Back in college I began shooting with a Nikon D40, then for senior year I upgraded to a D5000. The D5000 worked great for me because it shot video, and because of it I graduated college. However, in the real world I discovered its limits: it SUCKED in low light, the sound was in mono, and the video was far inferior to the cameras that my competition had. Also the flip screen was mounted on the bottom, a problem when dealing with tripods.
Then in December of 2011, I received my current camera: the Nikon D5100. I fell in love with this camera. The video quality is especially great, and I've been able to shoot a lot of gigs with this camera. I couldn't ask for a better camera.
Supposedly this is a step up from the D5100, but honestly I don't see it. The D5100 got rid of every flaw its predecessor had, and even though the D5200 has more megapixels than the D5100, I don't see why anyone would want to shel out over $1100 for this.
My question for photographers: Is the D5200 superior overall to the D5100? The differences between the D40 and D5000, as well as the D5000 and D5100, are as clear as day, but I need to know if this camera is really an affordable investment or if I should just stick to the D5100.
Current owner of a D5100... it's taking amazing images... BUT... I'm somewhat of an upgrade freak (recently upgraded from D700 to D600 and glad I did). I'm gonna wait for a sensor review from DXOMark. If DPReview's evaluation of the D5200 showcases some stellar performance... I might just bite the bullet. That would set me up with 2 24 megapixel cams... one in DX and one in FX...
Shot this image of Kimmie yesterday with the D5100 at the Cable Airshow...
Vampman Studios wrote: Then in December of 2011, I received my current camera: the Nikon D5100. I fell in love with this camera. The video quality is especially great, and I've been able to shoot a lot of gigs with this camera. I couldn't ask for a better camera.
This tell me that the short answer is: No
If you're wanting to stay with crop sensor bodies, then wait for the upgrade to the D7000, which will give you a better body with a bit more weather sealing, more direct controls on the body, as well as things such as a built in flash commander for Nikon CLS flashes (very useful in indoor spaces for shoots that only need a speedlight or two).
My vote would be to spend the money on better glass. If your glass is already in top shape, save your money. The 5100 with really good glass will still give you great images for years to come while you save up for pro or prosumer level body.
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
Vampman Studios wrote: Is the D5200 superior overall to the D5100?
As you mentioned shooting video, the ability to get full manual control over your exposure while shooting it (which the D5100 does not have) is huge.
24MP, as mentioned above, is great. The wife has the D3200 with the same sensor, and it's quite ridiculous how good it is. The D5200 has the advantage over the D3200 that it shoots 14Bit RAW (the D3200 is only 12Bit RAW).
Vampman, first off no digital camera body is a sound "investment" since they all depreciate.
The question is, are there things you need to do with the D5100 that you can't -- and would the D5200 allow you to do them?
From what I've read, the D5200 has more megapixels with 24 (though I read it's not the same chip as in the D3200) and an improved autofocus system with more focusing points. If neither of those additions impress you (or help meet a need) then clearly you should take a pass.
I have the D5000 and love it even with it's admitted shortcomings. I admit, I lusted after the D5100 since it came out and watched the new sensor strategies on the D3200 quietly. Now with the D5200 and the 18-105 as a package, I can't wait. I called my friend at the local camera shop and asked him to get me a Bronze body with the lens.
The D5000 will make a great backup and is still super for most situations.
AUDIO: I plan to get the Nikon Mic right away
VIDEO: I recently came across a medium weight Video Tripod that will be Perfect.
BLUETOOTH: I think I have to have a monitor so models can have that instant gratification going.
eekimelphoto wrote: From what I've read, the D5200 has more megapixels with 24 (though I read it's not the same chip as in the D3200)
Kaouthia wrote: Ooops, my mistake, you're right, although if it's at least as good as the one in the D3200, it'll also be ridiculously good for what it costs.
The Toshiba sensor is a shocker. It may also be have something to do with why the 5200 does 14-bit and the 3200 12-bit, but it also may not.
I have heard great things about the 5200. I am looking forward to the DXOmark testing so we can get some kind of empirical comparison between the D3200 and the D5200.
The toshiba sensor is not a shocker. Sony has been providing fabrication services for Nikon, not designing their sensors. Anyone Nikon chooses (aptina!) can fab a Nikon sensor.
Having said that, You shouldnt need to upgrade to every new model. Id save that money and spend it on lenses or lighting.
Vampman Studios wrote: Supposedly this is a step up from the D5100, but honestly I don't see it. The D5100 got rid of every flaw its predecessor had, and even though the D5200 has more megapixels than the D5100, I don't see why anyone would want to shel out over $1100 for this.
seems like an upgrade to me. Whether its worth it for you to upgrade is debatable. A new model doesn't automatically make an old one obsolete. Plenty of people still do professional work with a D200
eekimelphoto wrote: Vampman, first off no digital camera body is a sound "investment" since they all depreciate.
Kaouthia wrote: Bullshit. It may not increase in value, but if it brings in income, it's an investment.
But doesn't that have FAR more to do with his ability than the tools?? I mean seriously, how often do we see an incredible photographer do great things with what we would call sub par gear vs a mediocre photographer with the greatest gear.. And by your logic, then shouldn't he really be getting a D4?
They have a comparison of dXo ratings and the D5200 has the best rating of any DX camera.
It does stereo sound.
That was actually quite remarkable since it upstaged the D3200 which isn't much older. It was interesting that Nikon chose to replace an extremely good sensor that they made themselves with a sensor from Toshiba. They must have tested it and realized they could do better. Kudos to Nikon for keeping an open mind!
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
Tropical Photography wrote: But doesn't that have FAR more to do with his ability than the tools?? I mean seriously, how often do we see an incredible photographer do great things with what we would call sub par gear vs a mediocre photographer with the greatest gear.. And by your logic, then shouldn't he really be getting a D4?
Of course it has to do with the photographer and not the tools, which was my point.
Any camera is an investment if you know how to use it, your vision is not limited by the camera's abilities, and you know how to make money from it, even though the camera itself is probably going to decrease in value (unless, perhaps, it's a gold plated Leica).
Buying a D4 does not necessarily mean one will bring in more income than they would with a D5200, just have more capability that they may never actually need to use in the real world.
By your interpretation of my logic, you reached an incorrect conclusion.
GPS Studio Services wrote: That was actually quite remarkable since it upstaged the D3200 which isn't much older.
I wonder how much of that (dynamic & tonal range) may be down to the fact that the D5200 is 14Bit and the D3200 is 12Bit.
I'm curious how the results would compare if the D5200 was shooting in 12Bit mode.
| 
| 
| edu