Nikon D7200 officially announced (02-Mar-2015)

[wfooshee]

The "CPU only" remark referenced in post 10 doesn't seem to be there any more. It now says AF-S or AF fully compatible, which would include AF-D and even non-D lenses. It also says metering with AI, so your legacy glass still works, just like a D7000 or D7100. The comparison has identical wording for D7200 and D7100.

I think the lens confusion has become a non-issue. Anything AI and up.

It may not be that much of an upgrade from a D7100, but I think it's a good shot from a D7000......

 

[raventepes]

I'm with everyone else on this. There isn't enough improvement for me to justify upgrading to the D7200. My D7100 will do just fine.

 

[cgw]

Bizarrely, Nikon Canada is listing the D7200(body only) at a ridiculous C$1399 when the D7100 is going for around C$950 or less. Something's gotta give with one or both on pricing soon.

 

[Braineack]

Something's gotta give in what manner exactly? The D7100 was the same price (Body Only) when it first came out, now it's ~$300 USD less. Nikon still lists the D7000 at the same price as the D7100.

 

[Seventen]

Bizarrely, Nikon Canada is listing the D7200(body only) at a ridiculous C$1399 when the D7100 is going for around C$950 or less. Something's gotta give with one or both on pricing soon.

I don't see the 7100 dropping much in price buying it new for some time still. When I was looking around for my 5100 the 5200 had been out some time and still 5100 was priced only a couple of hundred less than the 5200. But once the local shop announced the 5300 coming out the price of the 5100 dropped quite a bit more but it was more of a clearance price. So that is when I got it.

The used market however I can see might start getting better prices as sure there will be a lot of people selling just to buy the latest technology.

 

[cgw]

Something's gotta give in what manner exactly? The D7100 was the same price (Body Only) when it first came out, now it's ~$300 USD less. Nikon still lists the D7000 at the same price as the D7100.

Hmmm. Just shy of a 50% increase over the D7100 for marginal improvements? Brilliant.

 

[ruifo]

Here's the Nikon's own PDF with a comparison sheet between the D7100 and the D7200:

http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o...hRroI/PDF/D7200-D7100_Comparison_Sheet_en.pdf

 

[Braineack]

Something's gotta give in what manner exactly? The D7100 was the same price (Body Only) when it first came out, now it's ~$300 USD less. Nikon still lists the D7000 at the same price as the D7100.

Hmmm. Just shy of a 50% increase over the D7100 for marginal improvements? Brilliant.

The retail on the D7100 is still $1160C. 1160/1400 = 18% price "increase" for "marginal" improvements.

 

[cgw]

Something's gotta give in what manner exactly? The D7100 was the same price (Body Only) when it first came out, now it's ~$300 USD less. Nikon still lists the D7000 at the same price as the D7100.

Hmmm. Just shy of a 50% increase over the D7100 for marginal improvements? Brilliant.

The retail on the D7100 is still $1160C. 1160/1400 = 18% price "increase" for "marginal" improvements.

Bro, I live here, you don't, and a D7100 body still costs C$950 this morning. Got it?

 

[Braineack]

Well in two years you can pick up a D7200 for a pretty good price once D7300 comes out.

 

[Seventen]

Here's the Nikon's own PDF with a comparison sheet between the D7100 and the D7200:

http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o...hRroI/PDF/D7200-D7100_Comparison_Sheet_en.pdf

For someone who don't own the 7100 the 7200 actually has nice upgrades. In comparison they may not seem like much, but why change something completely if it has not got huge issues.
It seems its aimed for the people with more lower end cameras than the people who already own the 7100. I am actually stuck which one to go with. I am wanting to see how the low light on the 7200 is and think for me that will be the deciding factor along with the buffer size.

 

[Microbois]

I might bite at the D7200 as it would be the cheapest option for me to get more reach. I currently have a D610 and a Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 zoom. I'm taking pictures at my son's soccer game, but very often, at 200mm, there's not enough reach and I need to crop half of the picture to get a decent composition. I think 300mm would be just perfect, but I don't have much choice on the lens side. By getting a crop factor camera, I'm getting my 300mm reach so to speak, I get a second body, and price wise it's less than a pro 300mm lens, either fixed or zoom. I was in fact waiting for that D7200 to come out as the D7100 had a buffer too small for my needs.

 

[ruifo]

Here's the Nikon's own PDF with a comparison sheet between the D7100 and the D7200:

http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o...hRroI/PDF/D7200-D7100_Comparison_Sheet_en.pdf

For someone who don't own the 7100 the 7200 actually has nice upgrades. In comparison they may not seem like much, but why change something completely if it has not got huge issues.
It seems its aimed for the people with more lower end cameras than the people who already own the 7100. I am actually stuck which one to go with. I am wanting to see how the low light on the 7200 is and think for me that will be the deciding factor along with the buffer size.

That's why people are starting to upgrade every other generation, skiping one of them, usually, if they continue in the same camera line/family.

 

[Braineack]

I might bite at the D7200 as it would be the cheapest option for me to get more reach. I currently have a D610 and a Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 zoom. I'm taking pictures at my son's soccer game, but very often, at 200mm, there's not enough reach and I need to crop half of the picture to get a decent composition.

200mm is short--DX or FX.

It'd be just as cost effective to buy the Tamron 150-600.

 

[shadowlands]

So does it have the AF motor? Sorry, I haven't been keeping up. If not, that would be weak.