Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Nikon D7200 Good & Bad
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
Apr 2, 2016 11:51:11   #
klaus Loc: Guatemala City, Guatemala
 
OnDSnap wrote:
I swear I just typed a similar response and decided to delete it.


Yeah, he's not worth a response!

He's been terrorizing this message board for a while now. Classic troll!!! He never contributes anything meaningful and just tries to antagonize people.

If everyone just ignores him he will eventually get bored and goes away.

Reply
Apr 2, 2016 12:31:08   #
Leon S Loc: Minnesota
 
Recently picked up the D7200 while I was recovering from a fall on ice which caused rib injuries. I could sit out somewhere and try birding. Although I still prefer using a D810 for most things, I do have to admit the D7200 does very nice work. The negative thing for me is its body is not like the D810,D700,D300, or D200. For me there is a learning curve. It seems to perform well in low light, focus fast, and capture nice color. For the price of $756 referbed, it seems well worth the money and allows me to use DX lenses that were collecting dust. It also allows me to use my 24-120 vr 3.5-? while automatically cutting off the edges. It certainly is lighter than my FX equipment. The D7200 is a good camera and fills a hole in my equipment arsenal. As far as the Angry Photographer, I won't waste anymore time listening to his advice. Leon

Reply
Apr 2, 2016 12:51:23   #
MtnMan Loc: ID
 
Leon S wrote:
Recently picked up the D7200 while I was recovering from a fall on ice which caused rib injuries. I could sit out somewhere and try birding. Although I still prefer using a D810 for most things, I do have to admit the D7200 does very nice work. The negative thing for me is its body is not like the D810,D700,D300, or D200. For me there is a learning curve. It seems to perform well in low light, focus fast, and capture nice color. For the price of $756 referbed, it seems well worth the money and allows me to use DX lenses that were collecting dust. It also allows me to use my 24-120 vr 3.5-? while automatically cutting off the edges. It certainly is lighter than my FX equipment. The D7200 is a good camera and fills a hole in my equipment arsenal. As far as the Angry Photographer, I won't waste anymore time listening to his advice. Leon
Recently picked up the D7200 while I was recoverin... (show quote)


You can use your DX lenses on the D810 with great results. Different lenses work well with different image areas over some zoom range but all work over the full zoom range in DX image area which is almost 16MP.

I prefer the D5300 for that hole because it weighs half a D7xxx and has other better features...notably the articulated screen and active info screen control approach.

Reply
 
 
Apr 2, 2016 13:23:09   #
SwedeUSA2
 
TKT wrote:
Jim Bob gets the a--hole award of the day for his rude comment!!!


I'll give him a lifetime award!

Reply
Apr 2, 2016 13:48:18   #
Leon S Loc: Minnesota
 
MtnMan wrote:
You can use your DX lenses on the D810 with great results. Different lenses work well with different image areas over some zoom range but all work over the full zoom range in DX image area which is almost 16MP.

I prefer the D5300 for that hole because it weighs half a D7xxx and has other better features...notably the articulated screen and active info screen control approach.



When you are using a $3000 camera, you want to use top end glass. Most DX glass doesn't cut it on a D810. When using a 36mp camera, why drop to 16mp just to use a DX lens. I could have used my d300 at 12mp and probably not noticed the between 12 and 16 mp. I can't argue regarding in most cases the DX format is lighter the FX. As I get older camera weight will become a factor. If my legs get any worse and I have to rely on a wheeled chair, them weight will again not be a factor. In the mean time I am happy with my equipment choices. But thanks for the comments. Leon

Reply
Apr 2, 2016 14:08:22   #
MtnMan Loc: ID
 
Leon S wrote:
When you are using a $3000 camera, you want to use top end glass. Most DX glass doesn't cut it on a D810. When using a 36mp camera, why drop to 16mp just to use a DX lens. I could have used my d300 at 12mp and probably not noticed the between 12 and 16 mp. I can't argue regarding in most cases the DX format is lighter the FX. As I get older camera weight will become a factor. If my legs get any worse and I have to rely on a wheeled chair, them weight will again not be a factor. In the mean time I am happy with my equipment choices. But thanks for the comments. Leon
When you are using a $3000 camera, you want to use... (show quote)


If you already have DX lens there is a different equation. The poster said he couldn't use his DX lenses with his D810. The point is he can...with excellent results. No need to invest in a D7200 for that reason.

Sure, the camera is capable of better results with heavier and more expensive lens investments.

For example I got great results on my 10-24 on my D800 till I was ready to invest in a 16-35. It worked fine in full FX above 18mm. I can't say the 16-35 is any better in that range but it has VR and goes to 35mm. But it weighs at least twice as much also.

Reply
Apr 3, 2016 06:39:56   #
OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey
 
klaus wrote:
Yeah, he's not worth a response!

He's been terrorizing this message board for a while now. Classic troll!!! He never contributes anything meaningful and just tries to antagonize people.

If everyone just ignores him he will eventually get bored and goes away.


a good reason for being in hiding on his Avatar...

Reply
 
 
Apr 3, 2016 06:44:10   #
OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey
 
MtnMan wrote:
If you already have DX lens there is a different equation. The poster said he couldn't use his DX lenses with his D810. The point is he can...with excellent results. No need to invest in a D7200 for that reason.

Sure, the camera is capable of better results with heavier and more expensive lens investments.

For example I got great results on my 10-24 on my D800 till I was ready to invest in a 16-35. It worked fine in full FX above 18mm. I can't say the 16-35 is any better in that range but it has VR and goes to 35mm. But it weighs at least twice as much also.
If you already have DX lens there is a different e... (show quote)


I have all FX lenses and all f/2.8...including the 16-35 I bought excursively to use on the 750 and for Realty interiors. Great lens.

Reply
Apr 3, 2016 06:54:29   #
OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey
 
MtnMan wrote:
You can use your DX lenses on the D810 with great results. Different lenses work well with different image areas over some zoom range but all work over the full zoom range in DX image area which is almost 16MP.

I prefer the D5300 for that hole because it weighs half a D7xxx and has other better features...notably the articulated screen and active info screen control approach.


I have no DX lenses and probably would never purchase one, even back when I had a D5300 which I've since given to my daughter I bought a Nikon's FX 50mm f/1.8 for it. Out grew the 5300 pretty quick and bought the 7000, and that fust didn't feel right not being full frame, I guess similar to when I taught Pool on a smaller than 4 1/2 x 9 ft table. But did enjoy the extra reach with my 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1.7 and 2x convert. Then had to satisfy that empty feeling and bought the D750 (soon an 810).

Reply
Apr 3, 2016 06:56:28   #
OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey
 
Leon S wrote:
Recently picked up the D7200 while I was recovering from a fall on ice which caused rib injuries. I could sit out somewhere and try birding. Although I still prefer using a D810 for most things, I do have to admit the D7200 does very nice work. The negative thing for me is its body is not like the D810,D700,D300, or D200. For me there is a learning curve. It seems to perform well in low light, focus fast, and capture nice color. For the price of $756 referbed, it seems well worth the money and allows me to use DX lenses that were collecting dust. It also allows me to use my 24-120 vr 3.5-? while automatically cutting off the edges. It certainly is lighter than my FX equipment. The D7200 is a good camera and fills a hole in my equipment arsenal. As far as the Angry Photographer, I won't waste anymore time listening to his advice. Leon
Recently picked up the D7200 while I was recoverin... (show quote)


Thanks Leon, Hope your feeling better.

Reply
Apr 3, 2016 09:23:45   #
Leon S Loc: Minnesota
 
OnDSnap wrote:
Thanks Leon, Hope your feeling better.


Thanks and yes I am feeling better but it sure takes a lot longer to heal at age 71 than when I was younger. Getting old is not for the wimps.

Reply
 
 
Apr 3, 2016 09:56:15   #
OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey
 
I hear that at 64... :(

Reply
Apr 3, 2016 14:25:16   #
CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.
 
OnDSnap wrote:
I have no DX lenses and probably would never purchase one, even back when I had a D5300 which I've since given to my daughter I bought a Nikon's FX 50mm f/1.8 for it. Out grew the 5300 pretty quick and bought the 7000, and that fust didn't feel right not being full frame, I guess similar to when I taught Pool on a smaller than 4 1/2 x 9 ft table. But did enjoy the extra reach with my 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1.7 and 2x convert. Then had to satisfy that empty feeling and bought the D750 (soon an 810).

You are really going to love the D810 when you get it.
The extra 12 MP's make a big difference Doug.
Craig
Nikon D800E and all FX Lenses.

Reply
Apr 4, 2016 05:46:27   #
OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey
 
CraigFair wrote:
You are really going to love the D810 when you get it.
The extra 12 MP's make a big difference Doug.
Craig
Nikon D800E and all FX Lenses.


Yes looking forward to it....

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.