Commiserate with me...

<p>Well, there's nine days left until Christmas, and there's still no sign of a new D7200. At this point I would have opted for the new Canon 7DmkII, but unfortunately it's sensor technology still isn't up to Nikon standards. I'm considering becoming a corporate espionage agent to infiltrate Nikon, and get the information they hold so close to the vest. WHO'S WITH ME! ;) ;) ;)</p>

<p>What? I couldn't hear you. I was out <em>taking some pictures with a perfectly good one-year-old camera</em>. <br /><br />Not be a wet blanket or anything :-)</p>

<p>NikonRum... just published some D7200 rumored specs. Take it with a grain of salt but it seems the D7200 may be arriving this coming February.</p>

<p>+1 Matt</p>

<p>Two years ago, the D7000 was heavily discounted before and during the holiday season (I think they started with big discounts on Black Friday). The D7100 was introduced in February 2013. <br>

I am going to guess Nikon is going to follow the same pattern this season and we will see a D7200 early next year. <br>

It would make no sense to introduce a new model this close to the holiday. They are trying to move the remaining D7100 inventory now - before any new model is released. <br>

anyway, the prices on the D7100 has come down quite a bit- and some remaining d7000s have shown up for sale for less than $600. So, there are some pretty good options out there - unless you think the D7200 will have some feature you can't live without. (and really what could that be, to make it that much better than the D7100?)</p>

<p>OK What I want is an upgrade to the D300 & D300s. Until then I'm staying put with my D300 & D800.</p>

<p>I hope I don't run into anyone from Nikon or I just might have to waterboard em. ;) </p>

<p>I'm with Lil here.Somewhere next year I'll probably start shopping for a new camera to replace my D300. I want to stay with DX, and want the prosumer controls. If NIkon does not have such a camera by then I'm going to sell my NIkon stuff and start with another brand. I fear it's the only way (if there is a way at all) to make them listen...</p>

<p>I think anyone waiting for a D300s replacement is going to have a long wait. Can't see Nikon ever making one of those. When the D300 and then the D300s were introduced, Nikon had been making DX sensor Pro cameras for years (D1 and all its variations, D2 and all its variations), with the D100, D200 and finally the D300 the step down models. For the past six or so years, Nikon's Pro cameras (D3 and all its variations, D4 and all its variations) have all been FX, and their step down models (D700, D800 and all its variations, D750) have been FX likewise. I think Nikon has relegated DX to its consumer only line of cameras and therefore a step down Pro DX camera is not in the cards.</p>

<p>I got a chance to play with a 7D Mk II the other day.</p>

<p>All I can say is this... if I didn't own lenses and was in the market for a DSLR, it would be my first choice. That camera is TERRIFIC! I have a feeling that the sensor that is "worse than Nikon" will probably take just as good a picture in the right hands.</p>

<p>I can only hope (although I no longer shoot Nikon) that Nikon will answer well, if they do.</p>

<p>I am with Lil on this one. My d 300s is still doing just fine when I need a crop sensor camera and fast frames per sec.<br>

Joe Smith<br>

j</p>

<p>Just to throw the cat among the pigeons, I had a chance to have a play with a Samsung NX1 at an airport shop recently. It does seem to hit the alleged 15fps (not having to move a mirror clearly helps), and it's certainly got some resolution - and the 16-50mm f/2-2.8 seems vaguely decent, though I'm not sure it'll race a 70-200 for focus speed. Interesting interface, a little more like Canon than Nikon (it has the Nikon rear thumb dial added to the Canon-style top and rear circular dials). I wasn't too convinced by the viewfinder (the eye sensor was badly calibrated for where I hold my eye and the LCD kept turning on - though I've tried an X-T1 and couldn't see the corners of the finder at all - and there's still visibly more lag than an optical finder), it's certainly not noise-free at high ISO by full-frame standards, and the focus system was more fast than it was reliable - but that was just playing in a shop, and not very scientific. Apparently the raw buffer isn't all that huge on the NX1, either, but I think it's a bit bigger than the D7100's.<br />

<br />

Since I've got quite a lot of nice Nikkor glass, it's unlikely to make me switch any time soon, even if I want a sports camera (and I do have a V1), but it would be remiss of me not mentioning my experience to someone with D7200 blues.<br />

<br />

Disclaimer: I work for Samsung, although I'm nothing to do with the camera division and my opinion here is, I believe, unbiased. Canon aren't going to tempt me until they sort out their low-ISO dynamic range issues, though the AF on the 7D2 is, by all accounts, very impressive.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At this point I would have opted for the new Canon 7DmkII</p>

</blockquote>

<p>mm I seem to remember (actually i looked it up... ;-) ) you saying that you favour Sony's sensors... (Like in the D7000) so i would expect you to go for a Sony SLT-Alpha 77 II if looking for APS-C ?</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cuZb</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"worse than Nikon" will probably take just as good a picture in the right hands.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree. Forget about the sensor - they are all so good these days, I think it is insignificant for most shots most of the time.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>low-ISO dynamic range issues</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Total storm in a teacup in my opinion. It is akin to saying one can only take a photo with a Zeiss Otus: everything else is not up to scratch.</p>

<p>Good Argument Robin, you defenetly cannot live without a Loxia or Otus on your cam... :-)</p>

<p>Is this lack of D7200 causing you to miss photos your current gear cannot shoot? Is the supposed inferiority of the 7D Mk.II sensor (which is terribly overblown indeed, as other noted) a possible cause for your to miss good photographic oppurtunities?<br>

I'd rather use a - any- camera than wait for that elusive camera that fixes all problems. Sometimes my smartphone works more than fine enough, and that's certainly a sensor that won't compete with the "lowly" 7D mk. II or the stone-age D7100. Nikon will release a new camera, some day. And when they do, we'll see whether it actually poses solutions to a problem, or whether it's another iteration in a chain of products that are all already to a very high standard.</p>

<p>C.P.M., I'm not familiar with the Sony SLT-Alpha77ll, but I'll take a look at it.</p>

<p>Pith you must have lots of money in your pocket.</p>

<p>Having recently purchased a refurb D7100 - too early, as it turns out as the price has dropped another $165 since then - and with that purchase resigning to the disappointing fact that a "true" D300 successor won't be coming I cannot commiserate with the OP about the lack of a D7200. </p>

<p>IF - big IF - the rumored specs about the D7200 are true, then it will be a minor upgrade of the D7100 - even if it would do away with one of my issues with the D7100 - the too shallow buffer. Another is the lack of a dedicated AF-ON button - though I can make do with re-purposing the AE-L/AF-L button for which I have never had any use anyway. A third is the lack of the mode button; the mode dial is on the wrong side of the camera - plain and simple. The D7200 would seem to be just the camera the D7100 should have been - quite similar to the D750 being the one the D600 should have been from the onset. But why sell the consumer one camera if one can try to sell them two in succession?</p>

<p>These incremental updates and the intentional crippling of features is not the policy I like to see Nikon following - and I can imagine that it may cost them in the future. My update path so far has been D70 to D200 to D300 - from where it diverged into a D700 and D7100. For the time being, I am not planning any new camera purchase - short of replacing one that has failed and turns out to be non-repairable economically. And even then it's quite unlikely that I will go for a new one - given their rapid depreciation and marginal improvements over an older generation used or refurbished one. </p>

<p>I also handled a 7D MkII in the store and liked the way if felt - though the totally different control layout would trip me up for quite some time I suppose. Together with the new 100-400, I'd have a combo that at least on paper looks better than the D7100 with 80-400 - though I don't know if those differences will be all that relevant in the field. Never used the 8fps the D300 is capable of - so the 10 fps of the 7D MKII don't have as much appeal to me as they might have for others. </p>

<p>Nah it's not wealth, but dissatisfaction that keeps me looking for the Holy Grail of DX dslrs.</p>

<blockquote><blockquote>low-ISO dynamic range issues</blockquote>

Total storm in a teacup in my opinion. It is akin to saying one can only take a photo with a Zeiss Otus: everything else is not up to scratch.</blockquote>

 

<p>Robin: I absolutely care about the ability to recover shadow detail with my Nikons. I mostly shoot candids, often at low ISO, and - not being a pro - I don't want to annoy people with flash or other attempts to fill light (though I do have the kit when I need to). If I had - or wanted - more direct control over my subjects, I'd not need this, but taking shots at a relative's wedding in Bali under direct sunlight meant I needed all the dynamic range I could get. The Canons can sort of manage this, with suitable processing, using the Magic Lantern dual-ISO hack, but with Nikon the dynamic range is just there. There are some photographic examples <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html">here</a>.<br />

<br />

If I never tweaked the dynamic range (much) in post-processing, if I were willing to spend more time controlling the lighting, or if I had more amenable subjects, the difference wouldn't bother me at all - and I reserve the right for it not to bother a lot of people. As it is, it's a really major reason I went with the D800 - and, indeed, for upgrading to a D800 from the D700 (I cared less about the resolution change). It's not a catastrophic problem with the Canons, especially where taking multiple exposures and doing a lot of noise reduction is an option, and their dynamic range isn't bad, but it <i>is</i> a difference, and it <i>can</i> be significant. Of course, many other issues are significant as well, arguing in both directions.</p>

It is not that the DR of the 7DII itself is a big issue as such - but when a product has a five year recycle period, one would hope that the market leader would produce a camera which at its introduction represents state of the art in image quality. The camera has important advances in autofocus, fps rate in this price class, and perhaps the anti flicker feature leads to fewer situations where the shots are underexposed badly. But one would normally typically use high ISO with flickering lights and there the 7D MK II DR is about the same as e.g. D7100. So it may be that real world results in indoor low light are better than with other small sensor cameras. If you want the best low ISO DR then Nikon is very competitive. I would hope Nikon also introduces anti-flicker in their next DSLR releases. I personally make a lot of images in fluorescent or compact fluorescent lighting at homes, offices and restaurants and mostly make the images into black and white. If the anti-flicker results in consistent colour and exposure under these circumstances, it is a big help.

 

If you need a large buffer, the D7100 is not that camera. The buffers of D750, Df, D810, and D4s increase rapidly and predictably with price. You get more when you pay more. It seems some people would prefer to pay less and still get more. I can see how it would be convenient for the customer, but Nikon is a business. They cannot make money by always offering more and more features and precision (high fps with continuous AF tracking with very high resolution sensors requires a great deal of precision which is difficult to achieve at high fps rates) at ever lower prices.

<p>I believe the D7100 is due for replacement some time in 2015, and hopefully it will have at least a similar buffer that the D750 has, and maybe increased speed to 7fps, and D750 style AF with enhanced low light sensitivity. If Nikon can provide this close to the original price of the D7100 when it came out last year, I think they will have a lot of happy customers. Many more people can afford a $1200 24MP 7fps camera than $1800 24MP 10fps model and I think 7fps is a good speed to catch action. When I was a D3 user I rarely used CH but when I did, I had the camera set for release + focus priority, which in practice slowed it down from 9fps (at release priority) to about 7 fps, and it worked much better for those action situations where I tried it than having it on release priority. I would think with 10fps, the major problem really is how large a percentage of shots will be in focus. And that's much more important than having 15fps if the majority of the shots are out of focus. I would hope that rather than increase the fps to very high speeds, Nikon concentrate on making sure the AF works well at those speeds that are provided so that we get a high keeper rate that gives justice to the specifications. This is particularly important in DX where the pixel spacing is tight and the potential resolution is very high but often in real world action situations a slight focus error means the theoretical resolution is not realized in the practical images that are obtained.</p>

<p>And yes, please all new cameras should shamelessly copy Canon's anti-flicker technology. It's better to be second to the market than not provide an important feature at all. I hope Nikon doesn't suffer from the "not invented here" syndrome which seems to prevent Canon from calling Sony and buying some DSLR sized sensors. Though they may have an easier time developing features such as dual pixel PDAF if they keep the development in house, but still it is rather surprising that Canon won't make at least some cameras which provide state of the art results at low ISO. They have some specialist lenses that landscape and architectural photographers like, e.g. the TS-E 17mm and 24mm and those could easily take advantage of the best signal quality at low ISO, if provided. </p>

<p>Seconded about the anti-flicker, Ilkka. Lest I seem to be complaining about Canon too much, that's a cool piece of technology, and I'd very much like it (along with the 17mm T/S!) [i wrote this and then had to go to a meeting between Ilkka's posts - I'm clearly channelling him!]<br />

<br />

Well said about price-related expectations (I try to keep my frustrations to when Nikon don't offer what I need at *any* price), but I'd kind of expect the bigger buffer in a D7100 replacement if only to compete with the 7D2 (a bit) - memory isn't so expensive these days. The rumour I'm actually most dubious about is adding an AF-On button to the "D7200" - not because it's remotely difficult, but because this has been a differentiation between the "consumer" and "pro" interfaces, and I would be surprised if a D7100 successor switches interface models. (Not that "pro" is always better - I like that the D750's metering mode button is where you can reach it, unlike the D810's.) I'd not be surprised at all by a 6.5fps mode - <i>maybe</i> 7 or 7.5fps - but I would be surprised if Nikon suddenly learned to go much faster than that in a consumer shutter mechanism, and if there was a big boost in the pixel throughput unless they've significantly improved Expeed 4. 4K video would greatly surprise me too, for the same reason - though now we have Panasonic, Sony and Samsung all capable of 4K, Canon (in a body other than the 1Dc) and Nikon will have to fix that eventually.<br />

<br />

Reports seem to be that the 7D2's autofocus is very good - although I did just read a review that adds "for Canon" to that, and still gives the D750 the edge. It clearly helps the PDOS mirrorless cameras that they can focus during the exposure, rather than trying to fit focus into a brief period of the mirror being down. I didn't have enough chance to evaluate the NX1 I was playing with for focus accuracy - it seemed to track reasonably well watching what was highlit in the finder, and my biggest complaint was the occasional refusal to lock on something (which might be a problem with very out-of-focus items and not having a dedicated AF module). The good news is that, for all my criticism of Nikon having the same basic MultiCAM 3500 layout even since the D300/D3, they do seem to be improving the performance with recent generations. It's a major factor in me wanting a D810, because I don't trust the AF on my D800 at least some of the time. (The D810 seemed a bit more sure when I played in a shop.) The disadvantage is that they're competing against 65-point + PDOS + colour tracking for the 7D2 and even more focus points for the mirrorless Sony and Samsung cameras. I'd be a little surprised if there's a huge jump in AF before the D5 is launched, but you never know.<br />

<br />

Canon do seem to be using a Sony sensor in the G7X. I don't know if their problem is in patents, in the limitations of their fab, or in some exclusivity clause (though Pentax seemed to get the Nikon/Sony magic sensor and other companies than Sony have fabbed comparable 24MP sensors for Nikon). I'm sure it's cheaper for them to roll their own. They're certainly not bad sensors, and people are more likely to test high ISO performance, which is competitive, so maybe they just don't care. They're still leading the market share, after all. On that note, I have a theory that Nikon probably don't care what Sony are doing because they're so fixated on catching Canon, whereas Canon probably <i>do</i> care, because they have to look at everyone behind them. Just a musing, looking at what the various companies have produced.</p>

<p>The recent rumored D7200 specs should really drive D7100 sales at these lowered prices.</p>