Nikon D7200 Image Quality is WAY BETTER than the Nikon D750 & Nikon D610 

RIP Matt , Your wisdom lives on

To be honest their are only 4 camera's that make sense to buy right now from the Nikon lineup: - D3300 = Beginner DSLR - D7200 = Enthusiast DSLR - D500 = Pro sports and wild life - D810 = Pro landscape and portrait photography I would pretty much ignore all the rest. A lot of people look at BUDGET as a determining factor for a purchase, BUY a camera as you would a tool. If you want you are a amateur and new to photography just grab a D3300... If you already have had experience with camera's in the past and want something better than a entry level camera then grab a D7200. IF you are amateur and are looking to take your hobby to the next step then just save and depending on what photography you are planning on pursuing by the APPROPRIATE camera for the job. Your not going to use a hammer to cut a tree down... and your not going to use a chainsaw to hammer a nail. The high majority of youtuber's review cameras all the time and give lots of thumbs up to the cameras they review but people need to be aware that cameras for a working professional are nothing but tools... Its why most just rent. Sure you can always use any camera to do anything... Photography is about getting what you see or what you want others to see in the BEST way possible. Also the lack of AA on the D7200 is the reason the images look better at 1:1... Its why I would avoid the D750/610 as a pro, because if you take the same image with a D810 and it will look better thanks to the higher dynamic range and mega pixel count along with the lack of a AA filter. If your in a market for a D750... Just save for a little more and get a D810, you won't regret it. I never understood this sense of URGENCY that consumers have like they MUST buy a camera with the money they have right now. Its a tool... Don't overthink and or compromise, just buy the best for your needs once you have saved for it and then focus on perfecting your craft. But if photography is just a hobby and you don't care for money then buy what ever you want.

Really miss this guy. RIP Matt.

Maybe it's because the lens he was using was sharper in the center, giving the DX sensor an advantage.

The D7200 is a DX-camera not to messed with unless you are bringing a formidable full-frame camera to the match-up in regards to picture/image quality. I believe the D7200 is the highest rated APS-C camera based on tests done by DxO-Mark. In other words, it is a beast of a camera in terms of image quality and when I hear that studies or tests done by photographers that compare other Nikon cameras against it, it's not surprising to hear that the D7200 stood out from the pack for image quality.

Hey there I am a D750 shooter just rented a D500 and here is my take on crop Vs full and image quality. not so much this camera Vs the other but just sensor size. When I use my 50mm on the D750 I pretty much use all the lens when the same lens on the D500 the edges got cropped. So with a cropped sensor I get to use the best part the lens (the Center) and not the edges where we get a bit more soft and distorted.

I think the reason is that the D7200 lacks the AA Filter so it produces sharper image

I have recently upgraded from the D7100 to the D7200 and have been very impressed with the results. Low light photography is good to the point that I am using flash much less when photographing speakers at events. The WiFi functionality is great and something that I didn't think was going to be of any use. I was able to send out high quality images on Twitter as I was covering an event. You can make any edits in Photos on the iPhone and then send out via Twitter (or any social media). Video is also very good, but (as will all DSLRs) you have to shoot in manual focus mode, or you get noise from the lens as it focuses on the subject.

Don't forget the dynamic range differences between the D7200 , D750 and D610. It plays a big part in term of image quality too !

These kinds of debates are sort of meaningless. What matters to those getting paid for their work is whether the performance generates additional revenue to justify almost 2x the cost. Are you losing clients because you are shooting with a D7xxx? I know a pro that shoots weddings and portraits with a D300 and a D90 as a back-up. He has no plans to "upgrade" never having had a client complain that he wasn't using an FX sensor. What's funny too is all the people who had to have FX cameras now jumping ship to the Fuji X-system to save all the size and weight suddenly realizing that APS-C sensors were sufficient after all.

I am stuck between the d610 or the d7200. Full frame is nice but the d7200 just seems to have more features and is a little better as its newer. if both are the same price, which way would any of you go?

Rest In Peace my Frind Your advice was always open and helpful .

I have and shoot with regularly a D7200, D610, D700. All three cameras perform amazingly; each having situations they excell in; all three cameras producing sharp, quality sellable images. If I want/need shots that are very sharp and crispy with the crop factor option; the 7200 is hands down the best performer. Just a bit more sharpness over the full frame cameras.

As Alvin Witcher mentioned already, the D7200 doesn't have an AA filter so that helps with resulting sharpness. I have the D7100, the D610 and the D750 and I use the bodies for what they do best for me. But overall in same shooting situations, I don't think my images from the D7100 are typically better than either of the others. Low light/high ISO performance for me has been consistently better (less noise and easier to cleanup in Lightroom) from the D750 than the other two bodies.

Hello I am a 27 year old hobby photographer from The Neterlands. I am just starting to do photography as a hobby. These videos are realy detaild. But to put in in perspective, correct me if I am wrong: The D7200 is good at per pixel detail and sharpness; (at good light) The D500 is more for sports and wildlife and action. The D610 and D750 are full frame; they have an advantage in low light. I currently own a Sony H400 Superzoom and now I want to upgrade. I shoot landscape; I shoot wildlife and partys and events and also very regularly in low light indoors or at winter evenings. In the south of Holland we have in September a bif fair with lots of attractions. Alsmost very year I'll make pctures of this event and at Christmas Time I like to photograph outside when the Christmaslights are on, so at nighttime or evening. Which camera should I choose? You make very detaild videos! Thanks ArtoftheImage!

the first super awesome camera I ever shot was a d7200. I was blown away with many differences. the tokina 100 macro, the nikom 50mm 1.8 g and the 1.8 d and on and on,just a fantastic camera. a lot of full frame and dx lenses. when I was first testing it I had to go to a bbq and couldn't decide which lenses to take and,,lol I was like a little kid and laughed about it with wifey that I was going to sleep with it. of course I was like that when I got my d810 and my wife, oh nevermind that one but what a great camera. I have a bunch of heavy duty pre d lenses and it just woke them up from a deep sleep and now they are mostly my go to lenses. thanks for bringing it up,that d7200 is one fine camera that I can shoot just about anything on.

For me I think the best camera now is Lightroom. From d3300 to d7200. I suspect they use the same cmos sensor... same goes for the full frame..

I do agree that images rendered from the D7200 tend to be sharper than the D750 with the same lenses. That said, it is more difficult to get sharp images with the D7200 vs full frame when either hand holding at a low shutter speed or with moving subjects (birds in flight) due to the pixel density.

@artoftheimage that was my experience with and correction i didnt say the image quality was better than the D750, i said the image quality was better than the D610 in day light shoots. again in LOW LIGHT hands down both full frame had the advantages and produce better image quality over the d7200 and there is a reason for that d610 and d750 are full frame. the sigma 50mm 1.4 art is a sharp lense and that was the lense i used on all 3. with the nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 on all 3 cameras d7200 and d750 produce just about equal in image quality in day light shoots. i don't personally own a d7200. the d610 was my first full frame camera the d750 was the second and now the d810 i use for portraits and i recently bought a d500. i sold the d610 and d750

Too many factors come into play, but generally FF cameras have better image quality. But, that's not to say crop sensor cameras are lagging way behind. In most cases, crop sensors are more than capable and most people will be surprised that going FF is not that BIG of an upgrade as people would think.

I have a D7200 and I absolutely love it. I used a D3200 in the past and I definitely notice a difference in image quality. With that said, when I see pictures from a D610 I can't tell a huge difference (unless ISO is very high). However I can almost immediately tell the difference when I see a D750 image. The more I learn about photography the quicker I pick up on variations.

The D7200 does not have an AA Filter, maybe it is a little sharper.

Rip Matt..

7100 and 7200 are great cameras wich i somehow like better then my new D500, yes i have all 3 and the 7000

D7200 has no AA filter which is quite obvious if You do macro or product photography. Both same MP count, in good light of course that no AA filter camera would have sharper and more contrasty picture with more details

IQ is even more stacked in favour of the DX over FX in macro photography. I use D750 for lower light photos exclusively, everything else is d7100. The 7100 and in this case the 7200 has no AA filter, that makes photos appear less soft, therefore much sharper. The detail in macro photography is sharper and more defined when compared to the same photo shot through d750. If the pixel density of d750 sensor was equivalent to d7200 sensor pixel density then yes the FF would be better. That moves it into the d810 territory and that's a whole different price range.

It’s all about what type of photography you do. Don’t go buy what others say to buy. There are so many factors that determine quality, sharpness, color etc etc.

help me to decide please, if you should choose only 1 or 2 lenses for nikon d750 (fx) body which one you think the best lens range for wedding (the most usefull)? 16-35mm(nikon f4 VR) , 24mm (nikon f1.8g), 35mm (sigma f1.4 ART), 85mm (nikon 1.8g) or else? please can you sort from the best choice to the end ..

Which one would be a better combination for bird & wildlife photography, Nikon D7200 with Nikon 70-300 ED VR or Canon 800d with canon 70-300 USM mark 2 ?

A question to the professionals.... I'm very new to photography and to learn the basics of using manual mode I bought the d5500 with a 35mm nikkor lens. Is that good enough to start with or is the d7200 a better deal? Is it worth selling my camera and getting the d7200 instead? Thanks in advance

IQ of a camera is not about the mega pixel in the sensor. Its the combine of sensor + firmware + image processor = IQ. For example the 12 mp D700 can blow the D600, D610, D750 away in the IQ output (SOOC jpeg/nef raw)

That guy is pretty funny. I own the D7200 and the D610 and the D7200 doesn't even compare. It misses focus most of the time.

I own the D7200 and although I've never shot either the D610/D750 it wouldn't surprise me that the D7200 would hold up so well to both these full frame cameras. I've yet to find a situation in which the D7200 couldn't cope and by all accounts many suggest in absolute image quality it beats the mighty D500. I still own the D3200 as my back up and I have to say it punches well above its weight, image quality is almost as good as the D7200. In fact other than the D7200's better Iso performance I'm often hard pushed to tell which of these two cameras took the image! I mainly upgraded to the D7200 for its slew of additional features over the D3200, but anybody on a really tight budget would have to spend vastly more on a camera to surpass the image quality from the basic D3200 even today.

I use the 35 mm 1.8 G lens on my D 7200 and keeping to a low ISO really takes amazing shots compared to my previous Nikon and canon body i have owned in the past . But I'm still looking around for a second DSLR . Still not sure what to look for might go for a canon 5D mark 3

Most, if not all cameras are very good these days but, when you are working for paying clients, the better camera is the camera that affords you coverage and allows you to get the shot across the broadest range of situations. Here, I believe, is where the modern full frame camera leaves the modern APS-C camera behind.

Tried of arguing. DoF and sensor size it just an't true. All I know is the images with my D7200 (pre-D500) and the 200mm-500mm of Florida wildlife were superb was good as or better than most other cameras I have seen or used including the images from the D500 (although I do much prefer the the D500 overall) and much better than the 7Dmkii. So who cares. It's just that good

Its just the lack of AA filter giving the extra sharpness to the D7200. Nothing that can't be achieved during post processing. D750 is already very sharp depending on the lens. Any difference mentioned is when viewing the photo 1:1. What they are not telling you is that the colours and white balance coming out of the D750 is perfect 99% of the time, which isn't the case for the older D7200. Image quality is not just sharpness. Hence, overall IQ goes to D750, but sharpness D7200. If you want the sharpest FX body, then you should get D810.

BTW, the 750 still beats the 500 significantly for high ISO noise, and the 500 is no slouch.

I hardly have the same exact comparison, but similar. I have a Nikon D7100 and also a Canon 6D. (DX format vs the FF Canon). What I notice most is what seems to be a better dynamic range with the Canon, as well as a more pleasing color rendition when used at higher ISO settings. And I think my Nikon has more digital noise at high ISO settings when compared to the Canon. I believe most of what I'm witnessing has nothing whatsoever to do with the brands, but merely the differences between a full frame camera, and a DX format camera. Pixel peeping between these 2 cameras is meaningless., simply because many other factors seem to be much more important than the number of megapixels.

Secondo te un sensore aps-c da 24 piexl e' superiore al ritaglio DX di una Nikon D800 che si aggira sui 14/15 Mpixel? E reale fare questa proporzione sulla risoluzione della Aps-c?

The pixel density logic you made in this video make no sense. Both sensors are 24MP and that means a full frame pixel will get more area to gather light. But when you see a 24MP image on your screen there is no advantage of pixel density for DX.

Am a big fan of urs. I own Nikon d5300 with kit 17-50, afp 70-300 n 50 mm f1.8 lenses. Am a sr citizen n do landscape, portraits at home food photography for Facebook. Would like to upgrade to d 7200 or even d7500 . D7200 comes with kit 18-140. I will be disposing my d5300 along with 18-55. Am inclined for sigma 17-50 to go with d7200. The confusion is whether shall I just get the body of d7200 n buy sigma 17-50 to go with it or buy d7200 with 18-140 n also add sigma 17-50. Pl advise early. Thanks

I have a D7100 and love it the image quality is amazing! I have never had to crank the ISO above 1000 ever. So low light is not a problem or a big deal if you know how to shoot in it in the first place.. I have seen stuff out of a D750 and I think there is a lot more to the skill of the photographer than there is difference in the cameras.

The DX sensor has a higher pixel density and smaller pixel pitch (maybe equivalent to 36meg on a full frame with same density). Does it mean that you lose the density factor when blowing both to the size in print of a 20x30? Doesn't the crop sensor need to be 'stretched more? Does this impact the perceptive better or equal quality? Looked at another way, the D810 has the same pixel pitch as the D7200 (or close) but won't the D810 carry edge to edge its density factor while the D7200 will need to be stretched further for the same size print?

I don't think that a higher pixel density is necessarily better. With higher density, each pixel gets less light. There must be a point of diminishing returns with increasing pixel density. If you put an FX lens on a DX body, you are throwing away over half of the light coming in. Also, another factor is that the 7200 doesn't have the low-pass filter, whereas both the 610 and 750 do, right? That is another factor.

Thanks for the video! Ok here goes my comment! Recently I purchase a Nikon d7200, first of all let me clear this I don't know if there is any problem with the cámara regarding the sensor, I have tested everything else on it and it works perfect, menus, modes etc, but I'm really concerns with the fact that I don't see to many changes on the quality between my previous camera a d3300 and the d7200 as a matter of fact I believe that the 3300 keep giving me better results so far that I had been thinking returns my d7200. Now it said this based on the following fact. First the optic view finder on the cámara is darker and I don't know why. Second I have tested both cameras on the same lens and the same setting, ISO WB S-p Aperture, same subject light condition and even the same composition. Regarding the ISO noise it is better on the d7200 but what it is weird to me that on the d3300 had de ISO on 3200 and on the d7200 I had to puch more the ISO in order to get the same lighting on the picture, because when I compare picture by picture on the same settings (3200 ISO) the 7200 pict look way darker. Regarding the details it is true that I could see more detail on the well lightning areas of the 7200 picture than the 3300, not much just a little bit, but on the shadows the 3300 was clearly a winner having way more detail. When you compare de RAW files the 7200 ones are bigger than the 3300 ones apparently having more info. But also I forgot to mention before I take the test shot with D-lighting set off and set pictures control set to neutral. One more thing I also take a couple of night shoots (long exposure ones) and beside the fact that we're bad I notice one more thing the building on the horizon look leaned. My first thought was that I was doing something wrong but after taking many shoots in a place that I know very well in which I had took very nice pict at night from the city with my previews camera I concluded that most be something wrong. If somebody had this problem let me know if you fixed or can be solved. Either way this camera is going back! The 7200 felt good on mi hand, I was a really improvement regarding the body of the camera the menus and the option but what most matter to me is the picture and up to this point I'm not impressed more likely disappointed!

Another important point. Most people whom compare cameras always missed out comparing the person using the cameras they are comparing. This must be taken into comparison the quality and know how of the person comparing those cameras he is comparing. Make sense?

You can take the stop better iso performance and add it to shutter speed, and get a sharper photo from the full frame

Hi, I'm Nikon D7000 user, and now I want to upgrade my camera, I'm confuse which will be better between Nikon D7200 and Canon 7D mark2.... please advice me... Thank you

Couldn't disagree with your 7200 owner. Great IQ, but the 750 is still my favorite. I have a 500 and 750. The 500 is awesome, but I just love the IQ on the 750. Its still one of the best overall cameras ever.

I haven't done the test, but it would seem to me with same pixel count, one FX and one DX, at best they are equal because the DX needs to be magnified more. Same as film, 4x5 needs less magnification than 35 mm.

the d7200 is on parr with d750 .. regarding the bigger censor its only going to produce better low light images( similar to fast glass bigger lens elements /pixels) but with good light theyre equally good , d7200 is sharper on large prints than d500 ,, so yes buy the d850 for more pixels on a bigger censor (similar to fine grain film on medium format 6×45 compared to grainy film on 35mm )

Full frame vs cropped sensor, biggest decision for me is lens diffraction. ppl say if shooting wildlife etc go for cropped....because of the extra reach from cropping into a shot with the difference it makes to lens focal length. Yes to that, but not for me, if you do closeup images, marco etc, shoot a full frame on f22, see a fair about of shallow depth of field that you dont want? Try with a cropped sensor camera, less shallow depth of field. Also not great lens quality if shooting at F22, best to shoot of cropped at f18 and get an all round better image quality.

Hello sir can you please share some info on live view exposure prview on D7200 which happens to be not working properly on my new D7200. thank you.

hey matt how can i get more sharper crisp pics from nikon d7200? using it with the kit lens 18-140?but not getting the crisp pictures...plz help..

I have a D3200, D-600 D750 D-7200 and recently a D7500 and to make a bold statement that the 7200 image quality is " WAY BETTER" than any of the others is nonsense ! End of Story !

D7200 with 16-80 lens is mindblowing combination for image quality ,.. Of_course up_to 1000 iso,,...

Im about to buy this camera is the image quality perfect in low light?

No chance it can kill D750 overall.

I completely agree: In good light = almost the same IQ (D7200 vs D750)... Other formats compared to FF in good light: 1'' sensor: 2 to 2,5 stops dissadvantage (ISO and DR) m4/3 sensor: 1,5 stop dissadvantage (ISO and DR) APS-C sensors: in average 0,5 to 1 stop dissadvantage (depends on processing) HIGH ISO capability is another story... But we usually love FF because of it's bokeh and low light capabilities... (i own a m4/3 and Nikon DX, and am thinking about ''exchanging'' DX for FF for the ''low light''. I'll never part from my m4/3 sharpness and ''smallness'' - i'm not a pro...) regards

Where are the raw files? Did he shoot same framing? There are a lot of different things to consider with this test?

I think when he says 'image quality' he really means just sharpness... and this is true... however as early as 200+ ISO any advantages from the d7200 sensor quickly vanish.

These claims are nonsens. the apcs camera Will only use the Middle of the lens and a lot of Light and details delivered by the lens are lost. ...

I own a D750 and a D7200 which I mainly use to shoot at large music festivals from the pit. Both of these camera's are great and I agree in good light its impossible to tell difference in quality. The reason for this is THE GLASS YOU ARE USING and the pixel density count of the sensor. Its a bit stupid to claim that the D7200 produces "waayyy better" images than a D750. in fact its total horse shit. They guy was using one lens for this test. maybe this sigma is sharper in the middle?. You would need to run a test like this in different conditions with a range of different glass to begin to make such assumptions. There is an actual reason why a D7200 body costs £700 and a D750 body costs double.. Test a D750 with a nikon 80-200 f2.8 (my main long workhorse) against the same glass on the D7200 at night time from the pit at iso 1600 then compare. The D750 is hands down better for that.. it just comes down to what you are using it for and what the light conditions are at the time. Stupid claim by someone whom I would kind of guess - is a bit of an amateur

Given perfect lighting condition, we can shoot the same quality image with an iPhone and a D810 (extraggating, but not as much as you think). It's not the physical size of the sensor. What he sees is the lack of anti-aliasing filter on the D7200, while the D610 and D750 comes with AA.

Thats the reason i have a d7200 and a d750, because of the lens. If a want that my 80 200 became 120 300mm i use the crop d7200. I use them for sports events

I'd be more likely put the sharpness differences down to the aa filter or lack there of. However, need to be more specific when talking about image quality. A full frame camera will give a better depth of field for example. If you want 100% unbias tests check out DXO Mark comparisons!

Well Full Frame also has greater dynamic range and color depth.

Higher pixel density on a smaller sensor size works against D7200 not for it. Since D7200 has the same resolution as D750, but 1.5 times smaller pixels, it needs 1.5 times sharper lens than D750 just to break even sharpness wise. To fully utilize 24MP aps-c sensor lens needs to be sharp enough to fully utilize a 54MP full frame sensor. Very few lenses are that sharp. That full frame gives sharper photos than aps-c given the same resolution (and even if full frame has lower resolution) can be confirmed both visually and by comparing data on sites like dxomark, where full frame sensors consistently outresolve aps-c sensors. Two examples from dxomark: Nikon 24mm f/1.8 resolves 22MP on D750 but only 15MP on D7100 (D7200 was not tested yet but D7100 has the same resolution) Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 resolves 17MP on D750 but only 12MP on D7100

Yes,i have similar results...a month ago i was shooting with d750,and now i have d7200...the d7200 is much more sharper,and has slightly better colors!!D750 is only better bokeh and iso...generaly i shoot landscape,so i do not miss my full frame sensor at all...

Short Comment: better sharpness can not be a reason for preference by itself. Long Explanation: I dabble in photogrammetry, night photography, camping (hence, landscape and macro shooting) and some portrait shooting as well as some white-box shooting and I wish to improve my skill in these areas. It was a tough choice between the D7200 and the D610 but I ended up going for the D610 although the price difference is significant. Taking into account all my personal photography needs, the D610 sold me easily in the end. Yes, the D7200 is a great machine and I would easily suggest it to the next guy but it does have its limits. If you're big into Instagram and care for things like wi-fi and such then by all means go for the D7200. It shall handle your holiday selfies and soccer field visits like a champ... The quality of the D610 is just amazing and that with a standard 50mm 1.8D glass. With a better glass, it's an easy keeper and that's where the FF factor really shines I believe. To give an analogy, there's little difference between driving a Ferrari and a Lexus when both are stuck in traffic moving at 20mph. The Lexus may even feel more comfortable and thus "waaay better" in such a situation. Find an excuse to open up the throttle and you'll see the difference then -although admittedly, most people never go there-. I decided to go for the D610 for I intend to go deeper down the rabbit hole and the D7200 didn't promise much to that end. 9999 shot timelapse, wifi, using a smart phone as remote, easy file transfer between devices and etc. all good features but not the features I require. So, if you intend to dive deep and long into different disciplines of photography, buy a FF such as the D610 or the D750. If posting great photos/videos on social media is the sum of your ambition, go for the cheaper option; the D7200. Sharpness is something that can be added in lightroom and too much of it messes with the image anyway. Since I always do some editing, better sharpness can not be a reason for preference by itself.

I've got a D7200 with a Sigma ART 18-35 f1.8 and a Nikon 50mm f1.8 prime lens. You will never notice the difference between the D7200 or D750 in a portrait pic with ISO 100, maybe the blur a little but only if you have an expert photography eye. Clints will never notice any difference at all. But remember, is not the camera, is the photographer.

maybe the title should leave a question mark behind? i guess iq comparisons used to be tested under same lighting condition and similar camers settings (and lens too of course), otherwise there will be no "fair" comparisons just an idea cheers

This has not been my experience. I have a Nikon D3200 and a D610. The D610 is noticeably better for potraites. I am still learning.

I own a 7200. I'm thinking of getting my first full frame. Thinking of going for 750 but I'm still not sure.

What about the Nikon D7100 ?

I'm a little bit shocked when I bought D810, I have D7200, and after a lot of tests,I found the image quality is almost the same when you in the same distance from the subject!

d7200 and d750 share same expeed 4 processor ..... d7200 comes quite close to d750 but the real issue is - low light advantage of d750 and also disadvantages of crop factor with d7200 ..... this makes d750 a lot better performer ..... menus and features are more or less same and if you got money go for d750 or else d7200 is also good ..... regarding d750 do you really need af abilities and buffer then go for it but most ppl with d500 have d7200 and are selling their d500 and retaining the kit lens 16-80 F2.8-4 and using same on d7200 ..... good glass also matters

I had the d7200 with nikon 10-24 .it frustrated the hell out of me , iv used slr cameras since the 80s , so much so my daughter got it given her for her 15th birthday . And the rest of my dx nikon grip flash and manfrotto pro tripod . Time for fx cameras and lenses now , nikon dx lenses are shite !

What your missing Art is the fact the D7200 has no low pass filter. That most likely is making the difference.

Most probably there is experimental error. Are the D750 and D610 bought much earlier than the D7200? Please request Carl to repeat the experiment (1) with MANUAL focusing in all three cameras, cameras on tripod (2) after cleaning sensor (3) after having the D750 and D610 examined by an expert for any defect.

Short version: This video is wrong, the D7200 and D750 produce equal resolution images. I respect Matt's channel and am not trying to demean him in any way, but intend to correct a misconception. Based on DxOMark's testing, the D7200 and D750 are practically equal in all respects other than ISO noise, where the full frame wins by a bit more than 1 stop. The D750 also has a slightly higher resolution image (24.32MP vs 24.16MP). The logic that a higher pixel density produces higher resolution images is therefore false, given that both cameras produce virtually equal resolution photos. However, if you stand in one place with a 50mm lens on both cameras, then crop the FX photo to a DX field of view, the image will be reduced to 10.81MP, so in terms of reach (being able to capture a photo from a long distance) the D7200 is better, which is particularly true for wildlife photography where you're shooting small subjects from (usually) long distances. However, this does not make the photo a higher resolution, it simply means the same resolution has been compressed into a smaller space. However, the sensor size will make a difference in terms of the perceptual sharpness produced by your lenses. For instance, if you compare the D7100 (24.49MP) with 50mm 1.8G (75mm field of view) to the D610 (24.26MP) with 85mm 1.8G, the, the D610 & 85mm produce a 19MP image vs only 14MP by the D7100 & 50mm. I used those two lenses for comparison because they yield very similar angles of view, and when both mounted to the D7100 they are very similar in terms of sharpness (14MP vs 15MP), showing that full frame cameras do technically produce higher resolution results. Of course, these are all tools, because it's the photographer, not the camera, which takes good photos. Feel free to check my sources with the links below and leave polite feedback on this opinion. www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7200-versus-Nikon-D750___1020_975 www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-50mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D610__435_865_823_915 (I used the D7100 and D610 for the lens comparison because DxOMark has not tested lenses on the D7200 and D750 yet).

I have nikon D7200 with sigma 50-100 f1.8 art lense n believe me its the deadliest combination ever for potraits ,,able to produce best n sharpest photos ever... I've also tried some full frame cameras withprime lenses n zoom lenses but I was not satisfied.........

"Nikon D7200 Image Quality is WAY BETTER than the Nikon D750 & Nikon D610" That claim is rubbish. No, sorry, it is UTTER rubbish. Any test that has to be taken serious, e. g. DXO Mark (www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7200-versus-Nikon-D750___1020_975) shows quite precisely the opposite. The "reviewer" also completely fails at providing any evidence or proof for his claims, he shows no example images that could support his bold statements, either. I have not viewed many videos lately that deserved their "thumbs down" so much as this one.

i got to ask you ave search over the internet for answears but could not find them , this is kinds on topic , how com a nikon d 3200 could make more sharp images with less chromatic aberation than nikon d 7100 with the same lens or settings when all the people says that nikon d 7100 has no aa filter for more sharpens im kinda disapointed of that ... thx in advance for the answear, sry for may bad english not my native language

Well I've got the D610 and the D7500 and there is no way the 7500 is better for low light or even base ISO. I love the D7500 output and it has superior metering, but the D610 still has the best raw files.

I suppose it depends on what he means by 'better' images. Is he shooting RAW on both? Is he looking strictly at 'sharpness'? There's a few variables that need to be normalized but even then it's a subjective opinion when it comes to art. Great channel, I enjoy your videos. All the Best

OK ..The CROP FRAME Nikon D7200 has better image quality than a FULL FRAME D610.. PLEASE..Keep taking your medication Sir.

have been looking at the Nikon D810 looks great and the specs are perfect

So how is that even a even comparison? They used a FX lens on a dx body... the DX camera only uses the best part of the lens, hence cropping the image. The FX camera uses the entire lens. I'd be interested in the results for a d7200 with a DX lens compares to a d750 or d610 with a FX lens. Given the fact I own the d7200 and the d610, I can tell you that there is no real advantage no longer exists when you compare apples for apples.

the d7200 image might be sharper because it does not have a low pass filter which the d610 and d750 has

haha damn, that pop at 1:18... scared the hell out of me... xD (its 3 am)

IQ has more to do with what’s behind (shooter) and underneath (tripod) , the camera than the camera and lens and their settings.

It depends on what he means by WAY BETTER. The term WAY BETTER means nothing to me. If you can not articulate specifically what is better, then it means nothing.

Yes baby. They worked with dynamic range also

It comes down to what lens is being used

camera store tv did a review on the d7100 and compared it to the d610 and the images are sharper even buy print check it out.

Yeah, so... I wanted to come back to this vid with new arguments about the topic, since I owned the D7200 and now own the D750. And what I found was that Matt has left us, probably for reasons similar to those my brother had for leaving us all those years back. Shit, man, I hope you found what you were looking for. R. I. P.

D610's IQ is the best! Because I own it B-)

Saw this chat as was looking for a new DX camera to put behind a Nikkor 60mm AF-D lens for product photography. IMHO, the finest closer focusing lens I've seen. I own and have shot professionally: Nikon D70s, D90 ( which is what I want to replace ) D7100, D800, D810, D850, Z9, Z7II. So ran scientific double blind tests. To give back to the community, here is what I have found. Image quality is paramount to me and does help greatly to sell photos. Let me put one controversy aside immediately. The Z 7ii & Z 9 yield almost identical results to the D850. If pressed, perhaps, and it may be my imagination, the D850 has more color tonality and variation - luminance if you will, than the Z cameras. Sexier, if you will. Doubtful that any but the most whacked out pixel peeper would see. Offset by the Z cameras due to their fantastically contrasty lenses. Not better, different. So I call that one a toss up. My D90 from way back in the stone age is absolutely as good as the D850 from ISO 100-500, at lower blowups, say from 1x-11x, maybe 16x. In terms of color rendition and everything else, outside of megapixel resolution and low light performance they look identical. In fact, a panel of us could not tell them apart at normal viewing distances. In some tests, it appears that the D850 has much more dynamic range than the D90, but it appears to be just more contrast at it's' base. Adjusting both cameras yields indistinguishable results. At higher ISOs, the D850 gives not only the best results I have ever seen, but is quite amazing. Were the D850 enlarged a lot, say 16x or more, there is no comparison in resolution. Like a homo sapien to an amoeba. D850 sharp, detailed, etched. D90 blurry. That's the differences I see.