Nikon D5200 sample images

Nikon D5200 sample image

Nikon France published 38 full size sample images on flickr from the new D5200 DSLR camera (click on image for larger view):

Nikon D5200 sample image

Nikon D5200 sample image

Nikon D5200 sample image

Nikon D5200 sample image

Nikon D5200 sample image

Here is the entire slideshow:

This entry was posted in Nikon D5200. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • ryan

    Nice snaps. This will make an excellent amateur camera.

    • … or even a high-end camera, if you can find an intelligent photographer to use it 😛

      • Shot Norris

        the dumb ones bought the D4

        • neversink

          I guess I must be dumb then. My D4 has been incredible. Love it more than the D800, which I love more than my D700. I have to shoot in tough conditions in my work. I need a camera that is tough and will not conk out in the middle of a desert sand storm or a hurricane. But i guess I am dumb… all the way to the bank….

  • Pedro

    Nice pictures but not sure about colors. Is the sensor finally the same as the d3200’s. For d5200 says 24,1 Mpx while for the d3200 says 24,2 Mpx

    • BornOptimist

      No, they are not the same sensor. They have different physical size.

    • St.

      One has Aptina sensor, the other – Sony. Let’s see which one will be better!?

      • JED

        Not quite. Chipworks found the D3200 sensor is a Nikon design fabricated by Renesas not Aptina.

      • BornOptimist

        None of them are Aptina nor Sony.
        The D3200 is a Nikon designed and Renesas manufactured sensor. The same I think is valid for the D5200 sensor, but a different one than the D3200. We will meet this sensor in the upcomming D7x00 as well, and maybe the D400 as well.

        • desmo

          if new sensor then low noise hi iso performance will be interseting to see

  • oJoe

    No D300s or D7000 replacement

    … long wait for those (or that). The latest releases from Nikon kind of make me wonder *IF* there will be a replacement of either of those.

    It certainly has been a while now.

    • KT

      Even if a D300 or D7000 replacement was coming down the pike, it’ll have the same sensor/processor combination you get in the 5200. They are already offering two different 24 MP DX sensors in the 3200 and 5200, plus another FX 24 MP in the D600, ask yourself, how many different 24 MP sensors are they going to built or contract to Sony. That means, you have to either settle for the current 5200 or pay $300-500 more for the new D7000 replacement for an extra top LCD window and exactly the same critical hardware (sensor/processor/AF system) , Right????

      • Pablo Ricasso

        But it IS a really good sensor. Probably the other camera will have the other AF system and more viewfinder. And the AF motor…

  • raizee

    It seems to be just as noisy as the D3200 🙁

    Imo. the 16MP sensor is better than the 24MP one.

    • Leontin

      Agredd with “raizee”. Previous sensor (16 MP) seems to me better than this one. The noise is at least same as D5100.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        Oh, them trolls makin lots o noise. ISO 6400 smooth as can be and colors still vivid…

        • Big J


        • …no trolling. It’s true. The 24mp sensor has more chroma noise, especially on the red channel. Check the red swatch:




          Click the images for the jpegs, or the link for the raw files in your preferred software.

          The 16mp sensor is currently superior at high ISO, but they both support the high frame rates I expect from a D300 replacement.

          I suspect the 24mp will be chosen to avoid competing with the D600 or D800 at high ISOs. The 16 is demonstrably better at high ISOs though. And with some tricks could be even better.

          • Mike

            But nobody said the D5200 has the D3200 sensor…

          • Ed

            Micah, your links are interesting. The Chroma noise you mention I could detect very clearly on the “New Benissimo” pepper oil next to the crayola.

            I own both the D5100 and D3200, I am happy about them, and I agree with DxOMark that ranks them at about the same image quality.

            I burned my eyes looking at comparisons between the D3200 and D5100 before and after I bought the D3200, and my conclusion after months of experience with both is:
            a) The high ISO of the D5100 is not matched by the D3200
            b) At ISO up to 200 the D5100 can not keep up with the D3200
            c) The difference is small

            I ended up using the D5100 for general use, including studio work, and the D3200 only as back up and complement for controlled conditions then its higher resolution makes sense and you can get slightly higher dynamic range too.

            At this moment, I have no interest in buying the D5200, it does not seem an upgrade on the D5100 since the vari-angle screen is extremely useful on the field, where you seldom have a tripod or can control the light, so, the main advantage of the D5200 is useful when the sensor is not the best and viceversa. The 24 MPixels in the field might give you at best the same image quality as the D5100, but after you spend the time to downsample at the computer and haul around 50% more data.

            I wait on the definitive measurements by DxOMark, but at this point it is a thumb down.

            On the other hand, the D5100 that is the best value for the money in all of DSLR will become even cheaper.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Why do either of you think that the high ISO performance of the D3200 has anything to do with the high ISO performance of the D5200?
              And as far as not being an improvement, for functional purposes this is half of a D7000 with the next generation improvement of the D3200 sensor.
              I find the performance excellent at ISO 3200.
              Also, unless you use junk for glass, there’s no way the 5100 will keep up with this sensor. If the sensor wasn”t an improvement then Nikon wouldn’t have bothered to implement it, going instead for a lower cost by using the same sensor as it had and avoiding the expenses that come from retooling.
              I can’t believe I’m hearing retro grouches in a field that is barely ten years old. For what it’s worth I SHOOT FILM> Bravo Nikon. Let’s keep on improving stuff.

            • Ed

              Pablo Ricasso, please let me try to answer your questions:
              1) The performance of the D3200 is a good indicative about the performance of the D5200 in my opinion because they are either nearly identical sensors or if not, they still are of the same generation, and the same pixel size, in the absence of more data, we ought to expect nearly identical performance not just on high but on all ISO levels too.
              2) As to how the D5100 sensor can keep up with the D3200, please, do not take my word, but that of DxOMark that makes excellent objective comparisons. While it is true the D3200 has higher resolution, in higher ISO levels the image quality per pixel is inferior to the D5100. All around, with my cameras, and the same lenses, I most definitively get better results at ISO above 1000 with the D5100, the D3200 requires significant post-processing to get to what the D5100 gives me. Please see the images for yourself.

              I think some sensors of higher resolutions are not necessarily better than their predecessors, for one, I would definitively say that the sensor in the D5100 is superior to the D3200 for most uses. Companies do what they think they can sell, if making higher resolution sensors at the cost of lower overall image quality is easy to market, they will do it. There comes into play our knowledge to evaluate their end results.

              Plus look at the samples from D5200 at 100%, the images are as noisy as the D3200

            • Jabs

              There is perhaps a simple answer.

              The D3200 has 12bit output
              The D5200 seems to have 14bit output.

              Now, if with 12bit output the D3200 is so good, then guess what to expect from the D5200.

              Look at

  • NikonD800Guy

    DR in that second picture looks quite impressive…

    • 12

      The DR in the second picture could be achieved quite easily with many cameras. You are getting confused because of the detail you see in the sky. The light levels of outside and the couple illuminated by the light are probably only within 5 stops or so range.

      Nothing wrong with it but the exposure is more naturally balanced than some may perceive.

  • DT

    The images look like unprocessed RAW to me which makes them a bit flat however the colors look fine.

    • Do you really think that Nikon will use some 3rd party raw converter, not apply any curves and just use the files for promoting the camera?

  • Jabs

    Nikon – you are spoiling us completely – awwww shucks (lol).

    Great images with great tonal range, saturation and dynamic range on all but one of the pictures.

    Nikon is now moving at such a pace that maybe only Sony is even close to their pace. This camera resets the Bar again higher – Wow!

    Now for D7100 and D400, perhaps but very satisfied image wise now. Not a DX user though, but nice new DX bodies from Nikon.

    This body seems like it has 14bit output as compared to the 12bit output of the D3200.

    • Big J

      That’s gotta be where the extra cash in R&D goes to. Too bad getting my sibling a D3200 kit instead. Makes me regret spending that extra grand on a trinity lens.

    • And how exactly can you tell that it has 14-bit output by looking at these images? lol

  • BBB

    I like the dynamic range and clearly see the advantage of having 24MP, but I don’t seem to find any picture that has a rasor sharp image area. If you look at the picture would you be able to point the focus point (area), and does it look rasor sharp ? Eg. there are a number of pictures with eyebrows and beards but don’t really see any on which you can actually count the hairs although the magnification is sufficient. Anybody else having the same experience ?

    • BartyL

      The images have been shot in RAW and converted to JPEG with no sharpening applied.

      If you shoot JPEG then the files out-of-camera will have had some sharpening applied already via the Picture Control you have chosen. The anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor blurs the image slightly to help avoid moire artefacts and no sharpening is applied to RAW (but it is to the JPEG representation you see on the camera’s display), so all RAW files require a bit of sharpening.

      They haven’t applied sharpening to the sample images because they are trying to demonstrate the ‘native’ qualities of the sensor.

      • BBB

        Strange, when using RAW and convert to JPG then most of the time the image is already more detailed even when not applying sharpening since there is no (almost) noise reduction applied. I checked on the nikon site and saw they are using DX lenses, one of them AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G is what I have as well, it is not so fantastic as sometimes said, not really very pleased with it, the slight blur in detail seen in the images is what I experience as well with this lens on my D5000. When using my Sigma 50mm/F1.4 the difference is really very obvious even on my D5000. Would like to see what this camera is capable of with a prime attached, 24MP on DX certainly will need good lenses.

  • gsum

    Very impressive. I wish that the lens data has been supplied for all samples though.

    • BBB

      Except for one picture they all have the camera exif data included

  • Good for Nikon to provide samples and these look good; I like the colors and hope after few months that the price will fall to a reasonable price.

  • fransvh

    are all these previews made with a out-of-focus lens?

    • I just saw a two page Chanel No. 5 + Brad Pitt advert in a magazine and it was out slightly of focus too. It’s the new fashion 😉

  • Mike

    I’m *very* impressed by these images and the tonal range. Absolutely gorgeous. And all shot with inexpensive DX lenses…

    Great job Nikon for focusing on photography instead of gimmicks that don’t really matter at all (mirror or no mirror, touch screens, retro stylings, etc..)

  • Worminator

    It would be amusing to re-take the identical shots with a D40 (for example) and compare. I wonder if they’d really be all that much difference, and if so, what would stand out.

  • Groosome

    Nobody has asked the critical question: How did that guy in the photo get that girl?! 🙂

  • AlphaTed

    I have something similar shot from Waikiki. Taken sometime about September last year. LOL.
    (downloaded this from Facebook, so quality is not that good)

    • AlphaTed

      Tough crowd. No comments on my pic and the one from Nikon’s?

  • M Kieffer

    Worminator – are you out of your mind? The D40 resolution was insignificant to an modern SLR. It is like saying I wonder if there is much difference from a DVD to a 1080 Blu-ray. Not if you are watching it one a 420 small TV, but hells yeah if you watch it on a 32+ size 1080 display.

    The bigger question, why are the low light shots taken at f/5? Also the NR looks way too aggressive for my taste. that said, you could make a decent 11×14 from the high ISO ones… you could not even get a decent 5×7 with the D40 at ISO 3200.

  • Back to top