question to pose because people with the 7100 aren't probably running to the stores to buy the 7200. It's an incremental upgrade really. So it would be hard to find someone with extensive use on both cameras let alone the 7200 with how new it is.



I think what you need to ask is how long term of an investment is a camera body. For me it is approximately 5 years.  The longest anyone has had a d7100 is two years. I suspect a rather low proportion of people consider a camera back a two year (or less) investment.


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 27, 2015)

I'd just get the d7200.  It's a new model, it's an upgrade to your d5100 and you've tested it and liked it.

You can also work on squeezing out more performance from your d5100 (and you) but if the d7200 made it that much more easy in just testing it I'd say go for it.

I've had a d7000 since 11/2012 I think, but I also have a d600.
I can say that I used a DX lens on my FF once.  that is .. ONCE.   All my other lenses are FF lenses.  with the larger sensor and larger image you can also have alot of cropping ability, same with the 7200.

If you think the d7200 would immediately improve your capabilities though, I'd say go for it.


----------



## zeds (Mar 27, 2015)

ronlane said:


> If you've spent time shooting it and feel that it is the best for you, go for it. What others think don't matter. It's what YOU think and the images that you produce with them.
> 
> If you are happy with it, then you are going to get out and shoot with it.
> 
> Enjoy it.


that's good idea.
i agree with this solution.hehe


----------



## TheLost (Mar 27, 2015)

The simple answer is: buy the D7200.  If you cant afford it buy a used or refurbished D7100..  

Do not buy a new D7100.  

In the next few months the used price of the D7100 will bottom out.  Refurbished D7100 already sell for $650-ish here in the US... the used market will probably settle on $500-$600(US) depending on shutter count.  I would assume the trend will be the same in other countries.

I have abused my D7100 since the day it was released and i have massively enjoyed every shutter click.  I doubt you will regret spending the money on a D7200.


----------



## Seventen (Mar 27, 2015)

I just got home with the 7200. Singing all the way home  made sure I bought a spare battery as I find it very if don't have instant access to a camera.

Pixmedic the iso on the 5100 when doing landscape and aurora shots going up to 1600 is quite fine. Where I have issues with it was in the forest shooting small birds. Anything over 800 made the birds really bad quality. But like you said most likely under exposed which I normally use shutter priority when after birds. 

Thank you everyone for your words of wisdom. I think I was just after that reassurance it's the right move to make although it already felt right after testing it. I do feel happy I went for this one rather than the 7100. 

I am hoping the built in connection to the phone could be of use. Last week when the eclipse was happening I was giving updates to people unable to watch it and was having to get images from the card to laptop then from laptop to phone to send. So looking forward to this feature if it really is that simple.


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 27, 2015)

Try to learn to use Manual. It's just one more thing.
You can set Aperture and Shutter
and if you preset ISO to AUTO with a MAX ISO limit

Then you'll get the Aperture and Shutter that you want.  That's what I do most of the time when I'm outdoors.


----------



## goodguy (Mar 27, 2015)

Seventen said:


> I just got home with the 7200. Singing all the way home  made sure I bought a spare battery as I find it very if don't have instant access to a camera.


Congrats on your new camera, you did the right thing! 
Enjoy


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 27, 2015)

I have this odd feeling we're  gonna see a lot more photos from Finland in the coming months ...


----------



## JustJazzie (Mar 27, 2015)

Maybe think of it this way: users saying it's not worth the upgrade are essentially saying ' it isn't worth spending $x000 to upgrade from the7100 I have, this is not a $x000 upgrade" if you offered those same people the chance to upgrade from a 7100 to a 7200 for only $200, I'd bet 99% would stop talking about how much of a dissapointment the 7200 is, jump on the upgrade wagon.
Just my 2¢


----------



## syaudi (Mar 27, 2015)

Seventen said:


> I did plan on setting out on its my choice and I will choose but searching the internet got the better of me and found myself reading negative points. (The wife and I talk about this often we have a one year old son and search the net often about behaviour and suggestions on a good diet etc. You only ever to seem to find negative comments as those happy rarely post about it, so maybe the same here)


that depends on the camera you're looking up. sometimes I'll go online to read and reread 5DIII reviews just to see people praising my camera to no end. 
I haven't looked up the 5Ds or 5Ds R yet though, I'm too lazy to (I swear I'm interested). I'm just busy reading more praise for my lens atm but I'll get to the bodies soon enough.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 27, 2015)

The only people upgrading from the D7100 to the D7200 are going to be the ones that need the buffer.  so it wont be many.


----------



## Seventen (Mar 27, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> Try to learn to use Manual. It's just one more thing.
> You can set Aperture and Shutter
> and if you preset ISO to AUTO with a MAX ISO limit
> 
> Then you'll get the Aperture and Shutter that you want.  That's what I do most of the time when I'm outdoors.



I use manual for almost everything just with the birds in the forest I struggle a little, mainly with the issue I would like to be around f8 but its rather obstructed sunlight a lot of the time so I used to set ISO 800 and shutter speed to make sure I get the speed I need with the hopes it would be slightly higher than f5.6.
Am hoping now if I push ISO higher and use auto ISO the manual will get much easier for what I want.

Here is a shot from Finland


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 27, 2015)

Seventen said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Try to learn to use Manual. It's just one more thing.
> ...


Nice shot.
One reason I got a FF for high ISOs.
Now I just have to get my rear to some place dark if it ever stops snowing.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Mar 27, 2015)

I hope the price on the d7100 drops even more, I'd love to pick one up for extra reach with wildlife


----------



## bribrius (Mar 27, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:


> I hope the price on the d7100 drops even more, I'd love to pick one up for extra reach with wildlife


Primarily what is good for imo. Notice you are shooting landscapes with ff though. Different camera, different use.


----------



## Seventen (Mar 28, 2015)

You have snow issues too then, this year has not been too snowy, well actually a lot less but been very cloudy for months. Have only been out with the telescopes only 5 times since October which was not too much fun, but luckily a couple of nights when  there was strong Aurora. Last week for the eclipse was meant to be cloud but luckily was plenty of clear skies around but clouds did interfere a little. It was my first ever time imaging an eclipse so was very pleased with myself.


----------



## Seventen (Mar 28, 2015)

Found what I was looking for right after posting this.

Now I can print out the user guide.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 28, 2015)

qleak said:


> MOREGONE said:
> 
> 
> > It's tough question to pose because people with the 7100 aren't probably running to the stores to buy the 7200. It's an incremental upgrade really. So it would be hard to find someone with extensive use on both cameras let alone the 7200 with how new it is.
> ...



You don't think people consider camera bodies a 2 year or less investment? There's a website Id like you to check out: thephotoforum dot com.


----------



## qleak (Mar 28, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> > MOREGONE said:
> ...


I think this could be an interesting poll, though i think it may more naturally be 2 polls split for enthusiasts and pros. 

I of course do believe it is less permanent of an investment for some people.  But I'd conjecture 2 years is below the median,  mode and arithmetic mean even for TFP.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 28, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> > MOREGONE said:
> ...


i tend to keep a camera for many years. Not to say i won't buy a new one but i keep the older one as well.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 28, 2015)

"No need to upgrade from my D70. It still takes just as good a picture as the day it did when I bought it."
 "I love my D90!" 
"Just because there are newer cameras, it doesn't mean my old D80 is useless!"
"There's no need for a full frame camera. I still love my D200!"


----------



## kt033 (Mar 29, 2015)

I was looking into getting the d7200 or the Nikon 610. From your experience, does the wider ISO range compensate in low-light situations? I am not sure if going with a full-frame will give me more bang for my buck than the possibly "gimmicky" ISO range. I am working with very old equipment so I am open to getting one of two new FX lens' with the camera. I was looking to do a broad range of photography (weddings, horses, vineyards, videos, ect). Any advice would be greatly appreciated between choosing the 7200 or 610.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 29, 2015)

all your photography screams FF needs.


----------



## kt033 (Mar 29, 2015)

Braineack said:


> all your photography screams FF needs.



I didn't know if the great specs on the new 7200 would make it better to go with DX vs. a lower model FX.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 29, 2015)

IQ on the d600 is still going to beat it.


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 29, 2015)

kt033 said:


> I was looking into getting the d7200 or the Nikon 610. From your experience, does the wider ISO range compensate in low-light situations? I am not sure if going with a full-frame will give me more bang for my buck than the possibly "gimmicky" ISO range. I am working with very old equipment so I am open to getting one of two new FX lens' with the camera. I was looking to do a broad range of photography (weddings, horses, vineyards, videos, ect). Any advice would be greatly appreciated between choosing the 7200 or 610.


The ISO range isn't gimmicky.   The users that have upgrade to FF all really enjoy the "gimmicky" though totally improved ISO/low light range.

It's fantastic. I went from a d7000 to a d600 and still have both.  It's really a night and day difference.  The d7000 now only has limited use.  I'd like to upgrade it to a d7200 but I'd rather add the d750 instead.


----------



## goodguy (Mar 30, 2015)

Braineack said:


> IQ on the d600 is still going to beat it.


D7200 should have slightly better low light performance then the D7100 but it cant touch a FX (or FF) camera like the D610/600 in low light.
The range of 100-25600ISO on the D7200 is gimmicky.
I wouldnt bother using it above 6400ISO


----------



## BillM (Mar 30, 2015)

I just went from the 7100 to the 7200 for one reason, the buffer. I'll never use any of the other features but the buffer was enough of an improvement for me to go get one. My 7100 served me well for 20,000 clicks but that buffer was an issue that needed to be fixed for the way I shoot. 

Now I just need Adobe to get the Camera RAW update out.


----------



## kt033 (Mar 30, 2015)

BillM said:


> I just went from the 7100 to the 7200 for one reason, the buffer. I'll never use any of the other features but the buffer was enough of an improvement for me to go get one. My 7100 served me well for 20,000 clicks but that buffer was an issue that needed to be fixed for the way I shoot.
> 
> Now I just need Adobe to get the Camera RAW update out.




I am also very tempted to get the 7200 based on its features (vs the d610). I am still new to photography so I think the higher shutter speed, buffering,reach and video quality(60fps at 1080p) makes me lean towards the 7200.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Mar 30, 2015)

Lol @ high ISO being some kind of gimmick.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:
			
		

> Lol @ high ISO being some kind of gimmick.



See posts #9 and #37...

I went into BestBuy yesterday...stopped by the camera section, and the D7200 was not in stock...they still had the D7100 priced at $1299. Apparently they wanna try and bilk unsuspecting customers. Looks like more sales emphasis on D3300 and D5500 and D750 at this time (only models with lenses on them instead of body caps!). Overall a VERY *pathetic sales effort* at my local BestBuy, with NO LENSES on several Nikon bodies, all the Canons with lenses mounted.

I have a feeling the channel is still stuffed with old inventory, all over North America.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 30, 2015)

They were still hauking the D7000 and D5100 last Black friday.


----------



## Kenneth Walker (Apr 1, 2015)

Well, I was sort of hoping that people might be queuing up to trade in their d7100s........so I could upgrade from my d5000. Here's hoping!


----------



## CanadiaNikon (May 4, 2015)

Enjoy your D7200!  It looks like a beast of a camera.


----------



## jsecordphoto (May 4, 2015)

I rented one to hold me over while the d750 is being fixed, can't say that I'm too impressed. Granted, I'm comparing it to the 750, but the noise with this camera is pretty bad. Seeing tons of noise in blue sky even at iso400...


----------



## jaomul (May 5, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:


> I rented one to hold me over while the d750 is being fixed, can't say that I'm too impressed. Granted, I'm comparing it to the 750, but the noise with this camera is pretty bad. Seeing tons of noise in blue sky even at iso400...


Loads of noise at iso 400 implies your are under exposing. Expose correctly and you should have very little noise at even higher than this. Carry this over to your d750 and even that will work better


----------



## jsecordphoto (May 5, 2015)

jaomul said:


> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I rented one to hold me over while the d750 is being fixed, can't say that I'm too impressed. Granted, I'm comparing it to the 750, but the noise with this camera is pretty bad. Seeing tons of noise in blue sky even at iso400...
> ...



Lol thanks for the tip buddy


----------



## jaomul (May 5, 2015)

Your welcome


----------



## jsecordphoto (May 5, 2015)

jaomul said:


> Your welcome



You're*

1. You're implying that I don't know how to read a histogram

And 2. Not every scene is evenly balanced where one exposure will cover all the tonal values. For example, photographing osprey I need to spot meter their white feathers otherwise I'd get a bunch of blown out highlights. On my 750 I can expose for the highlights and pull out shadow detail no problem even at iso1600 or higher without introducing a ton of noise. Even at base ISO on this camera I have to nail the exposure because trying to bring out shadow detail ends up looking terrible. Maybe I should just ask the ospreys to hold still while I bracket a few frames for HDR?


----------



## jaomul (May 5, 2015)

Actually you are correct about my spelling, sorry . You're is correct. I'm not going to argue on the net, I didn't mean to insult you.

You now are saying that you can pull shadows on d750 @ 1600. That's great, I do not doubt that. I'd say the d750 is amazing, likely head and shoulders above the d7200.

You previously stated you get lots of noise @ ISO400 and I believe that's likely down to exposure. I am not concerned about how you take photographs, whatever works for you is good. I do however see many bird shots with the d7100 which is if anything inferior (likely by a hair) @way higher iso than 800 without loads of noise


----------



## bribrius (May 5, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > Your welcome
> ...


don't know about the 7200, but i been saying the 7100 is scared of the dark for about a year and a half now. Depending on the light (as you mentioned exposure) i can push it up to about 1600 usually with a usable image and no major noise reduction.. Really like to stay under a thousand though. I would like to suggest that there is a a "fixed point" of actual usable iso. But there really isn't, all depends on the scene. Sometimes you have to or want to under expose. Higher iso's go soft and the shadow recovery can become problem some.. Not to say they can't be done, depends.. Keep in mind the 750 is full frame and twice the price. Two totally different levels.


----------



## jsecordphoto (May 5, 2015)

I'm just stating my experience with a camera that is touted to be pretty damn good with noise, dynamic range, and at high iso. Granted, I got spoiled with the 750. It's been pretty disappointing, especially the lack of dynamic range. It's not realistic to need a perfectly balanced scene all the time


----------



## astroNikon (May 5, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:


> I'm just stating my experience with a camera that is touted to be pretty damn good with noise, dynamic range, and at high iso. Granted, *I got spoiled with the 750*. It's been pretty disappointing, especially the lack of dynamic range. It's not realistic to need a perfectly balanced scene all the time


^^^ That's the problem.
Same issue with my d600 and d7000.
My d7000 is a great camera.  The problem is, it isn't compared to the d600.


----------



## bribrius (May 5, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:


> I'm just stating my experience with a camera that is touted to be pretty damn good with noise, dynamic range, and at high iso. Granted, I got spoiled with the 750. It's been pretty disappointing, especially the lack of dynamic range. It's not realistic to need a perfectly balanced scene all the time


yes. I can definitely see your dismay. You stepped down from a lexus to a mazda. I like the "gimmick" aspect that was mentioned. As it seems all my digitals have larger iso ranges than what i actually find to be "usable" iso.


----------



## ph0enix (May 6, 2015)

bribrius said:


> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jaomul said:
> ...



I just upgraded from a D90 to a D7200 and the difference in low light performance is night and day.   With the D90 anything over 800 looks like crap.  With the 7200, I can comfortably shoot at 6400.  That's 3 full stops.   I did consider the D750 but I like the extra reach that I'm getting with a DX camera when using telephoto lenses.


----------



## jsecordphoto (May 6, 2015)

ph0enix said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > jsecordphoto said:
> ...



Don't get me wrong, it's still a great camera. I'm sending it back to lensprotogo tomorrow and I will miss the extra reach, and in good light it's pretty awesome.


----------



## CanadiaNikon (May 11, 2015)

I just made the upgrade from the D5100 to the D7200. I am really happy with my purchase.


----------



## lance70 (May 12, 2015)

kt033 said:


> I was looking into getting the d7200 or the Nikon 610. From your experience, does the wider ISO range compensate in low-light situations? I am not sure if going with a full-frame will give me more bang for my buck than the possibly "gimmicky" ISO range. I am working with very old equipment so I am open to getting one of two new FX lens' with the camera. I was looking to do a broad range of photography (weddings, horses, vineyards, videos, ect). Any advice would be greatly appreciated between choosing the 7200 or 610.



I purchased a D610 about 6 weeks back or so....I had the D7100 and actually planned on keeping that as well but honestly after using the 610 for a few weeks I had no reason to keep the 7100... will put the money into another lens..... but yeah I would say if you can afford the D610 you will not be disappointed....I had no idea what I was missing until I went to a full frame and experienced it, at least for what I shoot, it makes a huge difference.....


----------



## astroNikon (May 12, 2015)

lance70 said:


> kt033 said:
> 
> 
> > I was looking into getting the d7200 or the Nikon 610. From your experience, does the wider ISO range compensate in low-light situations? I am not sure if going with a full-frame will give me more bang for my buck than the possibly "gimmicky" ISO range. I am working with very old equipment so I am open to getting one of two new FX lens' with the camera. I was looking to do a broad range of photography (weddings, horses, vineyards, videos, ect). Any advice would be greatly appreciated between choosing the 7200 or 610.
> ...


My thoughts exactly.  Great capabilities in the current FF sensors if you need it.


----------



## FemFugler (May 22, 2015)

Thank you for making this thread. I was just about to ask the same thing.

I have been hiatus from this forum and photography in general for a few years and have recently picked up my camera again and would like to upgrade.
I currently have the D3000 so either one would be a pretty decent upgrade for me. I'm just wondering if the extra $$$ for the newer 7200 is worth it or if i should just go with the older 7100 model. I was looking at the specs side by side and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot different.


----------

