backtop


Print 22 comment(s) - last by SPOOFE.. on Nov 7 at 12:58 PM

All the specs but no details on price or availability :(

It's only been a few months since we talked about the last new D-SLR from Nikon. Back in September, Nikon unveiled a new D600 D-SLR camera, and today the company is back with the D5200. 

The D5200 has a 24.1-megapixel imaging sensor and is capable of shooting high-quality digital images and recording full HD resolution movies. The camera also uses the new Nikon EXPEED 3 image processor promising high-speed operation and rich color reproduction along with enhanced movie recording capabilities.


The camera supports an ISO range of 100-6400 that can be extended to 25,600. The D5200 has the same autofocus system (39-points and nine cross-type sensors), metering sensor, and scene recognition capabilities of the high-end Nikon D7000. The camera features a three-inch vari-angle LCD that can be swiveled for comfort no matter what position you're taking images in.

The D5200 also supports wireless connectivity with Apple or Android smartphones using an optional wireless mobile adapter, and it can geo-tag images when used with the optional GPS unit.


Marina Gurevich, Product Manager for Nikon Europe, says, “The inspiring Nikon D5200 is ideal for those who are passionate about photography and want to experiment with the camera’s superior features. The impressive image and movie quality alongside a versatile vari-angle LCD monitor lets users unlock their creative potential.”

Pricing and availability are unknown at this time. 

Sources: DPReview, Nikon



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Insanity continues
By bug77 on 11/6/2012 9:47:00 AM , Rating: 3
First, we get the D800E, a DLSR with a resolution so high, that only a handful of lenses can resolve and only at specific apertures. Still, probably useful for studio shooting. But now, we get 67% of the resolution of D800E on less than half the sensor surface. Anyone cares to guess how useful this will be?
Just give me a 6-10MP shooter that can shoot ISO 6400 with little to no noise. And they could remove the video capabilities entirely, for what I care.




RE: Insanity continues
By Nortel on 11/6/2012 10:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
The Nikon D40 had this many years ago. If you want better ISO for whatever reason, the D7000 is more then adequate. Nikon just keeps pumping out models to fit in between existing models... they've completely saturated the market with point and shoots and stupid small mirrorless cameras as well.


RE: Insanity continues
By bug77 on 11/6/2012 10:24:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Nikon D40 had this many years ago. If you want better ISO for whatever reason, the D7000 is more then adequate.


Classifying better ISO performance as "whatever reason" leads me to believe you haven't shoot in low light too much.
D7000 is acceptable at ISO 3200. But imagine the D40 built with all the sensor improvements of today, yet retaining its 6MP. Now that would rock.


RE: Insanity continues
By anactoraaron on 11/6/2012 11:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want better ISO for whatever reason, the D7000 is more then adequate.

quote:
D7000 is acceptable at ISO 3200.


It always cracks me up seeing these types of comments. Sure the image sensor in the camera body makes a difference but blanket statements like this can't seriously be made. Other more important factors to this are what you are trying to shoot, what your shutter speed and aperture are at, and exactly how much ambient light you have.

My D7000 is more than acceptable shooting hockey action photos at ISO 6400 1/800th @ f2.8 but that's dependent on the arena. Some arenas I can get to 1/4000 @ f2.8. Some hockey arenas I don't need to be at ISO 6400 and can get by at 3200 or less and still shoot at 1/2000 or 1/1600. It depends on the amount of ambient light and the age level of the players (need a faster shutter for older kids peewee bantams high school etc.).

I never shot a D40 but I did own a D80 and I think they used the same sensor - which sucked in low light (even at ISO 800) and color reproduction. The thing couldn't ever get purples or aquas (green-blues) correct regardless of white balance setting. Personally I can't ever go back to the D80 or even my old D300s (which I sold) since at any setting the sharpness and color reproduction of the images on the D7000 are miles ahead of previous gen Nikon DSLR's.


RE: Insanity continues
By hexxthalion on 11/6/2012 11:35:26 AM , Rating: 2
nope, different sensor in D40 and D80, D40X might have had the same sensor as D80. honestly if you believe that D7000 is better camera than D300s I'm very surprised, very. those two are like heaven and hell. You can't compare AF system of D7000 with the one used in D300s, the build quality, controls and layout of controls. D7000 is a pro-sumer camera, D300s is professional camera. 2 different things.


RE: Insanity continues
By SPOOFE on 11/6/2012 1:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
honestly if you believe that D7000 is better camera than D300s I'm very surprised, very.

It is better in some ways, not quite so good in others. Build quality is lighter and the buffer is smaller. On the other hand, its sensor is clearly superior, and for those that care, the video implementation is much improved (though still not quite as good as some rivals, even less expensive options like the GH2). And if you're talking shooting convenience, the U1/U2 settings can be a major improvement over the D300/s.


RE: Insanity continues
By hexxthalion on 11/6/2012 2:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point :) D7000 just didn't cut it for me, I don't use video though and never had a need for custom settings - I'm old school, the only stuff I change is shutter speed/ISO/aperture/metering and occasionally WB :) I liked how quick AF was on D300s and didn't find AF of D7000 fast enough. D300s just worked all the time, just a work horse of a camera and could take a lot of abuse.

But then, times change and requirements change too. These days I use X100 and X-Pro1 from Fuji - not really known for blistering fast AF :D

But if I wanted pro-grade body for little money for shooting sports/reportage I think I'd still go for used D700 or if there would be a cheap one D3s ;)


RE: Insanity continues
By anactoraaron on 11/6/2012 4:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
What I care about most is image quality. One hockey tournament I went to shoot I had a D7000 and my wife used our D300s. All things equal using identical 80-200 2.8 lenses, both cameras shooting at 1/1000th @ f2.8 and at ISO 3200 there was a very noticeable 'softness' to the images taken on the D300s compared to the D7000. The images taken on the D7000 just were sharper with more detail.

True, the build quality isn't the same on the D7000 - I had one that the shutter failed at about 30,000 actuations in (covered under warranty), but the low light performance and overall image quality and color reproduction (especially in low light) is superior on the D7000. That's what matters to me the most, pro-sumer or professional camera body or not.


RE: Insanity continues
By bug77 on 11/6/2012 4:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I didn't word that right.
D7000 is an amazing camera. But imagine having just 10-12MP instead of 16 and being able to handle ISO 6400 with ease. I'd take that any day. And while the 16MP are not that much of a waste (possibly no waste at all with some gold ring lenses), I certainly can't say the same for the 24MP on this D5200.


RE: Insanity continues
By anactoraaron on 11/7/2012 1:17:03 AM , Rating: 2
No, no I agree with that all the way. 24+ MP and even 16 MP is wasted space on a memory card. You don't need that many MP to have great clarity on an image or ISO performance, etc. just as you say.


RE: Insanity continues
By SPOOFE on 11/7/2012 12:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, on the other hand, memory cards are cheap and storage space is abundant. And the higher MP counts help counteract Bayer softening.


RE: Insanity continues
By bug77 on 11/6/2012 11:49:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It always cracks me up seeing these types of comments. Sure the image sensor in the camera body makes a difference but blanket statements like this can't seriously be made. Other more important factors to this are what you are trying to shoot, what your shutter speed and aperture are at, and exactly how much ambient light you have.


Yeah, well, for APS-C shooters, you can pretty much guarantee they won't be hauling around a bag of f1.4 lenses. Shutter speed is also limited if you don't like blurry images. Therefore high ISO performance is pretty darn important.

The thing that puzzles me is that a lower resolution sensor using today's technology would not only be better at high iso, but it also be cheaper to produce. The D4 is "only" 16MP, why not make something similar for APS-C?


RE: Insanity continues
By hexxthalion on 11/6/2012 11:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
D700 is the answer - still in my mind the best digital SLR ever made, period.


RE: Insanity continues
By Woobagong on 11/6/2012 10:37:01 AM , Rating: 2
I still use the D40 and love it because it's so light and has more features than my mediocre skills would ever ask for. More resolution or the other bells and whistles can kiss my ass as long as the D40 does not die on me. Fingers crossed.


RE: Insanity continues
By CityZen on 11/6/2012 10:23:58 AM , Rating: 3
Oh, come on! You complain about a DSLR with an APS-C sensor getting 24 Mp? Do you realize that compact camera's sensors are THIRTEEN TIMES smaller than an APS-C sensor, yet they routinely get 14, 16 and even 18 Mp? Now, THAT is real insanity.


RE: Insanity continues
By bug77 on 11/6/2012 10:27:07 AM , Rating: 2
But DSLRs are meant for more serious shooters, that's what bothers me. There are also phones that are getting 13MP lately.


RE: Insanity continues
By SPOOFE on 11/6/2012 1:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But DSLRs are meant for more serious shooters, that's what bothers me.

I don't think it should bother you that they're trying to remove the sensor as a bottleneck. What, you're worried about running out of hard drive space? Really?

You talk about "lower noise", yet the prevailing trend we've seen has involved pixel counts increasing and high-ISO noise decreasing. I just don't see it. Take the D800 and reduce resolution to match the D700 and the former wins. With a lesser resolutions, each dot of noise is a greater percentage of the overall image.


RE: Insanity continues
By GulWestfale on 11/6/2012 4:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
i don't get what you are saying. i am an amateur only (with a sony A35), but from how i understand it

more sensor area per pixel = more light information per pixel

which in turn means better colors and higher precision images. cramming more pixels onto the same sensor means lower fidelity per pixel. so unless nikon has magically found a way to increase fidelity without increasing sensor size, images produced by this camera may have more noise than ones produced by its predecessor. if this weren't the case, it would not be necessary to develop larger sensors for professional cameras as they could all use small ones without any penalty in image quality.

here is a wikipedia link to a comparison of various sensor sizes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sen...


RE: Insanity continues
By SPOOFE on 11/6/2012 6:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
images produced by this camera may have more noise than ones produced by its predecessor.

But that hasn't borne out. The D1 had like a 2.5 megapixel sensor; according to the conventional wisdom that thing should just be a low-light monster. But it isn't.

ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a larger photosite will collect more information than a smaller photosite, true. But the actual collection of photons is just one part of the whole process. Turning those photons into electrons requires good sensor tech, turning those electrons into image data requires good processing power. The balance in the entire overall system affects the final outcome, not any one single trait.

"Noise" in digital imaging is just an incorrect read from the sensor, and this happens when the processor behind the sensor makes a bad guess as to the pixel's actual value. Fewer pixels means the impact of a bad guess is exacerbated to a greater degree; more pixels means that, at equivalent print/viewing sizes, each individual bad guess is a smaller part of the entire picture.

So a camera with more pixels may be "just as noisy" or even "more noisy" than a camera with fewer pixels, but the noise itself is less coarse, less damaging to fine detail, which may result in the appearance of less image degradation. This certainly isn't absolute, and there will definitely be a wall at some point where it makes less sense to up the pixel count, but... like I said earlier, just look at history: Pixel count has steadily increased, high ISO noise has steadily decreased.

As for the 16 megapixel D4: Not all of the choices regarding pixel count are just for noise concerns. The lower pixel count of the D4 allows it to have a much higher framerate, as it's simply moving fewer pixels per image.


RE: Insanity continues
By bug77 on 11/6/2012 6:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But that hasn't borne out. The D1 had like a 2.5 megapixel sensor; according to the conventional wisdom that thing should just be a low-light monster. But it isn't.


Let me stop you right there. The D1 isn't a low-light monster because it doesn't incorporate all the advances made since its introduction. If you built a 2.5MP APS-C sensor with the technology of today, it would fare much, much better in low light.

Furthermore, noise is not just bad readings. It's also the effect of amplification needed when a smaller sensor doesn't get enough light - which is what invariably happens when you make increasingly smaller sensors. And don't get me started on how the blue channel shows noise even at ISO 200 :-D


RE: Insanity continues
By SPOOFE on 11/7/2012 12:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The D1 isn't a low-light monster because it doesn't incorporate all the advances made since its introduction.

EXACTLY. It's not just a matter of photosite size. The improvements in sensor production and the back-end processing is what explains why pixels have gotten smaller but noise has steadily improved.

quote:
If you built a 2.5MP APS-C sensor with the technology of today, it would fare much, much better in low light.

I keep hearing that assertion, but until somebody actually does it, we have no idea. And it's probably going to be a while until someone tries it; the camera world has a lot of stagnation going on, and the big makers seem unwilling to push the envelope very much. All the design decisions seem to revolve around pushing more cameras on more people, which means niche desires - like your low-MP, high-ISO sensitivity sensor, or others that would love to see a natively monochrome sensor - don't get nearly the amount of love they need.


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

Related Articles
Nikon Unveils D600 Full-frame D-SLR Camera
September 13, 2012, 8:52 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki