We are working hard on our own D7200 review, but for now, we wanted to share this great hands-on field test from the guys over at The Camera Store TV. As you all know, we are big fans of the in-depth and detailed field tests that these guys produce, so when we saw they had a new D7200 video up, we had to share.
If you have not checked them out yet, head on over to their YouTube channel for some of the best short format review videos on camera gear around! If you want to see some more of our original content on the D7200, you can read my initial impressions on the camera after I had a few minutes with it at WPPI 2015, here.
TCSTV Nikon D7200 Field Test
In this video, Chris shares his thoughts regarding the Nikon D7200, and takes viewers on a walk through the park as he discusses the new features – or lack there of – between this camera and its predecessor, the Nikon D7100.
I always find it interesting to hear Chris’s thoughts on the latest cameras, and while I don’t always agree, it is always a fun and informative watch. In this case, regarding the D7200, I happen to actually agree with a lot of what he says. It seems that Nikon has missed the mark with the D7200 in many ways, refusing to take it to that next level to really compete with other high end APS-C bodies.
What are your thoughts on the D7200 after watching this video? Do you agree with Chris and I about the D7200, or do you think that there are plenty of reasons to upgrade from the D7100? Leave a comment below!
[via TCSTV on Youtube]
25 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Looks like I will wait to upgrade.Like the reply’s on this review
saw the images up on flickr… dad gump, this camera rocks…
Oh yeah, I didn’t realize that; “D7200” does sound like “De 70-200”.
Is it a camera, is it a lens? Too funny.
back in the day I loved my D300… I used a D7100 & was impressed with it… but didn’t buy one.. Nikon, must, be about to release a worthy pro-ish crop body….. and so the D7200, very decent, but misses by a long way.
Fuji-X1.. is where I’m heading for my crop needs.
One thing that isn’t addressed nowadays is shadow noise of RAW files at low ISOs. I find D7100 and other Nikon’s 24MP cams quite poor in this when compared to older generation D7000 or Pentax 5 series and you’ll see the difference. Maybe 24 million pixels is too much for a 23.5 x 15.6 mm CMOS sensor…
I think you’re right on the 24mp is too much for them to be able to suppress that noise. Even going from a D7000 to a D700 was shocking, the noise on my d7000 or d3300 at iso 400 is probably twice as bad as my D700 at 1600.
I agree with Chris that in many situations, the D7200 will nog be worth an upgrade from a D7100. Unless you shoot regularly in lowlight situations or really want to shoot video with your camera. Otherwise, a D7100 is fine.
I’m looking into upgrading my D7000 system to the next level. I run a (fairly new) wedding photography business and upgrading needs to give me an edge that I don’t already have. The D7000 is, for me, a steady performer in most situations. Except lowlight. There, the autofocus is slow or simply off. Since I will be buying two new body’s, my interest goes towards the D7200 or the D750. Pricewise, D7200 will be the better investment, but here in The Netherlands most houses are small, so I can use the edge a larger sensor gives me. On the other hand, saving money on body’s gives me some budget for some extra glass. Sticking with the D7000 for one extra season is even more interesting, glass wise.
So, my question would be: how does the new D7200 compare with both the D7000 and the D750 on autofocussing in low light and in high ISO performance (DR and noise)? Would really love it if this comparisson would be included in the final article here at SLR Lounge.
I can only reply as a stat surfer, I wish I had experience with all 3, but I just have a D7000 as well. D7000 is rated to -1EV while the D750 and D7200 both have the same focusing system rated at -3EV, 2 stops lower. The only real complaint I have about the D7000 is I wished it locked on better indoor dim lighting. All the reviews say they the new system is pleasantly snappy. D750 is obviously going to be the noise king by physics. Think of taking a picture and cropping down to about half the size and that should be about what you expect from the crop. There will be another slight improvement from better sensor technology, probably about 0.5 stop more on the newer sensor. Check DXO mark for more precise numbers but that’s ballpark.
But, what about the con-sessor?
I’m pretty sure he knows what he’s talking aboot.
Once again another great review, but I think I’m going to stick with my 7100 for a little while longer.
Some good points that I mostly agree with. Nikon D80 –> D90 was a huge upgrade in terms of nearly everything. D90 –> D7000 another big jump, much improved autofocus an impressive jump in sensor image quality. D7100 added an even better autofocus system and improved the quality yet again and we are rid of the AA filter. The D7100 was a great birding camera from an AF/reach perspective if you could live with the buffer limitations. The D7200 is not the same jump that many were hoping for. In terms of ergonomics, if they changed it enough then the existing vertical grip, L-plates etc. could not be re-used by those who were upgrading. I think the D750 was the benchmark for what people were hoping for from the D7200 –> basically a D750 body with D5500 sensor, retain the 1/8000sec shutter speed and improve the buffer. The camera is still a fine camera, it just isn’t the jump that we normally expect from this class of camera from Nikon.
As of lately Nikon cameras just seem boring with the same old 24mpix sensors. They just don’t have the wow factor. Even the D810 isn’t a justifiable upgrade from the d800/800e.
Most people tend to think that 24mp is the sweet spot for general photography. I’d assume from there it just needs stay at 24mp and improve high iso noise and af speed and accuracy.
What exactly do you expect to get this “wow” factor???
Agree with Dave.
Mo’ pixels, mo’ problems — you have to balance detail vs. noise. If you are an ISO 100-200 studio shooter, more detail comes at basically no cost, and you should welcome high MP rigs. But I shoot with available light, so a lower MP body will fare a bit better.
Consider: the A7R and D810 are your best-in-class 36 MP rigs, yet low-light-lovers are using the A7s (at 12 MP!) and the D750 is winning all sorts of awards at 24 MP. #YMMV
ADAM… I bought a D700 mostly because it was only 12mp.. with the intent to use it for portraits, weddings etc… it seems with people that the less mp produce better portraits since you’re not really looking to have tons of sharpness all over.
My friend works at one of the portrait studios in the mall (that owns most all the ones like that and do a majority of school photos, etc…) and they all use Nikon d2X’s and really the photos they produce are wonderful.
I think with DX they’d be better off rolling back to 16mp to get less noise levels.
I still hope they will launch a new DX to compete with the 7D Mark II. Maybe they are waiting to produce a better AF focus system to surpass Canons Cross point AF. Let’s see and hope! I would love a D400 solid body with a cropped sensor!
Forget competing for just a second. Just think of the money Nikon is leaving on the table. Using the Canon experience as example, when Canon offered 7D1 owners people the flagship AF system from the 1Dx, +2 fps, +1/2 stop of low light, + a larger buffer, people weren’t hedging their bets; the money was coming out of their pocket on day one.
For that most demanding 5-10% of crop users (again: birders and wildlife folks), migrating to FF means a **$5-10K punch in the face** to get the same reach at the same frame rate. So Canon asked for $2500 for the 7D2 and they would have gotten it for the first 30 days or so from 4-5 years of pent-up 7D1 user demand.
Typo, sorry. “Canon *could have asked* $2500”
I think part of the problem is that you can get a d610 for less than this fabled d400 would be and the exceptions are too high. Everyone wants a d4s body with a dx sensor, they made that mistake with the d300/d700 lines and while great for the consumers they might have even lost money on it.
Personally if I had the choice between a “d400” (dx sensor in d750 body with 10fps) for $1800 or a D750 for $2300 it’s be a no brainer to get the d750 or pick up a d610 and a used d7100 for not much more than the canon 7dm2. You can get a d610 for $1400 now and those d7100 will come down to $500-600 used in the next week or two.
Nice review, but Chris missed the boat when he tried to compare this to a 7D2. The D7200 may be the best APS-C rig that Nikon is selling, but it’s in a different price point with a different feature set than the 7D2. They are, effectively, apples and oranges.
It just appears that Nikon will only offer *so* good of an APS-C rig when they could offer a much better one. They could offer a pro-build, go-to-war crop body for the reach obsessed / weight-constrained shooters (wildlife, BIF, etc.) out there.
I realize that their FF bodies are terrific, but not offering a pro-crop setup so that folks actually go and buy a FF rig is not going to be as successful with the reach-obsessed camp. Birders and wildlife shooters who migrate up to FF would then need to buy the priciest superteles to get back the length they’ve lost. That’s a really tough sell.
Well said Adam. I love wildlife and bird photography, but I do not make money off them. I shoot WL and birds with a DX camera, everything else with my D800. Yes, whenever my subjects are close enough I could shoot them with my D800, I would do so, and the images are awesome. But, for the most part, my D7000 is my primary WL and bird camera. I cannot justify the price of a small car just to get one lens on photos I am not paid to make. The price of a Canon 7D Mk2 plus the 100-400 tele-zoom is less than one lens with the same reach (600mm) on FX.
Good review.
They really do produce amazing reviews!
I am still happy with my D7100. My next upgrade will be full-frame. (hopefully D750)