Beginner D3200 - Bird/Wildlife photography

It's good iso performance, great buffer, better lower iso(than the D7200) . For wildlife and sports it's the better choice
 
Might as well get a d7100 it is better at lower iso the 7200 is noisier and holds less detail that's the expense people pay because they wanted better high iso imho it's not much of an upgrade and not worth the extra money, there's a good youtube video showing the d7100 showing much more detail at lower ISOs which to.me is more important unless you shoot in the dark all the time, in which case get a flash.
The 7200 has a couple more pointless bells and whistles but is not a better camera
Well all the tests I've seen show that the D7200 has more detail at all ISO, including base. I don't pay a lot of attention to youtube videos as far as IQ is concerned unless I can be absolutely sure they are consistent. Whether it's worth the extra money or not is personal, but now that the D7200 can be had for £849 from Amazon it's excellent value for money imo.
 
I paid half that for the d7100 it's certainly not worth double (new)
 
Last edited:
Latest isn't greatest it's just has more bells and and whistles that you don't need iq wise you won't tell them apart without heavy pixel peeping which is mainly a pointless exercise, though that youtube video was a fact, check it out
 
Last edited:
It's good iso performance, great buffer, better lower iso(than the D7200) . For wildlife and sports it's the better choice
Dunno where you got that info from? Again the D7200 is better than the 7D2 in terms of detail, noise handling and dynamic range. For wildlife, especially birding, better noise handling is preferred imo as ISO soon ramps up when you're shooting at f8 and 1/1000 shutter. Add the extra DR too and I would argue that the D7200 is better. I could list endless of comparisons, but here's a couple.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...00-versus-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II___1020_865_977
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d7200/nikon-d7200-image-quality.htm

Sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative but I don't believe what you are saying is correct and could be misleading for people reading this thread (y)
 
Latest isn't greatest it's just has more bells and and whistles that you don't need iq wise you won't tell them apart without heavy pixel peeping which is mainly a pointless exercise, though that youtube video was a fact, check it out
Can you post it please and I will check it out.
Latest isn't greatest it's just has more bells and and whistles that you don't need iq wise you won't tell them apart without heavy pixel peeping which is mainly a pointless exercise, though that youtube video was a fact, check it out
Nope, latest isn't always greatest, but in this case the D7200 is a step up in all areas.
 
I paid half that for the d7100 it's certainly not worth double (new)
I imagine that was second hand then? In which case the only fair comparison would be to look at second hand D7200's. Still, whether it's worth the extra cost is personal as I've already said.
 
Dunno where you got that info from? Again the D7200 is better than the 7D2 in terms of detail, noise handling and dynamic range. For wildlife, especially birding, better noise handling is preferred imo as ISO soon ramps up when you're shooting at f8 and 1/1000 shutter. Add the extra DR too and I would argue that the D7200 is better. I could list endless of comparisons, but here's a couple.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...00-versus-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II___1020_865_977
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d7200/nikon-d7200-image-quality.htm

Sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative but I don't believe what you are saying is correct and could be misleading for people reading this thread (y)
If you go.by dxomark Don't it's a crap site that gets more wrong than right check a thread I started about them
 
Can you post it please and I will check it out.

Nope, latest isn't always greatest, but in this case the D7200 is a step up in all areas.
If you believe so o_O
 
Last edited:
It's not what I believe per se, it's what every review and lab test I've seen says.
so what can the d7200 do the d7100 cant? maybe a bit better high iso performance but in most cases its irrelevant but what else? please don't mention wifi
 
so what can the d7200 do the d7100 cant? maybe a bit better high iso performance but in most cases its irrelevant but what else? please don't mention wifi
Well the new better 51 point AF system for a start modified from the D750/D810, better processor, bigger buffer, better IQ, better DR, better battery life, less lag to name a few things. A lot of small upgrades making a substantial upgrade for some, depending on what's important to you of course.
 
All rubbish if you really think all these are actually "BETTER" you've obviously been reading reviews that get paid to market the latest and tell you it's better at this that and the other because they get paid to.do so.In reality you'll see little or no difference
 
Last edited:
All rubbish if you really think all these are actually "BETTER" you've obviously been reading reviews that get paid to market the latest and tell you it's better at this that and the other. In reality you'll see little or.no.difference
Yep agreed, some of it is marginal to imperceivable. But keys points for the type of photography for me are AF, especially AF-C/tracking, buffer, noise, and DR and in these areas (except maybe noise) you notice a difference.

I would however take more note of lab tests compared to flawed youtube videos.
 
Last edited:
Lab tests are ridiculous who needs them who takes.pictures in a lab :-D
 
actually the 7200 can be had on h.dew for around £650 with a 3 year u.k warranty :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:
 
Yep agreed, some of it is marginal to imperceivable. But keys points for the type of photography for me are AF, especially AF-C/tracking, buffer, noise, and DR and in these areas (except maybe noise) you notice a difference.

I would however take more note of lab tests, especially compared to flawed youtube videos.
The differences are indistinguishable in real life
 
Lab tests are ridiculous who needs them who takes.pictures in a lab :-D
They're useful when comparing cameras in terms of detail, DR, noise handling when comparing cameras for a purchase, although agreed real world shooting is what matters and in such cases technique etc will make far more of a difference in terms of sharpness and detail than the small differences seen in a lab. However, autofocus, buffer, and dynamic range will be things you will see in the real world. You seem to be impressed withe the 7D2 because of AF and buffer, but fail to acknowledge that the D7200 is better in these areas too :confused: The only reason I referred to lab tests was to show that the info you had given was wrong according to every lab test I could find, and real world tests that I've seen.

I'm not going to say any more on this as we're going around in circles. All I would say is to repeat that I've never said that the D7200 is worth the upgrade as that is down to the individual, all I have said is that the D7200 is better. I also believe that the D7200 is a better camera than the 7D2, although I would have to try both out in the real world to determine if the Canon had a better AF system or not.
 
Yes and having tried both which is why I didn't upgrade
And that was obviously the right choice for you. Obviously no point in upgrading if you're not going to gain the benefit (y)
 
You have what you need I'd rather see what d7300 has to offer if and when, it seems the op question has gone out the window, then he obviously not interested :)
 
You have what you need I'd rather see what d7300 has to offer if and when, it seems the op question has gone out the window, then he obviously not interested :)
Yep, there's always another 'upgrade' on the horizon :banghead:

Dunno where the OP's gone, perhaps we've scared him off :oops: :$
 
A lot of older nikkor lenses will get you better image quality than newer ones, it's not always a case of you get what you pay for or the greatest and latest is best, you often pay more for what you get and the lens is more important than the body plus experience not reviews and crap on the Internet and this forum of which there's plenty is often misleading and rubbish but only you can decide which is which.At the end of day it's your knowledge that counts not your equipment you can have a £4000 camera and still take crap pictures.Imo people get too hung up on what camera? What lens?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top