Is the Nikon D7500 really a better camera than the D7100, or the slightly newer D7200?
Sep 11, 2017 03:19:47 #
ChrisT wrote:
That's quite extensive, CO ... do you have one for the D7500 compared to the D7100/D7200, too?
Here is the dynamic range for the D7500 vs the D7200. The orange line is the D7500.
Sep 11, 2017 03:37:22 #
ChrisT wrote:
And here I've just been sold on the idea the D7500 is nothing to do with the D7100/D7200 - that it's more like an adjunct to the D500 ....
There you are, you see ... you can't believe what you read ....
There you are, you see ... you can't believe what you read ....
As Has been inferred and/or directly stated, Nikon had an old camera, called the 7200, which they knew had to be updated. But they did not want to introduce a rival to the 500. So they introduced a camera which had many new features and which detrimentally changed, namely pixel count and number of card slots. But after they upgrade the 500, they will no longer be worried about such competition, so they can upgrade the 7XXX line to combine the best features of the 7100 and the 7500. However, to simplify the question as to Nikons intent regarding the relationship of the 7100/7200 to the 7500, you need look no farther than Nikons decision as to the first digit of each model number.
Sep 11, 2017 03:37:23 #
Thanks, CO ... and - for the D7200 vs. the D7100?
Sep 11, 2017 03:47:17 #
BHC ... Nikon D7200 - an old camera, huh?
Seems to me - it was just released, a year or two, ago ....
I bought my D7100 in 2015 - just before the D7200 was announced ...
Seems to me - it was just released, a year or two, ago ....
I bought my D7100 in 2015 - just before the D7200 was announced ...
Sep 11, 2017 03:49:24 #
Don't you love it, when you buy something NEW, and a few weeks later, you find out it's actually OLD?
Sep 11, 2017 10:38:57 #
BHC wrote:
Perhaps the "D7500" name comes from their wanting to reserve a number or two for D7200 followups - so in another year or two we'll see D7300 replacing D7200 and D7600 replacing D7500.Chris, I don't think you'll see a 7300. Nikon gav... (show quote)
Sep 11, 2017 10:44:24 #
ChrisT wrote:
Don't you love it, when you buy something NEW, and a few weeks later, you find out it's actually OLD?
-----
Amen to that! IMO Sony is the worst for instant new models. In 2 years I bought 3 different RX100s models I, II, III.
-----
Sep 11, 2017 23:29:45 #
ChrisT wrote:
BHC ... Nikon D7200 - an old camera, huh?
Seems to me - it was just released, a year or two, ago ....
I bought my D7100 in 2015 - just before the D7200 was announced ...
Seems to me - it was just released, a year or two, ago ....
I bought my D7100 in 2015 - just before the D7200 was announced ...
Yes, OLD. In this age of rampant technological advances, 2½ years is a lifetime. It's been less than 50 years since the introduction of the 100 X 100 pixel Kodak CCD prototype (and yes, I know that the concept has been around a lot longer, but not for practical applications). The Sony Mavica was introduced in 1981 with 1.44mb of memory. Today's technology is obsolete tomorrow. That's why I've gone back to the "prehistoric" use of film for most of my photography (with a 65+ year old camera)!
Sep 12, 2017 00:16:01 #
Dan De Lion wrote:
-----
Amen to that! IMO Sony is the worst for instant new models. In 2 years I bought 3 different RX100s models I, II, III.
-----
Amen to that! IMO Sony is the worst for instant new models. In 2 years I bought 3 different RX100s models I, II, III.
-----
That's GREAT, Dan ...
So, now you have one with a 200mm lens, one with a 400mm lens, and one with a 600mm lens ...
Sep 12, 2017 00:17:58 #
BHC wrote:
Yes, OLD. In this age of rampant technological ad... (show quote)
If I remember, correctly, that 1.44mb of STORAGE, came from the use of a 3.5" floppy disk ....
Sep 12, 2017 00:20:32 #
rehess wrote:
Perhaps the "D7500" name comes from their wanting to reserve a number or two for D7200 followups - so in another year or two we'll see D7300 replacing D7200 and D7600 replacing D7500.
That's precisely what I thought, RE ...
But, someone responded Nikon won't continue in that vein ... because they won't go back in numbers ...
That you're far more likely to see a D7600 or on up ...
Sep 12, 2017 00:33:54 #
ChrisT wrote:
That's precisely what I thought, RE ...
But, someone responded Nikon won't continue in that vein ... because they won't go back in numbers ...
That you're far more likely to see a D7600 or on up ...
But, someone responded Nikon won't continue in that vein ... because they won't go back in numbers ...
That you're far more likely to see a D7600 or on up ...
Right
D7200 to D7300 is going up
D7500 to D7600 is going up.
Remember, I view D7200 and D7500 as being "parallel", so advancing both lines is entirely possible.
Sep 12, 2017 01:06:52 #
rehess wrote:
Right
D7200 to D7300 is going up
D7500 to D7600 is going up.
Remember, I view D7200 and D7500 as being "parallel", so advancing both lines is entirely possible.
D7200 to D7300 is going up
D7500 to D7600 is going up.
Remember, I view D7200 and D7500 as being "parallel", so advancing both lines is entirely possible.
They were making the point the D7200 line is now dead ...
Yes, there will be an advance on the D7500 ...
But - the D7200 will not continue, as the D7300, or anything else ....
Sep 12, 2017 01:41:40 #
ChrisT wrote:
If I remember, correctly, that 1.44mb of STORAGE, came from the use of a 3.5" floppy disk ....
I know that. Different generations of terminology. Damn, you're picky.
Sep 12, 2017 02:10:47 #
BHC wrote:
I know that. Different generations of terminology. Damn, you're picky.
No, not picky ... but I had use of a Mavica for a while ... absolutely loved it, at the time ...
It belonged to my wife ... after she went back to Thailand and she bought something new ...
I asked her to send it to me ... she told me it fell off the hood of her car and shattered ...
That depressed the hell out of me ....
I still have about 60 disks full of pics - taken on it ....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.