Review D7200 mini review

[Randy]

LAX yesterday with D7200 120-300 Sport

AF is hugely improved. Almost no focus stealing. AFC D9 hits the target 99% of the time, even if there are moving parts close by. This is huge for sports shooters, in fact it makes the 7200 viable for sports whereas the d7100 was NOT. The buffer is fixed. IQ is the same. The only negative is this is not really a new and enhanced body, it is a fixed body. For those of us that have a 7100 we bought it 2x to get it right.

The 120-300 Sport performed perfectly on this brand new Nikon body. Sigma is a new company. BTW my dock is still in it's box.

just a quick sample (shot in jpg and sooc) , these pics are FS and can be seen on my site if you wanna look at different scenarios

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[BillM]

Thanks Randy.

 

[andreasb]

Interesting thanks Randy, Have you tested shooting in a distance with the 500mm? Thats where my and others D7100 failed at times...

 

[Randy]

Interesting thanks Randy, Have you tested shooting in a distance with the 500mm? Thats where my and others D7100 failed at times...

Not yet, but soon.

 

[Kerry Pierce]

Thanks, Randy. That's good info to know. I'm not really all that happy with the d7100 AF, so a better AF implementation is very welcome. Sad that we have to buy it twice to get something that should have been there all along.

Kerry

 

[Pa]

LAX yesterday with D7200 120-300 Sport

Did you try that lens with your D7100?

 

[Randy]

Did you try that lens with your D7100?

I don't think I ever did

 

[Pa]

I don't think I ever did

But you're sure it's the camera and not the lens?

 

[Randy]

But you're sure it's the camera and not the lens?

Sure of what ?

 

[Pa]

But you're sure it's the camera and not the lens?

Sure of what ?

That the improved autofocus is entirely due to the camera and not the Sigma lens.

 

[Retief]

I just got back from a few days photographing Burrowing Owls, Curlews, Osprey, Bluebirds and a few other things. Took my new D7200 and the D810. Nicest bit I could not really tell any AF difference between the two. Shot with both the 400mm f2.8 + 1.7TC and the 80-400 (new) with and without the 1.4TC. I have not yet done any AF Fine Tuning on the D7200. Yes, I had OOF shots with the D7200, and as far as I can tell they were all my fault, not the camera. One funny one was a sequence of a Burrowing Owl in flight when the bird flew down into a rather shallow, maybe 6-8" irrigation channel, and disappeared from view. Everything was nice and in focus until the bird disappeared below the concrete, can't blame the camera on OOF after that.

Shot the same as the D810, AF-C d9 and things worked as well as I suspected, a cut above the D7100. As for "buying twice to get it right", I simply don't agree. Expeed 4 was not available when the D7100 came out, nor was the new AF module. And even with those limitations I believe that on balance the D7100 was a better fit for me due to better AF and ISO performance than the D300 it replaced. Others have different opinions and priorities, which is fine.

Pa, as to your question about AF vs. Lens, as I have noted, a definite improvement in AF for me using the same lenses I was using on the D7100.

 

[Randy]

That the improved autofocus is entirely due to the camera and not the Sigma lens.

yes I am sure the D7200's AF has been improved alot and when I say alot I mean 'you can see it', during the game when you chimp and more when you PP

 

[Randy]

I just got back from a few days photographing Burrowing Owls, Curlews, Osprey, Bluebirds and a few other things. Took my new D7200 and the D810. Nicest bit I could not really tell any AF difference between the two. Shot with both the 400mm f2.8 + 1.7TC and the 80-400 (new) with and without the 1.4TC. I have not yet done any AF Fine Tuning on the D7200. Yes, I had OOF shots with the D7200, and as far as I can tell they were all my fault, not the camera. One funny one was a sequence of a Burrowing Owl in flight when the bird flew down into a rather shallow, maybe 6-8" irrigation channel, and disappeared from view. Everything was nice and in focus until the bird disappeared below the concrete, can't blame the camera on OOF after that.

Shot the same as the D810, AF-C d9 and things worked as well as I suspected, a cut above the D7100. As for "buying twice to get it right", I simply don't agree. Expeed 4 was not available when the D7100 came out, nor was the new AF module. And even with those limitations I believe that on balance the D7100 was a better fit for me due to better AF and ISO performance than the D300 it replaced. Others have different opinions and priorities, which is fine.

Pa, as to your question about AF vs. Lens, as I have noted, a definite improvement in AF for me using the same lenses I was using on the D7100.

buffalo bill was a good new name for you

anyway the AF on the D7100 was not as good as the AF on the D300, not even close, so whatever sw they used they crippled it
The buffer was IMO a purposeful dumb down to sell the next better (actually just fixed) body
But now that we have spent $2400 everything is good

 

[mneary]

anyway the AF on the D7100 was not as good as the AF on the D300, not even close

Beg to differ, Randy. Had the D300, D300s, D7000, still have D7100. With regards to AF, I would rank them D7100 - D300s - D300 - D7000.

Nice to hear the D7200 improves on the already great AF of the D7100, though!

Mike

 

[Randy]

Beg to differ, Randy. Had the D300, D300s, D7000, still have D7100. With regards to AF, I would rank them D7100 - D300s - D300 - D7000.

Nice to hear the D7200 improves on the already great AF of the D7100, though!

Mike

I bought a used D300 because the D7100 was so bad for sports, maybe i had a bad one who knows, but it was only for sports, it was fine for wildlife

i thought the d300s was exactly the same as the D300

 

[Retief]

buffalo bill was a good new name for you

anyway the AF on the D7100 was not as good as the AF on the D300, not even close, so whatever sw they used they crippled it
The buffer was IMO a purposeful dumb down to sell the next better (actually just fixed) body
But now that we have spent $2400 everything is good

Only my parents got to name me ....... watch yourself now .....

As to the body, I won't disagree on the buffer issue, I think that was just dumb on the D7100, but given that the AF bits, as I noted prior Expeed 4 and the new AF module, were not even available when the D7100 came out I don't see how you can claim that was "crippled".

As to the D300 vs D7100 AF, I found the D7100 to be better for the Baseball and Football I was shooting as well, especially when the light got low. As with all of these things, however, YMMV. Heck, even my OWN mileage varies at times Glad to see that Mike has had the same experience I have.

 

[Pa]

I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't shoot sports or BIFs, but I think that to objectively compare AF performance between camera bodies one must use the same lens. Use of different lenses could explain some of the variation in experience being reported by different people.

 

[Retief]

I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't shoot sports or BIFs, but I think that to objectively compare AF performance between camera bodies one must use the same lens. Use of different lenses could explain some of the variation in experience being reported by different people.

You know, Jim, Michael Vic got into big trouble for dog fighting ..... just sayin' you know ....

I agree with you, extra variables can certainly muddy the waters, so to speak. That is why I used the same lenses, heck they are the only ones I have anyway. But more importantly they are what I use mostly for the things I like to shoot. That being said, all these "comparisons" are, in my opinion, nothing more that the opinions of the folks using the products. And one thing we have to take into account, is how much we may bias our "review" by the need to justify our purchase. In my case, of course, there is no bias, as I am always completely objective. You can certainly trust me on that .... right?

There really is nothing that we can do to easily objectively test this, at least I am too lazy to set up a side-by-side exact comparison. So I can only speak to what I "feel", and the results I see. The two main factors I was looking for in the AF were how quickly the AF would acquire focus on a target, and how well it would track. I tested the first initially in the store, using slow focusing lenses like the Nikon 35mm and 50mm. The difference between the speed between the D7100 and D7200 was significant, you could even hear it. I am guessing this was more the new processor getting things done faster. It is much harder to tell when it comes to acquiring a moving target, but it felt faster in this regard as well. Same goes for tracking, my experience was it seemed to hold focus better against a background that might "steal" focus, although I had one occasion where the background did steal focus, I need to play with the lock-on settings more. In this case, however, there was clearly a much higher contrast, as it was a Burrowing Owl that took off in front of it's mate, first shot in focus, second shot OOF, but the mate which was in the background was very sharp, the focus locked on the owls eye, very high contrast. I think I would have been OK had the lock-on been set longer. Bottom line, seems a fair bit better and faster to me, but no one has yet made the "perfect" AF system in my opinion.

 

[Pa]

I agree with you, extra variables can certainly muddy the waters, so to speak.

Us old professors like to quibble over fine points to demonstrate our superior knowledge of the Scientific Method.

 

[andreasb]

For me the obvious issues with the D7100 are that

• Buffer of course (fixed with the D7200)
• AF accuracy in burst mode (a fair amount of jittering once the lens is in focus) (My D800e and a borrowed D4 did not do that as much) The 7DMKII has a dampened rolling shutter to help with focusing issues in burst mode. Another reason why we need a D300s replacement!
• Af accuracy in the long distance, 100 + yards or so come out hazy most often. Is this the lens? I have reproduced the same issue with my 300mm VRII, 400mm F2.8 AF-S II and my 600mm VR, it gets worse with the focal length. will the D7200 solve this one? I doubt it, you get what you pay for, I think this is on the edge of what can be done with a cheap enthusiast body with out the mechanical tolerances (and metal build) of a pro model. The D800e does much better in this respect but not as good as the 7DMKII BTW

As for the discussion about the D7100 shortcomings the AF is respectable but not great for an enthusiast camera. The low buffer is an inexcusable messup, and shows that Nikon has no idea who their target group was for this camera.