I’ve been using a Nikon D7000 for a long time (over 2 years), and recently sold it so as to get something new. In the meantime, had an opportunity to use a D5200 extensively during my recent trip to Bhutan. I used the same lenses on both the bodies.

The D7000 uses technology which is nearly 4 years old now, and has a 16.2 MP sensor , whereas the D5200 is just 1 year old now, and has a 24.1 MP sensor which logically should not only offer better resolution, but produce superior images overall simply because it’s a camera which has newer technology on it’s side.

I’ve never been a fan of more MP’s crammed into a sensor which doesn’t increase in size, and though the sensors on both these cameras are almost the same size, the sensor on the D7000 is still 0.43% larger than that on the D5200. So that technically means, there are more MP’s squeezed onto a smaller sensor in the D5200. And this does make a difference, in favour of the D7000.

I’m not even getting into comparisons like weather sealing, extra SD card slots, FPS, battery life, built-in focus motor, number of AF points, RAW file size, etc…..but there is one observation I have made after having gone through countless images from each of these cameras while post-processing them, and that might reveal a large part of the story.

Let me mention that I shoot only in RAW. As a photographer you should always aim to “get it right in camera”. However, RAW files do tend to be dull and boring straight out of the camera. It’s because they are not finished inside the camera as JPEG’s are. Am sure most of us here already know this, and also know that the following in-camera adjustments do not take place when shooting in RAW- white balance, sharpening, contrast, brightness, etc. So naturally, there is some work to be done in post-processing, when one shoots RAW. Now coming to that significant observation I was talking about earlier, whereby I feel that the RAW images of the D7000 are superior to those of the D5200…

In short, I’ve experienced that it takes much less effort to deal with, and “correct” a D7000 RAW file compared to the RAW file of the D5200. Basically, the conclusion is that, the files on the D7000 (and probably on most of the semi-professional range of cameras out there) consistently produce better and more desirable RAW images which are closer to what the eye see’s, and closer to what the photographer desires out of an image.

When I used to edit the D7000 RAW files on Lightroom and Photoshop, they would be effortless and achieving desirable results would be real quick. However, dealing with the D5200 RAW files is proving to me much more time consuming, if I wish to create equally desirable images. Yes, undoubtedly both these cameras are very capable and take great pictures, provided there is an able person behind the viewfinder…but considering that the photographer and his skills (both photography and post-processing skills) remain the same when having used both these cameras…it’s come as a big surprise to me that there is so much of a difference in RAW file quality between the D7000 and D5200.

Before I conclude, I’d like to mention that I’ve been eyeing the D7100 as my next camera. It too uses a much newer sensor which is also 24.1MP. However, the D7100 uses exactly the same sensor as that on the D5200….the only difference being the lack of the OLPF (Optical Low Pass Filter). Might that translate to a similar scenario…where I will encounter poorer quality RAW images on a D7100 compared to the D7000?

One more query. I still don’t get it why the top-of-the-line cameras with full-frame sensors, like the D4s and the Df stick to 16.2 MP on that huge sensor, while these cropped-sensors cameras like the D5200 and D7100 squeeze in 24.1 MP on a smaller sensor?!?

Caveat: The biggest deception of modern day DSLR’s continue to be their superior LCD’s which keep on improving with each new release. They attempt to make your images look way better than what they actually are! ;)