 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
jk
|
Finally we have a new DX camera. It is the D7000 replacement and is called the D7100. http://nikonrumors.com/2013/02/20/nikon-d7100-announcement.aspx/ http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/pdf/d7100_8p.pdf |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
pretty good spec jk ,been reading it up for the last half hour including the dp review ,the only negative point at the moment is the price ,but that usually drops fairly quickly as we have seen .love the idea of the 1.3x crop mode .long overdue for us wildlife boys . plus the double lock on the command dial ,one of the most irritating features of the d7000 was the dial moving .suppose i had better start being nicer to the wife now christmas is coming LOL |
|||||||||
Iain
|
It looks good, as blackfox said the 1.3 crop mode is useful. the only thing I haven't been able to find is the buffer capacity. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
neither can me or my lad ,makes it the stumbling block for the moment .if i do move on it wont be till sept time ,so its time to see if a d400 does pop up |
|||||||||
jk
|
Buffer capacity seems to be missing from the Nikon brochure but it may be that they have skipped over it as it depends on the plethora of image sizes. Movie max time is 29mins 59 secs. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
or really just left it out in fear of a bad reaction the buffer is the big decider for wildlife jk .the d7000 is sadly lacking and if the 7100 has the same buffer no matter what else it does it will not be up to the job .I.E i took a burst of approaching swan shots the other week with the d300s and got 21-2 shots 18 of these in focus the last 3 or 4 were to close to focus but it still took the shots .the d7000 would have run out of steam at 7 shots then possibly got a couple at the end ??. so if this is the end of the hundreds series of dx cameras nikon have well and truly shot themselves in the foot  in fact just had a look at the dp reviews forum and there giving it a buffer of 7 shots ,some pundits saying more in 1.3 crop mode .there giving it a real bad slating on there .i suppose its a wait and see job really |
|||||||||
jk
|
No cant find any info on the frame buffer for the D7100 but the D600 and D5200 have 24MP sensors so probably will have a similar buffering capacity (I guess). (D600 = RAW 22 frames, Large JPG 57 frames) (D5200 = RAW 8 frames, Large JPG 35 frames). So on that basis I'd say (D7100 = RAW 15 frames, Large JPG 45 frames) *** NOTICE THIS IS A GUESTIMATE!!!! |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
right actually found it in another review here http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d7100/nikon-d7100A.HTM but if you want a quick digest its at full resolution buffer is 8 shots in 14 bit RAW or 33 shots in J-PEG ,however if you switch to the crop mode this nearly doubles to a buffer of 14 shots RAW or 73 shots J-PEG . my initial thoughts were to throw my arms up in dismay but thinking about it as a wildlife shooter the full resolution is ideal for feeder birds ,static slow moving grounded birds/mammals /macro etc . and the crop mode is ideal for birds in flight and distant fast moving mammals where you need that extra reach and larger bursts .the only drawback i can see is moving from one to the other and if it has U1 and U2 settings ( i think it has ) then its easy to switch quickly ,starting to sound desirable |
|||||||||
jk
|
blackfox wrote: right actually found it in another review here http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d7100/nikon-d7100A.HTMSo it looks like it has the buffer from the D5200. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
possibly but not the sensor .as i said previously sit back ,wait for the gremlins to be sorted and then buy ,so possible sept unless the d400 comes out |
|||||||||
jk
|
Gremlins can be fixed with firmware but they should have it all sorted as 24MP sensor is now used in other cameras. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
yep jk but if you read through the gumph and i have been all day  it clearly states this is a brand new sensor and coupled with the expeed 3 processor .we have all seen the initial reports of oil and dust in the d800 and d600 .let the pros and money boys find any faults then let joe bloggs buy one  |
|||||||||
Iain
|
you would have thought that they would tried to get the buffer up to about the 20 mark. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Iain wrote: you would have thought that they would tried to get the buffer up to about the 20 mark.Yes I agree unless of course there will still be a D400 which will have this!! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Betchya there won't be a higher spec DX body anytime soon? Nikon are heralding the D7100 as the flagship of DX...not the flagship of prosumer DX! |
|||||||||
jk
|
I think that is true. The DX range is a poor cousin for FX but there are advantages for sports and wildlife photographers. The D7000 is good enough for my underwater work and probably also some of my uses on land where I want a smaller lighter camera. The D7100 has some nice new features but until we see the noise at high ISOs, which should be better than the D7000, it is an unknown. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I think that is true. The D7100 has to deliver at least the same as the D300s in terms of focusing performance and shooting speed, in addition to the claimed sensor improvements, to take top DX spot. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
if either of my cameras goes its not gonna be the d300s |
|||||||||
jk
|
blackfox wrote: if either of my cameras goes its not gonna be the d300sI've never been happy with my D300. I dont know why but under difficult conditions it seems to me to 'under perform'. In light of Jeff's comments I thought I would look to see why there seems to be more positive reports about the D300s. http://photographylife.com/nikon-d300-vs-d300s So in reality there is: No AF difference - however I never had a problem with this anyway. Hi ISO performance - I do have an issue here but I guess I was spoilt by the D3 and D700 and also D3S that I use. Lack of video feature - No real issue as I dont use the video feature ever, and LV not very often either. Artificial horizon, a nice to have so once again no problem. Quiet shutter release - I might use this but not often so once again no big deal. Higher fps on D300s (7fps) v. D300 (6fps) - Dont really care!! Difference in the use of the centre button in the selector dial - The D300s is similar to the D3, D700 and the D300 is different more like the prosumer models.! Hmmm.... Well I do prefer the D3 feature. Dual card slots CF and SD available on the D300s. Once again no big deal I have 8GB or 16GB cards in my cameras in the primary slot. I can carry a spare on in a pocket. So it seems that it is really only a high ISO issue I have with the camera and possibly the centre button in the selector dial. This report says there is no difference, except from one fellow who mentions the DPReview report, which I never take much/any notice of anyway as it is a pseudo (and fallacious) Hi ISO test done in a studio. Also another says "Looking at dxomark, the image quality improvements are in real life usage meaningless." So this is confirmed by more in studio tests that there is no real difference. http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WSvd So I guess I return to questioning why I dont like the D300 but love the D700, D3, D3S and D800. I think I remember Eric has said he believes that the D300 and D7000 have similar IQ but with the D7000 maybe having a very slightly better high ISO performance but with different high ISO noise. (Eric please correct me if I am wrong). So is it just a personal preference thing or is it a technique thing ? I cant believe it could be down to one simple feature like the centre button in the selector dial. Or is it on such fine difference that camera preferences hinge. I notice a similar comment made in the D600 thread. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
looking at it in the light of that jonathon ,the specs say it all apart from iso not a big deal of difference ,but the reason i prefer my d300s is not something than can be defined in mere words ,its the feel ,the way it handles,the quality of the finished photos .as i said somewhere earlier on paper the d7000 should outperform it and in certain light situations it does . so why do i pick up the d300s ,don't know ,cant quantify it but it happens . at one point through this dark horrible never ending winter i was keeping the d7000 for use with the 1.7tc and the d300s for use with the 1.4 tc and using both combos with the 300-f4 lens ,but since we have had a few days of decent sun (is that summer over already ??) and switching the 1.7tc to the d300s showed no loss in appreciable quality ,so it looks like this is my summer combo ,the new 7100 will stay on a back burner till sept/oct time to see what reports come in on it . also reading through various forums it seems that with the d7100 nikon japan have not stated this as the flagship dx model at all ,that phrase came from over hype by nikon usa and nikon europe .so perhaps we might yet see another high end dx model .as with the burst capacity it all seems to stem from one comment on one write up .so lets play the waiting game on this |
|||||||||
jk
|
I just went out to do some quick shots with the D300. The central button on the selector switch does do the zoom function just like the D700, D3, D3S, etc. I have D300 with v1.10 firmware. So it must be some other factor! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I know what Jeff means about the feel. I don't warm to handling the D7000 in the same way I did the D300 and even more so the D3. For me it's the balance when you add a decent lens that I notice. It will be interesting to see if the D7100 is only a precursor to a pro DX body. Not putting any money on that bet ....either way. JK I feel the performance of the D300 was overshadowed by the D3. I rarely used my D300. When I did, I also felt less than satisfied with IQ. Now that may have been the infrequent use, making me less tuned in, because it's very clear in the right hands, it's capable of stunning results. Or maybe I had a Friday afternoon version? Maybe, despite the spec, the D300S had some unmentioned tweaks? I did recognise the D300 pedigree and said at the time, you may recall, that I felt it was likely to be a long stayer and questioned if another pro DX model would ever come along. We will have to wait and see if the latter comes to pass. With regard to the ISO. I recall the heated debate I had with Phil comparing D7000 and D300 noise. LOL I felt that in daylight there was a slight top edge advantage (>1600iso) with the D7000. Effectively it was about a stop better at the top end. But in artificial light, the D7000 sensor introduced colour artefacts in the noise that the D300 didn't exhibit. So although the noise may be 1stop better, I felt the purity of the D300 coa**er noise was more pleasing ...and more grain like. The D7000 (maybe due to pixel size) goes more 'digital' in its appearance. Of course if you don't go over 1000iso, I suspect there's little difference. For me the biggest difference between these bodies (apart from the feel -already mentioned) is the speed of response. I haven't quantified it but when I go to shoot with a D300 or D3 it just 'happens'. The D7000 has what I feel is a microsecond decision timeout. :baffled: It remains to be seen if this is sorted in the D7100...and of course whether it follows the D600 geishas only handling.  |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric, Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Does not put me off a D7000 for underwater use or general use. I still use my D300 when I go out wildlife shooting and dont feel that the D3S or D800 will provide the reach I need. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Sounds like it is definitely worth a look... |
|||||||||
richw
|
blackfox wrote:
Thom comments on this, there seems to be a definite difference between what Japan are saying and Nikon USA. Assuming the home (Japan) reports are more likely to be correct it would seem that the DX Flagship is still to come and D7100 is mid range. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
theres a couple of alleged e/mails from nikon europe being toted on nikon rumors today that allude to there still being a d400 in the offing .you never know whether there real or made up but it does at least tie in with what has been said by myself,eric and rich . gut feeling says they might have decided to be this open as a damage limitation exercise as a lot of peeps over the last week have stated they will change to canon if the 7100 is the true top DX model . all exciting init |
|||||||||
jk
|
Well Nikon apparently have the APS-C compact camera coming in a couple of weeks. For me if they announce a D400 between now and June then it alters the whole range and makes the FX and DX ranges balance much better. Remember there is a 36-50MP D4X coming probably in lte 2013 or early 2014. If a D400 comes then it will be 24MP with a bigger buffer than the D7100 and with a 10 pin socket plus all the other stuff from the D300s then it would be very nice. Certainly if the body was similarly sized to the D600 then it would be very good. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote: Well Nikon apparently have the APS-C compact camera coming in a couple of weeks.Not so sure about the last comment.  There is no doubt the D300 feels better in the hand than the D7000...and from whats been said, the D600 also. Whilst I understand your need for compactness, I think I would settle for a D300 weight and size. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
I like the 300s way better and some of it is real, probably some not. The LIVE button use is great, better high ISO noise is very significant. Silent shutter is a joke (one frame silent?) |
|||||||||
jk
|
Body sizes are: (Wide x High x Deep) D7000 132 x 105 x 77mm D7100 136 x 107 x 76mm D70 140 x 111 x 78mm D600 141 x 113 x 82mm D300s 147 x 114 x 74mm D700 147 x 123 x 77mm D800 146 x 123 x 81.5mm D3 160 x 157 x 88mm D4 160 x 157 x 91mm D600 is close to the D300 size except that it is a little less wide but much deeper (front to back), the height is actually less than the D300s which is unusual. For my underwater camera I want a small compact DSLR but that compactness does not need to be in the width as long as it is less than 148mm wide but in the height (less than or equal to 113mm) and depth (less than or equal to 78mm). The FX cameras tend to be deeper due to their larger larger mirror box (I assume) but the D600 nearly gets there but kills me with the extra depth of 4mm over for my needs in an underwater camera. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Body sizes are: (Wide x High x Deep) Interesting. I wouldn't have put the D300 and D70 so close in size or the D600 for that matter. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I've been trying for a few years to find a suitable camera for my underwater setup. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:Interesting. I wouldn't have put the D300 and D70 so close in size or the D600 for that matter. I don't think it's just about the size, I think the contours, weight and 'feel' are possibly a greater factor for normal use than simplistic overall dimensions. That said, I accept for JK's needs they ARE what count, doesn't matter how good the camera is, if it won't fit the UW housing it's useless! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: Yes I realise that....I was merely stating my surprise they were dimensionally so similar. |
|||||||||
jk
|
The D200 and D300 are the same size but just too big fit in my underwater housing. If the D600 had been 78mm deep instead of 82mm then I would have one but I actually need to try one in the housing first before parting with the cash ! But in reality I think the D600 is too good a camera for that and too many pixels. I really want a D7000 as I know that works and I only have small control adjustments to make for it to work in the housing. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
jk wrote:I really want a D7000 as I know that works and I only have small control adjustments to make for it to work in the housing. They will be two a penny soon when the D7100's hit the streets. |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Some how I can't think we all need to go out and get our hands measured. Now all I need a Geisha girl to hold hands with to finish the assignment. I had no idea Gilbert had Geisha girls where he lived. |
|||||||||
richw
|
I really like the weight and size of my D200, a good size for a modern equivalent, once you start to go a lot smaller then I think go the whole way and the Fuji (and my Sony) start to look attractive. I could possibly be tempted by a good D400, but it's unlikely, I think I'll hold off on my next body purchase until the right mirrored camera comes out, feel it won't be long now. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I agree with Robert that for general use it is the contours of the camera rather than its size that make the camera feel right. For me the D3 is perfect, the D800 seems much larger but it is not! The D7000 seems to fit OK as does the D70 but I never used the D70 for long periods. The D700 and D300 as a body alone without a battery pack feels unbalanced. To each his own preference |
|||||||||
Judith
|
I'm hoping the D400 will eventually make an appearance. The size and weight of my D200 are perfect for my hands. I've played with the D7000 but the smaller size meant I was gripping with my fingers rather than wrapping my hand round it. I ended up getting cramp in my hand which is hopeless.  |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Keeping an eye on this but have nothing to add! |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Nice one Graham! |
|||||||||
jk
|
Wish I had one to take with me on my travels but I guess I will have to wait a while to get my hands on one to test. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
If you are stuck for a good body I could always post you a D200?  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:If you are stuck for a good body I could always post you a D200? Thought you were going to say YOU could go. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I had a chance yesterday as I passed through Gatwick to have a play with the D7100 and D600. Both very nice cameras. The D600 is very nice but lacks some of the features of the D800 but for me with the 24MP sensor is a better everyday camera. The D7100 is similar sized to the D600 but is a DX camera. This is what I was I need/want as a D300 replacement. The D7100 might be a possibility but I really do want the D400 which opens up the 10 pin accessories set that I have. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
if a d400 has them if/when it ever comes out ,one of my good flickr contacts has just bought a 7100 so i should get unbiased reports from him ,he had a 7000 previously |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
The D7100 is similar sized to the D600 but is a DX camera. This is what I was I need/want as a D300 replacement. I agree JK I find the D800 with the large lenses a bit much to carry round on holiday. I am quite by tempted by a D7000 now going in UK at very good low prices! PS a late Happy Easter to all! I have been busy filming on the Bluebell Steam Railway just opened into East Grinstead. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote: The D7100 is similar sized to the D600 but is a DX camera. This is what I was I need/want as a D300 replacement.Not convinced with the D7000 responsiveness...seems sluggish to focus compared to D300. Was hoping the D7100 would inherit some D800 performance benefits. I will be delaying any purchase decision till mid Summer....after Ive had a chance to use the Fuji XE1 and D7000 alongside each other on Spring holiday. I know they are lighter, but every time I hold my D200 IR (which I also take with me) it somehow feels better in the hand. I am concerned that in the hunt for less weight we might lose some of the 'given' balance and feel of the DX00 bodies. Spending ANY time thinking about, and compensating for, a camera's differences... is a potential distraction. We shall see. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
having both the d7000 and d300s ,i always reach for the 300s first ,however if the light is bad or i,m doing late evening owls for instance the d7000 compensates by having a decent performance up to a recoverable iso 3200 ..but suffers by slower focussing and tiny buffer ,the d7100 by all accounts is even worse ,probably because of it having to do more work in processing . one of my contacts has the 7100 and the only update from him so far is the crop mode is good news for birders ,but the focussing is jittery |
|||||||||
Eric
|
blackfox wrote:having both the d7000 and d300s ,i always reach for the 300s first ,however if the light is bad or i,m doing late evening owls for instance the d7000 compensates by having a decent performance up to a recoverable iso 3200 ..but suffers by slower focussing and tiny buffer ,the d7100 by all accounts is even worse ,probably because of it having to do more work in processing . Worse on what....buffer or focus speed? Doesnt sound promising. Don't understand how Nikon can bring out bodies with supposedly the same focus module but get different performance from them??? |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
worse on buffer eric ,by quite a bit from what i have seen on you tube ,7 shots in one second then sounds like one a second till full ,certainly a massive let down ,and as i said "quote" my contact said the focus was a bit jittery ,but early days as he was shooting jpeg .. this btw is a guy thats had the d7000 from day one ,has a 300mm f2.8 with it and knows what he's doing :baffled: |
|||||||||
jk
|
Seems like the D7100 would be a great D300 replacement but the buffer item would be a restriction for me. I would need to consider this carefully before a purchase. Maybe I need to wait until end of April and see what happens in the interim on the D400 front. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I too sit on the fence but I do miss my D300 with the 18-200 lens. It looks more and more that we may never get to see a D400, and if we did it could get far too much res for a DX, for me 18MP would be plenty. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I agree that the MP count sweet spot for me is 16MP. The D800 is a little bit too detailed for most occasions. The current crop of cameras from Nikon seem to be coming out with 24MP which is the top end of my range but it makes the image look a bit smoother when you compare D3S, D600, D800 outputs. The D800 is much more finicky to use in low light conditions and the D3S is what I am used to but seems a little too grainy when compared to the D800. Maybe a D600 beckons if the D400 doesnt arrive but I really want a DX sized camera. The D7100 is the right size for travel photography with a 70-300 AFS on it. For the wide stuff I use my XPro1 with (when it comes) 10-24mm or 18-55mm zooms. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I agree that the MP count sweet spot for me is 16MP. There are a couple of points here. I would agree with you that for a longtime 16mp was as far as ANY sensor should go. But I do wonder if with the bar being raised at the top end, this might drag the sweetspot a bit higher? The image quality of the D7000 is very good...it's the responsiveness that lets it down in some situations. The news of the D7100 lacklustre performance is concerning and does make me wonder if Nikon are rooting the performance of these bodies squarely below that of a pro DX. That being the case, I am sure a D400 WILL come along sometime soon. Had the D7100 really outperformed the D7000 I would have been less convinced another DX body was coming anytime soon. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I would definitely agree with that rationale. It seems to me that the D7000/D7100 and fine cameras but are not workhorse or stellar performers that we have come to expect from Nikon professional cameras so Yes I do expect a D400 to come sometime soon. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
just had another update from my friend who has the d7100 ,saying when it nails the shot its amazing ,BUT he is not getting as many keepers as he was with the d7000 ,starting to wonder if its him or the autofocus . as i said before this is a guy who knows the model range well and who's pictures first swayed me to the d7000 |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Jeff, I think there is a danger in seeing the work of others who have a rapport with a particular camera or subject and translating THAT into 'what a great camera'. There is a website somewhere created by a photographer of D200 images. They are wonderful images, truly great, but it was the user who created those great images not the camera. Even I will admit that the D200 has been improved on (slightly) in the years since it was released. For my needs the D200 does all I NEED. The only improvement I am seeking is full frame, I have always felt that DX was a temporary expedient until the sensor technology developed FX at an affordable price. If I do replace the D200 I will be looking to go with FX so that I can use my lenses as they were designed to be used, rather than only using the centre of the image circle. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
and then finding out that the lenses don't perform as well as you thought they did rob,i remember the canon 400mmL f5.6 a super lens in dx mode shoot with it all day long wide open and sharp every time ,but put it on a fx camera and its mundane at best :baffled: |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Ah, but I have selected the very best old Nikkors, Canon lenses are not part of my plan!!! Most of my lenses are fast film non zoom lenses chosen carefully with FX in mind. This has been my strategy since I bought my D1 in 2005. I hope to get a low resolution D3 or D700 when they come down to my price level. (May be some years yet!) They shouldn't be too searching on the flaws in my modest lens collection. |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Robert wrote:Ah, but I have selected the very best old Nikkors, Canon lenses are not part of my plan!!! Solid plan there Robert. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Well it seems that there are a whole heap of us waiting for a 24MP (as that is what all Nikons seem to be these days) DX format camera that is an improvement on the D300S. Until then I will continue with my D300 and the FX cameras I have. I was reading on ByThom who seemed to think that April/May will be the release date for the D400. If not then I continue the wait. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
blackfox wrote: just had another update from my friend who has the d7100 ,saying when it nails the shot its amazing ,BUT he is not getting as many keepers as he was with the d7000 ,starting to wonder if its him or the autofocus .In some ways that doesnt surprise me. All things being equal its a known fact that when you increase the pixel density it requires an improvement in technique to maximise that detail. For me the D1X 6mp to D2X 12mp change resulted in a lot less keepers. Changing to the D3 12mp re-established the previous keeper rate...and some! I feel there there is always a relearning curve that we need to follow when increasing pixels. For me the D7000 is acceptable or rather I have probably learnt to use its higher pixel density. But its the responsiveness that is a step down from the pro bodies that concerns me. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
like most of us i have heard of noise issues with the d7100 ,but my lad went into chester today armed with a film card and took a load of test shots with one as we know the manager of the shop well ,we have both had a play with the RAW files tonight ,and i have to admit whoever made those comments must have been working for canon . heres one of the shots taken across the parades in chester the doorway section is heavily in the shade, yes at 6400 iso there is plenty of noise in the raw file but once noise reduction applied etc and converted to a jpeg , i would be happy to use this .got my brain ticking over now how to afford one . RAW FILE WITH D7100 AT 6400iso Attachment: d7100 at 6400 iso.jpg (Downloaded 33 times) |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
another shot 50% crop taken at 3200 iso Attachment: 3200_50%.jpg (Downloaded 33 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
blackfox wrote:like most of us i have heard of noise issues with the d7100 ,but my lad went into chester today armed with a film card and took a load of test shots with one as we know the manager of the shop well ,we have both had a play with the RAW files tonight ,and i have to admit whoever made those comments must have been working for canon . So... am I right in thinking the performance reservations your friend had, have changed? I got the impression he thought the D7100 was little better than the D7000? |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
i won't be jumping in yet eric ,its my lad who is thinking about one .i have also e/mailed my friend for updates .my d7000 is not my camera of choice these days so it will be have to be a big improvement to make me change anyway .the main thing that will hold me back is the fact that apeture haven't yet made available a RAW decoder update for the 7100 .it can be done in cs6 but thats to complicated for my liking ,although i have it i don't use it often. you have to separate desire thinking as opposed to how much pension thinking these days :-O:-O |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Very true...off to collect car from garage.... New disks, big service, mot....and anything it needed to get said mot. Gulp! |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
CARS!!!! extremely sore point with me at the moment ,thats why i have to think twice before doing anything grrrrrrrrrrrrrr |
|||||||||
jk
|
DPReview have released their review of the D7100. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100 |
|||||||||
jk
|
This part of the review shows the performance of the camera in JPG and RAW modes. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100/12 |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote: This part of the review shows the performance of the camera in JPG and RAW modes.Feeling a bit underwhelmed by the reviews on the D7100 compared to the D7000. Like the D800E it seems the advantage of losing the lowpass filter can only be realised if you use prime or fast lenses. Apparently, and I suppose not surprisingly, you wont see a difference with the kit 18-105 lens. Given that my main use for this camera would be casual holiday shooting, I have no intention of lugging my heavy expensive glass with it. The other use for its extra DX 'reach' advantage, might be wildlife, eventing or motorsport ...but the buffer doesnt seem to be top drawer for these situations. Think I will park any thoughts on upgrading to this body (much to the relief of my bank manager) until I can get my hands on one alongside my D7000 ... when I am back from my hols. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
had a mail from my friend thats bought one this morning ,he took his back to grays of westminster due to focus problems and they gave him a full refund in the week ,he looked at alternatives and then bought another d7100 .stating that he was certain he just had a bad copy .from his shots so far it looks a good one . but goes to show it does happen |
|||||||||
jk
|
I think our expectations are not well managed! This D7100 blows the old D1 out of the water on all specifications except possibly durability. I still have a D1X that I use occasionally and will probably convert to UV use if I can discuss this more with Robert and find out what I need to do. However I really would like my D300 converted to IR use but I want the LifePixel EnhancedIR filter 665nm (Wratten 70 filter on front of the lens) or the Super Color IR filter 590nm (Wratten 29 equivalent on front of lens). My current D70 IR converted camera has a LifePixel Standard IR filter 720nm (Wratten 89B, or Hoya R72 equivalent on front of lens). I can also use my Fuji XPro1 or XE1 with a Hoya R72 filter on the lens and it produces very good results that you can pre-visualise the IR on the back TFT screen if you have the WB set up correctly. This is very seductive except that you need a tripod for the IR work unless you shoot at greater than ISO1600. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I think our expectations are not well managed! We are very much in an optimisation phase. We know what is available in some models and not in others. But suffer from the frustration that we can't get the fit right for our specific needs. The D300 was in many ways a milestone, like the D3. While the D3 has been succeeded admirably, the D300 has not...as well well know. We instinctively feel a D400 would be the ideal and are therefore disappointed, perhaps unfairly, when the D7100 doesn't appear to be an improved D300. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
just heard back from him this one does appear to be far far better ,he has advised me to start saving |
|||||||||
Eric
|
blackfox wrote: just heard back from him this one does appear to be far far better ,he has advised me to start savingB*gger! Thought my wallet was going to be safe till the D400 came along.  |
|||||||||
jk
|
Interesting article on the D600 v. D7100 debate on http://www.bythom.com in his article headed DX v. FX (again) on 23rd April. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote: Interesting article on the D600 v. D7100 debate on http://www.bythom.com in his article headed DX v. FX (again) on 23rd April.Thats a very interesting read. Spookily echoes some of the thoughts I have about new generation cameras..... as I prepare an equipment thin down. The key point for me is that while the quality and performance gap between the DX and FX bodies was obvious in the D3/D300 days...it is no longer the case. Electronic wizardry has closed this gap such that the old maxim ...smaller pixels = higher noise = lower quality....is no longer as valid. Unless you NEED to use ISO 6400 and/or print big. The cheaper DX would seem to be the best option. You can still use FX fast glass to optimise its quality (albeit having to be 1x5 wider to equate to FX). As long as you recognise the need for more precise shooting technique (something we should all aspire to achieve!) then the choice is obvious. But then there is this nebulus 'functionality' of the body to consider. I know that when I pick up the D7000 it will not be as responsive as even my ageing D3. I cant quite put my finger on one fault... its almost like a miniscule hesitation in each stage of the "get ready, focus, frame, fire" sequence that adds up to being sluggish compared to the D3. A bit like a gunslinger...the D3 comes smoothly out of the holster, ****s and fires in one slick action. (not that I shoot like that of course!!!) The D7000, in contrast, 'grabs' the holster leather, blinks at the sun, sees the subject and then fires. Its very close. But I still believe the D3 would win the responsiveness stakes, even if its IQ is now being overtaken. Of course I need to see if the D7100 has now eroded even this functionality gap. |
|||||||||
jk
|
It is interesting. I feel exactly the same about my D3s and my other cameras. The D800 is very good but requires greater concentration of effort. The D300 doesnt really do it for me unless the light is good. The D700, D3 and D3S are so easy to use. The new Fuji XPro1 and XE1 need a different level of effort but are wonderfully light and IQ is just as good as the D3 in studio. |
|||||||||
Judith
|
Eric wrote:blackfox wrote:just heard back from him this one does appear to be far far better ,he has advised me to start savingB*gger! Thought my wallet was going to be safe till the D400 came along. Be strong, Eric, be strong!!! Hopefully the D400 will be here soon(ish) and then you will have a choice. Hopefully, I will be in employment when it finally gets released and can afford to buy one! I was about to look at that DX v FX article that JK posted when I noticed a link to this:  http://www.bythom.com/gal2014s2.pdf I want to go!! And with my new D400. lol |
|||||||||
jk
|
Yes I have had my eye on his trips to Galapagos. Very nice but very expensive ($10000/per person). Cheaper to self arrange then you can stay as long as you like up to the maximum period which I think is three weeks unless you have a work permit. However you wont get to see al the islands he goes to. Do you think that Pirate Judith could get one of the ferries to abscond to Galalpagos? |
|||||||||
Judith
|
I don't think even Pirate Jude could manage to nick a ferry!! lol I hope to be oil rig Jude soon but that doesn't help us either! It would be a fantastic holiday though. |
|||||||||
richw
|
From Thom: "Modern lenses resolve quite well, so let me explain this a bit more theoretically than practically. Imagine a lens that can only resolve lines about 6 microns in size (that would be one photosite wide in a 24mp FX sensor). What happens when you put that lens on a camera that resolves 4 microns in size (the photosite of a 24mp DX sensor)? Right, the lens isn't up to the capabilities of the capture system behind it and you'll be getting a little bit of edge blur as discrete lines spill over into part of an adjacent pixel. Moreover, let's assume that you're handholding and you move the camera 1 micron while shooting your image. In FX we've got a 17% pixel blur, in DX we've got a 25% pixel blur. (Remember, this is all theoretically arbitrary to help you understand the point I'm trying to make; in practice things are much more complicated.) Technically, the FX camera is a more "relaxed" system than the DX camera when it comes to critical sharpness: FX can use lenses with a little less resolution than DX (all else equal), and you can handle the FX body a little more sloppily and get the same results you'd get in DX being more careful. While this may surprise you, this is not really different than the way it was with film. Medium format cameras could get by with lenses that were a little less resolution capable than 35mm cameras. That's not exactly the way people tended to use them, though: most medium format film users were trying to make bigger prints, so it was really the magnification issue that drove most of the 35mm/MF comparisons. As long as you didn't compromise the lens quality/handling in MF more than the extra magnification of 35mm, you were still better off, and if you didn't compromise those things at all, you were far better off." Exactly what Eric has been saying about DX vs FX and technique. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
loks like the real way forward then is fx full frame .so thats d3,d4 d600,d800,d700 .hmmmmm .gonna have to look into this further later this year |
|||||||||
jk
|
I think FX is fine for landscapes and short lens stuff but for long telephoto and sports work we really do need DX. That is why there are so many people waiting for the D400! |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
As time moves on D400 looks as if it may not come at all! |
|||||||||
jk
|
Graham Whistler wrote: As time moves on D400 looks as if it may not come at all!That certainly seems to be the case at present but Nikon has a new product in the wings for announcement in the next couple of months. That said I am very happy to pull the trigger to buy a D7100 as apart from the buffer size it seems to fulfill all my purchase criteria. The 10 pin socket and a bigger buffer that I hoped would come in a D400 may have to be sacrificed. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I know of only one person who has a D7100 here in Spain. I guess that there are more in places like USA, UK and Germany. Or are we really at a point where people have enough camera specification ? The only other explanation is that there is a real economic crisis and nothing is being bought - I dont believe that! |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
the raw update for the d7100 for aperture /mac came through last night ,if anyone does have one . and i,m prepared to be excommunicated ,i bought a canon 1DMKii off my lad yesterday at a extremely good price .not switching brands but i couldn't leave it at what i paid for it  |
|||||||||
Robert
|
I thik you can get an adaptor to fit Nikkor lenses to Canon cameras, that might make it a bit more useful? |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
its the singer not the song rob .like you i like antique cameras  |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |