Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #25707
View in linear mode

Subject: "Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100" Previous topic | Next topic
ardoluc Registered since 16th Feb 2013Wed 27-Mar-13 04:04 AM
20 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"


saint-jean-sur-richelieu, CA
          

Hi guys
After discussing with one of my pal who traded his D7000 for a D7100 he mentionned me that he likes his new toy, but not beeing a wildlife photographer, and practically never printing size over 13X19 inch he would not have done this move if he had read this review from techradar.com:

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/nikon-d7100-1132593/review/5#articleContent

summary:
image quality : Jpeg dynamic range lower than the D7000 at iso 800, and at high iso 3200 lower than Pentax K5-II

S/N lower than D5200, D7000, D600


He assured me that he found the article to be exactly what he is experiencing after a week of ownership and over 2000 shots. This is not to say that the D7100 is an inferior camera to the D7000 but that the 24 megapixels on a DX format is done with compromised in signal noise and even dynamic range. So for a low-light photographer the D7100 appears to be a worse solution than the D7000.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
km6xz Moderator
27th Mar 2013
1
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
martinjp
28th Mar 2013
16
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
Puddlepyrate2013 Silver Member
31st Mar 2013
17
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
jmesseder2 Silver Member
18th Apr 2013
36
     Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
agitater Gold Member
18th Apr 2013
37
          Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
jmesseder2 Silver Member
19th Apr 2013
47
               Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
agitater Gold Member
20th Apr 2013
49
                    Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
jmesseder2 Silver Member
27th Apr 2013
53
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
martinjp
27th Mar 2013
2
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
briantilley Moderator
27th Mar 2013
4
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
martinjp
27th Mar 2013
9
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
mklass Platinum Member
27th Mar 2013
8
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
Leonard62 Gold Member
27th Mar 2013
11
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
Shena
19th Apr 2013
43
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
richardd300 Silver Member
18th Apr 2013
38
     Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
cwils02 Gold Member
18th Apr 2013
39
     Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
elec164 Silver Member
19th Apr 2013
46
     Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
martinjp
19th Apr 2013
40
          Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
cwils02 Gold Member
19th Apr 2013
41
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
billD80 Silver Member
27th Mar 2013
3
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
agitater Gold Member
27th Mar 2013
5
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
billD80 Silver Member
27th Mar 2013
6
     Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
agitater Gold Member
27th Mar 2013
7
          Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
torwood Silver Member
27th Mar 2013
10
          Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
km6xz Moderator
27th Mar 2013
12
               Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
richardd300 Silver Member
27th Mar 2013
13
               Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
JPJ Silver Member
27th Mar 2013
14
               Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
billD80 Silver Member
27th Mar 2013
15
               Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
cwils02 Gold Member
16th Apr 2013
28
                    Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
richardd300 Silver Member
16th Apr 2013
29
                    Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
elec164 Silver Member
16th Apr 2013
30
                         Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
cwils02 Gold Member
16th Apr 2013
31
                              Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
richardd300 Silver Member
16th Apr 2013
32
          Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
Escaladieu Silver Member
01st Apr 2013
18
               Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
wlwakefield
01st Apr 2013
19
                    Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
richardd300 Silver Member
01st Apr 2013
20
                         Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
martinjp
20th Apr 2013
50
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
comicalalien
03rd Apr 2013
21
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
km6xz Moderator
03rd Apr 2013
22
     Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
ardoluc
03rd Apr 2013
23
     Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
km6xz Moderator
04th Apr 2013
25
          Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
ardoluc
04th Apr 2013
26
               Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
briantilley Moderator
17th Apr 2013
35
     Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
J_Harris Silver Member
04th Apr 2013
24
     Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
DHoff
05th Apr 2013
27
          Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
Clint S Silver Member
19th Apr 2013
42
               Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
agitater Gold Member
19th Apr 2013
44
                    Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
RLDubbya
20th Apr 2013
48
     Reply message RE Comment #22: Owners of D7000 read this before buyin...
CK Silver Member
16th Apr 2013
33
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
mborn1 Silver Member
19th Apr 2013
45
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
km6xz Moderator
20th Apr 2013
51
Reply message RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100
NicolaeM
20th Apr 2013
52

km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Wed 27-Mar-13 07:03 AM
3262 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 0
Wed 27-Mar-13 07:21 AM by km6xz

St Petersburg, RU
          

If it lags slightly behind the K-5II its a good sign. The Pentax uses heavy non-defeatable NR that kicks in on raw around 3200 and in JPG, earlier so its detail and accuracy is harmed. There really is no DX camera made with better IQ than the D7100, just as the D7000 was the top IQ DX camera before. If your friend ever crops or does post processing he will be very happy he got what he did instead of those other brands which do not preserve shadow detail or are able to push shadows like the recent Nikon cameras. There was a distinct advantage of the D7000 over the 7D and K5 in the quality of the captured files, in much the same way that D800 files are the standard for other brands to try to attain.

The significant loss in detail with full frame noise reduction is baked in and post processing is very limited in trying to repair it.
When viewed at the same distance and size, a D7000 and D7100 with almost the same DR on a pixel basis results in a noticeable increase in perceived signal to noise ratio, the main advantage of more, smaller pixels. Printing large, by blowing up a D7000 image to the native size of the D7100 print, would show the same advantage as down sampling the D7100 images to D7000 native size.
Your friend has nothing to worry about and more photography oriented reviews will certainly point that out. The points that web site cited as Cons in the verdict appears to be oriented towards point and shoot instead of serious photographic tools. No touch screen is NOT a disadvantage for a camera intended to be used with a eye piece, and a flippy screen is NOT a disadvantage for a camera that has buttons needed to control the camera without removing your eye from the VF. Having a flippy screen means no buttons for the left hand.
I would not have gotten a D7000 or D800 if they had touch screens and flip screens. If I really need real time monitoring, tethering is a better way, with higher res and size.
One way to be assured of the completeness of the package is when reviewers have to grasp at straws and misstatements to have something negative to say.

Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
martinjp Registered since 02nd Mar 2013Thu 28-Mar-13 01:06 AM
26 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#16. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 1


US
          

After staring at more photos I think what I perceived as noise is the area just out of focus but not far enough out to produce nice bokeh. Zooming in too far on this area the smaller pixels look like noise where the larger pixels of the D90 are easier to identify as out of focus.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Puddlepyrate2013 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2013Sun 31-Mar-13 10:36 PM
99 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#17. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 16


Portsmouth, US
          


Martin, I have over twenty years experience as a pro photographer. With every new camera I bought I knew there would be a learning curve. I needed to know the cameras capability and adapt my technique as required. I did not spend my days trying to find fault with the camera, as many in this group are trying to do. There are enough (my 1st impression) threads here, which people seem to be trying to out do each other in the fault finding arena. Unfortunately, most just grab the camera expecting it to do the work for them, when they get negative results it is the cameras fault. Every pro knows, it is the person behind the camera that makes the image, not the camera. The camera is only a tool, like a paint brush is to a painter.
The old adage (seeing is believing) is very true, the more you believe there is noise in an image, the more noise you will discover. A few here have bought the camera expecting to be disappointed and reading their threads here, they are. So they post there disappoints here, return the camera buy and buy knitting needles along with some yarn.
I would never spend 1,500 on an item that I have set myself up to be disappointed with. I would encourage you to spend more time shooting images than staring at them. If you are so determined to find fault with the camera then I would suggest to simply return it and purchase something that meets your expectations. Otherwise, just enjoy your new purchase, make lots of images with it and enjoy yourself! You have a great camera it is time to show us all, just how great it is!

Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
jmesseder2 Silver Member Nikonian since 20th Aug 2011Thu 18-Apr-13 10:45 AM
122 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#36. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 1


Gettysburg, US
          

How do you determine the native size of a camera - e.g. My D7000.


John Messeder, JAFPR, MBS
Freelance environmental journalist
Gettysburg, PA, USA
Follow me on:</font></i><br>
= www.johnmesseder.com
= my Nikonians gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Thu 18-Apr-13 11:34 AM
3862 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#37. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 36


Toronto, CA
          

>How do you determine the native size of a camera - e.g. My
>D7000.

Not really sure what you mean. If you're trying to determine how large a D7000 is, physically, in comparison to other camera bodies, go to:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#7,290

. . . to get a visual comparison.

If you're just looking for technical specs on everything from camera dimensions to image sizes and resolutions, go to the Nikon tech specs on the camera:

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25468/D7000.html

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
jmesseder2 Silver Member Nikonian since 20th Aug 2011Fri 19-Apr-13 11:26 PM
122 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#47. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 37


Gettysburg, US
          

Oops. I don't know how that got by me, but I meant to ask how to determine the native print size of, in this case, he D7000 and D7100. It would seem to vary with the format the user chooses to shoot.

I apologize for the confusion.


John Messeder, JAFPR, MBS
Freelance environmental journalist
Gettysburg, PA, USA
Follow me on:</font></i><br>
= www.johnmesseder.com
= my Nikonians gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Sat 20-Apr-13 01:16 AM
3862 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#49. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 47


Toronto, CA
          

>Oops. I don't know how that got by me, but I meant to ask how
>to determine the native print size of, in this case, he D7000
>and D7100. It would seem to vary with the format the user
>chooses to shoot.

That's easy. The D7100 produces images 6000 x 4000 pixels. Typical print output is done at 300 DPI.

To get the native print output size in inches, divide each image dimension (length and width) by 300. The native D7100 print output size is 13.3" x 20"

The D7000 produces full size images that are 4928 x 3264 pixels in size. At 300 DPI, that works out to a native output size of 11" x 16.5".

Lots of print output is also done at 240 DPI. Do the division to get the (somewhat larger) native print output sizes at that resolution.

Top quality storage space (SD cards, hard drives) is cheap these days. I advise always shooting at the highest resolution the camera offers. You never know what you'll need.

Anyway, if you select a small image size, or if you end up working with NEF/RAW files and crop a particular image, just use your image editing software to display the final dimensions (in pixels) and then divide by either 300 or 240 to get the final print output size. Most software (including ACDSee Pro 5 and Pro 6, Adobe Lightroom and so on) will display these calculations automatically in the Resize dialog. Now you know how to do the calculation manually.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
jmesseder2 Silver Member Nikonian since 20th Aug 2011Sat 27-Apr-13 12:52 AM
122 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#53. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 49


Gettysburg, US
          

That makes sense. I've not resized any images in Lightroom 4, other than to define a size when exporting. But I'm wanting to print some pix to canvas for display and having some learning curve to deal with.

Thanks for the explanation.

John Messeder, JAFPR, MBS
Freelance environmental journalist
Gettysburg, PA, USA
Follow me on:</font></i><br>
= www.johnmesseder.com
= my Nikonians gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

martinjp Registered since 02nd Mar 2013Wed 27-Mar-13 10:53 AM
26 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 0
Wed 27-Mar-13 07:53 PM by martinjp

US
          

Ignore this post - see testing update posted 3/27/13

I'm disappointed in the noise level I'm seeing from the D7100. I shot over 2,400 pictures on my D7100 and I'm taking the day off to do more testing before returning it today. I probably got a bad copy as I bought a D7000 a month ago and returned it because of a back focus problem. I shot most shots with auto ISO and attributed the noise to higher ISO shots.

I shot some quick shots of my dark brown dog outdoors yesterday and zoomed in 4x in ViewNX 2 her hair lacked detail which may be due to the lack of an optical low-pass filter. I shot some flash shots last night at 100 ISO and there was a significant amount of noise. I compared some shots of deer from the D7100 with ones from my D90 both shot at ISO 400 and the D90 shots were sharper and had less noise. I do 20x30 prints from my D90 fairly often and they look great. I can't decide if I'm going to try another D7100 or switch to a D7000. I'm really disappointed as I was excited at the prospect of getting even better images than my D90, which I love.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
briantilley Moderator Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Wed 27-Mar-13 12:43 PM
28317 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 2


Paignton, GB
          


>I'm really disappointed as I was excited at the prospect of
>getting even better images than my D90...

That should certainly be possible, from what I have seen of D7100 images. Noise at 100 ISO would be pretty unusual, unless the image is significantly under-exposed.

I would imagine it will simply be a matter of choosing the optimum camera settings for each shooting situation - which will probably be different from those you used on your D90.

I would encourage you to experiment a little more before giving up on the D7100

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
martinjp Registered since 02nd Mar 2013Wed 27-Mar-13 08:25 PM
26 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 4


US
          

Hi Brian and Mick,

I suspected that the noise I was seeing was the results of the mainly gloomy weather we've had since I got the D7100. I also think it's related to zooming too far into the images. I'll be a lot more comfortable working with the raw files when LightRoom gets a raw converter for the D7100.

I took the day off and spent most of it taking pictures with a tripod and my remote trigger. The D7100 images were definitely better than the D90, not drastically better as I had expected, but better.

I guess you guys are right that I have to adjust my technique to fit the camera.

I posted shots to my gallery of a focus target shot with both cameras using a 35mm 1.8G. The D7100 seems to have slightly more area in focus in the front versus the rear, but it's still pretty well centered. I'll try out the lens adjustment feature some day when I'm bored.

Thanks, Jim

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mklass Platinum Member As a semi-professional involved in all manner of photographic genres including portraiture, sports, commercial, and events coverage, Mick is always ready to help Nikonians by sharing his deep knowledge of photography and printing. Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Wed 27-Mar-13 06:51 PM
5581 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 2


Tacoma, US
          

>I shot some quick shots of my dark brown dog outdoors
>yesterday and zoomed in 4x in ViewNX 2 her hair lacked detail
>which may be due to the lack of an optical low-pass filter.

Absence of a low pass filter will increase detail, not remove it. I think you need to look elsewhere for an explanation.

The D7100's pixel density, just like the D800's, demands more exacting technique. Slight movements of the camera when shooting will result in softer images. Keep your shutter speed up.

Shooting at ISO100 is not always a good idea unless you are in very bright conditions so teh shutter speed stays high, or using a tripod and remote shutter trigger to get good results with slower shutter speed. It is much different than ISO200.

I was never happy with my D7000 after moving up from a 12Mp camera. At first I was also disappointed in my D800e. Re-evaluating my technique and refingin it solved the problem.

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Leonard62 Gold Member Awarded for excellent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community, especially of Nikkor Lenses Nikonian since 15th Mar 2009Wed 27-Mar-13 08:50 PM
2706 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 2


US
          

Purchasing a high resolution camera doesn't include a get out of jail free card. It requires understanding what it takes to produce those high resolution photos. The first thing I learned is that auto focus is much more critical on these cameras than those with half the resolution. I've had to fine tune the auto focus on lenses I thought didn't need it. After fine tuning I took those same lenses and found they really did need fine tuning on the lower res bodies. That was a surprise. I thought my new camera, a D800, had bad auto focus alignment. That was not the case. I've had to adjust maybe half of my AF lenses. I didn't use any of the auto focus alignment aids but used normal photos at normal distances instead.

I also found I had to bump up the shutter speed above what I thought was safe for a particular focal length. 1 over 2xFL seems about right.

If you take the time to optimize your equipment and your technique I think you'll be extremely happy.

Len

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Shena Registered since 07th Jan 2013Fri 19-Apr-13 11:39 AM
18 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#43. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 11


US
          

Hi Leonard62,

You said:

I've had to fine tune the auto focus on lenses I thought didn't need it. After fine tuning I took those same lenses and found they really did need fine tuning on the lower res bodies.

May I ask how you are fine tuning them? I am curious about how this is done and what you mean. Thanks in advance for your response.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
richardd300 Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009Thu 18-Apr-13 11:41 AM
3088 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#38. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 2


Dyserth, GB
          

<<I shot some quick shots of my dark brown dog outdoors yesterday and zoomed in 4x in ViewNX 2 her hair lacked detail which may be due to the lack of an optical low-pass filter>>

Doubtful, the lack of the AA filter should and in my case does make detail sharper. I have not heard of any issues regarding moire.

I am fascinated that in some countries how easy it is to send back a camera for a replacement, not sure I'd get away asking for a replacement with a camera that's taken 2500 shutter activations in the UK!

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
cwils02 Gold Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2012Thu 18-Apr-13 05:34 PM
789 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#39. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 38
Thu 18-Apr-13 05:47 PM by cwils02

HIXSON, US
          

<<Doubtful, the lack of the AA filter should and in my case does make detail sharper. I have not heard of any issues regarding moire.>>

Richard,

+1

I would love to see an example of moire shot with the D7100. Would this one qualify?



Should I have expected moire from this repeating pattern on this dress? BTW, the point & shoot shooter is trying to photograph Super Bowl & Hall of Fame Rings modeled by two ladies.



Charlie

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009Fri 19-Apr-13 06:09 PM
1896 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#46. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 39
Fri 19-Apr-13 06:10 PM by elec164

US
          

>I would love to see an example of moire shot with the D7100.
>

The exclusion of an AA filter does not necessarily mean moire is more likely, nor is the inclusion of one mean you won't get moire. As I stated in another thread, with the pixel pitch on the D7100, by stopping down to f/4 the diffraraction spot size becomes sort of an AA filter in and of itself.

If you just wish to see moire, put up a white area on your computer screen and take a picture of it. For example even with my film SLR's pointed at the computer screen show moire occurring.

And as I presently understand it, moire can happen not only at the time of capture, but upon display as well even if it wasn't present at the time of capture.

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
martinjp Registered since 02nd Mar 2013Fri 19-Apr-13 12:09 AM
26 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#40. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 38


US
          

I didn't take it back because test shots with focus targets looked good. I was gun shy because a few weeks earlier I had bought a D7000 that had a severe back focus problem. I shot a lot with the D7100 because of that experience. Unfortunately, I was shooting birds something I still haven't mastered and other subject in less than optimal light. Now that the weather's been better and I had a chance to take pictures of my favorite subjects, grandchildren, I'm much happier with the D7100. The high ISO performance is greatly improved over the D90.

I must have been looking at an area of the dog that was just beyond the depth of field.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
cwils02 Gold Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2012Fri 19-Apr-13 02:05 AM
789 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#41. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 40


HIXSON, US
          

>I must have been looking at an area of the dog that was just
>beyond the depth of field.

Jim,

It's also possible that if you were trying to focus in an area of the dog that had no real contrast, it may have had a problem getting a good focus. The one shown in your profile could be a problem depending on the distance & background.

I was just sick fighting the focus problems on my D7000. Just got it back from Melville. Fingers crossed. I am so happy with the D7100. I may sell all my other cameras and get another D7100 as my backup. Oh, wait a minute... Thought I was rich there for a minute or two.

Charlie

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Wed 27-Mar-13 11:32 AM
2119 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 0
Wed 27-Mar-13 11:39 AM by billD80

US
          

>S/N lower than D5200, D7000, D600
>

Weren't they measuring individual pixels, not the image as a whole?

I can tell you on my monitor, at 100%, noise is not an issue with the D7100, though the resolution capacity is quite amazing. And of course a D7100 file viewed at 100% is HUGE, way past what anyone would ever normally print.

The D7100 color rendition, the exposure accuracy, among other things leave nothing to be desired.

I think the Imaging Resource comparator shows quite plainly what D7100 images look like next to everything else...

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM



www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Wed 27-Mar-13 12:55 PM
3862 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 0


Toronto, CA
          

I think Stan makes a wonderful point, even if he didn't state it outright. I think he basically touched on the danger of extracting a couple of specifications from two different cameras and then comparing them out of context. I'm not immune to doing it, and I think it's a very bad habit to allow our thinking about the overall technial image quality potential of any camera to be swayed by one one or two technical specifications comparisons. These cameras are far more than the sum of their technical specs.

Dynamic range spec comparisions at any specific ISO, as Stan implied, don't take into acount exactly what the images look like after the camera makers' firmware have had their way with things. The spec comparsion may seem valid, but the actual results are dramatically different and are visible in this case, unmagnified, to the unaided eye.

So too, pure ISO noise performance data from test chart comparison shots are next to useless - a broad stroke which only provides a general baseline for comparison which must then (by individuals considering any of the cameras that have been tested) be applied to the possible ways and shooting environments in which the individual might use the camera. Companies like DxOMark struggle mightily to objectively weight their performance test data in a way that provides valid comparative results, but the data can never be fully objective because DxoMark does not have API-level access to the RAW processing engine in each camera or to the RAW data stream coming directly off the sensor. Everything that all of us (and DxoMark) tests is done post-camera CPU.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that we shouldn't test and compare and I'm not suggesting the DxOMark (among others) doesn't produce excellent quality data. I'm just suggesting that we should test and compare on a comprehensive basis instead of by extracting two isolated data points and then (a few of us at least) feeling needlessly glum about the result.

On Monday this week, in Downtown Camera in Toronto, I stood just a few feet away from a regular customer who was complaining loudly to an experienced salesman that his brand new D7100 was failing every single focus test he tried. The customer went on and on and on about how strict his focus testing setup is/was, and about how diligent he had been and about how much he wanted the the D7100 to do perfectly well in the tests. So the salesman grabbed the customer's D7100, the two of them walked across the street to a huge church and park grounds, and the salesmen spent about five minutes kibitzing with passing nurses (there's a major hospital nearby) grabbing head shots, church front door shots (it was a lovely, sunny day), and so on. Everything, viewed on one of the monitors in the store (not just the camera LCD) was tack, tack, tack, tack, razor, pin, achingly sharp with a mounted Nikkor 16-85 VR from frame edge to frame edge, top to bottom. Noise-free all the way up to ISO3200 (the salesman was shooting in Manual AutoISO mode). The photos looked wonderful even on the lousy, uncalibrated store monitor. Basically thereafter, the salesman found a diplomatic way of telling the customer to learn how to use his camera and to consider taking a photography course.

Accurate testing is just as hard (or harder), and often even more irrelevant, than out-of-context spec comparisons. But I think the two issues are all of a piece.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Wed 27-Mar-13 03:54 PM
2119 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 5
Wed 27-Mar-13 04:00 PM by billD80

US
          

>I'm not suggesting for a moment that we shouldn't test and
>compare and I'm not suggesting the DxOMark (among others)
>doesn't produce excellent quality data. I'm just suggesting
>that we should test and compare on a comprehensive basis
>instead of by extracting two isolated data points and then (a
>few of us at least) feeling needlessly glum about the result.
>

Thanks for your post.

How about we just go and take great pictures? Personally, having loved my D7000 and the D200 and D80 prior to, I wouldn't trade my D7100 for any one of them.

Having said that, there are some posts that seem instantly based in the tone of, "Aha! We've been had! Watch out!"

Oh my. If one can't get good images out of a D7100, guess what? It's not the camera...

It's as if some people think their mission in life is to find some major flaw in the latest release, when the same scrutiny on their own technique and skill would likely result in what would assume is the goal... better images.

I remember when the D7000 was released and there were tons of posts on the net about what would happen if you shot an image at 3200ISO with the lens cap on!

Then when you look at what the poster actually produces in images, you start to think they should take all images with the lens cap on...

Owners of the D7000 may also want to read this... http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_d7100_review/



www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Wed 27-Mar-13 06:24 PM
3862 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 6


Toronto, CA
          


>Thanks for your post.
>
>How about we just go and take great pictures? Personally,
>having loved my D7000 and the D200 and D80 prior to, I
>wouldn't trade my D7100 for any one of them.
>
>Having said that, there are some posts that seem instantly
>based in the tone of, "Aha! We've been had! Watch
>out!"

I think you're right Bill. But I think we also have to acknowledge that there are what I think may be a surprising number of camera owners out there who get a lot of enjoyment out of testing, configuring, gear acquistion and spec comparison - moreso than they do from actual photography of any kind. I liken their thinking and approach to that of so many avowed computer geeks I used to know back in 80's and early 90's who spent enormous amounts of time building and tweaking systems, configuring them, measuring them, re-tweaking them for the fastest boot, the fastest RAM access, the fastest disk access, and endlessly looking for deals on the hottest new video cards, tracking down beta-versions of new drivers and so on and so on. It was the hardware that was the hobby and the overarching interest, and they did very little commonly productive computing work with their computers. But they learned a lot about computers and software.

I see a few photographers who are daunted by the specmanship so evident with products such as the D7100 (or the D70 for that matter a dozen years ago). Some of those photographers actually take a test-first/shoot-last approach to familiarizing themselves with the gear. Some of them end up with thoroughly tested gear and camera bodies with thousands of shutter acutations, but only a very small handful of actual portrait, wildlife, street or landscape photos. It's mostly test shots and comparisons. For those kinds of photography hobbyists, the specs, testing and the potential for quality photography are everything, but actual photography doesn't often hit their radar.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
torwood Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Dec 2010Wed 27-Mar-13 08:33 PM
657 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 7


Jefferson Hills, US
          

I have to weigh in. Two years ago, I bought my D7000 to replace my D90, because I didn't like the noise or focus accuracy of my D90 when shooting indoor sports. The first two shoots with the D7000 almost made me cry. And, I started a back-focus post on this site to complain about it. Then, I calmly setup a focus test. It was rather rudimentary, but it proved that my D7000 was not back-focusing, IF... it had time to lock-on and focus. What I determined was that the camera, and my older AFD prime lenses, simply wouldn't rack-in focus fast enough for how fast the camera could shoot (6 FPS). It took 3-4 shots for the lens to get focused. I imagine my D90 was even worse, but the reduced resolution and higher noise hid a lot of my bad technique.

I adjusted my technique to always allow the camera to lock focus before I start banging away on the shutter, and voila! Sharp photos.

This D7100 is probably going to be the same. The resolution is so great, and the lack of smudging from not having a low pass filter produces so much more detailed images, that of course you are going to see more flaws show up. In terms of AF, sharpness, and resolution, the D7100 is an order of magnitude better than the D7000, on par with how far the D7000 is above the D90. Which is a mile.

There is no doubt that I take better sports photos with my D7000 than with my D90. Some of that is just more experience in general, but some of it is the adaptations needed to meet the standards of the more demanding camera.

In golf, better players use blade irons that demand a more advanced level of ball stiking to get a good shot. They are actually harder to hit for a poor player, and produce a worse result for that poor player. Don't buy blades if you're a chopper and you don't intend to ever get any better - they'll make you quit golf. But, in the hands of a skilled player, forged blade irons allow for far more versatile, precise, and creative shotmaking.

Personally, I can't wait to get a D7100, as I know it will make me have to become a better photographer.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Wed 27-Mar-13 09:20 PM
3262 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#12. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 10


St Petersburg, RU
          

What strikes me as a glaring point concerning the D7100 is the silence of internet chatter noise about all the real or imagined problems.
We would normally be expecting to be swamped with focus or soft image posts is history was the guide....but only relative silence. That might mean it might be one of the most successful launches in photography for a long time.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
richardd300 Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009Wed 27-Mar-13 10:15 PM
3088 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#13. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 12


Dyserth, GB
          

I had the D7000 and it wasn't a camera that suited me and my wildlife photography. However, I have just received my D7100 and as I have said elsewhere I am as pleased with it as I was with my D800.

Attached are two images at ISO400 which I feel I can say show very little ISO noise, these were taken with the camera set to x1.3 crop. The 3rd Image shows the sharpness at ISO100. To recap, this is what I said elsewhere:

"What do I like? Better in every way than the D7000 (which I never really liked). Really like the x1.3 crop facility. The removal of the AA filter appears to give sharper images post processing. The new viewfinder is a great upgrade. It seems to handle ISO noise better than the D7000 too (something I notice on deep crops). The feel of the camera is ergonomically better and feels more like my old D300. This is mostly down I think to a deeper grip which because I have enormous hands I really appreciate that small change".

Richard

Nikon 7100 Sigma 50-500mm OS 1/500 @f6.3 ISO400 EV = -0.3 Handheld OS ON. Focal length 500mm


Nikon 7100 Sigma 50-500mm OS 1/2500 @f6.3 ISO400 EV = -0.3 Handheld OS OFF. Focal length 290mm


Nikon D7100. Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. 1/250@f8 ISO100 Focal length 40mm. EV = -0.3. Handheld

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)
Attachment #3, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
JPJ Silver Member Nikonian since 20th Aug 2009Wed 27-Mar-13 11:09 PM
1327 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#14. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 12


Toronto, CA
          

Bingo. Nailed it.

If this holds, in all seriousness it is a good sign that recent QC issues have been resolved, which is great news for everyone.

Jason

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Wed 27-Mar-13 11:46 PM
2119 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 12


US
          

>What strikes me as a glaring point concerning the D7100 is
>the silence of internet chatter noise about all the real or
>imagined problems.

I noticed this too, even on forums where it looks like a few people have been fishing for issues.

Truth is, I've never had any issues with any Nikon, and the D7100 seems well inside that experience.

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
cwils02 Gold Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2012Tue 16-Apr-13 02:58 AM
789 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#28. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 12


HIXSON, US
          

Stan,

I was so amazed at being a casual shooter at a high school reunion. I had to use flash, not even close to being my forte'. Wish I felt comfortable showing the sharpness of some of the people shots. In some cases, I didn't have enough power left on my flash. I didn't get my batteries charged in time.

Chimping left me disheartened by the under exposure. LR did a great job making most look like they were shot with exposure right on without undue noise.

The only internet chatter problem that I've seen are pretty much ludicrous. The only one I'm seeing several of is focus hunting. When I'm shooting birds against strong light with my 70-300 VR, I do have the problem quite a bit. Didn't have that problem with my 18-200 VRII shooting inside.

The so-called 1.3x crop moved me to buy early. Actually, the best I can tell is that it is really 4/3. Some EXIF shows the 35mm film focal length to be exactly 2x the focal length of the lens. The standard DX crop is 3/2 (1.5). So with the 1.3x crop on, you get 4/3 x 3/2 = exactly 2.

Bottomline is that I am very happy with the D7100. Looking forward to shooting an upcoming track meet. Just need to get my D7000 back from Nikon to be my backup body.

Charlie

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
richardd300 Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009Tue 16-Apr-13 06:42 AM
3088 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#29. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 28


Dyserth, GB
          

<<The only one I'm seeing several of is focus hunting. When I'm shooting birds against strong light with my 70-300 VR, I do have the problem quite a bit. Didn't have that problem with my 18-200 VRII shooting inside.>>

Yes, that's the biggest problem most bird shooters have I think and certainly I do against bright skies of course as there is no defined target until the subject is locked on. I find it's sometimes the same trying to focus in high contrast areas, this was a particular problem for me when I had my 80-400mm VR. The focus hunting in certain situations will always be an issue against bright and low light I guess, no matter what camera is being used.

One thing I find heartening about the D7100 is the positive comments it's receiving. Thinking back over the last few years Nikon have been targeted for criticism both fairly in my view for their handling of D800 focusing and D600 oil issues, but unfairly when often the problem was due to user error.

It looks to me like the D7100 is destined to put Nikon back on a safe footing camera wise. If they review their inflated pricing on lenses (new 80-400mm as an example) then a quiet future is assured......perhaps

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009Tue 16-Apr-13 10:15 AM
1896 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#30. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 28
Tue 16-Apr-13 10:17 AM by elec164

US
          

>The so-called 1.3x crop moved me to buy early. Actually, the
>best I can tell is that it is really 4/3. Some EXIF shows the
>35mm film focal length to be exactly 2x the focal length of
>the lens. The standard DX crop is 3/2 (1.5). So with the 1.3x
>crop on, you get 4/3 x 3/2 = exactly 2.
>

Charlie, I believe the end result and math is correct, but your concept is wrong.

The 1.3 crop mode still has a 3:2 aspect ratio while the 4/3 sensor cameras have a 4:3 aspect ratio.

The 1.3 crop from DX arises from the same way the DX is approximately a 1.5 crop from FX. FX is 36mm wide where DX is about 24mm. So 36/24=1.5. The DX is about 24mm wide while the 1.3 crop is about 18mm. So 24/18=1.33. Carried further, FX is 36mm and 1.3 crop mode of a DX camera is 18mm; so 36/18=2. So the 1.3 crop mode of a DX camera has a crop factor of 2 from a FX camera.

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
cwils02 Gold Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2012Tue 16-Apr-13 05:00 PM
789 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#31. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 30
Tue 16-Apr-13 05:01 PM by cwils02

HIXSON, US
          

Pete,

I feel so much better after that explanation.

I do have degrees in Math, Physics, and Chemistry, but am still somewhat lacking in my arithmetic skills. You know, like Einstein.

I was just reducing my fractions to the LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) or something like that. Or was it OCD (Old Timers Disease)? I was realy referring back to some posts that said that the effective crop when using the 1.3x crop was close to but not exactly 2x.

When my EXIF showed the 35mm Film Focal Length was exactly 2x when using the 1.3x crop, I looked a little further.

Wished I'd had your explanation sooner. It would have saved me time.

Bottomline, my D7100 is taking way too much of my time; using it, not trying to fix it. Some photos, I have to keep looking at. Did I really do that?

Charlie

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
richardd300 Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009Tue 16-Apr-13 05:30 PM
3088 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#32. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 31


Dyserth, GB
          

<<Bottomline, my D7100 is taking way too much of my time; using it, not trying to fix it. Some photos, I have to keep looking at. Did I really do that?>>

Charlie. That sums it up so well and the way I feel too

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Escaladieu Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Apr 2010Mon 01-Apr-13 06:38 AM
630 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#18. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 7


Artiguemy, FR
          

>
>>Thanks for your post.
>>
>>How about we just go and take great pictures?
>Personally,
>>having loved my D7000 and the D200 and D80 prior to, I
>>wouldn't trade my D7100 for any one of them.
>>
>>Having said that, there are some posts that seem
>instantly
>>based in the tone of, "Aha! We've been had! Watch
>>out!"
>
>I think you're right Bill. But I think we also have to
>acknowledge that there are what I think may be a surprising
>number of camera owners out there who get a lot of enjoyment
>out of testing, configuring, gear acquistion and spec
>comparison - moreso than they do from actual photography of
>any kind. I liken their thinking and approach to that of so
>many avowed computer geeks I used to know back in 80's and
>early 90's who spent enormous amounts of time building and
>tweaking systems, configuring them, measuring them,
>re-tweaking them for the fastest boot, the fastest RAM access,
>the fastest disk access, and endlessly looking for deals on
>the hottest new video cards, tracking down beta-versions of
>new drivers and so on and so on. It was the hardware that was
>the hobby and the overarching interest, and they did very
>little commonly productive computing work with their
>computers. But they learned a lot about computers and
>software.
>
>I see a few photographers who are daunted by the specmanship
>so evident with products such as the D7100 (or the D70 for
>that matter a dozen years ago). Some of those photographers
>actually take a test-first/shoot-last approach to
>familiarizing themselves with the gear. Some of them end up
>with thoroughly tested gear and camera bodies with thousands
>of shutter acutations, but only a very small handful of actual
>portrait, wildlife, street or landscape photos. It's mostly
>test shots and comparisons. For those kinds of photography
>hobbyists, the specs, testing and the potential for
>quality photography are everything, but actual photography
>doesn't often hit their radar.
>

Amen to this - spot on !

Personal Blog
www.gasconyphoto.net

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
wlwakefield Registered since 21st Jan 2007Mon 01-Apr-13 12:28 PM
198 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#19. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 18


Irving, US
          

So very true. Honestly, those folks should always be in the flagship product so that they always have the top specs.

Coming from a D80, my 7100 far exceeds my capabilities as a photographer and exceeds my expectations.

http://www.wlwakefield.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
richardd300 Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009Mon 01-Apr-13 04:28 PM
3088 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#20. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 19


Dyserth, GB
          

<<I think you're right Bill. But I think we also have to
>acknowledge that there are what I think may be a surprising
>number of camera owners out there who get a lot of enjoyment
>out of testing, configuring, gear acquistion and spec
>comparison>>

There may well be, but would think that not many reside on the forums here. Perhaps sometimes some folks are generally disgruntled because either they have bought a faulty unit, or find the experience of the new camera too daunting to admit to. Either way, I don't really believe anyone enjoys spending money just to be disappointed!

As for testing etc, well sure some will want to get the very best out of a camera and who can blame them. Conversely, there are nit pickers and some who take too much notice of on-line reviews. The only reviews that count in my view are real world like on here. However, if testing is a part of some getting to know their camera better and the art of photography in general, is that altogether a bad thing? Each to their own.

As stated earlier I think that the D7100 is the best DX I've ever bought and technologically better than my D300s and this comes from someone who thought his D7000 was the worst

Richard.

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
martinjp Registered since 02nd Mar 2013Sat 20-Apr-13 04:19 AM
26 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#50. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 20


US
          

><<I think you're right Bill. But I think we also have
>to
>>acknowledge that there are what I think may be a
>surprising
>>number of camera owners out there who get a lot of
>enjoyment
>>out of testing, configuring, gear acquistion and spec
>>comparison>>
>
>There may well be, but would think that not many reside on the
>forums here. Perhaps sometimes some folks are generally
>disgruntled because either they have bought a faulty unit, or
>find the experience of the new camera too daunting to admit
>to. Either way, I don't really believe anyone enjoys spending
>money just to be disappointed!
>
>As for testing etc, well sure some will want to get the very
>best out of a camera and who can blame them. Conversely, there
>are nit pickers and some who take too much notice of on-line
>reviews. The only reviews that count in my view are real world
>like on here. However, if testing is a part of some getting to
>know their camera better and the art of photography in
>general, is that altogether a bad thing? Each to their own.
>
>As stated earlier I think that the D7100 is the best DX I've
>ever bought and technologically better than my D300s and this
>comes from someone who thought his D7000 was the worst
>
>Richard.

Hi Richard,

You hit on a couple of my initial issues. I don't get any enjoyment out of testing cameras. I got a D7000 with a bad back focus problem that I returned about a month before I got my D7100 so I was very nervous about getting a bad copy. The problem is that if you look at a D90 photo at a 100% and then a D7100 photo at a 100%, the D7100 picture looks noisy simply because there are so many pixels. It's like standing right in front of a pointillism painting versus standing back 10 feet. Now that I've done the focus chart tests and determined that there's not a problem with the camera, I've stopped zooming in too far. I'm really happy with the D7100 now that, as someone said earlier, I'm just going out and taking pictures with it.

Jim

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

comicalalien Registered since 05th Sep 2009Wed 03-Apr-13 03:36 AM
76 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#21. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 0


AU
          


>summary:
>image quality : Jpeg dynamic range lower than the D7000 at iso
>800, and at high iso 3200 lower than Pentax K5-II
>
>S/N lower than D5200, D7000, D600
>
>So for a low-light photographer the D7100 appears to be a worse
>solution than the D7000.


All DX format cameras are weak when it comes to low light photography past ISO 1600 period!

DX cameras aren't intended to be low light photographic tools.
Use of a tripod and long shutter speeds at low ISO values remedies this to a degree.

The D7100 is geared toward frequent use and extended wildlife shots (1.3 crop mode built in). That is, it is geared towards daylight use where there is abundant light and ISO values mostly below 800! Rarely would you use an ISO above 800 in daylight. So that S/N and noise don't become an issue.

I will be getting my D7100 soon and can't wait for it to happen.

If you want excellent low light capabilities - go full-frame (FX)!

Cheers,
comicalalien

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Wed 03-Apr-13 06:35 AM
3262 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#22. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 21


St Petersburg, RU
          

Actually all cameras are geared towards daylight, abundant light and lose capability as light levels fall. The difference between any competent newer camera and the best is in degrees and not dramatic when viewing at normal viewing distances and scales. The demand for high fidelity in low light is based on the desire to turn dark scenes into daylight scenes is fairly new. Night or dim scene color and detail are naturally less acute even with the human eye, so fidelity must not be the motivation for seeking ever higher ISO figures.

For a normal photo, not many here and even fewer in the general viewing public could identify a random photo having been taken with a D40 or a D4. The D7000/7100 are objectively, not that much different than a D800 image and unless comparing highly magnified crops and side by side comparison images, very few people could see the difference. We buy higher end cameras for a little, very little, advantage in performance in extreme conditions just as we buy $2000 lenses to get a slight hardly noticed advantage over a $300 lens.
All that said, don't you think you overstated the facts when you say that "all DX format cameras are weak when it comes to low light photography"? I do not know of a recent modern DX camera that is weak in low light, certainly not a D7100.

If one is finding their images unacceptable at lower light, it is expectations or technique that is letting them down. Night photography was done artistically for decades when the highest ISO was less than 200 with film and ISO 0.5 equivalent decades before that with wet collodion plates. Where the photographers that much better? Maybe so.

A well exposed ISO 6400 image from a D7000/7100 is still perfectly suitable for printing at reasonable sizes and scales and viewed in their entirety. Same with a D800 image. The key is "properly exposed" and "viewed in their entirety". Pixel peepers need not apply, they will always be able to find some real or imaged problem with the scattering of minute fuzzy spots of light and dark that make up a normal photo so ignore them. For them, scale and context are turned upside down and they are searching for goals that have nothing to do with what is a good photo, any more than bristle mark analyzers have no input on whether a painting is good or bad.

Good photos have something in common, they tell a compelling story or create an emotional response in the viewer. Bad images do not. A high fidelity image of a non-compelling view is not a good photo. As camera hobbyists become more and more focused on minute technical differences in images, usually only detected in extreme magnifications, it appears that less and less of the hobby is related to creating good photos. A viewer never walked away from a painting or photo shaking their head muttering "it would have been a good painting if he used a finer brush(finer pixels)".
I was in a professional field for decades that had its equivalent to modern day pixel peepers, who spent their time doing A/B comparisons between two types of wires or power conditioners by trying to detect minute, unmeasurable different impacts on music recordings. They were gear heads that never really listened to the music, the music was not as important as the almost imperceptible differences between ancillary items remotely related to the end result. The view I took was when a record was finished, it was a thing unto itself and could be taken as it was without any better understanding of its quality by nitpicking remotely connected elements.
A photo, once published is what it is. Arguing over some perceived noise viewed at 200% notwithstanding, its value is determined solely on people's reaction to it as a whole.
Maybe if people focused more on the things that really do matter in viewer's perceptions, and for those elements that the photographer really has control of, the hobby might be less filled with angst and fret over technical bits that have nothing to do with the end result.
The D7100 is a fine camera, it far exceeds the artistic skills and message that 99.999% of owners using it. But the same can be said for any modern DSLR today.
It is not easy to have a compelling message expressed well in any art form or else everyone would do it, so instead, most people focus on what is easier, fretting over inconsequential technical details unrelated to the photo. Some grails have replaced artistic merit because they are easier, such as low noise or sharpness, neither of which impact the message of a photo.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
ardoluc Registered since 16th Feb 2013Wed 03-Apr-13 11:51 PM
20 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#23. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 22


saint-jean-sur-richelieu, CA
          

Hi
In reply to your comment, yesterday I was following a video class with Bill Fortney who wrote two books on landscape photography and who is also in his eight year work for Nikon as MPS rep. He has over 40 years of experience as professionnal photographer. His comment on DX vs FX is:

1- That he doubts seriously that most of the time two pics of the same scene taken with the same lens at the same aperture and speed that anyone will be able to see the difference between the FX and the DX,.

2- DX is not intented to be use at iso higher than 1600, if so instead use a tripod.

3- FX is mostly need by : photo journalist, and sport photography working in low-light (FOOTBALL) 3200-6400 ISO.

4- Don't be afraid to use small aperture such as F11;16;22;32. Afraid of diffraction don't be with modern lenses its irrelevant, the use of ED glasses AND NANO COATINGS minimize theses problems.

My conclusion

So if you are happy with your DX format, don't look at FX. Now the point of this thread is: Is the 1200$+ taxes, to spend for moving from a D7000 to a D7100 is money well spent ? only you can answer that question, for me I think that this money should instead be spent on better optics like one of the the 3 main optics Bill recommanded. Theses optics contrary to a new camera body will hold their values much longer.

Here they are

1- 14-24 f2.8 1700$ (alternative 16-35 f2.8-4 1260$)
2- 24-70 f2.8 1700%
3- 70-200 f2.8 2500$
4- 28-300 1100$ for people wanting to travel light, and for people on a budget.

Have a good day

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Thu 04-Apr-13 06:39 AM
3262 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#25. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 23


St Petersburg, RU
          

A couple of comments about the list:
1.) true
2.) When was he writing the 1600 was a top end for DX? I suspect he wrote that several years ago when that was certainly true. QE efficiency has doubled in the last 5 years, so currently DX is within a stop and a half of theoretical limits. 1600 was an absurdly high gain and poor signal to noise ratio just a few years ago. No more.
3.) FX is used primarily by people who can afford it, but is most helpful in fields that require greater control of DOF(fine art, portraiture, architecture, landscape, product, fashion and photojournalism), wide angle lenses and large printing. Sports, wildlife, BIF often require more reach than DOF or absolute IQ.
4) is one that I take exception to. Coatings and optics have little to do with shying away from f/16-32, its diffraction which in turn is dependent on pixel size and aperture only. Diffraction exists at the edges of any boundary and is physics. A finer grained sensor or film just happens to shot the ill-effects of it more. Selecting an aperature setting is the best balance between loss of acuity from diffracion and having enough depth of field so the target subjects are more in focus than the defocusing contribution of Diffraction. Maybe his editor was too free in summarizing his comments in creating that quote suggesting that modern optics counter diffraction. Pin hole lenses suffer from it despite not having any glass or coatings at all, just an aperture.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
ardoluc Registered since 16th Feb 2013Thu 04-Apr-13 07:45 PM
20 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#26. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 25
Thu 04-Apr-13 10:47 PM by ardoluc

saint-jean-sur-richelieu, CA
          

Hi Stan
I will try to answer some of your comments
On item no:

2- Not 5 years ago. he carried a D700 + a D7000, that he praised to be the best DX format at the time the recording was done. I suppose lest than 2 years ago not 5. He mentionned the DX format was not designed for iso higher than 1600 iso, while FX can achieve very good 3200 iso and very workable at iso 6400. So its like you say 1-11/2 stop difference.

4- From what I understood from his presentation: Yes diffraction can be a problem specially with older lenses, and with the power of computers to design them today diffraction is not a problem at the apertures that the lenses are designed. He also said that the best a lens can achieved is usually 2-3 stops closed from its maximum openenig. Your remark to the pin hole camera would be like a camera with an aperture of f64 or f128 where yes diffraction would be intolerable.

I have to say that I have not used for years any aperture above F11, and that I will try to compare shots at small apertures and make my own judgement on this.

I don't know if any of you have seen tests shots comparing the noise at 1600 iso of a D7000 and the noise at 10,000 iso of a D3x they are very close. If you would like to see them I can provide the link .

Have a nice day

Luc
saint-jean-sur-richelieu
Canada

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
briantilley Moderator Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Wed 17-Apr-13 08:13 AM
28317 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#35. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 26


Paignton, GB
          

>He mentionned the DX format was not designed for iso higher
>than 1600 iso, while FX can achieve very good 3200 iso and
>very workable at iso 6400.

Whenever he made that statement, like Stan says it is definitely outdated.

>4- From what I understood from his presentation: Yes
>diffraction can be a problem specially with older lenses, and
>with the power of computers to design them today diffraction
>is not a problem at the apertures that the lenses are
>designed.

Again, I'm with Stan. Loss of resolution due to diffraction is determined by the physical size of the diaphragm opening and the pixel density - not by optical design or coatings.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
J_Harris Silver Member Nikonian since 29th Mar 2011Thu 04-Apr-13 12:41 AM
664 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#24. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 22


US
          

Stan,

You can't see me, but if you could you would see I am giving you a standing ovation.

Jerry

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
DHoff Registered since 10th Oct 2007Fri 05-Apr-13 02:52 AM
180 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#27. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 24


Lynchburg, US
          

Why does that scene from Star Trek TOS where James Doohan says " You canna change the laws of physics" keep playing in my head?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Clint S Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Jan 2011Fri 19-Apr-13 06:45 AM
445 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#42. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 27


Chula Vista, US
          

Diffraction was first defined in the middle 1600's and the phenomena that occurs when a wave encounters an obstacle, today most commonly referenced as the bending of the wave around a small obstacle and the spreading out of the waves past the small opening.

But diffraction also occurs when light waves hits and travels though water, glass, or other obstacles. The most commonly noticed diffraction is probably is the diffraction grating that produces the rainbow pattern seen when looking at a CD.

Coatings on glass can and have helped reduce refraction (probably by minute amounts) even during the early days of telescopes. Today those coatings combined with a better means of directing more light rays into a perpendicular path into each part of the sensor, plays some part in reducing detraction.

Lenses today are much more ground much more accurately than even those made 20 years ago, helping to reduce the diffraction phenomena.

Visit my Nikonians gallery - my Spare Time gallery

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Fri 19-Apr-13 11:52 AM
3862 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#44. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 42
Fri 19-Apr-13 12:41 PM by agitater

Toronto, CA
          

>Diffraction was first defined in the middle 1600's and the
>phenomena that occurs when a wave encounters an obstacle,
>today most commonly referenced as the bending of the wave
>around a small obstacle and the spreading out of the waves
>past the small opening.

Not exactly. An obstacle is defined as something through which light cannot pass, such as aperture blades. So interference with the lightwaves and their photons occurs at the edges of the aperture.

>But diffraction also occurs when light waves hits and travels
>though water, glass, or other obstacles. The most commonly
>noticed diffraction is probably is the diffraction grating
>that produces the rainbow pattern seen when looking at a CD.

That's not correct. It is the combination of refraction and reflection that produces the CD/DVD/Blu-ray rainbow effect. Water and glass are not obstacles to light waves, but they do slow down photons and cause both refraction and reflection. Remember that light is composed of particles which behave like waves traveling at various frequencies.

>Coatings on glass can and have helped reduce refraction
>(probably by minute amounts) even during the early days of
>telescopes. Today those coatings combined with a better means
>of directing more light rays into a perpendicular path into
>each part of the sensor, plays some part in reducing
>detraction.

Photons don't hit a sensor in a perpendicular manner. Refraction and diffraction are both lightwave and light particle phenomena, but they're not directly related. You really don't want to reduce the designed refraction characteristics of a lens because refraction is what designers use to bend the light to direct as much of it as possible through the aperture. Lens coatings reduce reflection and flare.

>Lenses today are much more ground much more accurately than
>even those made 20 years ago, helping to reduce the
>diffraction phenomena.

Not really. While I have previously described diffraction as a lens effect too, the specific diffraction mechanism in a modern lens is always the edge of the aperture, not the glass elements. Diffraction is always present when light is bent to pass as light passes through an aperture - even large apertures. At large apertures though, diffraction is so slight that it is not visible in captured images because it occurs below the resovling threshold or noise floor of the sensor. The degree to which diffraction is visible or actually consequential in terms of any visibly negative effect depends, in part, on the resolution of the lens and the resolution of the sensor.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
RLDubbya Registered since 24th Dec 2011Sat 20-Apr-13 12:36 AM
542 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#48. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 44


US
          

Great little tutorial on diffraction:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
CK Silver Member Nikonian since 09th Apr 2004Tue 16-Apr-13 11:25 PM
1724 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#33. "RE Comment #22: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 22
Tue 16-Apr-13 11:27 PM by CK

Mississauga, CA
          

Well said, Sir.

CK
Nikonian in Ontario, Canada

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

mborn1 Silver Member Nikonian since 20th Nov 2008Fri 19-Apr-13 12:33 PM
191 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#45. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 0


Taunton, US
          

I have the D7100 and had the D7000, glad I upgraded wrote a blog about my first impressions on my Blog http://photobee1.blogspot.com/2013/04/first-impressions-nikon-d-7100.html

Myer
Photo Bee1
http://photobee1.blogspot.com/
http://photobee1.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Sat 20-Apr-13 06:18 AM
3262 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#51. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 0


St Petersburg, RU
          

It appears that this thread has wandered far from the original topic of relative merits of the D7000 vs D7100 so it should be wrapped up.

Feel free to start another thread concerning this series of bodies or in the appropriate forums for the topic.


Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

NicolaeM Registered since 20th Apr 2013Sat 20-Apr-13 08:09 PM
2 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#52. "RE: Owners of D7000 read this before buying the D7100"
In response to Reply # 0


CA
          

bought a d7000 6 month ago . Luckily price went down a bit back then, but now i wish i wait a bit for D7100 Begin to like wildlife photography and that extra 1.3 x crop with 300 f4 is a beter option for me than purchasing a expensive glass Checking the charts it shows a better HR than d7000 . Could be a replacemet sometimes for d800 and find a use of my sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 . Not sure this glass can perform well for such high pixel density sensor

---------------------------
"There's something strange and powerful about black-and-white imagery."
Stefan Kanfer
http://nicolae-mihesan.artistwebsites.com/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #25707 Previous topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.