One thing I would urge all of those looking at the D7100 discussions to do is to recognize that we don't all have the same photographic needs. While I'm primarily a sports shooter, I've dabbled in many of the other aspects of photography just enough to understand that different disciplines value different tools. I'm intrigued by the D7100 because it looks like an excellent second body for my sports work. But people who need huge buffers or particular control configurations that the D7100 doesn't support may well be disappointed. I get that. But that doesn't mean the D7100 isn't a good camera for many -- most, I dare say -- uses. As an incremental upgrade to the D7000 (and, really, what else would we expect a camera called D7100 to be?), I think it represents a significant increment.
These threads can get difficult to follow and take longer to load when we get over 100 posts. This particular discussion has rocketed to over 150 posts in just one day and shows no sign of slowing down. When this happens, it is not that often, we like to break up the threads to make it easier to keep track of the newest posts.
I take real issue with the opinion that the D7100 is an incremental upgrade from the D7000, and not a revolution in high-end consumer-level DX.
Since the lowly D50, the first low-end Nikon DSLR (which I have and still use for snapshots), every generation of amateur Nikon DSLR has shared the same compromise for size, weight, and price-point: Inferior AF system compared to the pro DSLRs. This applied to film bodies, as well. The old N80 was a GREAT film camera, but it had an inferior AF module compared to the F100/F5.
The D7100 is the first Nikon DSLR with the smaller body, lower price, and "amateur" control layout to feature the professional, at the moment state-of-the-art, AF module and algoriths of the professional bodies. That is revolutionary, not evolutionary. It also has other previously exclusive to pro body features, like a 100% viewfinder and no AA filter. This camera also has a newer 24MP sensor, improved buffer performance, and a bigger LCD.
The upgrade from the D300 to the D300s was evolutionary. This is a revolutionary upgrade for an amateur DSLR. Is it the biggest upgrade ever, probably not: D100-D200, D2-D3, and D80-D90 were at least as significant, if not more. But, it's not just an incremental improvement. That said, if your regular photographic subject(s) doesn't need faster/better AF and more resolution, then you won't see much of difference between this camera and a D7000.
Another thing we have to consider is - that we have not seen the new AF system in action.
The D3 and the D300 had the same AF system but the D3 was notably more responsive and did a better job to hold focus when tracking difficult subjects. The same specifications do not always equal the same level of performance.
So, will the D7100 AF system match the D800 (or even D300) AF system? We won’t know until production units are in the hands of regular uses.
Much will become clear once units start getting delivered, that's for sure. At the same time, there are early indications that the D7100 AF system will exceed the D300. When Nikon says "AF capability comparable to the D4 professional model," that may be the marketing department talking, but it suggests that it is at least in the ballpark. Plus, at least one well-known wildlife shooter who has used the D7100 is raving about it.
We'll surely know more in the near future, but I'm confident that the D7100 AF system will be substantially superior to that of the D7000.
"The D3 and the D300 had the same AF system but the D3 was notably more responsive and did a better job to hold focus when tracking difficult subjects."
That probably had to do with the FX sensor and more low light sensitivity, plus superior algoriths. Just guessing, though. While the D7100 will have "D4 algoriths", I suspect it won't match the performance of the pro FX cameras. But, I'll bet it is clearly superior to the D7000 and D600, which represents a huge upgrade for us users of those cameras. And, 80-90% of the D4 AF system would still be awesome for us amateurs who could never sniff buying that top-shelf camera.
Sat 23-Feb-13 07:37 AM | edited Sat 23-Feb-13 07:45 AM by Ray B
>Based on what I have seen to date, and for the types of work >I do, I see nothing compelling enough to justify the trade. >More likely I would get a 600 for portrait and keep the 7000 >for reach. > >The 7100 actually makes the 600 make more sense to me. Or I >might just skip this cycle and wait for the next bus
That's where I'm at right now, I have the D600 as my primary camera and kept the D7000. I like having the 2 bodies so that I have a backup, can shoot with 2 bodies if it suits and for more reach when I need it. All but 2 of my lenses are FX anyway.
Also, I paid full price for the D7000 back in 2011 (£1095 I think) but for the last few months the street price in the UK has fallen to £650 (long before the D7100 announcement). A 40% fall makes the resale value unattractive to me.
Don't get me wrong, if I were in the market for a new DX body the D7100 is very compelling. But so is a D7000 for £650 !!
I can see why some will be tempted to invest. Equally I can see why some D300 owners don't think this is the D400 answer they are looking for.
Bottom line, this is a great new addition and choice to have from the Nikon stable.
For me personally there are 2 more lenses I'd like to acquire and I'm pretty much done
EDIT: To add one thing. I think it's a shame the days of being able to share grips like you could with D700/300 seem to be over.....
Having bought a D7000 in the last month I can honestly say there is no buyers regret. While 24mp is great I do not "need" more than 16mp -no anti-aliasing filter - OK. I'm not making prints bigger than 8x10. Other key features: - ISO speed 6400 25,600 Hi2 - check - 6fps - check - 39 pt autofocus vs 51 pt. (ok - 12 pts.) - Commander Mode - check - 2 card slots - check - Battery life - same battery - D7000 (but who cares that much).
No question the D7100 is an improved camera. But when the D7000 drops to $799, (soon), its a steal.
>Thanks, Dave. My scroll wheel thanks you as well. > >One thing I would urge all of those looking at the D7100 >discussions to do is to recognize that we don't all have the >same photographic needs.
Personally, I find the evolution of DSLR's to be a bit silly, but that's just my narrow perspective talking. I find them needlessly cluttered with all sorts of technology that is of no use to me. All I want is a big, great sensor and great image quality.
But I'm not a sports shooter. I'm not a birder. I'm not much into anything involving action. I've got zero interest in video.
The nice thing, however, is that as this technology arms race continues, the companies involved ARE improving the things I am looking for. So while I may find (for example) video to be a needless feature, the fact that some people want it means that by adding it, Nikon sells more cameras. And that means that I am able to get the stuff I DO want, and far cheaper than I otherwise would have.
They do make the ideal camera for my needs: Hasselblad would be happy to sell me a very simple, exquisitely functional camera for $40k. Its exactly what I want.
But not at $40k. I can't begin to justify that price. I don't get paid (much, anyway) for shooting. Its a marvel of the modern world that I am able to get a camera that delivers 90% of that Hasselblad (as measured by what I am looking for) for 1/40 the money. Stunning!
Remember when Nikon released the product shots on the then-new D800 and somehow neglected to strip out the EXIF data? Turns out they were shot with a Phase 1 back. Heh!
The serious pros will always have gear at a totally different level than amateurs. That's ok. We are still in an absolute golden-age of camera technology, where anyone with $1000 can buy a ridiculously awesome camera and get technical quality that was all but unobtainable (absent some serious pro level gear and some serious skills) a generation ago.
I'm still relatively new to photography. You made mention that the D7100 AF is better than the D7000. Or I think in post 79 you said it was faster. Have you taken photos with the D7100 already? If not, how does one make this determination?
Tue 26-Feb-13 02:34 AM | edited Tue 26-Feb-13 02:37 AM by cwils02
>Hey there Jon. > > >I'm still relatively new to photography. You made mention >that the D7100 AF is better than the D7000. Or I think in >post 79 you said it was faster. Have you taken photos with >the D7100 already? If not, how does one make this >determination?
Welcome to Nikonians. The D7100 won't be released until 3/21/2013. folks are basing their opinions on the announcement & the included specs. Here are two locations to readup:
>Its a neat camera - but is never going to be a D400. We want >a semi-pro - SOON - or Canon will get a lot of new customers.
Even the D7000 could be considered a semi-pro camera, with sensor quality, according to DxOMark, superior in a number of areas than ANYTHING Canon makes at ANY price.
The D7100 is likely to do even better, and likely has more magnesium than any Canon DX model. I could easily stand corrected, but does Canon make ANY DX model clad in metal? Perhaps they do...
I for one think a D400, at $1750. could easily be released, perhaps a tad tougher (?), bigger buffer, built-in battery grip... But it's focussing system will likely be the same as the D7100, and the basic image quality will likely be identical.
Great! But not every pro needs 7 or 9 FPS, a bigger buffer, or an ISO button on top of the body...
If the D7100 is what it looks to be, it's Canon who should be concerned, regardless of whether or not a D400 appears.
><<I could easily stand corrected, but does Canon make >ANY DX model clad in metal? Perhaps they do..>> > >They certainly do, the Canon 7D The EOS 7D features a >magnesium alloy body that is dust and weather resistant. >
The 7D, released in 2009, also gets 8 frames per second with an 18 MP sensor. The file sizes are a little bigger than the files from either the D600 or D7100. 7D RAW files are about 25 MB the D7100 RAW (lossless compressed) are 22.7 MB.
So, if Canon was able to obtain 8 FPS with an 18MP sensor, that produces a 25 MB, file 4 years ago – I think it is a safe bet that Nikon can do 8 FPS with a 24 MP sensor, that produces a 23 MB, file in 2013.
My personal experience with the 7D is that the D300/D7000 and most certainly the D7100 have far superior AF systems, so anyone who wants to switch would be high encouraged to try before you buy. Further, you think a D300 to a D7000 is an ergonomic hassle...
I am not sure many birders will be flocking to the 7D, but if they do I suspect Nikon won't be worried, the war for the lucrative DX market is not going to be won with almost FX priced high end DX Pro bodies that sell to a subset niche market, it will be won with modestly priced, bang for your buck DX bodies that appeal to the masses and do volume sales.
That being said, perhaps we should wait until people use the D7100 before we immediately conclude it is unusable for your purposes. Perhaps the D4 AF algorithms are so good you don't need to shutter mash to get a high number of keepers, for instance.
>I am not sure many birders will be flocking to the 7D,
I went to the Hiwassee Refuge to shoot Sandhill Cranes & Eagles from the observation Platform this past Sunday. When I arrived, there were already 3 cameras in use by folks from different areas. They were all 7D's with 300mm Canon f/2.8 and 2x Teleconverters. I had the only Nikon. Personally, I don't know squat about the 7D's, nor do I especially want to. Just thought this was interesting based on your comment.
I went there based on comments from two Nikonians; one from Atlanta, and one from Knoxville. Hopefully; when I return, I will be armed with a D7000 that no longer back focuses, and some more serious glass. Perhaps, if I had a D7100 at 1.3x crop and a Nikon 300mm f/4 with my 1.4x TC, I would be at an effective 819mm if the light was bright enough.
I see the 7D and the d300s as close to equals – each one has strength over the other. Both are overdue for replacment.
I posted this only because the 7D had been mentioned and many people seem to think that 7 or 8 FP is not possible in a 24 MP camera. The fact that they were able to get 8 FPS pushing through 25 MB files 4 years ago is a good indication that Nikon could do the same with today with 23 MB files.
>> That being said, perhaps we should wait until people use the D7100 before we immediately conclude it is unusable for your purposes. Perhaps the D4 AF algorithms are so good you don't need to shutter mash to get a high number of keepers, for instance.
I know what I shoot and why I use a CH high mode. 6 FPS and a 7 frame buffer will not cut it no matter how good the AF is. I do not use high FPS for so called “spray and Pray” photography.
I am attempting to capture a series of events that occur in over a period of 2 or 3 seconds. When an eagle is fishing I want to capture some frames during the final moments as he approaches the water – in each image I get a different wing and body position – then he grabs the fish and I get several more frames, each with different wing and body positions, as the fish is pulled out of the water – and then the eagle may or may not look down at the fish and if you’re really lucky he will eat it in flight. This all happens very quickly and want to capture as many quality images as possible while spanning as much of the event as possible.
Slight changes in wing position can make a huge difference when shooting birds in flight. I don’t have to “mash the shutter” to get a high number of keepers – I “mash the shutter” to get a larger variety of keepers.
There are many situations where the D7100 would meet all of my needs – it is an outstanding camera – I just want something different that covers all of my needs.
The more I think about all of Nikons recent releases and the talk in the canon world the more I think that a direct replacement for the D300s is likely. So, I will hold onto my money and wait bit longer.
Point taken, if you know you know and you shouldn't have to settle.
I should say despite by opinion about Nikon's intent to release this camera (which is a guess) - I of course hope that all those calling for this camera get what they want so i'll stop the doom and gloom and just keep my fingers crossed that Nikon comes through.
Above all we all just want to be happy Nikon shooters, many of us having invested years and thousands of dollars into their system.
>I see the 7D and the d300s as close to equals – each one has >strength over the other. Both are overdue for replacment. ..... > >There are many situations where the D7100 would meet all of my >needs – it is an outstanding camera – I just want something >different that covers all of my needs. > >The more I think about all of Nikons recent releases and the >talk in the canon world the more I think that a direct >replacement for the D300s is likely. So, I will hold onto my >money and wait bit longer.
>Have you taken photos with >the D7100 already? If not, how does one make this >determination?
No, I haven't. But the announcement by Nikon, and the specifications list for the camera, says it uses the Multi-CAM 3500DX autofocusing system. That's the same AF system used in the D300, and its FX variant is used in the D3, D4 and D800 cameras. So we know the characteristics of that system pretty thoroughly and can say with confidence that it's better than the Multi-CAM 4800 system that's in the D7000. Plus, Nikon is touting the D7100 AF system as being comparable to that of their top-of-the-line D4, which only increases my confidence that it will be better than the D7000's AF system.
Of course, exact comparisons will have to wait for actual cameras. Even though the D7100 uses a well-known AF system, Nikon tends to tweak the system a bit for each camera.
Next week is Focus on Imaging 2013 at Birmingham, the UK's largest photo show. I attach a link showing two images taken with a D7100, each can be viewed in high definition. I must admit, they don't particularly excite me as perhaps they are not the best subjects to demonstrate the cameras ability. That's only my opinion of course.
>>It's actually a 1.3X crop of a 1.5X crop sensor. That amounts, >>approximately, to a 2X crop but at only 13.5mp (which is lower >>resolution than the 16mp D7000).
>I don't know where you are getting your figures, but that's simply not >correct. The 1.3 crop of the D7100 gives an exact 2x overall crop >resulting in a 4,800 x 3,200 pixel image, which by my calculation is >15.36 MP. Compared to the D7000 full resolution of 4,928 x 3,264 >pixels, I consider that a negligible difference.
>As has been said in other contexts, you are welcome to your own >opinions, but you are not welcome to your own facts.
Be nice. The calculation I quoted comes from the Nikon Canada and Nikon USA and the Nikon Imaging technical specification pages. Direct quote. Not made up. Perhaps Nikon Canada, Nikon USA and Nikon Japan have incorrectly calculated that part of the spec - I didn't check - I merely quoted the company's own specs.
While the 1.5 crop factor of the DX sensor is a proportional crop (the DX sensor has the same aspect ratio as the FX sensor), the 1.3 crop factor is not - you get a 16 : 9 image. That probably explains why self-made calculations are off. I'd go with the figures from Nikon's websites.
>While the 1.5 crop factor of the DX sensor is a proportional >crop (the DX sensor has the same aspect ratio as the FX >sensor), the 1.3 crop factor is not - you get a 16 : 9 image.
I don't think so - according to the Nikon UK website, the pixel dimensions of the 1.3x crop area are 4800 x 3200. That's still a 3 : 2 aspect ratio, just like FX and DX. The dimensions of crop images taken in movie mode are 4800 x 2696, which is (almost) 16 : 9.
Sat 23-Feb-13 12:46 AM | edited Sat 23-Feb-13 12:50 AM by Vlad_IT
>Indeed, I looked at the wrong column (movie instead of >stills). In that case, I really wonder how Nikon calculated >the MP count for this mode: > >4,800 x 3,200 (13.5 MP) > >Multiplying these numbers I get 15.36MP not 13.5MP. Maybe >Nikon also looked in the wrong column.
I thinks it a matter of calculation. it's a digital zoom - i'm sure the real pix count taken into algorithm is more than final 4800x3200 product. but it is a marketing trick, i'm sure.
like in PS, if you want to increase resolution of the image you do it gradually by 20% each time. I think something similar calculation is going insede the camera
>like in PS, if you want to increase resolution of the image >you do it gradually by 20% each time. I think something >similar calculation is going insede the camera.
No, the crop mode is just that - it crops the image, without increasing resolution. The camera simply does not use the outer area of the sensor. The remaining central area is exactly 4800 x 3200 pixels.
Many of us were waiting for an upgrade to the D7000, and now it's here. For me, I'm excited. I can use a more sophisticated AF, and I can use the extra MP's...
I'd have also been as excited for a "D400" if it had been announced, but, as yet, it hasn't.
The D7100 is just a camera... Not perfect, but extremely well specified (for me). It may not have everything a "D400" might have, but the price is yet another Nikon milestone. My D7000 beat the pants off my D200, for a good deal less money...
This time around, I may skip the battery grip, which, with the EN-L15/D7000 longevity, the weight wasn't always worth it (even considering the other options the grip affords).
I'll be curious to see what DXO says when they measure the sensor...
so far i tried a bit of all kind of photography (mostly to get my hands on experience) and not sure what i want to do next. I think macro and wilflife that I like most. for macro and wildlife D7100 is better than D700, for sport? - most likely better - we'll see the AF performance soon. I like to get my hands on college football.
If Nikon removed mirror slap in LV mode (like in D800) - for me alone this feature justifies big part of the pgrade. I also hoping for buffer read speed to be better than on D7000.
But i'll also follow the one rule in my life - never buy electronics right after the release - only after first firmware fix is released - saves a lot of headaches.
Sometimes that rule would be a shame to wait so long to get the benefits that were there from day one. For example the D90 never had a bug fix update. It had one that was optional in that it made files compatible with a new lens distortion correction feature in Capture NX2.Following your rule, a very good camera never would have been purchased. On most cases bug fixes are for problems that occur only when rare combinations of settings are used, which is why it was not discovered with months of testing in the field with professional photographers prior to release. Stan St Petersburg Russia
I'm watching the D7100 situation closely. I currently have 2 D7000s and for the last year have concentrated on wildlife photography. Recently, I've started to do more portrait stuff. If the D7100 delivers on its claims, then I'll seriously consider trading one of my D7000s up for a D7100.
More pixels gives room to crop closer, no AA should result in less need for aggressive sharpening and less emphasis of noise. Of course the extra pixels will allow down sampling a la D800 to give less apparent noise too.
The improvements in AF really intrigue me - the D7000s AF is its Achilles Heel for me when it comes to fast action wildlife shooting. It doesn't track as fast as I'd like it to, so any performance gains here would make it a worthwhile upgrade for me.
I'm excited to hear more of Moose Peterson's impressions of it - his initial comments are very encouraging indeed!
As the forum moderator from another forum commented, Moose Peterson has had a long professional association with Nikon and has been sponsored by them. His photographs appear in Nikon product brochures and other publications.
He is one of a number of professional photographers sponsored by Nikon, and to quote the forum moderator: "It is completely predictable that those photographers always give glowing reviews on every Nikon product."
This is akin to Danika Patrick's endorsement of Peak Motor Oil, I don't especially make buying decisions by these types of reviews.
>But is he wrong? >Each has been the leader in their class.
. . . though it should be noted that Ms. Patrick looks so much better in photos than Moose.
Implicit in Stan's point is the idea that Nikon and its competitors haven't produced a bad camera in too many years to remember.
Whether or not a camera offers some specific function or feature of interest to a particular photographer is no measure of how good a D7100 happens to be. It's only a measure of how useful the camera is to such photographers.
I've personally reviewed well over a hundred cameras over the years. I lost count some time ago. That experience hasn't made me a better photographer, and it hasn't made me a technical authority. But what it has done is help me realize that above the $350 price point the makers have long ago moved their cameras into an image quality standard which essentially leaves the production of a good and interesting photo entirely in the hands of the photographer. The cameras got out of the way many years ago. However enthusiastic Mr. Peterson, HWMNBN, Vincent and a dozen other product evangelists happen to be, and even though I personally think the D7100 is model I can safely skip (except for a corporate client review that is), I doubt it's anything less than a stellar performer.
My view is that the only question that prospective D7100 buyers have to ask is whether or not the purchase will improve their photography. My answer to that question is to ask the photographers a series of other questions. Often after such a Q&A, many of the photographers reach with renewed energy for the cameras they already own.
I've only recently acquired my D7000 during the "Black Friday" sales, and its certainly been an interesting camera with some nice features. In order to become more proficient with the use of the camera, I purchased the very good Nikonians Press book written by Darrell Young ("Mastering the Nikon D7000").
One of the statements that Darrell makes in the book resounds with the perceived necessity of updating a camera with every new iteration:
"With the D7000, digital photography has reached a level of maturity that will allow you to use your camera for years instead of months...Rather than buy a new camera every couple of years, the D7000 gives you what you'll need for many more years of use."
He proceeds to recommend "put our money in new Nikkor lens"
I think Mr. Young has made a very good observation. For those who wish to upgrade to the D7100, more power to them, but I don't think it will be a camera that really provides a significant improvement in most user's photographs (possibly some sport and wildlife photographers would experience an improvement with the 1.3x DX crop mode).
>(possibly >some sport and wildlife photographers would experience an >improvement with the 1.3x DX crop mode).
And the improved AF system as well. Which only goes to show that generalizations about whether a new camera is a significant advance and an upgrade is called for are just that: generalizations. Anyone who has specific needs from their camera would do well to evaluate the new model with those needs in mind rather than relying on generalizations. I admire Darrell. He's an excellent photographer and author. But he doesn't do much action shooting. Birds in flight and sports don't seem to be among his major subjects. So when he makes a statement like, "the D7000 gives you what you'll need for many more years of use," it may well be true for him and for many of his readers. That doesn't make it true for everyone. (And I bet Darrell would be among the first to agree with that.)
“Whether or not a camera offers some specific function or feature of interest to a particular photographer is no measure of how good a D7100 happens to be. It's only a measure of how useful the camera is to such photographers.”
“...even though I personally think the D7100 is model I can safely skip (except for a corporate client review that is), I doubt it's anything less than a stellar performer.”
Nikon has once again produced a class leading product in the D7100.
Sat 23-Feb-13 01:58 PM | edited Sat 23-Feb-13 09:19 PM by Vlad_IT
>Sometimes that rule would be a shame to wait so long to get >the benefits that were there from day one. For example the D90 >never had a bug fix update. It had one that was optional in >that it made files compatible with a new lens distortion >correction feature in Capture NX2.Following your rule, a very >good camera never would have been purchased. >On most cases bug fixes are for problems that occur only when >rare combinations of settings are used, which is why it was >not discovered with months of testing in the field with >professional photographers prior to release. >Stan
Stan, that's one of the reasons i never got D90. LOL
Sat 23-Feb-13 01:23 PM | edited Sat 23-Feb-13 01:26 PM by billD80
>But i'll also follow the one rule in my life - never buy >electronics right after the release - only after first >firmware fix is released - saves a lot of headaches. >
I follow this advise with things like Windows... But I picked up a D7000 from what was likely the first batch, and while I did the firmware update, I hadn't noticed any bugs.
On the other hand, I picked up a zoom lens, just released, and was told by the manufacturer that there was an assembly issue in a number of them (that I assume was worked out in later production).
What amazes me is how these extremely high precision instruments keep being upgraded significantly, at prices cheaper than my Olympus OM4Ti, and probably 98% of the time, they're performing as they should with no worries right out of the box (and probably higher tolerances than before).
I still use the D200 and anxiously am waiting to see the first reviews of the D7100. Wearing glasses will make sure not to over cropped as has been happening while I try to get a tight shot. since having 24 gives me much leeway. Feel sorry for my overloaded hard drives... Ben
I've posted (somewhere in these long threads) that the D7100's 1.3-crop mode produces an exact 2x crop factor. Digging further into the spec pages, I find that's not quite right. The actual crop factor is about 1.92. It's a small difference, but I want to be accurate.
Reference full frame: 36 mm x 24 mm (1x crop factor) D7100 DX mode: 23.5 mm x 15.6 mm (~1.53 crop factor) D7100 1.3-crop mode: 18.8 mm x 12.5 mm (~1.92 crop factor)
Here's some more speculation. (As Stan suggests, what else are we going to do, wait for actual information? Nah!)
Thom Hogan speculates that the D7100 sensor may be the same Toshiba sensor used in the D5200. If so, it will be better than the one in the D7000, but only slightly according to DxOMark. Those who are expecting dramatically better high-ISO performance are likely to be disappointed.
On the other hand, the sensor in the D5200 is the top-rated APS-C sensor tested by DxOMark, so there's that.
Given an increase from 16MP to 24MP, even retaining the D7000's high ISO performance is an achievement in itself. I think we've reached the stage now though where high ISO performance in DX sensors can't be improved much (if any) further....
Certainly not with an dramatic increase in pixels. I would think the real improvement will be in downsized images to 16 or 12 MPs. If those could go toe to toe with FX even to 3200 ISO at comparable sizes I think you have a real achievement.
> >On the other hand, the sensor in the D5200 is the top-rated >APS-C sensor tested by DxOMark, so there's that. >
What amazes me is how DxOMark's results show Nikon's sensors stacking up against things like the Canon 7D. Dynamic range, and overall scores seem to show that whoever the manufacturer is, Nikon has a way of getting incredible results from their sensors that others don't.
Mine is a slightly different take on the D7100. For the last year, I have been using m43 cameras because I now find my D700 too bulky and heavy. It is sitting on my desk, watching me and feeling unloved as I type... I have lately been thinking about DX again as the ideal compromise between IQ (FF) and size (m43). What I realise now, though, is how much I use the swivel screen on my Lumix GH3 for awkward angle pictures. Personally, I wish the D7100 had that feature. Yes, I know the D5xxx series does, but its other functional limitations mean it is not suitable for my uses. I wonder how many other Nikonians would value a swivel screen in the D400 when it finally appears?
I sometimes wonder if a stigma attaches to swivel screen, that being they are the reserve of lower level consumer cameras. This of course would be a daft rational, but Nikon may feel that it is a not desired addition. Olympus use the swivel screen on their pro models, the E3 had and the E5 still does and I believe the user demand came mostly from macro users. I think it's a good idea, but others may differ.
A swivel screen is something that I would probably use occasionally if I had it, but I don't often find myself in a situation where I feel the lack of it. For what I shoot, I'm seldom trying to use the camera at an awkward angle. I use a right-angle adapter on the viewfinder for low-angle shots sometimes. That's not as convenient or as flexible an approach as a swivel screen, but it is at least a partial solution.
I do wonder whether having a swivel screen would degrade weather resistance. That's a fairly big deal to me since I often do extended shooting in inclement weather.
Sun 24-Feb-13 09:00 AM | edited Sun 24-Feb-13 09:01 AM by richardd300
<<I do wonder whether having a swivel screen would degrade weather resistance. That's a fairly big deal to me since I often do extended shooting in inclement weather.>>
Not if properly designed, then yes. The Olympus E5 has arguably the finest weatherproofing of any camera around at its level. If they can put in a sealed swivel screen that is weatherproof, then I'm sure Nikon can
Hi Jon and Richard, I tend to agree about the perception of stigma and 'consumer' cameras mentioned by Richard (above). The GH3 is weatherproofed, with the screen, although probably not to the same level as a D800, for example. I find I use the swivel much more than I had anticipated I would. The ability to hold the camera very low down and also superimpose the horizontal level is quite useful for landscapes etc. As one example, here is a recent picture with the camera handheld about an inch above wet sand and incoming tide. I couldn't do this easily with the right-angle finder or with a 'flat' screen. It is personal preference, and 'horses for courses' but this was a feature I was hoping Nikon would migrate up the model chain to the D7100.
Sun 24-Feb-13 09:13 AM | edited Sun 24-Feb-13 09:13 AM by richardd300
Thanks Bill, this pictures made my morning It just goes to show how getting low doesn't have to be so much of a chore if a swivel screen is available. I would certainly benefit in that I enjoy seascapes where the low perspective can greatly enhance the view.
Nice one and high praise indeed as "management" has just glanced and she said "wow, what a great shot".
Maybe there are many of you who would like this. But I don't need it. I bought a Canon G6 in 2005 which has the swivel screen. At first I used the camera only occaisionally. I was still shooting my Nikon F2 with film. Then I begin to use the G6 for everything (saved a lot of cost and the shots were available quickly). I have used the swivel screen only once that I can remember. I hated it mainly because I don't like "live view". I have a lot of trouble seeing the screen outdoors. I prefer the viewfinder and my shooting does not require moving the camera to odd locations (like over my head, etc.).
I began researching digital extensivily in the autumn of 2010. I bought the Nikon D7000 in March of 2011. Within 2 months I had the F2 cleaned, batteries removed, packed away with silicon gel in an air-tight bag and never looked back. I don't think I would ever use a swivel screen enough to want it and I would miss the convience of having that row of buttons on the side of the screen. I do use the view screen after almost every shot, but only to look at the histogram.
I am looking at upgrading to the D7100. I have a young friend who wants to buy my D7000. I may sell it to him or maybe I can convince the wife to use it. She has adopted the Canon G6 and loves having a small camera that she can look through the viewfinder.
>I briefly had a D5000 and the best part about the swivel >screen for me was the ability to reverse it to protect the >screen itself when the camera was not in use. > >I used the swivel feature occasionally as well and agree it >would have been a nice addition to the D7100 -- or the D400 >if/when it is introduced.
I love the concept of a D400. I love the concept of it even more with a swivel screen.
I've said it before (last year), and I'll say it again, I HIGHLY doubt it will be DX when/if it arrives. My guess is that it will be in a body very similar to the D800, will be FX, will shoot 8fps, will have the D4 focus mechanism, and will sit in the $2500-$3k range.
I noticed in D7100 tech specs on Nikon's web site that the opperating temperature range is listed as "Operating Environment 0–40 °C (+32–104 °F)." I don't see that for any other camera bodies. Am I missing something? Why would that be listed for the D7100? If true, it would surely limit the camera's use. Above freezing only?????
I can't speak about the USA website but here, the Nikon UK website specifies exactly the same limitation of 0-40 degrees C for every Nikon DSLR, whether current or past. Like many others here, I have used my cameras below 0 and occasionally above 40 with no problems.
Just as an aside and to give an example of very fast extreme temperature fluctuations. Last year I took my D700 on a Mediterranean cruise. The cabin was air-conditioned at a continuous 18-20 deg C. On three days in the southern Med the temperature climbed to 40-41 degC. I took my camera out of the cabin to a difference of 20-21 deg C, waited until the inevitable condensation dispersed (about 5 minutes) and left it on my balcony for up to 4-5 hours in the shade. I was photographing dolphins and seabirds and the D700 never missed a beat.
This winter I have taken images for hours at -2 to -5 deg C with my D800, no problems at all.
The temperature range is not for absolute operation range, where it would quit if operated outside that range. The purpose of the temperature rating is so show the range for which the specifications are valid. Noise will be lower in real cold and batteries die sooner but little in the electronics is adversely affected by cold or hear. Lubricants get stiff, ERS of batteries increases, and frame rates might fail to meet spec, nor would 1/8000 second shutter rate be counted on. I camera can survive anything the photographer can but neither one would be a responsive as they are at room temperature. Stan St Petersburg Russia
I work my day job in IT. That number is the operating temperature of nearly all electronic chips out there (other than special, very expensive, extended range ones).
That said, I have used my old D80 and D7000 in -20C weather without problems. As long as you are not outside for long enough for the inside of the camera where the electronics and motors (and lubricants) are to get below 0C, you won't have an issue.
As long as the camera is powered up, there would be some heat being generated in some of the parts, so it should be fine.
If you are ever winter camping, and have no heated place (i.e. a Tent), I'd recommend placing it in some padding and then keeping it close to your body while sleeping, to help keep it warm
Great shot, Bill! One place where I would like a swivel screen, as a sports shooter, is for those high-angle shots of the team huddle and the end-of-game celebrations, where I'm holding the camera above my head as high as possible and pointing it down at the subjects.
16x9 mode? I too would love a swivel screen and had high hopes that Nikon would sprinkle them into all of the Dx line but it's not to be it seems. That said I managed to B#### the one on my A77, which turned every which way but the way I always seemed to try to turn it... Until it did
I spent a summer shooting the D5100 with the articulated screen. Thought I would love it especially when shooting video, but there were several things that I did not like:
1) The screen is so reflective that I could seldom ever see it well enough to frame an image that I'd care to have. Mostly, I saw my face. Not pretty.
2) The other thing, and much more important to me, and I'm sure with a lot of others, especially those yearning for a D400. For the screen to swivel horizontlly, it means that you will have to lose a great deal of controls that are familiar to most pro-sumer shooters. I learned to adapt, sorta. But I bought a D7000 as soon after that summer as possible.
What I would like is a monitor that would swivel only in the vertical. I have a Konica-Minolta A2 (My 2nd digital). Its screen will orient itself upward by 20 degrees and downward by 90 degrees. The up by 20 degrees would be helpful for shooting over crowds or barriers, etc. The 90 degrees downward would be very useful shooting street scenes, and other things like putting the camera on the floor/ground, etc. The big advantage to limiting the swivel to vertical movement is that it doesn't affect any of the familiar Nikon controls.
Why don't those who really want/need a swivel screen, buy a D5200??? I'm glad that I had the experience so that I don't waste my money on an even more expensive camera with a swivel screen (Articulated Monitor).
I have one of the original D300 bodies. I will be traveling to Tanzania and want a light weight smaller body to take and am wondering if this would be a good choice. What do you think? Is there a better option? I like that it is a DX and not full frame as I can' t afford a very long lens and this would give me extra distance on my 300 lens.
Fri 01-Mar-13 05:55 AM | edited Fri 01-Mar-13 05:56 AM by richardd300
<<This new camera has sparked an astonishing amount of interest >>
True indeed. This may be because the camera offers much, but leaves off some important vital ingredients to the serious wildlife and sport shooters. The discussions are very much aligned to threads over on the D300/200/100 forum. I think until a new true semi pro dSLR appears, then these discussions will continue ad infinitum!
This may be because the camera offers much, but >leaves off some important vital ingredients to the serious >wildlife and sport shooters.
I think the buffer is tight, but in shooting wildlife and lots of baseball, I hardly ever use a fast frame rate at all, let alone over an extended period. The things I try to capture happen WAY too fast to rely on frame rate. Other sports though would be different, and the buffer could cramp things up.
But the top shelf AF system added in is a real plus, and to me, the D7000 already is a pro-level build quality DX body.
I think there's a $1700-$1800 price point for the D400 to fit in, and if it arrives, the buffer will be larger for sure.
>Nice shots Bill. My guess is $1800-2400, but most hope you >are right > >Richard
Thanks Richard. On another site, someone is claiming the Dxx and Dxxx streams have been merged, thus no D400. We'll see.
My thought on the $1700. range is in part due to the fact that I'm a cheapskate, and because if the price goes much further north it starts to bump into the D600 (which may be irrelevant for those really wedded to DX, which, as it happens, I am).
On another theme, lenses, I put a post on the third party lenses forum today as I was informed that dear KR has stated that he believes the D7100 will not support the Sigma 105mm macro! Not that I take much notice of KR and my 105mm is the OS version, but I know neither of my Sigma's (50-500mm OS also) are supported on the Nikon V1. For once he could be right. That would be really annoying for me if I were interested in the D7100 and could impact on the D400.
Sigma have told me there is a lens software change to work on a V1 for my 50-500mm OS, but one for the 105mm macro OS is awaited!
Ken's actual comment is "Readers tell me that their Sigma 105 Macros don't work on the D7100." I'm wondering which of Ken's readers is fortunate to already have a D7100 on hand or has had the opportunity to at least try that lens on a D7100. I'm guessing none. There was a pretty well documented problem with that lens on the D7000. In those cases, I believe owners were able to get the lenses upgraded by Sigma to be compatible with the D7000.
>In those cases, I >believe owners were able to get the lenses upgraded by Sigma >to be compatible with the D7000.
This is the history of Sigma lenses. Since Nikon doesn't share the specs for their F-mount lens interface, Sigma and other third-party manufacturers have to reverse engineer it. When Nikon makes changes, that sometimes breaks compatibility. That has happened to Sigma several times over the years, and they have responded by issuing updates for the lenses, once they figure out what new wrinkle Nikon is throwing at them.
Nikon's customers would be better served by Nikon opening the F-mount specs, but don't hold your breath.
>Richard, > >Ken's actual comment is "Readers tell me that their Sigma >105 Macros don't work on the D7100." I'm wondering which >of Ken's readers is fortunate to already have a D7100 on hand >or has had the opportunity to at least try that lens on a >D7100. I'm guessing none.
I think/hope KR was trying to talk about the D7000 (looking at the wider context of the sentiment expressed). Many Sigma lenses needed firmware updates for the D7000 (I had two such items). So, in the wider (and hopefully limited) sense, he's right, compatibility CAN be an issue with 3rd party lenses.
I know that I can send them in for re-chipping, however in my ignorance I never assumed that every time I change my camera I would have to have them re-chipped, or perhaps I don't! That would have been a big issue in me buying Sigma. I have just bought the 105mm f2.8 macro OS and it works a charm with the D800 as does my 50-500mm OS. Neither lenses will work with my Nikon 1 V1 and I wrote to Sigma. They told me they have a re-chip for the 50-500mm OS and will have soon for the 105mm macro OS. So, it seems that as I bought my Sigma 50-500mm OS before the D800 launch that not all Nikon cameras have an issue. However, I can understand why the V1 does, as it was different technology.
It doesn't happen every time. Often it is related to the age of the Sigma product where newer serial numbers are compatible but older ones need an update. In the case of the 105mm, newer models tended not to have a problem with the D7000. Yours is apt to work fine with the D7100, but it is a wait and see. However Sigma is very good about providing the updates. Having to send a lens in is a minor inconvenience IMO considering the quality/price point of the Sigma products and in some cases the unique niche they fill. Nobody makes a lens that fills the same niche as the 50-500. The very large zoom ratio makes it my one camera walk around the woods lens. I'll put up with the upgrade compatibility risk for unique capability that lens offers.
They don't always have the same issue, either. My Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 (non-OS) lens had a problem when the D3 came out. The D3 (and later FX bodies) automatically recognizes a DX lens and switches to DX-crop mode. Unfortunately, Sigma knew nothing about whatever Nikon did to effect this, and the 120-300 switched on DX-crop mode in the D3. Fortunately, that automatic switching can be disabled in the D3 menus, so that's what I did. I've never even sent the 120-300 back for rechipping, although Sigma offers it. (It will probably go back soon, though, as it needs a CLA and I'm thinking of selling it.)
>I think/hope KR was trying to talk about the D7000 (looking at >the wider context of the sentiment expressed).
No, it was in a long post specifically about the D7100. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he forgot for a moment he was talking about the D7100 since he seems to think the cameras are essentially the same. "I love my previous-model Nikon D7000 from 2010. This new Nikon D7100 is the same thing, and even better..." Not going to steal the thread to bash Ken though. It was just another entertaining comment.
Can't say for sure, but from this photo of the D7100, it looks like the AE-L/AF-L might be in a slightly more convenient location than on the D7000. Hadn't noticed that before, but I'd need to get one in my hands to know for sure.
Thu 07-Mar-13 07:15 AM | edited Thu 07-Mar-13 07:18 AM by jules
Don't know if this has been posted, as there are just too many posts now but for a demo of changing the Aperture in Liveview... Kinda annoys me after buying a D600 and using Liveview a lot for shooting Landscapes... Again over to you Nikon...
Thu 07-Mar-13 10:57 AM | edited Thu 07-Mar-13 10:59 AM by swannking
I don't understand the point of being able to change aperture in LV. All it does is darken the screen but has nothing to do with the final exposure. Let say you switch to LV and the image and exposure looks good. Then you increase the f stop and then it gets dark. But it doesn't mean your image is going to be dark because the iso and shutter speed will be changed. Now if changing the shutt speed and iso will,change the LCD image along with A, then i see it can be a big gain. All you do with the ability to change A in LV is to see the change in the DOF which is hard to appreciate anyway when the image gets so dark when you increase the f stop. May be I am missing something.
No problem Charlie, It makes me want both, apples and oranges as they say but both have their Niche and until they finally come up with something that can shoot around 6 or so frames a second and give me that pixel density and great High Iso, then two bodies it is... D600 is closest to what I want for my Landscapes (Brighter Viewfinder, smaller and lighter and shoots faster for handheld HDR etc, than the D800), and strangely I prefer the grip... I'll use a D7100 for critters and Airshows... As soon as I can afford one that is...
Cheers jules... tri-elmar-fudd
Grumpy, Middle Aged, Bad Tempered, Arthritic, Asthmatic, Tinnitus Suffering, Mountain Man... Now with I.B.S!