login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > D7100 previews (some hands-on) are hitting... Search   Reply
12345last
Photographer
bw fotograf
Posts: 209
Plano, Texas, US


Feb 20 13 09:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 37,574
Portland, Oregon, US


Thanks for nothing Nikon...


/still waiting for D300s replacement



Needs more FPS, 10-pin, pc sync... come on you guys.
Feb 20 13 09:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jon Macapodi
Posts: 287
New York, New York, US


DougBPhoto wrote:
Thanks for nothing Nikon...


/still waiting for D300s replacement



Needs more FPS, 10-pin, pc sync... come on you guys.

I just don't see it happening, man. There isn't a price-point left. At least they've put in an upgraded D300s AF module, and an interesting 15 megapixel 1.3 DX crop mode with 7fps.

Feb 20 13 09:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 37,574
Portland, Oregon, US


Jon Macapodi wrote:
I just don't see it happening, man. There isn't a price-point left. At least they've put in an upgraded D300s AF module, and an interesting 15 megapixel 1.3 DX crop mode with 7fps.

I am not holding much hope for the 1.3 DX crop (which they say is 2x of FF).

They had a 2x high-speed crop mode in the D2x, and it was utter crap.

Hurray for D7000 users, they have upgraded AF, but for DX Sports and Wildlife shooters (and those doing DX remotes), we remain SHIT OUT OF LUCK for a good upgrade.... for what, FOUR years?

I don't see them producing the camera either, which is unfortunate as they are continuing to ignore a market segment.

Feb 20 13 09:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Raoul Isidro Images
Posts: 5,977
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


Front

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Nikon-D7100/images/sidebysided7000_front.jpg
Back

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Nikon-D7100/images/sidebysided7000_back.jpg
...kinda weird to see left and right info buttons...

The movie red button jumps to the front... why? banghead

.
Feb 20 13 09:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Steven Bodo
Posts: 453
Seattle, Washington, US


Looks like they're struggling with the same problem as Apple. They used to take leaps in design in order to stay ahead of the competition, and now they find it hard to out do themselves.
Feb 20 13 09:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
T-D-L
Posts: 10,121
Los Angeles, California, US


Well, there's the D300 replacement everyone was complaining about.  Tempting, but I'm tired of DX, probably just save more for the 800 or settle for the 600 if I can test the AF and am happy with it.  Wish it had the AF this 7100 is getting.  Good deal for $1200 if you ask me.
Feb 20 13 09:57 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,664
San Francisco, California, US


Steven Bodo wrote:
Looks like they're struggling with the same problem as Apple. They used to take leaps in design in order to stay ahead of the competition, and now they find it hard to out do themselves.

I don't see where that is coming from.  What they did was merge the D7000 and D300s into a single product.  It seems like a good product to me, but it is a disappointment for those who wanted to see a D300s replacement.

Feb 20 13 10:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DBImagery Toronto
Posts: 333
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


When I kept referring to the "D400" last year I was anticipating (no substantiating reason), this was the one I meant...almost. Needs CF cards, for one. That minor factor aside, this looks like a truly sick camera! If I hadn't bought a lightly-used D700 a week ago to replace my then-backup, I would've gotten *this brand-new for sure!!!

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
DBImagery Toronto (Website)
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site) 

“Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.”
~ Oscar Wilde
Feb 20 13 10:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,338
Dallas, Texas, US


Yep - 'looks like this is the D400 we've all been looking for...except in an undersized body...oh well...
Feb 20 13 10:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
T-D-L
Posts: 10,121
Los Angeles, California, US


Gary Melton wrote:
Yep - 'looks like this is the D400 we've all been looking for...except in an undersized body...oh well...

How much bigger do you want it to be?

D7100: 135 x 106 x 76 mm
D300: 147 x 114 x 74 mm

8mm is not what I would consider a big difference....

Feb 20 13 10:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,338
Dallas, Texas, US


T-D-L wrote:
How much bigger do you want it to be?

D7100: 135 x 106 x 76 mm
D300: 147 x 114 x 74 mm

8mm is not what I would consider a big difference....

I have a D7000 and a D200.  While I love the D7000, I definitely like the size of the D200 much more than the D7000 (fits in my large hands better).

And 8mm is just the difference in one dimension - there's a 12mm difference in another, and 2mm in the last one.

note: if you do the math (hXwXd), the D300 has 14+% more volume than the D7000.

Feb 20 13 10:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
T-D-L
Posts: 10,121
Los Angeles, California, US


Gary Melton wrote:
I have a D7000 and a D200.  While I love the D7000, I definitely like the size of the D200 much more than the D7000 (fits in my large hands better).

And 8mm is just the difference in one dimension - there's a 12mm difference in another, and 2mm in the last one.

note: if you do the math (hXwXd), the D300 has 14+% more volume than the D7000.

*shrug*

I had the D200 as well before switching to the D7000...other than the weight it wasn't that noticeable.  It's not like going from a D200 to a D40, in which case I could understand the disappointment.

To me image quality and performance (most notably AF) are the determining factors of whether a camera is worth it or not.  The jury's out on the buffer apparently (until we get more reviews) on the 7100 but I'm willing to bet the IQ will be improved from that of the 300s, in which case the trade off in small size should be worth it.

Feb 20 13 10:39 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,664
San Francisco, California, US


I definitely notice the difference between the D300s and the D7000.  The D300s feels better in my hands.
Feb 20 13 10:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DOUGLASFOTOS
Posts: 8,023
Los Angeles, California, US


Gary Melton wrote:
Yep - 'looks like this is the D400 we've all been looking for...except in an undersized body...oh well...

Get a Grip! A New Nikon Battery Grip!!! lol


I wonder if Ren Flopwell reviewed it yet. It only has been out 30 minutes!!! lol

Feb 20 13 11:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jon Macapodi
Posts: 287
New York, New York, US


Ouch. That buffer only goes 6 deep for 14-bit Lossless Compressed NEFs. That's the achilles heel right there, on an otherwise solid offering at a great price.

EDIT:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/spec.htm
Feb 20 13 11:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Raoul Isidro Images
Posts: 5,977
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


When you flick the switch to enter Micro 4/3 Mode...

The whole 52 AF Points Array covers the whole screen from edge to edge!

See that smaller rectangle below? That's the 1.3x  M4/3 crop factor!
V
V
V
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Nikon-D7100/images/viewfinderdisplay.jpg

.
Feb 20 13 11:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 37,574
Portland, Oregon, US


T-D-L wrote:
Well, there's the D300 replacement everyone was complaining about.  Tempting, but I'm tired of DX, probably just save more for the 800 or settle for the 600 if I can test the AF and am happy with it.  Wish it had the AF this 7100 is getting.  Good deal for $1200 if you ask me.

NO, that is NOT the D300 replacement people are waiting for.

It may be the D300 replacement that Nikon is making, but it sure as fuck is not a replacement.

Personally, I wonder why the hell Nikon wastes so much money creating new casings to put each new model of camera into, when there was nothing wrong with a bunch of their old ones.

I would be much happier if they would have made the D800 in a D700 body...

and this D7100 camera...  if it was in a D300s body, with 8 fps (even if needing a grip and a D4 battery to get there), we would have something.

As this is, it is NOT the DX camera that DX wildlife and DX sports shooters have been begging to get for 4 years.

Whom ever does the designing and decision making at Nikon needs a series of solid thumps up beside their damn heads.

Feb 20 13 11:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Don Olson Imagery
Posts: 291
Eugene, Oregon, US


Why don't you go there and take their jobs?
Feb 20 13 11:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
T-D-L
Posts: 10,121
Los Angeles, California, US


DougBPhoto wrote:
NO, that is NOT the D300 replacement people are waiting for.

It may be the D300 replacement that Nikon is making, but it sure as fuck is not a replacement.

Personally, I wonder why the hell Nikon wastes so much money creating new casings to put each new model of camera into, when there was nothing wrong with a bunch of their old ones.

I would be much happier if they would have made the D800 in a D700 body...

and this D7100 camera...  if it was in a D300s body, with 8 fps (even if needing a grip and a D4 battery to get there), we would have something.

As this is, it is NOT the DX camera that DX wildlife and DX sports shooters have been begging to get for 4 years.

Whom ever does the designing and decision making at Nikon needs a series of solid thumps up beside their damn heads.

Didn't they do that?  (the D800-D700 body thing)  Haven't held them side by side but from what I remember they were very similar.

And I dunno why everyone is complaining about no D400.  Every site I go to people say "I'd have been happy with a 16mp DX cam in a D300 body with improved high ISO performance"....but I'm guessing none of them have ever heard of crop mode on the D800....16mp, 6fps with battery grip.  Large body.  Improved IQ and high ISO performance.  Seems like a simple enough solution to me. 

ETA:  Let me rephrase that: What purpose is there for Nikon to make a D400 when the D800 in crop mode is more likely than not what we would have gotten?  I mean, when I read all these complaints you start to get the idea that people will never be happy, regardless of what Nikon gives them.  Other than the size (laughable if you really get down to it) and the buffer what's the problem with the D7100?  Other than the price and the FPS (a ghastly 6fps "Oh noes!", we must've forgotten how "slow" cameras were the past couple decades when National Geographic was still putting out pretty darn good photos) what is the problem with a D800 in crop mode, or even a D600 if you need more speed?

Feb 20 13 11:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 37,574
Portland, Oregon, US


T-D-L wrote:
Didn't they do that?  (the D800-D700 body thing)  Haven't held them side by side but from what I remember they were very similar.

And I dunno why everyone is complaining about no D400.  Every site I go to people say "I'd have been happy with a 16mp DX cam in a D300 body with improved high ISO performance"....but I'm guessing none of them have ever heard of crop mode on the D800....16mp, 6fps with battery grip.  Large body.  Improved IQ and high ISO performance.  Seems like a simple enough solution to me.

No, they are not very similar, and I can say that with a great deal of confidence as I've recently done a shitload of high school basketball with both a D800 and D700 around my neck.. using the D800 with an 70-200 f2.8 and the D700 with the 24-70 f2.8.

You probably are not alone in thinking that is a simple enough solution, but having shot sports with a D3, D700, D300s, D7000, and now a D800, I've gotten a feel for what works and what does not.

I don't know anyone who shoots sports who feels the D7000 was anything close to adequate, and all they have given us is an updated D7000.

You probably missed some of the biggest requests... full size body (D7000 is not), FPS of a minimum of 7, preferably going to 8 or more (not on the D7000, D7100, or D800), 10-pin remote, PC sync (both lacking on the D7000 and D7100.  The viewfinder on the D700 was far superior too, the D800 is nice, the D7000 I had SUCKED.

"I'd have been happy with a 16mp DX cam in a D300 body with improved high ISO performance"

Well, we STILL have not gotten that, not with the D800 in crop mode, nor with these soccer-mom D7000/D7100 bodies.   They are FAR from a D300/D700, with the FPS offered by either of those bodies with the grip and D3 battery.

For people who think they are similar enough, yeah and some people think McDonalds is food and masturbation is similar enough to be an adequate replacement for sex.

I'm sorry, maybe in an emergency, not nearly good enough.

Feb 20 13 11:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
T-D-L
Posts: 10,121
Los Angeles, California, US


DougBPhoto wrote:

No, they are not very similar, and I can say that with a great deal of confidence as I've recently done a shitload of high school basketball with both a D800 and D700 around my neck.. using the D800 with an 70-200 f2.8 and the D700 with the 24-70 f2.8.

You probably are not alone in thinking that is a simple enough solution, but having shot sports with a D3, D700, D300s, D7000, and now a D800, I've gotten a feel for what works and what does not.

I don't know anyone who shoots sports who feels the D7000 was anything close to adequate, and all they have given us is an updated D7000.

You probably missed some of the biggest requests... full size body (D7000 is not), FPS of a minimum of 7, preferably going to 8 or more (not on the D7000, D7100, or D800), 10-pin remote, PC sync (both lacking on the D7000 and D7100.  The viewfinder on the D700 was far superior too, the D800 is nice, the D7000 I had SUCKED.

"I'd have been happy with a 16mp DX cam in a D300 body with improved high ISO performance"


Well, we STILL have not gotten that, not with the D800 in crop mode, nor with these soccer-mom D7000/D7100 bodies.   They are FAR from a D300/D700, with the FPS offered by either of those bodies with the grip and D3 battery.

For people who think they are similar enough, yeah and some people think McDonalds is food and masturbation is similar enough to be an adequate replacement for sex.

I'm sorry, maybe in an emergency, not nearly good enough.

Not nit-picking, but I'm genuinely curious: how is that not the D800 in crop mode.  Is there something I'm missing?  16mp?  Check.  "Pro" body?  Check.  Improved high ISO?  Check.  Improved DR?  Check.  7fps?  Not quite, 6fps instead.  So is it just the 1fps, or is it the $1k increase in price from the D300 standard, or is it something else entirely? 

Unrelated, but I never really understood the complaints about the D7000 either, I came from a D200 with grip, went to D7000 with grip.  After about a week I was used to the latter.  All metal "pro" body?  Meh.  The D7000 has survived dunks in water, drops on concrete, salt water spray at the beach, blowing sand at the dunes, cold weather, being left in my car for a week in 100+ LA heat....still kicking, even after 265,000 actuations no less.

Feb 21 13 12:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 37,574
Portland, Oregon, US


T-D-L wrote:
ETA:  Let me rephrase that: What purpose is there for Nikon to make a D400 when the D800 in crop mode is more likely than not what we would have gotten?  I mean, when I read all these complaints you start to get the idea that people will never be happy, regardless of what Nikon gives them.  Other than the size (laughable if you really get down to it) and the buffer what's the problem with the D7100?  Other than the price and the FPS (a ghastly 6fps "Oh noes!", we must've forgotten how "slow" cameras were the past couple decades when National Geographic was still putting out pretty darn good photos) what is the problem with a D800 in crop mode, or even a D600 if you need more speed?

That is just it.

With all the advancements that Nikon is bringing to many different areas, why should people who developed a strong appreciation for the D300/D300s/D700 bodies need to accept DECREASED performance, when nearly every other Nikon consumer is receiving improved performance.

Going from the D2x to the D300/D300s brought a step UP in FPS and performance.

Now, D300/D300s users need to take a major step DOWN in FPS to get the increased ISO and IQ that EVERY other Nikon market segment is getting improvements in.

When you shoot sports, you will learn that faster FPS is essential, NOT just for "spray and pray", but also for more carefully timed shooting because you're not having to wait for the camera, and there is no legitimate reason to have to wait.

Faster FPS in sports (and wildlife) shooting has existed for some time for a reason, because if you wait to react, you just missed it, so you need to press the shutter BEFORE you see it...  you may only burst 3 shots, but at 8 or 10 fps you stand a better chance of getting what you want, than at 6 fps.

Don't even get me started on that 1.3 DX crop mode, I suspect that will be as big of a piece of crap as the 2x high-speed crop mode on the D2x was... utter garbage.

However, for those in this thread who don't shoot this sort of work, don't assume to tell the people that DO shoot this stuff what is adequate or good enough for our needs.

For those who think 6 FPS is good enough, some day stop cumming in your sock long enough to experience what 8+ FPS is like when shooting sports.  Once you experienced the real thing, you won't want to go back to your sock (that you think is good enough, or similar enough) and you will understand how ridiculous it is to try to explain something that needs to be experienced in person.

I don't know how else to explain to people that until you experience the difference, you can't really understand or appreciate why it is a difference that really does matter.

Feb 21 13 12:18 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
T-D-L
Posts: 10,121
Los Angeles, California, US


DougBPhoto wrote:
That is just it.

With all the advancements that Nikon is bringing to many different areas, why should people who developed a strong appreciation for the D300/D300s/D700 bodies need to accept DECREASED performance, when nearly every other Nikon consumer is receiving improved performance.

Going from the D2x to the D300/D300s brought a step UP in FPS and performance.

Now, D300/D300s users need to take a major step DOWN in FPS to get the increased ISO and IQ that EVERY other Nikon market segment is getting improvements in.

When you shoot sports, you will learn that faster FPS is essential, NOT just for "spray and pray", but also for more carefully timed shooting because you're not having to wait for the camera, and there is no legitimate reason to have to wait.

Faster FPS in sports (and wildlife) shooting has existed for some time for a reason, because if you wait to react, you just missed it, so you need to press the shutter BEFORE you see it...  you may only burst 3 shots, but at 8 or 10 fps you stand a better chance of getting what you want, than at 6 fps.

Don't even get me started on that 1.3 DX crop mode, I suspect that will be as big of a piece of crap as the 2x high-speed crop mode on the D2x was... utter garbage.

However, for those in this thread who don't shoot this sort of work, don't assume to tell the people that DO shoot this stuff what is adequate or good enough for our needs.

For those who think 6 FPS is good enough, some day stop cumming in your sock long enough to see what 8+ FPS is like when shooting sports, and once you have shot with a real partner, you won't want to go back to your old sock and you will understand how ridiculous it is to try to explain something that needs to be experienced in person.

Hmmm, and here I was trying to be civil and have a discussion hoping to gain insight as to what exactly is the reason for disappointment with a body.  You resort to passive-aggressive insults. 

You're right Dougie, I know nothing about shooting sports.  Haven't done it in a loooong time, and admittedly even then I was just a noob.  BUT, I'm still not going to tell you that you can shoot sports with 6fps....that'd be silly right?  I mean, obviously Sports Illustrated didn't even exist until cameras were capable of 8fps.  Shit, I don't' even know how those posers on the sidelines at the NFL do without something like 20fps.  You should probably write a letter, you're clearly ahead of the curve.  Oh wait....SI did exist before the D300....in fact the D1 at a paltry (by your standards) 4.5fps has graced many a SI photo (google is your friend).  But I bet those guys were just lucky correct?  Probably jerking off into their socks and too stupid to realize they needed a bigger (overcompensating much?), faster camera. 

Examples here:
http://markjrebilas.com/blog/?p=7631
Yeah, there's D3's, and D4's, and even D2h's...but for every one of those there's a D200 (5fps), d2x (5fps), d1 (4.5fps), d1x (3fps).  Perhaps tomorrow when you insult me some more I'll look for the site where I saw more d1x photos from SI a while back.  We can look up the names of those guys and email them and laugh at them for using such paltry equipment! hahahaha 

Tell me, why is it that people with (in your opinion) sub-par equipment have been able to shoot sports, and grace the pages of magazines like SI, Nat. Geo., etc?  I mean, I'm just an idiot with a "cum filled sock" apparently...so maybe you need to spell it out for me.  And also, while we're having this fun little debate, can you explain why "those that DO shoot with partner" on forums (you know...The guys who want to have a d**k measuring contest in the middle of a simple discussion) are not in the same pages?  I mean, granted...I'm a little overwhelmed with all the knowledge you're schooling me with, and granted I'm sure those photographers have upgraded equipment...but considering they were probably at the top of their field shooting major events at the time, with (again, in your opinion) something unacceptably inadequate...why is it that the average hobbyist on MM (between their busy schedule of insulting people on the forums over a gear-debate) can't use something that's better than what they had at the time instead of whining about a mythical unicorn of a camera that most likely will never exist?

Puzzled and holding his sock in anticipation -
T-D-L

Feb 21 13 12:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Steven Bodo
Posts: 453
Seattle, Washington, US


I wonder why so many people think the D7100 is a D300 replacement.
I think it's clearly not.
Feb 21 13 01:39 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 10,008
Baltimore, Maryland, US


Nikon still needs another camera body to fit in between the $1200 D7100 and the $2000 D600. Thats too big a gap, and lots of room for a D9000. The D300s is still in the lineup for $1700, but I cant imagine it is selling well.

The name is weird too. It should have been the D7200 to fit in with the current 'even' camera generation (D4, D800, D600, D5200, D3200).
Feb 21 13 04:00 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,664
San Francisco, California, US


Steven Bodo wrote:
I wonder why so many people think the D7100 is a D300 replacement.
I think it's clearly not.

I suspect there never will be a D300 replacement, per se.  I think the D7100 will be as good as they get.  They probably want to distinguish between the APS-C market and full frame.  A full-sized, D300 would fill a strange place in their product line since the D600 is already a slightly smaller body size than the D300 / D800.

It is called a management / marketing decision, but it probably isn't what we had hoped for.

Feb 21 13 04:03 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 10,008
Baltimore, Maryland, US


Oh, and of course I just ordered a D7000 for work about a month ago. Right before the D5200 was available and before the D7100 announcement. I do feel I am responsible for this.  Guess I should have ordered the D300s?
Feb 21 13 04:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ACPhotography
Posts: 8,606
Plainview, New York, US


Sorry Doug but I think the small bodied pro crop cameras have come to an end...

Nikon has the 7100 listed as their "Flagship DX body" if the D400 comes it will be a smaller D4....
Feb 21 13 06:03 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,270
Glens Falls, New York, US


DougBPhoto wrote:
With all the advancements that Nikon is bringing to many different areas, why should people who developed a strong appreciation for the D300/D300s/D700 bodies need to accept DECREASED performance, when nearly every other Nikon consumer is receiving improved performance.

I developed a strong appreciation for Polariod 'instant' 4x5 negatives, and then they stopped making them.

I fail to see your point, Sir.  Are you suggesting that every manufacturer should continue to produce a product in every segment that they have ever made?  Because I know a lot of people that still really like their laserdiscs.  Shoot, vinyl has made a comeback lately, but good luck finding a surround sound receiver with a phonograph input made in the last ten years - I've been trolling eBay for weeks.  Even stereo receivers come with junk phono preamps unless you spend upwards of $1000, meaning you'll still need a separate preamp for your turntable.

And I would wager that there are a lot more hipster kids worldwide that love their records that there are D300/S shooters that hate the D7100.

So I ask you again, what's your point?  Please word it in a way that isn't about you specifically.

Feb 21 13 06:40 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,338
Dallas, Texas, US


Steven Bodo wrote:
I wonder why so many people think the D7100 is a D300 replacement.
I think it's clearly not.

No one is saying the D7100 is the D300 replacement everyone has been waiting for...it just appears to be the D300 replacement that Nikon is going to give us...ie: there is not really going to be a true D300 replacement!

Feb 21 13 06:45 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


I wonder if it's as good as the D7000 for low light scenarios.
Feb 21 13 06:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L Cowles Photography
Posts: 831
Corona, California, US


I had progressed from D200 to D300 and was waiting for the next camera (D400?) but it wasent coming and my D300 was starting to have lots of problems--been into repair several times--it was time to get a new camera.  I really didn't want to go to the D600 because I would need new lens.  Oveer the Holidays you could get a D7000 body for $899.

My main concern was, would it feel OK in my hand?  I bought one just before Christmas and I was able to get use to the feel after a few shoots.  I have no regrets.  I've tried out the higher ISO settings and the noise is much less than the D300.  I can shoot at 3200 and see very little grain.  With the D300 I couldn't do anything over 800.

It's too bad the 7100 is so little change over the 7000.
Feb 21 13 07:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,338
Dallas, Texas, US


These photographs are not accurate.

The LCD's on both cameras (in these photographs) are the same size...but the D7100 has a 3.2" LCD compared to the D7000's 3.0" LCD...


Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
Front

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Nikon-D7100/images/sidebysided7000_front.jpg
Back

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Nikon-D7100/images/sidebysided7000_back.jpg
...kinda weird to see left and right info buttons...

The movie red button jumps to the front... why? banghead

.

Feb 21 13 08:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Erik Ballew
Posts: 711
Westminster, Colorado, US


Gary Melton wrote:
These photographs are not accurate.

The LCD's on both cameras (in these photographs) are the same size...but the D7100 has a 3.2" LCD compared to the D7000's 3.0" LCD...



The .2 inch is the black frame around the D7000.

Now I've personally never had more than 9 AF points.... And even then I only use the one I select to use.  Is 51 points really that helpful?

Feb 21 13 09:04 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jon Macapodi
Posts: 287
New York, New York, US


Gary Melton wrote:
These photographs are not accurate.

The LCD's on both cameras (in these photographs) are the same size...but the D7100 has a 3.2" LCD compared to the D7000's 3.0" LCD...



Look at the bezel and the lack thereof.

Feb 21 13 09:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,761
Buena Park, California, US


DougBPhoto wrote:
Thanks for nothing Nikon...


/still waiting for D300s replacement



Needs more FPS, 10-pin, pc sync... come on you guys.

MORE FPS?  it's 7!!  Granted, it's 1.3 crop on an APS-C sensor.  DPReview says this makes it about a 2x compared to FOV on 35mm film.

I'm guessing it's the MP processing is too much at 24mp.

Feb 21 13 09:21 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,338
Dallas, Texas, US


Erik Ballew wrote:
...Now I've personally never had more than 9 AF points.... And even then I only use the one I select to use.  Is 51 points really that helpful?

If your subject is always in the center of the frame, then 1 AF point would be enough...but reality is not like that.  Personally, I'd like to see infinite AF points - there have been times when I needed an AF point that wasn't among the 39 in my D7000.  It's never a show-stopper...there are ways around it (like moving the camera to use an existing AF point, setting and holding the focus, then moving the camera back to your intended framing).

When shooting with a tripod - especially when shooting multiple images with the exact same framing (that all need to have the exact same framing) - more AF points is definitely a plus!

Feb 21 13 09:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,761
Buena Park, California, US


Steven Bodo wrote:
Looks like they're struggling with the same problem as Apple. They used to take leaps in design in order to stay ahead of the competition, and now they find it hard to out do themselves.

I think it's because they are releasing cameras at a faster rate than they used to.  The D100 was one of their top of the line cameras forever.  It wasn't hard to smash it with the D200.

The D300 came out with so much good stuff...it's hard to top it with anything more than resolution and video.  They could do it by putting out a D800 with an APS-C sensor.

Feb 21 13 09:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,761
Buena Park, California, US


T-D-L wrote:

How much bigger do you want it to be?

D7100: 135 x 106 x 76 mm
D300: 147 x 114 x 74 mm

8mm is not what I would consider a big difference....

But that difference might be why it doesn't have a sync port and the port for cable remotes.

Feb 21 13 09:28 am  Link  Quote 
12345last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers