I know it is very early days just now, but if anyone has both a D7100 and a D600, I would be very interested in a few shots of the same subjects at the same ISO's (3200 and 6400 would be nice) with high_ISO NR turned off. I had planned to get the D600, but opted for the D7100 because of its more widely spread autofocus detector layout. Even if the D7100 is up to 2 stops worse than the D600, I'll be a happy camper. I have played with a friend's D600 and was very impressed with it at 6400, but its AF detector layout was just too centered for my taste. Thanks to anyone who can provide samples from both cameras.
So here are a couple of links you may find useful for viewing some higher ISO images. No, they're not a direct comparison to a D600, but considering the D600's got a FF sensor, there just isn't any way possible the D7100 is going to match it.
I own a D700 and a D7000, the D7100 is due to be here on Tuesday (looking to sell the 7000). I've been a bit concerned that the ISO performance would be worse than the D7000, but from what I can tell around the web, that doesn't appear to be the case at all.
Thom Hogan seems to think we'll see a 1-stop difference between the D600 & D7100 and I'd consider that pretty good. Translation, the D7100 might be as good as my D700 FF camera. That would be impressive.
Sun 17-Mar-13 04:45 PM | edited Sun 17-Mar-13 04:47 PM by PaintedRays
Okay Brian, I ran a test. These shots were framed similarly, both cameras using the 105mm VR Micro at f/11, auto ISO under mixed window light and incandescent lights. Aperture priority, NR off. You'll know the D600 by the dirty sensor (BTW, the D7100 sensor is very clean after the 1st 100 shots). Tripod used, spot focus. I had to drop the exposure on the D600 to get a similar level of blinkies flashing. The 1st shot will be the D600 each time.
Here is ISO6400...
...And here is ISO3200...
...And here is ISO1600
I'd have included a 100% crop, but I'm not sure how to know when I crop to 100% without it being a guess. I'll send you the jpg's if you want them.
Interestingly, I ran this test twice because in ViewNX2 it says the High ISO NR = ON(LOW). Both cameras were double checked the second time as HIGH ISO NR = OFF. There is a glitch from Nikon on the transfer of the file. Nikon Transfer was used.
Thanks for the ISO 6400 crops. I can see that the D7100 exhibits more and 'coarser' noise than the D600, but not by as much as I expected. On the other hand, I 'think' I see sharper edge definition on the leaves in the D7100 shot. These are very interesting examples. My D7100 is supposed to arrive on Tuesday, so I can't wait to try it out. It will be fun to see how shots from the D7100 at ISO 6400 look with a bit of judicious NR in PP. This ought to be fun!
They are pretty close with the D600 coming in just a bit smoother.
I think it would be difficult see the difference in prints up to 12” x 18” or so. Even with prints as large as 20” x 30” you would probably need to compare prints side by side to be able to tell difference.
>They are pretty close with the D600 coming in just a bit >smoother. > >I think it would be difficult see the difference in prints up >to 12” x 18” or so. Even with prints as large as 20” x 30” you >would probably need to compare prints side by side to be able >to tell difference. >
I see the detail in the D7100 as being sharper, hence a tad more noisiness too. Note the small odd shaped "objects" in the images. They seem more defined in the D7100 image. Is the AA filter on the D600 blurring these?
Would results from a D600 without the AA filter look identical to those from the D7100?
>>> “Note the small odd shaped "objects" in the images. They seem more defined in the D7100 image. Is the AA filter on the D600 blurring these?”
Would results from a D600 without the AA filter look identical to those from the D7100?”
That is an interesting question.
I would think the D7100, capturing a bit more detail, will take noise reduction a little better. With good post processing I would bet that a D7100 image could be made to match the IQ of the D600 at just about any print size.
Mon 18-Mar-13 12:59 AM | edited Mon 18-Mar-13 01:01 AM by jonmcguffin
Well, I'm guessing without question the top one is the D600 and bottom (worse) is the D7100.
That's about the difference I would have expected to see. Frankly, maybe it's a little closer than I originally expected.
Out of curiosity, what aperture/shutter speed/focal length are you using in this? Same for both? The blacks in the bottom image look pretty bad on the jacket. Something I would have expected to see at ISO 12800+
Mon 18-Mar-13 01:34 AM | edited Mon 18-Mar-13 06:23 AM by RRRoger
>Well, I'm guessing without question the top one is the D600 >and bottom (worse) is the D7100. > >That's about the difference I would have expected to see. >Frankly, maybe it's a little closer than I originally >expected. > >Out of curiosity, what aperture/shutter speed/focal length are >you using in this? Same for both? The blacks in the bottom >image look pretty bad on the jacket. Something I would have >expected to see at ISO 12800+
Correct. The top D600 image was at 75mm the other at 185mm They were all shot at f/2.8 and 500s except the D800 at 640s. The images would be much better under normal lighting or if I used flash. Those Sodium or Mercury Vapor lights + the bright background is a tourturous test.
Here is third one from a D800 for comparison ISO 5000 at 70mm o.o EV Auto WB, standard neutral
and a 4th under same lighting with D7000 with same f/2.8 lens 200s at 135mm,ISO5600,and Auto WB
Just watched a Scott Kelby movie from his blog comparing the d7100 to a D4 and using the D7100 with the new 80-400.
Side by side shots are always better when exactly the same subject in exactly the same position is used. The horse and child shots are great but as they are not identical its hard to see a real difference.
Watched the video and as far as I can tell (because without downloading the RAW files and viewing them full screen it can be touch) I agree,with Kelby's assessment not as good as the D4 - but not that far off.
Of course the D4 from what I have seen is not quite as good as the D600 which is very close to the D800, but I prefer the D800's high ISO appearance, especially if you down sample it to 24 MPs it is better than the D600 imo.
I think what has happened is that Nikon has moved the low ISO bar. 6400, which used to be (short of the D3s) where most FX shooters would stop is now probably 12800, maybe even higher. It looks like one could get usable shots out of the D7100 @ 6400 - but I would like to see more shots taken in poor lighting. If that is true it would represent yet another dagger by Nikon in the low light market where they were already better than the competition.
I too watched the video and I'm sold and stoked. I pre-ordered the D7100 about 5-7 mins after it was announced, it's due here from B&H tomorrow. I took it on faith it would be an improvement, across the board, of the D7000.
Was definitely disappointed in the weaker buffer which was one of the main things I wanted to see them improve; it got worse. Next up was ISO performance, I never really feel too comfortable shooing my D7000 at anything above 800. 1600 can work, but I have a kind of mental block above 800. With the increase in MP count, I was just hoping that sensor technology would at least yield similar results and that too wouldn't be a step back but low and behold, it would appear based on the data above, plus Kelby's remarks (I am a big fan of him), that this camera in fact will have superior ISO performance and I may now feel as though I can shoot 3200 with much fear.
I'm SO pleased I put this camera on order. It sounds like it's going to be a fantastic compliment to my D700 and I should be set for camera bodies now until the next generation bodies all roll out. Sweet!
Tue 19-Mar-13 12:57 AM | edited Tue 19-Mar-13 05:33 PM by torwood
I'm pretty much blown away by what I've read and heard so far. I see no distinguishable difference in the flower images - at least in the full photo. Maybe there is a teeny tiny bit of detail loss in the D7100 image, if you are specifically looking for it, but you'd never notice it otherwise. The horse images are the worst possible photographic situation I can imagine, and I think the distance to the back-light is different, so I'm pretty much not judging anything by those.
We'll have to wait for the aggregate of a bunch of tests to be sure, but at first glance, it appears that Nikon has broken another barrier in high ISO DX photography - which is what I expected them to do with a totally new 24MP DX sensor.
I can shoot my D7000 indoors for basketball up to about ISO 4000, and get serviceable images. At 3200 and below, they are more than acceptable for cropping and printing. If what I am seeing is accurate, ISO 6400 is the new ISO 4000 for DX, and that is about all the ISO I could even need. That said, show me some shots at ISO 6400 from a night football game, just to be sure.
Also, everyone I've read seems to think the AF is "blazing" fast, by D7000 standards. That's all good too. I still miss too many shots on my D7000 due to back-focus because the camera and lens can't lock-on and track subjects coming toward the camera fast enough in low light. Can't wait to get one of these for basketball next fall.
I am going to try my SB800 flash unit at the next Horse Show in that Arena. Hopefully it will be powerfull enough to override the lousy lighting. Last time I used it was for portraits and Automatic TTL settings worked well. That is what I will try first at the shots will range from 20 to 120 feet.
I have to say, Roger, that back-lighting is one of the most challenging "sports" backgrounds I have ever seen. It looks like it's on all sides of the pavillion or arena. I would think that flash is a must, but I'd guess that could be an issue with the horses?
I have this issue in one of the gyms I shoot basketball in. There are large expanses of clerestory windows up above on one side. There is no way to properly expose for DR required, and the loss of contrast is horrible. I have just given up. When I have to shoot in that gym, I just make sure I shoot from the side of the court so that the light is at my back.
But, you might not have that option with this venue.
The back lighting is not as bad as the overhead Mercury/Sodium lights. The horses do not even blink when a flash goes off. It is the Trainers and Mom's I am afraid of, as they are always looking for someone to blame their poor performance on.
I accidently shot my first photo with the wimp on camera flash before disabling it. In retrospec it turned out realitively good, especially at only 125s.
Don't have much info yet, but my early trials (D600 v. D7100) at ISO 3200 result in pretty much identical findings as those reported earlier: that the noise on the D7100 images is slightly coarser, but otherwise there is not a whole lot of difference. Some detail variations are noted, but I can't yet be certain of the possibly greater residual sharpness of the D7100. My trial was extremely cursory, and I need to set up a decent experimental model.
Never criticize a man until you walk a mile in his shoes. Then you'll be a mile away and have his shoes!
>Hi, all, > >Don't have much info yet, but my early trials (D600 v. D7100) >at ISO 3200 result in pretty much identical findings as those >reported earlier: that the noise on the D7100 images is >slightly coarser, but otherwise there is not a whole lot of >difference. Some detail variations are noted, but I can't yet >be certain of the possibly greater residual sharpness of the >D7100. My trial was extremely cursory, and I need to set up a >decent experimental model. > >Walter >
Pretty remarkable performance on the DX sensor. Ol mother ship done good it looks like! Couple more lenses to fill out the line and there will be very little to criticize from top to bottom of the line (aside from QC and some of the lens pricing maybe ).