Nikon D7200 Vs. The Nikon D750

Spec difference: https://photographylife.com/nikon-d7100-vs-d7000

For in field performance I defer to others, as I'm a m4/3 user ;-)

Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

Comparing the 7000 to the 7100, Def the 7100, more Megapixels to the sensor, slightly larger buffer, these are big upgrades on the 7100. The 7200, which is the newest in the 7000 Series has some upgrades over the 7100, but depending on what price you can get them at would be a determining factor, $200 Dif, I would go 7200, much more than that I would go 7100.

I would recommend the D7100 (I have one), not because the D7000 is bad, but because after the launch of the D7200, the D7000 is 2 generations back now. Thatīs a lot in the digital age!

And I agree with Alicia: If itīs in your price range, take the D7200.

Hey Christal! Though I have neither camera, I would say go for the D7100... it is also a camera I am considering to purchase. It has 24 MP while the other has 16. This means the D7100 can make much larger files to be printed. I do not know all the specs, but I would venture to say that the D7100 would be the one to go for :)

16mp is the very bottom limit for a DSLR these days owing to weight and bulk vs detail. The 7100 is where you want to head for increased detail, cropping options, speed of use and future proofing (twentyfour mpx is pretty much the standard, and will be for the next few years.

They appear online here and there for bargain prices with and without kit lenses, but if you get a lens with it you could sell it and that'll reduce the cost further

Did you change the title? I'm sure I read this as 'D7000 vs D7100' Maybe I got sidetracked by the other comments.

Anyway the cost of the D7200 is less, but the overall specs of the D750 are much more - what I would buy if I were buying. If it comes down to image quality the D750 is the winner, but the D7200 is no slouch.

Really the way you'd know is the resolution of stars in the nightsky. The D750 will focus one into a single pixel, while the D7200 it will be a slightly blurry 3 or 4 pixels. Not really noticeable during the day, and if you asked someone to tell the difference they'd probably not know.

The biggest trade-off is the same lenses used on the D750 will be 1.6 times shorter than if they were on the D7200

Conclusion: D7200 is quite excellent, D750 is great

D750 is full frame, D7200 is crop censor. If you shoot alot of wildlife and birds from a distance and some landscapes then D7200 would suit you better. If you shoot lots of landscapes and some wildlife and birds then D750 would be the better choice. There is a difference in fine detail between full frame and crop sensors but you can get good landscape shots with either. Then there is a big difference in price, so the best soution would be buy what you can best afford. I'll say, I went from a D7000 to a D600 and have no regrets, but I do miss the extra reach when shooting wildlife.

Ups, you changed your question? That makes people, who answered before look like they canīt read. 😎

Now the answer has to be different, because we are talking about different systems, and not updates of rather similar cameras. If you can afford it, take the D750.

I agree with what mark is saying, but at the end of the day, the bigger the sensor the better still applies, although the overall difference in picture quality between crop and full frame isnīt that big today, as it used to be.

Though I was just thinking, the higher resolving ability of full format means that you wouldn't really lose out with the lens length, because you can afford a tighter crop and slight enlargement to regain the 1.6x difference.

If you wanted to I mean.

Full frame doesnīt mean you have a bigger resolution. It means, that if you put the same amount of pixels onto a bigger sensor, the single pixel can be bigger. Bigger pixels can collect more light, and show the effect of diffraction later, than smaller sensors with the same number of pixels.

At the end, cropping from e.g. a 24MP full frame to show the similar view of a 24 MP crop sensor, the crop sensor will win. And donīt underestimate the psychlogical side: taking pixels away from a picture always hurts ...😎

I was referring to my earlier post about the star. There is a theoretical latitude between the two. Such that the difference of 1.6x enlargement should give the same IQ as the crop sensor. Haven't tested it, and not really recommending it because of the drop in quality - just saying that it is a possibility.

So a bit more thought and I think I have it - resolving a pin prick of light i.e. a star to a single pixel, is in fact a magnification, good in photographic terms, but a star should actually occupy no more than a micropixel.

That is to say, a fraction of the size of a whole pixel, but because we don't have micropixels we get the next best thing - an approximation of the pin prick to its nearest rounding up, which is what fills the pixel. In fact you'd need twelve million mpx to resolve the nightsky accurately, and that's just ludicrous.

*spins around in circles of confusion*