D7200 or D7500?

I have a rant about grip ergonomics that can wait for me to sit at a computer, but first:

 

I was not completely happy with the MB-D15 on the D7100 when using e.g. the VR 200/2 II; the flex bothered me.

 

I'm confused. Ilkka, it sounds from this like you were suspending a 200/2 from the lens mount (because otherwise, why should the stability of the grip matter?) rather than hanging the camera off the lens. Please tell me you weren't cantilevering 3kg off the mount?

Can't say I noticed flex between the MB-15 and the D7100 or D7200 even when having my largest and heaviest lens (200-500, still about 1 1/2lbs shy of the weight of the 200/2) mounted. I may not have shot as extensively in portrait orientation as I assume Ilkka did though. I have an MB-D12 clone that I got with the D800 - didn't notice any flexing there either but haven't used it with anything heavier than a 80-400.

I have a rant about grip ergonomics that can wait for me to sit at a computer, but first:

I'm confused. Ilkka, it sounds from this like you were suspending a 200/2 from the lens mount (because otherwise, why should the stability of the grip matter?) rather than hanging the camera off the lens. Please tell me you weren't cantilevering 3kg off the mount?

 

No, I was not.

A 200-500? What are you guys doing to your poor lens mounts?

 

Edit (having just seen Ilkka's post), phew. But why would the lens size be relevant to the stability of the grip of your using a foot on the lens?

 

I had an original 80-200 f/2.8 AF (push pull) that didn't have a foot. That makes me think it's roughly the upper limit of what I'm comfortable hanging off the camera; I'd only do that with a 70-200 under duress, and, while I've probably pulled my camera and 200-500 towards myself over a surface with the camera when picking it up, I've certainly not tried to support it like that. Too many stories of people ripping the mount off the camera.

 

If that's not what you meant, I'm very confused about the lens/grip relationship.

A 200-500? What are you guys doing to your poor lens mounts?

Can't say that I ever had a situation where I was cantilevering the 200-500 off the camera mount; fairly certain I am making every attempt to handle that lens/camera combo properly.

Now I've resorted to logging into a computer to get around a site bug with posting, that other rant I was going to say...

 

Recently I've come to have doubts about camera grips in general. The problem is that if you have your right elbow tucked in and the camera to your eye, the wrist does a 90 degree bend right at the camera. This isn't true for cameras with tiny grips like the F3 and Df, which are held with the fingers slanted diagonally rather than curled straight in towards the palm (at least, the way I do it); this is one explanation for the weird front dial orientation on the Df, which it took me a while to understand. However, the small grip means the fingers are kind of smooshed, and reduces the security of the grip on the camera.

 

As a consequence, while I sometimes shoot with my wrist bent, I also sometimes shoot with my right elbow out to the side, half way to shoulder level. Apart from the risk of elbowing someone in the face, this reduces the stability (partly offset by pulling the camera into my face as a contact point), even if it straightens the wrist.

 

You do need something like normal top/front controls when the camera is on a tripod or on the ground, but the idea of a rotating grip like the Canon XC-10's is growing on me: as video shooters have known for a while, the natural position of the hand when the elbow is tucked in to the belly is with the fingers at the top, like throwing a spear.

 

Shooting in portrait orientation makes things worse - I'm effectively dangling the camera from my fingers, and my elbow has to be in the raised "hit people in the face" position because if it was tucked in, my wrist would be behind the LCD. I've tried the McNally inverted portrait grip, but nearly throttled myself due to the awkward head position, so I wasn't sold.

 

I don't do very much portrait shooting, and I'm a little put off by the dubious grip of the F5 (which lacks the controls of more modern grips), but I'd absolutely be a grip person if I did this more often. The grip for the D8x0 series has historically been quite pricey, and since they only gave the D800 and D810 a performance increase if you dropped to DX crop, I've ignored them; I do intend to pick one up when I get a D850 since the 9fps mode is full frame, although I'm a bit miffed about the need for the big battery - the D700's grip would still let you hit 8fps even using AAs, which was fine for how often I expected to need it. Samsung once made a compact with an integrated grip, which was a little tempting - but reviews were sufficiently poor that I didn't bite.

 

Re. third-party grips, there have been grips for "grip-less" bodies for a while which use the remote shutter cable to trigger the camera. They really can't duplicate the control dials, though, so they're not as useful as the native grip.

 

Erring back towards the topic, I see Thom Hogan is quite disparaging about the D7500 in his discussion of rebates.

Can't say that I ever had a situation where I was cantilevering the 200-500 off the camera mount; fairly certain I am making every attempt to handle that lens/camera combo properly.

 

Okay, well phew for both you and Ilkka (I would have been surprised) - but then why did you both suggest large lenses in the context of flex between the body and grip? If you're not using the tripod mount on the grip for support, I don't see why the lens should be relevant.

 

I'm very confused.

Andrew, I hold the lens with left hand and the camera with my right hand. Both hands support the weight of the setup. If there is flex / movement between grip and body, it feels uncomfortable.

 

I don’t bend my right wrist when holding the camera to the eye.

When shooting with the 200-500, I support the lens from below with my left hand (the tripod foot is rotated to the top) but also have a fairly firm grip on the camera/battery grip combo and there certainly is some percentage of the overall weight resting in my right hand. In particular when rotating from horizontal to vertical shooting and moving your grip to do so, one would notice any possible flex in the camera-battery grip connection. Same goes for any dynamic situation like panning or when the lens is pointed upward (bird-in-flight, air show) where there will be a certain amount of load re-distribution. When panning, I can't seem to help it that my right arm holding the camera is doing the guiding/panning while my left arm keeps supporting the weight of the lens/camera combo; any flex between the external battery grip and the camera wouldn't go unnoticed in that situation.

Ah, I see. Thank you, both - I hadn't realised the flex was appreciable under relatively light load hand-held (I, too, put the vast majority of the weight on my left hand), but then I don't shoot with a grip (yet). :-)

 

I don’t bend my right wrist when holding the camera to the eye.

 

With a body with a deep grip, how? Are your fingers not fully in the grip, so you can't reach the Pv and Fn buttons? Or is your elbow dislocated so your forearm comes over your right shoulder? Or do you shoot over your left shoulder with your arm across your body and your neck bent down? (I do this to some extent, but my wrist is still bent as a consequence.)

 

It's obviously not critically uncomfortable or it would have been fixed years ago (and I wouldn't be able to shoot), but when shooting, the fingers on my write hand certainly aren't in line with my forearm. I have an ergonomic (Kinesis) keyboard to avoid this situation when typing, and it seems odd to have this situation for so many years in camera design. It does help a bit that I'm pulling back on the camera (which pushes the viewfinder to my eye) rather than supporting it in my palm (as a one-handed video shooter would), and arguably I'm doing so from the shoulder whereas I'd be doing so from the elbow if the grip was rotated. But still, I vaguely wonder how many people might have RSI from camera use.

 

Apologies for diverting the thread topic...

I don’t do anything I just hold the camera to eye and my fingers (of the right hand) naturally fall around the grip. No twisting anything on the right hand side. On the left side I do have to twist my wrist a bit if I want to rest the lens on the inside of my palm. Edited December 14, 2017 by ilkka_nissila

Where do you hold your right elbow, Ilkka? I'm trying to work out the geometry.

the wrist does a 90 degree bend right at the camera

I can't envision how you are holding the camera, but my wrist certainly isn't bend 90 degrees when my elbows are tucked in.

I can't envision how you are holding the camera, but my wrist certainly isn't bend 90 degrees when my elbows are tucked in.

 

My right elbow is approximately at the base of my ribcage on the right side of my body.

 

If I'm facing directly forwards, the camera is at head height, and my hand is usually sloped slightly, but not hugely, upwards - I guess about thirty degrees to horizontal (I may have to photograph myself). My forearm has to rise at a much steeper angle to connect the two; hence my wrist is bent.

 

If I'm standing in a more usual side-on pose (left arm forward) my right forearm rises at a somewhat shallower angle, but it's still not in line with my wrist unless I lift my elbow away from my side, like an archer raises the right elbow when pulling on the bow strings.

 

I think I need to impose on my wife to take some photos...

 

It's obviously not a serious problem, but it does seem sub-optimal.

Where do you hold your right elbow, Ilkka? I'm trying to work out the geometry.

 

My right elbow is at the height of my lowest ribs, slightly in front of and to the side of my body. If I’m holding a heavy lens + camera setup, I try to squeeze my elbows in a bit, But my elbows don’t make contact with my body. If I look at my fingers and wrist in a relaxed position (not squeeze into a fist, nor opened out), the little finger goes in towards the palm a bit more than the next, and this creates enough of an angle so the camera body falls in without requiring me to turn the wrist. If I lift my arm as if I was running, at the most forward position my hand and wrist are close to where they would be when holding a camera to the eye. I just move my hand a bit inwards from where it would be when rising my arm.

This demonstrates pretty much how I am holding the camera: Tips on Properly Holding a Camera

 

BTW, I've used the "McNally grip" a few times - one has to be a left-eye shooter to be able to do it; trying to get your right eye to the viewfinder seems nigh impossible.

Thanks, both. I'll try to explain what I'm wittering about with pictures, later.

Can anyone with a D7200 confirm that it's not possible to set the camera so that it displays ISO in the viewfinder rather than exposures remaining? I can do that on my D7000 and I think you can on the D7100 and D7500 but after looking at the downloaded D7200 manual I have it looks as if you can't.

 

I have my D7000 set so that the rear dial controls program shift in P mode, aperture in A mode and shutter speed in S and M modes. The front dial controls ISO in all modes except M. In the viewfinder I have shutter speed, aperture and ISO all in a line and in all modes except M I can choose whatever I like using both command dials, at eye level, with no button pressing. This is really only useful if I can see ISO in the viewfinder all the time.

 

The D7200 solves the painfully small buffer on the D7100 but with no ISO in the viewfinder I think I'll hang on to my D7000!

 

Now the D500 is out the D7XXX model has been cut back in features - only one SD card, no rear infra red receiver, no aperture teller for example.

Edited December 17, 2017 by richard_driscoll

On the D7100 you get ISO in the viewfinder if you choose it in the display option, and also if you choose "easy ISO" there.

 

It appears that in the D7200 the option for just the display option is removed, but it will still show in the display when you choose "easy ISO."

 

On the D7100 at least, the default for "easy ISO" is rear wheel for A, front for S and P. I imagine that could be changed, but I find that quite OK, and that's how mine is set.

 

By the way, I use the rear infrared receiver rather often on the D7100, and I'm definitely disappointed that that has been removed in the D7500.

On the D7200, I can set ISO via the viewfinder.

I have the record button reconfigured to be the ISO button. So I press the record (now ISO) button, and turn the rear wheel, and watch the ISO number in the viewfinder.

The ISO number replaces the 'shots left' number when the record (now ISO) button is pressed.

On the D7200, I can set ISO via the viewfinder.

I have the record button reconfigured to be the ISO button. So I press the record (now ISO) button, and turn the rear wheel, and watch the ISO number in the viewfinder.

The ISO number replaces the 'shots left' number when the record (now ISO) button

 

Gary,

 

Thanks for that. Sure you see ISO in the viewfinder while the ISO button is pressed but I'd like to know if you can set the camera so that ISO is shown in the viewfinder when the meter is active and no buttons are pressed (including shutter release).

 

My guess is that on the D7200 the only option is for frames remaining, rather than ISO.

 

Another advantage I find is that the viewfinder displays the ISO chosen by auto-ISO (if it is enabled of course).

 

Mathew,

Many thanks. It sounds that the D7100 behaves like my D7000. I have mine set like I do mainly because I came from a D40 which has no front dial. My D7000 now works rather like a D40 with the front dial ISO control thrown in as a bonus!

Edited December 18, 2017 by richard_driscoll

The D7200 will show the machine's choice of auto ISO if "Easy ISO" is chosen. The only real difference is that there is no option for ISO display without Easy ISO enabled.

Mark,

I have the D7200.

The D7500 is attractive if only for swiveling LCD screen.

I have been "belly on the floor" shooting low angle shots, because that is what I had to do to look through the viewfinder of the D7200, with the camera a couple inches off the floor.

To me, the swiveling screen is like popping off the prim from the F2, so you can get the low or high angle shot, without shooting blind, like I have to do with the D7200.

This opens up a world of shooting opportunities, especially the low angle shooting. I really do not like the idea of laying in mud, to get a low angle shot.

My D7200 shows the ISO in the viewfinder while it's being changed, regardless of what button is used.

 

Pushing the default 'ISO' button changes the shot counter to an ISO display. This shows the current ISO and any changes that are made using the command wheel.

 

The display goes back to showing shots/buffer remaining when the ISO button is released.

 

I don't see why the lack of a permanent viewfinder ISO display would be a deal-breaker. Surely it's easy enough to poke a button to reveal the ISO and remember it? And as Matthew says, setting 'Easy ISO' tracks what Auto ISO is doing.

 

"I have been "belly on the floor" shooting low angle shots, because that is what I had to do to look through the viewfinder of theD7200, with the camera a couple inches off the floor."

 

- Not quite as convenient as a tilting screen, but right-angle finders are cheaply available from internet sellers (at 1/7th the price that Nikon asks for a DR-6). Also useful for getting a few inches more height over the heads of a crowd.

RJ

Are you talking about right angle "viewfinder" adapters or "LCD screen" adapters?

I have to go look for right angle finders now. You got me curious.