New D7200 oddity

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>My new d7200 was just delivered. For the first time I remember there was a tag attached to the body with the model number and some marketing information. But what I found most strange was a circle with a camera image inside and the words 'Enthusiast Level DSLR". Since it is replacing what Nikon called their flagship DX body, then I take that to mean Nikon doesn't intend to produce DX bodies above enthusiast level. Or is Nikon just playing with us?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Sometimes I think people spend way too much time parsing every word, e.g. recently financial analyses keep checking whether the US Federal Reserve/Janet Yellen uses the word "patient."</p>

<p>Back in 2013, as soon as I saw the specs for the D7100, and Nikon openly said the D7100 was to upgrade for D300 owners, I immediately made the call that no successor to the D300/D300s was coming. The D300 was initially a $1800 DSLR, and that price point now belongs to FX.</p>

<p>"Flagship" merely means it is a top-of-the-line product for that particular product line. A "flagship" disposable camera is still a cheap, maybe $15 camera; it is merely "better than" some other $8 disposable camera.</p>

<p>The entire D7000 series have a $1200 introductory price; they are all amateur, enthusiast cameras. Those are certainly not pro grade and are priced accordingly. The D7100 (and D7200) are "flagship" DX bodies because Nikon is no longer producing other DX DSLR that are priced higher.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Shun, Sorry about that. I wasn't trying to start another 'is a D400 coming" discussion because like you I now believe that is a dead issue. I think this is just Nikon's way of saying get over it because this is as good as it gets as far as DX. I recently purchased a new DX body for one of my sons and it didn't contain the label like this one. Apparently this is something new beginning with the D7200. To be honest, with the increased buffer size and new AF the D7200 fits what I need in a DX body. Would I like more than 6fps? Sure. But at one time I got by with a lot less than that. If the ISO 6400 results are what I need I may even try it for some high school sports. I will try to post some ISO 6400 shots comparing the D7200 to the D7100 later today if possible. By the way, Janet Yellen hasn't used the word "patient" today has she? I may need to move some money. :)</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>I just ran a quick test of buffer capacity. The setup for both the D7100 and D7200 was identical and I did the test two times with identical results. The D7100 hit 5 frames before the buffer filled while the D7200 hit 13 frames. The test was NEF files only and I used SanDisk Extreme Pro 32GB cards. I moved the same two cards from body to body along with the same lens. Nothing scientific, but it does show a significant buffer increase as expected.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Barry, for the D7200, I think I am going to shoot 12-bit instead of 14-bit RAW; that should give you even more frames and true 6 fps.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>I just ran it again using 12-bit and was able to get 16 shots before the buffer filled. If I'm not mistaken, the primary thing you lose with 12-bit is the ability to pull some details out on underexposed shots. </p>

[heytherek_kas]

<p>How have you guys found the d7200 - mine is on order. I decided not to go the full frame route and stick with DX (a long time d300 user here)....can't wait to try it out.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Barry, do you see any substantial difference in images between D7100 and D7200 ? Lab tests are one thing, but field photos (comparisons) make more sense to me. Thanks.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Les, I am going to run a test later tonight at ISO 6400 between the D7100 and D7200 since that is where some of the improvements are supposed to be. At base ISO I don't expect any difference since it is basically the same sensor as I understand it.<br>

Heytherek, some folks started receiving the D7200 last Friday since the dealers received them the day before.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>First of all, I don't want to leave the wrong impression that I have a D7200. We are trying to get a loaner from Nikon USA for testing and am waiting for that. In case that doesn't come through, I may buy one, but I am not in a hurry.</p>

<p>Previously, on the D300 I always shot 12-bit RAW since 14-bit on the D300 tops at 2.5 fps. On the D7000/D7100, I use lossy compressed RAW to reduce file size. If I need to, I wouldn't mind using 12-bit lossy compressed RAW on the D7200 to maximize the buffer. The loss in quality should be minimal.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Bill Claff has recently run some tests on fixed pattern noise on a number of DSLRs, mainly Nikons. The comparison between the D7100 and the D7200 shows significant improvement in this area in the newer model. This was a problem for the D7100. Some will find the comparison interesting I think.</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55513400</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The comparison between the D7100 and the D7200 shows significant improvement in this area in the newer model.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that is indeed the case, that means there is some basis for Nikon to increase the highest ISO from the D7100's 6400 to the D7200's 25600. I am kind of skeptical that there is indeed a 2-stop improvement, but I suppose any improvement is good. However, I tend to use FX if I need such high ISO.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>I just ran it again using 12-bit and was able to get 16 shots before the buffer filled. If I'm not mistaken, the primary thing you lose with 12-bit is the ability to pull some details out on underexposed shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I think so. If they have 32 bit RAW then you don't even need to set the ISO.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"If they have 32 bit RAW then you don't even need to set the ISO." - Well, while a 32 bit depth would in theory allow a 4.3 billion : 1 (or 32 stop) dynamic range, the sensor itself wouldn't be able to deal with anything close to that. Because thermal and shot noise would swallow up the shadow detail. Not to mention quantum noise at such low levels of exposure.</p>

<p>The ISO setting on a DSLR alters the analogue gain of the signal from the sensor before it's digitised. A completely different process from digital multiplication.</p>

<p>Having said that, I'm entirely in favour of moving to 16 bit A/D conversion in DSLRs. It's about the only thing that separates FX DSLR performance from so-called medium format digital cameras at the moment.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>The ISO setting on a DSLR act differently for different sensors. For all the Exmor cameras I've seen so far, the analog gain leaves off at about ISO 1000, and all additional gain from there up is digital multiplication. Some cameras, like the D3/s, D4, use analog gain up to their highest supported ISO. </p>

<p>We'll be a while before we need 16-bit A/D. Nothing records more than 14 bits at the moment. </p>

[5711]

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing records more than 14 bits at the moment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>oh there are cameras that actually do capture more than 14 bit.<br /> just ass a 0 to the end of the prize tag of a d4s with no dot in between and there you go :)</p>

[User_276104]

<p>As to the label "Enthusiast Level DSLR", travel photographer Bob Krist has made what I perceive to be a very good living hauling around less-than-pro cameras for many years. He has used D70, D80, D90, D7000 and now is into the mirrorless system in order to travel light.</p>

<p>I do think that it's a mistake for Nikon to label a camera body, and its potential user, "enthusiast". But then again it may get someone to spend $3,000+ in order to feel "pro".</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>to spend $3,000+ in order to feel "pro".</em></p>

<p>Professional status has nothing whatsoever to do with the gear a photographer uses; I don't think anyone makes a mistake about this even subconciously. However, since user needs and preferences vary, Nikon offers different camera models designed with the needs and applications of different user types in mind. Individual photographers make their own decisions irrespective of product marketing material based on suitability to task. I find it hard to believe that someone would buy a professional camera because of its label if it is not suitable to the task. Correspondingly, I know many professional photographers who use consumer cameras in their work. It is what you do with it that matters, after all. The manufacturer's categorization is just intended to point what they had in mind when designing the camera. Anyone who already knows where to start looking can safely ignore such designations.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>I do agree that "enthusiast" does not have a great ring to it. It is a progression from dreadful "hobbyist" but I'm ready for some 21st century verbiage: "Maniac Level DSLR" or "Addict Level DSLR" would do for me.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<blockquote>

<p>oh there are cameras that actually do capture more than 14 bit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But Norbert, none of those MFD cameras capture more than 14 bits. Only the new CMOS backs using the Sony sensor achieve 14-bit pixel-level recording in that area for the first time. None of the CCD backs achieved that. </p>

<p>Manufacturers advertised their MFD CCD cameras as having "16 bit converters". Of course they bought commodity 16-bit converters off the shelf. Then they threw away the low 3-4 bits, because none of the CCD sensors capture more than 12 bits at the pixel level.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Maybe it has been on Nikon's website for a while, but I just noticed that Nikon has all of their DSLRs broken down into "Entry Level", "Enthusiast" and "Pro". Under enthusiast level is the D7000, D7100, D7200, D750, Df and D610. Under Pro is the D810, D810A, D4, D4S and D3X. By the way, how many of you have put down $7,999 lately for the D3X? :)</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Luke, there's no such thing as a bit level at the raw sensor stage. It's only when the image is digitised that it becomes quantised into bits.<br>

We shouldn't confuse analogue dynamic range with a bit-depth. A/D converter bit depth affects the degree of accuracy with which the analogue signal can be defined. It's little use having a sensor with a dynamic range of 14 stops and then digitising it (linearly) to 14 bits, because there'll only be 7 digital levels to define the 12th stop of range, 3 levels to define the 13th stop and just 1 level to define the 14th. In other words the extreme shadows would be almost completely posterised.</p>

<p>It might be argued that in most cases you're simply defining noise signals better, but this goes a long way toward being able to improve noise reduction algorithms.</p>

<p>It's about time DSLR designers woke up to the advantages of using Logarithmic amplifiers before A/D conversion IMO.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Ilkka I wish what you said were true and it usually should be but too often isn't. My experience with pro level cameras since the 70's is that they are a better quality piece of equipment. They are designed and built to a higher level, they do a better job staying out of my way, hold up under harsh conditions and generally make life simpler. They last longer too. The concept that a camera is simply a light box may have been true in the 1930's but not for a long time now.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Without doubt the professional cameras have somewhat better build quality and a user interface that gets out of the way of the experienced photographer. This is all about "suitability to task" that the photographer has to evaluate. However, in my opinion the difference between the D7200 and D810 user interface is very small, and it is difficult to perceive differences in the build quality either, though from what I understand the D7200 has only the back part of the body metal chassis and front is largely plastic (similar to D610, Df), however since the body is lightweight the camera doesn't have to have as much metal to have comparable impact resistance (metal tends to bend, whereas plastic bounces back to its original shape). If you want the full metal chassis then there are the D4s and the D810 available. However, in my experience the environmental sealing in the compact pro bodies (D700, D800) is not comparable to the large pro bodies (D3, D4 etc.). I recall reading that Nikon stated when the D7100 was introduced that its weather sealing is up to similar specifications as the D300s and I would assume the D7200 is similar in that respect. I think the user interface differences between these cameras are minor and none of them really get in the way after a bit of photographer adjustment to the camera. In any case I think the probability that the camera has a fault or starts to misbehave is not that much greater for the D7200 class camera than it is for the higher end models. Even if you use it professionally, you can afford more backup bodies of the D7200 class than D4s class so in the end the reliability may be better for the former (when equal money is spent) than the latter. If you drop either from some height (let's say 2m), likely neither will continue working to full capacity.</p>