I took the D5200 out for a try, and I must say that I enjoyed the camera more than I did the D3200. The camera is more responsive, and the articulated screen was helpful when I wanted to be a little discreet. Having all that resolution is nice, and turned out useful when I had to crop one photo by quite a bit (it's the first photo posted below). The 35mm DX and 50mm f/1.8G did a good job, though I prefer the images from the 50mm.
A top shutter speed of 1/4000 makes shooting at f/1.8 in bright daylight difficult (polarizer to the rescue). Not having a 100% viewfinder leads to surprises, but all that resolution makes it a non-issue. I'd have to shell out a pretty penny to get my FX-equivalent 35mm lens, which isn't in the cards right now.
I've been using Nikon DSLR's for over 14 years, starting with the D1. Out of that lineup, I've loved the colors from the D2H the most (the drawbacks are another story). Most of the other Nikon bodies have a recognizable quality that, for lack of a better description, I call the Sony-ness of their sensors. I've seen this on the D100, D200, D3200, and now the D5200.
Not that it's a bad thing, but it is something that stands out when I process images from these cameras. They don't quite have that pop that I see from the D2H and D3. The V1 doesn't have that pop either, but it also doesn't have that Sony-ness.
On a side note, putting a camera that smells of cigarette smoke in a plastic bag with some activated charcoal does the trick to remove the odor.
Overall I give the D5200 a thumbs up. Makes me want to hang on to it (too bad the D3200 has gone to a new home). Hmmm, can I find another cheap one out there?
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
0 comments:
Post a Comment