Crop Frame D5200-24 MP

[Dave Humphries]

Update to thread: I am also looking into the Nikon D7100

From an operational/ergonomic viewpoint, I find my D7100 is much better than my D5000 - I know the D5100/5200/5300 probably have a few more knobs and buttons than the D5000, but even so, if you can afford it, I'd recommend the D7100.

It also gives you the ability to use Auto-Focus on some older Nikon lenses that don't have an AF motor in - although they will be slower to focus than the modern AF-S lenses.

Cheers, Dave

[wtlwdwgn]

Before you buy you may want to consider renting one. The specs may sound good but having it in your hands makes all the difference. Each camera has a different 'feel' and like Goldilocks and the Three Bears, one will feel just right. Also the layout of the buttons and access to features in the menus can drive one to distraction. Once you decide on a body you can rent different lenses to try them out before buying which is more important as the prices of the lenses go up, up, and away. Just my $0.02.

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks Jeremy, I'v read that the d7100 has an extra-crop mode for even more "reach", I'm not quite sure if there would be any advantage to using that rather than just cropping in PP though. Thanks for the reports an the cameras.

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks Dave,
Perhaps the d7100 has more designated buttons, and less to be accessed by the menu on the monitor. Perhaps that is generally considered more easy to operate by most users-?

Thanks Steve, maybe I won't jump into telephoto lens purchase right away.

One of the main things which attracts me to the d7100, over the cheaper d5300 is the penta prism view finder, over thee penta mirror, I would like to be able to enjoy looking through it while shooting-not to say I'm quite set on it yet.

Thanks all

[NorthernFocus]

I shoot a D4, D810, and D7100. With adequate light the D7100 produces the highest IQ of the lot. The killer for my particular shooting requirements is that the buffer only holds 6 full sized NEF images. IQ does begin to suffer when lighting drops off and noise appears. As a general rule I try not to go above ISO800 with the 7100, ISO1600 is OK recognizing NR will be required with resultant loss of some detail. Beyond that produces images for web use only. Keeping in mind this is all by my personal quality requirements which many would likely consider extreme.

When I head out to shoot landscape photos, I invariably reach for the 7100 rather than the D810 like one would think. It's a nice little camera aside from the buffer issue and IMO the best "bang for the buck" in the Nikon lineup (I've not tried either D600/610 or D750).

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks Dan,
I do hear good things about the d7100 IQ, as well as the 5300. My current camera can not shoot RAW at all in burst mode, so it seems a bit extreme to me that not being able to shoot more than 6 full sized 14 bit images would be very discontenting, but it is one shot more than the d5300 advertises in burst mode. Thanks for the input.

When I head out to shoot landscape photos, I invariably reach for the 7100 rather than the D810 like one would think. It's a nice little camera aside from the buffer issue and IMO the best "bang for the buck" in the Nikon lineup (I've not tried either D600/610 or D750).

Not sure how it works best to shoot crop frame for landscapes and full frame, I assume for wildlife, but I think crop frame does make sense for me, because of the magnification issue and others, but I'm not sure whether the extra crop function advertised on the d7100 would really improve IQ at longer range, but maybe it's not really meant to.

Does anyone think the penta prism provides a noticeably nicer view over penta mirror VF?

Thanks again

[Inkanyezi]

Pentaprism is considerably brighter and the view is somewhat larger. It is easier for manual focusing, in those cameras where manual focusing works well at all. (One of my pet peeves with dslr is that many are almost impossible to focus manually, as the screen is too clear, so a sharp image can be seen also when a bit off focus.)

So yes, the pentaprism provides noticeable nicer view.

[Nicks Pics]

Pentaprism is considerably brighter and the view is somewhat larger. It is easier for manual focusing, in those cameras where manual focusing works well at all. (One of my pet peeves with dslr is that many are almost impossible to focus manually, as the screen is too clear, so a sharp image can be seen also when a bit off focus.)

So yes, the pentaprism provides noticeable nicer view.

Hi Urban, thanks for your input.

[Dave Humphries]

~ I've read that the d7100 has an extra-crop mode for even more "reach", I'm not quite sure if there would be any advantage to using that rather than just cropping in PP though.

I use this a lot - because they are 16MP instead of 24MP, the advantages are smaller RAW files, mking them quicker to transfer at all stages of shooting and processing, giving;
one fps quicker shooting in high burst mode (can't confirm precisely, but seems faster)
the buffer therefore may not overflow quite as soon, or if it does, it empties quicker (again, I can't confirm numerically, but seems so)

The slight disadvantage is that it is easy to clip wings when a bird approaches closer, because you can see them in V/F, but in the heat of the moment, the brain doesn't realise they are going outside the marker rectangle denoting the "extra-crop".

I have mine configured to do the DX vs 1.3x extra-crop change with a simple (-ish) button press + twist of command wheel, well it is better than going to the menu to do it and is easy to do without taking camera from eye.

Cheers, Dave

[Nicks Pics]

Hi Dave, Thanks for your informative response. I think I was mainly thinking of the matter that it may make it look like you get more "reach", but really has the same affect as cropping in PP, but you have pointed out some other benefits that I think make sense. Also some thing to keep in mind. Thanks for the feed back.

[revi]

Urban Domeij, and Ted,
Thanks for the technical explanation, I think it sounds like a 24 mp camera will be usable for typical printing needs. I think perhaps I should come back and look over some of the printing info here when I get around to doing some printing next.

Have a look at what Colin Southern has posted in images here. He prints (iirc) on canvas 44" wide, so a typical print size for him is 22"×44". And he uses the Canon 1D series, starting with the 1D III @ 8 MP.

As Urban said/implied, the 300 PPI for printing is for watching at reading distance (i.e. 30 cm). You don't look at a 30" print from 30cm...

In short, any modern camera has more than enough pixels for large prints, and personally I'd have loved a sensor with less pixels in my new camera (less pixels means potentially larger photo-sites, which translates to less noise/better high ISO performance).

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks Remco, No I haven't seen a whole lot Colin has posted, but it is remarkable that he prints at 44x22 with an 8 mp photo. I think it does make sense that you don't need as much detail in a print that is meant to be viewed from a distance. Thanks for the thoughts.

[ajohnw]

Thanks Remco, No I haven't seen a whole lot Colin has posted, but it is remarkable that he prints at 44x22 with an 8 mp photo. I think it does make sense that you don't need as much detail in a print that is meant to be viewed from a distance. Thanks for the thoughts.

Not really Nick. Much depends on the detail level in the image. If 8mp captures that adequately printing at a higher density will interpolate it so in real terms it's possible to print at 300 dpi from any pixel count within reason. When images get to 44x22 300dpi needs an 87mb image so in real terms other than medium format no cameras provides anything near that.

This area tends to get confused with something else - max print size based on depth of field arguments - limiting blur visibility in the print. Colin was also fond of using very slow apertures at times and often reckoned that diffraction limit problems were Texas bull stuff. Perfectly true providing that diffraction doesn't interfere with the resolution the shot needs. I'd add that camera lenses aren't diffraction limited anyway. Some might disagree. Tough.

John
-

[xpatUSA]

I'd add that camera lenses aren't diffraction limited anyway. Some might disagree. Tough.

John
-

Tastefully put!

In case someone even dares to disagree after that, here's living proof from the 'old days':



Anything below the ideal MTF curve is not diffraction-limited, i.e. from f/11 downward. From f/16 up, probably so.

Because the graphs are frequency-normalized (S, not lp/mm), it is not obvious why the low f-numbers look so bad. But it is plainly obvious why lens manufacturers do not publish these curves

[ajohnw]

I know that those curves are by so called august gentlemen Ted but taking the F 5.6 curve 1st one in the 2nd row that's roughly equivalent to a total optical error of 1/4 wave. I just don't believe it other than by a fluke as there are too many pieces of glass in them.

I can post a graph too. This one



The term OPD needs some explanation. It stands for Optical Path Difference. It's the distance the light "travels" through the optical components that make up the lens including air spaces but the higher refractive index of glasses increases the effects of errors. In practical use I suspect they are worse than the 1/2 wave line. The vertical axis is contrast so the MTF 50 figures usually used on camera lenses relate to 0.5. It's pretty easy to see why they settled on that from the graph. Lamda the wavelength is usually taken to be around 550nm or 0.00055mm so a 1/4 wave error corresponds to 0.00014mm a number that really needs low expansion glasses to have any meaning even if there are only 2 elements in the lens - unless they are very small of course which is why Nikon can test some of the Nikon 1 lenses at a much higher line pairs per mm than the 6 or 10 etc at are usually used.

Plots like these based on defocus have been found to be very representative of glass and other errors. On the other hand does anyone think that their AF focuses to 1/4 wave? They can't even hold the flange distances to the sensor to that sort of limit and even that will have an effect.

If some one needs a life they can find F number to NA converters on the web. My interest stems from many hours spent on telescope design at times. I eventually hit on perfection with 2 mirrors and 3 pieces of glass. Could I make it no becuase the glass shapes need absolutely spectacular accuracy. Mind you it was 250mm dia and would be a lot more feasible if that was 25mm apart from the sizes being too small to make.

John
-

[xpatUSA]

I know that those curves are by so called august gentlemen Ted but taking the F 5.6 curve 1st one in the 2nd row that's roughly equivalent to a total optical error of 1/4 wave. I just don't believe it other than by a fluke as there are too many pieces of glass in them.

Just so's you know, John, my post was actual in support of your statement about diffraction-limiting in lenses! The curves I showed were for the purposes of illustration, not really to be dissected line-by-line. If the curves do not support and illustrate your earlier strong statement about diffraction-limited lenses, then so be it.

[mrinmoyvk]

Hi Nics,

I have been using Nikon D5200 for almost an year now, ah !!! I think I just now completed an year this month. As you are interested in shooting wild life. this 24MP would play a great role in it.

Pros:
1. Handles high ISO extremely well. Image shot at ISO3200 in RAW has almost zero noise after post processing
2. 24 MP will help you crop the photo if you are unable to reach to the bird using a high telephoto zoom lens
3. User interface is very easy and you can change the settings quickly
4. You get an option of 60p frames with 720p video resolution (30p & 60i with 1080p)

Cons:
1. Camera is bit slow while reviewing photos (should not be an issue)
2. 5 fps might not be enough for you with RAW as buffer size is pretty small (captures hardly for 2.5 with RAW, JPEG is like machine gun )
3. lacks continuous focus tracking during video (better go for a prime lens or fast aperture zoom lens)

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks mrinmoyvk.

[mrinmoyvk]

No doubt D7100 is better than D5200 as long as it fits in your budget

[Shadowman]

This is one of the best comparisons I've seen on the D5200 vs the D7100, however I'm sure there are some features not listed that users find important.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5200-vs-Nikon-D7100