D5200 vs. D5300

[david_simon]

<p>I am looking for a camera for my lady friend for her trip to the Far East. It is time for her to upgrade from her Pentak K100 digital. A 7200 is overkill for her so I am looking at a used D5300 or D5200. I don't see much a difference between them other than some video capability.. She will be using my Nikon 18-200mm VR (the first version) . What are the differences between them?</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Look a the review of the D5300 at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5300 which describes its differences from the D5200. They suggest the differences are minor. The current D5500 (review at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5500) seems to offer a larger improvement, in a lighter body.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Is there any specific reason for her to move from Pentax to Nikon? If she has (decent) Pentax lenses herself, why not stick with the brand? They still do make very nice DSLRs.</p>

[ShunCheung]

The 18-200's limitations will show up big time on any one of those 24MP DSLRs, especially the long end. The D5300 has

a built-in GPS, which is subsequently removed in the D5500. I find a GPS a plus for travel, but it will consume more

battery power.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Agreed with Shun - a 24MP DSLR with an 18-200 on it is a waste of weight. If it's a camera being bought for sharing other Nikon lenses, and the (already-owned) 18-200 is merely what's available to be loaned for the trip, it's not a catastrophe. You could probably match the image quality of a D5300 with an 18-200 attached with a much smaller camera if this isn't a consideration. I got an RX100 for travel purposes. (My other camera is a D810, as my bumper sticker should say.)<br />

<br />

I'm going to guess the reason for moving to Nikon is to share a system between the couple? Which is fair enough, although I'd certainly want David's friend to try the cameras in question and ensure that the UI differences aren't too galling. But I'm sure there have been a fair few changes between the K100D and the latest generation of Pentaxes anyway, so sticking with the brand may not help unless she has a range of lenses to motivate it.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Either is a great travel camera. But that lens has seen its day and it is gone. It was a great choice on a 6MP camera, but when I went to 12MP, even then it was really showing its flaws big time.<br /><br />If she's traveling with one camera and one lens there are advanced P&S cameras that are better choices.<br /><br />But it depends on how she is going to use these images and images she takes in the future.</p>

[david_simon]

<p>Her Pentax is about 10 years old and I thought she should get some more modern technology and better images as well as video. She has a Pentax 18-55mm and a 55-300 so one lens would be easier to handle. On our trip to Tanzania a couple of years ago , she was flustered with changing lens.<br>

How will the limitations of the 18-200 show on 24 MP? I know it is soft but it gives me acceptable images on my D300 on the few occasions I use it. As for what she will do with her photos I doubt if she will do any enlargements larger than 8 x10. </p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>David, the 18-200 is going to be soft on the long end, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for your friend. My point is that the lens is going to be the limitation such that it doesn't matter much whether the camera is a D5200, D5300 or D5500. They all use the Multi-CAM 4800 AF module (same as the D7000, Df, and D600/D610) and some 24MP sensor.</p>

<p>Again, only the D5300 has a GPS built in. To me, that is a pretty important plus, but prepare for more battery consumption.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>David, this is a common topic of discussion when it comes to the 18-200. Some people say it was good on 6mp cameras but now it is bad on 24mp cameras. I think it is a little more complicated. The same sized photos from the 18-200 will look just as good, if not better on a new body. You just don't take advantage of all the 24mp because the lens isn't good enough to take advantage (at least that is the argument). I say what made good photos can still make good photos. As long as you know the tradeoffs of a super zoom, go for it! </p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Take any image shot on the D5200 or newer and downsize from 4000x6000 pixels to the 2800x4200 of the D300 and the image will look better than if it was shot the D300 using the same lens. Always true and regardless of which lens we are talking about.</p>

<p>The 18-200 is as good or bad as it always has been. It doesn't change even if you put it on a 45 megapixel body.</p>

<p>I'd just buy the cheapest model. Why not have a look at the D3x00 models?<br>

If you want geotagging I think you can do it very easily after the fact using the GPS in your phone.<br>

But as said above a smaller camera can do the same job. </p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I think some folks might miss the point of the 18-200 not being good enough for a modern sensor.</p>

<p>Yes, it's true that a 4 x 6 photo print will probably look the same shot on a D50 with an 18-200 or a D7200. </p>

<p>But if the shooter didn't want higher quality at higher resolution, they'd probably be happy with the K100 and wouldn't be asking about upgrading anyway.</p>

<p>Of course, without knowing how the OP's friend is going to use their photo, we can never be sure.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Peter, Nikon's entry level DSLRs are all 24MP so you cannot assume that someone is buying a new camera for the increased resolution. There are lots of improvements and different people have different priorities. You would recommend a bridge camera over a D5xxx w/ 18-200mm? I don't get that. </p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>For most people traveling, I think there are some good P&S that are better than a DSLR with that huge honkin' 18-200 on it.<br /><br />I think mirrorless is a great option, too. a µ43 or Fuji especially could be a GREAT travel camera.<br>

It depends on how they're going to use the images more than maybe anything else. And we don't know that.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, it's true that a 4 x 6 photo print will probably look the same shot on a D50 with an 18-200 or a D7200.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, it isn't true, and this relates directly to why upgrading might be a good idea. The sensor in the D5200 has significantly better color depth than the one on a D50 or K100. It has better than a one-stop increase in low light performance. The 18-200 has always been a slow lens on the long end, and it still is. The new sensor will help a photographer deal with some of the disadvantages of a slow lens, in either allowing an adequate shutter speed or making it possible to shoot at a smaller aperture. At f/8, the 18-200 is a much better lens than at maximum aperture.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> . . . huge honkin' 18-200 on it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Peter, have you held an 18-200 in your hands? It's a little over a pound, and less than four inches long. That's not huge or honking. The one I owned many years ago and, I must admit, returned, actually felt almost flimsy.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Chip: Like Peter, specifically for a travel camera, I'd take something smaller over a D5x00 with an 18-200 - I've already mentioned that I use an RX100 over a D810 sometimes! The D5200 and D5300 are very good cameras, it's just the quality and weight trade-off of that lens under circumstances where size and weight are likely to be a concern. (And yes, an 18-200 isn't big in an absolute sense for a lens, but it <i>is</i> somewhat heavier than the shorter, sharper zooms.)<br />

<br />

The question over an 18-200 is whether you'd be able to get the same quality by using a smaller, more convenient lens (say <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-105mm-f-3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D5200-versus-AF-S-DX-VR-Zoom-nikkor-18-200-f-3.5-5.6G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D5200-versus-Nikon-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-140mm-F35-56G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D5200__205_850_206_850_1208_850">an 18-105 or an 18-140</a>) and zooming the result digitally (assuming you still don't want her to mess with changing lenses). On a D300, that may not be true - you might run out of pixels. On a 24MP body, you'll certainly see the quality limits of the 18-200 at the long end, and "digital zoom" of the centre of a (sharper) 18-140 might be better. Of course, the fact that you already <i>have</i> the 18-200 is quite an argument in its favour!<br />

<br />

One word of warning: As Chip says, an 18-200 won't record any less detail on a D5200 than it would on a D300. The problem is that sometimes more detail can make things look worse. My D700 would blur the output of my 28-200 enough that I couldn't really see the chromatic aberration; a D800 makes the lens painful to use, even though if I blurred everything down to 12MP I'd probably be okay. The other issue is the evenness of the sharpness. The eye is very bad at detecting sharpness in an absolute sense. However, put two acceptable prints next to each other, one sharp and another less so, and it'll make the softer shot look bad even if it was fine in isolation. Part of the frame being sharper (because of the high-res sensor) can make the softer bits appear worse in comparison. But, this really isn't the end of the world - just pointing out the limitations. <i>All</i> photographic equipment is limited in one way or another.<br />

<br />

Summary: If you're buying a camera for holiday snaps, I'm not sure I'd go with a D5200 with an 18-200 - though the "already having the 18-200" does change that equation a lot. If you're buying the camera for long-term use with other lenses you may have for your D300, and the trip is just a reason to buy now rather than later, go for it.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Andrew, I recommend you get rid of that 28-200 immediately :)<br>

Or upgrade to a bridge camera :)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Or upgrade to a bridge camera :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chip, there is a typo in your post. I am sure you meant <strong>down</strong>grade. :-)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The 28-200 made a great body cap on the D700. (Shot at reasonable apertures, it was smallish, lightish, and worth leaving on the camera until I knew what I was going to be shooting, in case I needed a photo in a hurry. It also made the camera look cheap and not worth stealing, especially in silver. I tended to carry a 50 f/1.8 and a 135 f/2.8 AI in case I needed low light or portrait subject separation, since all three fit in a small toploader bag. On a trip, I'd take a small prime along for the same reason, and the times you'd want to switch tend not to be hurried ones. But then I don't really understand "travel light".) Now, it's only really there for my F5 and to avoid the hassle of ditching it. I did get asked by a dealer why I was carrying a 28-200 on a D700, but a 14-24 is a lot heavier, and I'd have put the 28-200 up against the mk1 24-120 the dealer was bundling with his D700s at the time. Unfortunately, a 70-200 is a less convenient "walk-around" lens on a D810, and I've not managed to save up for a 24-120 f/4, so my default DSLR rig is a bit on the bulky side. Hence the RX100. But the camera you have (with you) is the best one, and a D5200, even with an 18-200, will keep a cell phone very honest when it comes to that argument!</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Shun, you are right! For me it would be a bridge to nowhere ;)</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>The sensor in the D5200 has significantly better color depth than the one on a D50 or K100. It has better than a one-stop increase in low light performance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

And most people won't see the difference in a typical vacation snapshot, which is why we need to know how the end user will be using those photos.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Peter, have you held an 18-200 in your hands? It's a little over a pound, and less than four inches long. That's not huge or honking. The one I owned many years ago and, I must admit, returned, actually felt almost flimsy.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had one for years. It's one of the reasons I don't use something like that for travel anymore (or any DSLR). Too honkin' big. And now, in 2015 there are tons of great options.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Vacation photos are the lowest of the low, I think we can all agree</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Whatever is the right balance between size/weight and holiday requirements is for each of us individually to decide. It's right to at least mention to the OP as a possible consideration, and that's it. Whether you personally like it or prefer it, isn't all that important. It's all just a bunch of opinions. Just don't impose your opinion or preference onto others.<br>

Anyway, to the OP, who probably ran off by now, I'd still recommend to take your friend to a shop, and have her try a Nikon, or a recent Pentax, to see what she prefers. Sharing lenses can indeed be a very good reason to align brands, but it's ultimately more important she'll have a camera she enjoys using.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>for the stated purpose, i think the 18-200 will do ok. it seems like this is about a photographic bonding experience and being able to use the same gear while on vacay, not necessarily ultimate image quality. if lens switching was a limiting factor, removing that should improve the experience. i would definitely consider adding a pocketable backup (preferably with fast AF) for less-obvious photo opps. sometimes walking around a foreign country with DSLRs is equivalent to wearing a big neon sign saying 'tourist." </p>