Guys, Guys, Guys! Behave yourselves! at the end of the day, when the cameras go back into the bag, and all that now remains is the images taken with them....
The two cameras both have the same image quality!
Who cares - at that point - which one was used to make the images?
Seems to me those that have paid out nearly double for 'features' and are getting no improvement in quality are just a bit peeved at Nikon (and me) for putting this on the market.
There is a saying in the UK, you get what you pay for. My only point is that the questionable 'features' on what would be an upgrade for me, would leave me paying a similar amount of money, again, to trade 'up' to a camera that does not offer me the slightest improvement in image quality. Whatever anyone has to say, contra to this, is illogical.
The 'lesser' of the two models does offer pretty much everything the 'better' model does, apart from weathersealing, use with older lenses, and a brighter viewfinder. We already dispelled the 7fps 'advantage' as you have to drop to 16mp to get it, using a cropped area, not the whole frame.
Here, in the real world, we buy products based on a number of factors. I concede and agree that, you pay your money and make your choice, but my only serious point is this - the price difference is too great. Going back a few years, a 24mp camera, tested to give you this kind of quality image, would have set you back several thousand UK pounds (even more in USD).
Yet, Nikon have put this wonderful product out there, into the hands of people who can't, or won't pay twice the price, simply to get this kind of image quality, and to be fair, camera quality too.
I don't know how many of the '7100' fan club in here have actually picked up, let alone used the 5200. I have tried both, I spent over an hour choosing between the two models. I can tell you now, money was not an issue. My only concern was to evaluate between the two. I was tempted by the 7100 but I have no old lenses, and have no intention of buying any. As I run this as a business, I can claim purchases against income, and depreciate the value of them against tax, over a number of years. That makes it easier, not harder, to justify the more expensive camera, yet, when I stood in the Nikon dealer's with the pair, it just seemed ridiculous to pay double money, for no image boost in the slightest.
These features everyone keeps ranting on about... I accept that to some people (but I doubt everyone) one or two of them can be important. I might have been swayed to go for the 7100, but only in the following scenarios... the price was 50% more, and it had a tilting and rotating LCD.... or.... the price was 30% more, as it is.
Having used the (three) D5200's for two months, shooting weddings, commercial advertising, and personal stuff, this photographer has no regrets. The others on our team have borrowed one of them from time to time and are close to replacing their own bodies, in the next six months or so. One is using the D5100 which was my own former camera. Nothing wrong with it at all, I loved it. We do rent a Hassleblad for special jobs that require the finished print to be 'huge' but the bottom line is, 20 x 16" prints from the 5200 are mindblowing... as long as the subject is a good one, properly focussed and exposed etc etc etc.
I know how nice it is to have the latest, greatest, I've made those mistakes before. I got an SLR which, even in 1988, cost over six hundred UK pounds, with a 50mm F 1.4 lens, and though it turned out good quality images, there was one model above it, and four models below it, in the line, all of which, with that f1.4 lens fitted, produced identical images. After a year or less, in use, the 'features' I had paid so much money for, were never used or needed. At the time, I could have bought 2 or 3 cameras for the one I actually got. For those who are old enough to remember kodachrome, reciprocity failure, and real film, the camera was a Canon A1. At the time the range comprised of Canon AV1 AT1 AE1 AE1p A1 and F1. All six were limited to the same image quality.
It seems we have come full circle. To be honest, I don't think Nikon intended the 5200 to be quite so good as to compete so strongly with their 7100. What we may be missing, however, is the niche range of this model vs the Canon (and to a lesser extent, other brands). From what I've read, which admittedly, is very little, Canon have no answer to the D5200 at the moment, so new photographers will have a no brainer choice at the camera store. Not in the price range anyway.
Those who want a great camera capable of great images should not be put off by some of the posts you may have read in this thread. I would be miffed if I had bought a 7100 at twice the price, only to find Nikon's lesser model equals or outperforms it, it is perfectly understandable. The 5200 may be touted as an upper entry level camera, there is the 3200 and 5100 below it, but don't let that fool you, it is a capable camera, and, with a little jiggery pokery in learning the menu system well, equals many of the features you'll find on the higher models.
For example, much has been made of the 7100 having two dials, for when you shoot manual exposures. OK the 5200 has just one.. so... set the camera mode to M, turn the dial to set the shutter speed, then, hold down the button near the shutter release marked +/- (exposure compensation when in one of the automatic modes) and turn the same dial again to set an aperture.
Is that really a deal breaker? This holds true for many of the other features, you just need to familiarise with the method of the control system. I can tell you, the interface is better and faster than the older D5100, access is much quicker with the new layout on the menu via the LCD and toggle/OK controls, and easier to follow.
There is a pride of ownership thing going on, call it camera snobbery, if you like, we've all met people toting very expensive gear who probably get it out for holidays, christmas and birthdays, and then store it away again for the rest of the year. I can tell you that if you are a real photographer, either of these models will fit the bill, you have to decide between them. For me, I could not justify the high cost of a 7100... I would spend a little more and go for the D600 instead, given the pricing point between the two - the 600 and the 7100, that is.
Rumors abound that the 600 is due an upgrade, to fix production problems with sensors getting dirty in use (and even out of the box in some cases) so if you are hovering between models but leaning towards a 7100, if you can hold on for the 600 replacement, that could be a plan!
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31706-3e429b21053f11072ed2e5b37c019073.jpg?1734160380)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31704-42c2fcbcc4b6ba8c2c5ae54202cad6ec.jpg?1734160376)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/41/41782-daa26990361bf4193a874908bda10dbb.jpg?1734176088)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42253-fef7e43227f484b1a95dd6d85c03bd40.jpg?1734176623)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/41/41781-7dcfd2ee71d4a453b4ad9fb5c7e723f1.jpg?1734176087)
