About D7200 and the future

[norda72]

I am thinking about D7200, is it worth it? Or would D810 be better? The most strange and annoying thing with D7200 is the black and white pictures in high ISO (51200-102400). D7200 is the only DSLR in the market with this feature. In a couple of years you may suffer even more from this when you realize that you have a very odd thing. And another thing: Smartphones! Are they the only cameras people will want in the future? Nikon was forced to close a camera factory down in Japan or China because they couldn’t sell compact cameras anymore.

With regards
Pär Nordqvist, Sweden

[richardHaw]

as somebody who used to shoot bugs almost exclusively, the D7200 is the best body around for that job at the moment. it gives me the "reach" and resolution

[Les Olson]

And another thing: Smartphones! Are they the only cameras people will want in the future?

There are many alternatives to a D7200 or a D810.  Some of them might be preferred because they are interesting photographically - a pinhole camera, or an 8 x 10 view camera, eg - others because they are convenient - a smartphone, eg. 

During the fifteen years after 2000 anyone who wanted to take digital photographs had to buy a dedicated digital camera, even if they had no interest at all in photography. As a result, there was a dramatic expansion of the dedicated camera market: at the peak of sales, around 2010, annual camera sales were three times higher than in 1999 and six times higher than they were in 1985 (data at https://petapixel.com/2015/04/09/this-is-what-the-history-of-camera-sales-looks-like-with-smartphones-included/).  People no longer need to buy a dedicated digital camera to take photographs, even if they are not interested in photography, so they don't. 

Will smartphones reach the point where they replace dedicated digital cameras for people who are interested in photography?  My guess is not. The reason for that guess is music: smartphones could have replaced dedicated music reproduction systems even for people interested in sound quality, but they haven't because the manufacturers haven't bothered to give smartphones good sound quality because most people who listen to music on their phone don't care about sound quality.   

[Fons Baerken]

Imho the d7200 is a good choice it has better resolution than a d500,
prices around €700 here.

[JKoerner007]

as somebody who used to shoot bugs almost exclusively, the D7200 is the best body around for that job at the moment. it gives me the "reach" and resolution

Nope, the D500.

Better dynamic, tonal, and color range than the D7200 (same reach advantage) ... with a much, much, much better Live View.

[Frank Fremerey]

Nope, the D500.

Better dynamic, tonal, and color range than the D7200 (same reach advantage) ... with a much, much, much better Live View.

The D500 is worlds apart, absolutely. I got the 850 and the 500 and it only a very small gap between them

[David H. Hartman]

One holds a smart phone like the undead. Taking a photograph of a precise moment is a crap shoot. You poke with your finger and hope for the, for the best? One had more chance of catching the expression on a person's face with an Instamatic 100. Ignorance is bliss; Laziness is bliss: if one's expectations are low (say "cheese") a smart phone is all one needs.

Dave Hartman

The best camera is the one you took a little effort to have with you.

[Seapy]

Well Apples adverts show the iPhone taking truly spectacular photographs!  The adverts can't be wrong, ...can they???   

[Akira]

I think D7200 is a well rounded camera of D7x00 series.  Its AF sensor is the same one as used in D750 and it was to me the first AF sensor that is reliable enough.

Unfortunately Nikon redesigned its lineup for more profitable one, and D7200 was force-quitted for D7500 to make the clear difference between D500 and D7x00 line.

I used D750 and thought ISO12800 was the limit for the acceptable image quality.  So, the performance of any DX camera shot at ISO 51200 and above should be nothing to look at.  You can set the ISO at 12800 and and the exposure compensation at -2 respectively if you really need.

[JKoerner007]

The D500 is worlds apart, absolutely. I got the 850 and the 500 and it only a very small gap between them

Agreed.

The D7200 is a fine APS-C camera, but the D500 just adds so much professionalism and polish, that the D7200 seems like an antiquated toy by comparison (which it pretty much is).

A someone who shoots a huge amount of bugs myself, the upgrade to the Live View clarity/functionality (especially in low light) cannot be over-stated.
If anyone ever shoots natural light, high-mag macro shots they will immediately appreciate the D500's Live View. It blows even the D810's LV out of the water, let alone the D7200.

And the rear LCD screen is not just about the brightness, mind you, but the fact it articulates (as well as has touch-sensitivity) are HUGE improvements for macro work, especially at the ground level.

Anyone who rates the D7200 over the D500 for macro simply has never used the D500 for macro.

There is no comparison.