Robb Mann wrote:
Btw, that never made any sense to me. Why would adding another battery speed up the processing time?

Maybe allows overclocking the CPU and RAM without drop in voltage.

Robb Mann wrote:
Btw, that never made any sense to me. Why would adding another battery speed up the processing time?

PS201 wrote:
Maybe allows overclocking the CPU and RAM without drop in voltage.

...or maybe gives people another incentive to buy their battery grip...

Robb Mann wrote:

Btw, that never made any sense to me. Why would adding another battery speed up the processing time?

Higher voltage would allow the mirror (up/down) to operate faster?

Gary Melton wrote:
...or maybe gives people another incentive to buy their battery grip...

Yeah... I don't know about that.

No saying that you are wrong, its just if that was the case; surely they would offer higher frame rates with all their bodies + battery grip... no?

As far as I can tell no one of their current consumer bodies line up offers increased FPS when using battery grip

I am assuming the higher end bodies have faster, biger RAM and maybe different processors.

As far as I know even if the EXPEED engine it is the same between different bodies the actual hardware can be different. That would explain why some bodies would be able to overclock and others don't.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Higher voltage would allow the mirror (up/down) to operate faster?

I think the problem is more of buffering big files to RAM and then writing them to the memory card than the speed at which the shutter can operate.

A bigger power source maybe able to sustain more operations per second before a capacitor is depleted, but if that was the problem all of their bodies would have faster FPS when paired with a grip.

PS201 wrote:

...No saying that you are wrong, its just if that was the case; surely they would offer higher frame rates with all their bodies + battery grip... no?

As far as I can tell no one of their current consumer bodies line up offers increased FPS when using battery grip...

'Sorry, but I'm not aware of a single battery grip that Nikon offers that DOES NOT give you increased FPS...

Gary Melton wrote:
'Sorry, but I'm not aware of a single battery grip that Nikon offers that DOES NOT give you increased FPS...

Maybe I am missing a treat, I would really appreciate if you can tell me what is the max FPS of my D7000 when paired with a grip

I didn't bother buying a grip because I thought there was not FPS boost by adding one, but if it is I would get one right away.

PS201 wrote:

Maybe I am missing a treat, I would really appreciate if you can tell me what is the max FPS of my D7000 when paired with a grip

I didn't bother buying a grip because I thought there was not FPS boost by adding one, but if it is I would get one right away.

Well, I could have SWORN I had seen documentation that the D7000 FPS rate was faster with the battery grip...but I just did a search and I could not find a RELIABLE SOURCE that said it was faster (not Nikon or dpreview, e.g., but I did find some photography forums that said it was faster with grip...my best guess is that it is NOT faster, since the Nikon site is not saying that it is).

DougBPhoto wrote:
I am not holding much hope for the 1.3 DX crop

Actually I think that is an AMAZING feature.  Slap my 70-300 ED-VR lens on the D7100 and it becomes a 140-600 ED-VR with very effective vibration reduction... HELL YEAH!...

Gary Melton wrote:

Robb Mann wrote:
Btw, that never made any sense to me. Why would adding another battery speed up the processing time?

...or maybe gives people another incentive to buy their battery grip...

Yep. This is the only valid reason I can think of. People are used to battery grips adding FPS on a film camera, where the grip actually provided higer voltage and/or supplemented the film advance motors. On the D700 the higher FPS could have been offered out of the box, but there was a need to differentiate the product compared to the D3, so...

T-D-L wrote:
Merry Christmas Doug:
http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploa … cement.png

There's a glimmer of hope for you yet lol

Cliff Notes for those that don't want to read the letter from Nikon Europe:
Turns out the D7100 IS NOT the replacement for the D300s.  This comes to them from Japan.  The bad news is they don't have any information on any replacement as of yet.

Yes, I saw that last night...   *continues to hope*

Select Models wrote:
And another thing about the D7100's 1.3 crop factor... toss on your 85mm F1.8 prime... and you have a 170mm F1.8 lens... and it's razor sharp... pretty freakin cool...

I don't get what you are saying. I don't use Nikon so I do not know but does the 7100 come with a built in 2x teleconverter?

That would be cool if you can turn that on or off.

Select Models wrote:
And another thing about the D7100's 1.3 crop factor... toss on your 85mm F1.8 prime... and you have a 170mm F1.8 lens... and it's razor sharp... pretty freakin cool...

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is it any different than shooting at the normal sensor size and then cropping it later? What point is there in shooting it pre-cropped when software like lightroom makes that easy to do later, with the added benefit that if you wished you had a wider crop, it's still there? It's not like there would be any difference between the two.

curiosa des yeux wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is it any different than shooting at the normal sensor size and then cropping it later? What point is there in shooting it pre-cropped when software like lightroom makes that easy to do later, with the added benefit that if you wished you had a wider crop, it's still there? It's not like there would be any difference between the two.

The main difference is pixel density. SM math aside you get more pixels then you would if you cropped. You can then of course crop even more.

curiosa des yeux wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is it any different than shooting at the normal sensor size and then cropping it later? What point is there in shooting it pre-cropped when software like lightroom makes that easy to do later, with the added benefit that if you wished you had a wider crop, it's still there? It's not like there would be any difference between the two.

The only difference is that in that particular camera, the additional crop mode raises FPS, otherwise it is pretty much the same as cropping later.

That said, some shooters need to quickly turn their work over to others, and being able to control crop in camera is a control they like to have...   at 24mp (before crop) the mode may be way better than the high-speed crop mode the D2x had.

Personally, I want the camera optimized for the sensor, but if they want to exclude pixels that the photographers know they don't want/don't need, nothing wrong with that.

Now many people say the same about DX vs FX, and tried to compare a D300s to a D3 and claim you get the same image simply by cropping the D3, clearly not true though.

Robb Mann wrote:

Btw, that never made any sense to me. Why would adding another battery speed up the processing time?

I don't think it's the processing.  It's the power draw required to run the shutter faster.

rp_photo wrote:
So far, the D7100 seems to a smart compromise between the 3-digit and the 2 / 4-digit bodies, although I'm still convincing myself that I haven't taken a step back.

What makes me mad about camera's like the D7100 is that if they would simply put the same exact thing into physical bodies they designed even up to 5 years ago, and upped the FPS to the same 8 FPS (with D3 battery) like the D300s/D700... it would be a totally kick-ass body.

As-is, I am finding myself wishing the D7100 had an articulating monitor so I could use it for something I can't do with my pro bodies (such as for ground-level shooting.)

DougBPhoto wrote:

What makes me mad about camera's like the D7100 is that if they would simply put the same exact thing into physical bodies they designed even up to 5 years ago, and upped the FPS to the same 8 FPS (with D3 battery) like the D300s/D700... it would be a totally kick-ass body.

As-is, I am finding myself wishing the D7100 had an articulating monitor so I could use it for something I can't do with my pro bodies (such as for ground-level shooting.)

when I had a camera with no articulating LCD I just used a small mirror for the few times I needed ground level perspective.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Thanks for nothing Nikon...


/still waiting for D300s replacement



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

+1
Hopefully by the summer...  when Canon makes their announcement  for their 7D replacement   ; )

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
when I had a camera with no articulating LCD I just used a small mirror for the few times I needed ground level perspective.

I was reaching trying to find SOME reason to rationalize the camera for me.

No matter how much I wish, it is like Nikon just can't get it right 

rp_photo wrote:
Who else has one or is waiting for arrival?

I'm waiting for Nikon to announce the $200 D7100 rebate with $300 off the new 80-400 lens, then I'll buy. Ive played with a D7000 for a while and was impressed with it.

Robb Mann wrote:

I'm waiting for Nikon to announce the $200 D7100 rebate with $300 off the new 80-400 lens, then I'll buy.

I like the way your mind is working.

Sadly, I think we will see a discount on the body before the lens.

Select Models wrote:
So no optical low pass filter (a first time ever feature in the Nikon DX lineup, for supersharp images)... 24 megapixels... 51 point auto focus... 1/250 flash sync... 7 frames per second... 2 SD card slots... 1/8000 max shutter... magnesium alloy body... a deeper handgrip for better holding stability... new 'I' button for maximum control access... U1 and U2 programmable exposure modes... built-in single shot HDR... and ALL THIS for less than $1200!

WOW... Nikon pulled out the stops on makin the D7100 a serious photographic weapon...

it is cute how easily satisfied you are

Hopefully a Canon 7D Mark II will get Nikon to really pull out the stops, and pull their head out of their butt and give a real professional DX for sports and wildlife.

DougBPhoto wrote:

it is cute how easily satisfied you are

Hopefully a Canon 7D Mark II will get Nikon to really pull out the stops, and pull their head out of their butt and give a real professional DX for sports and wildlife.

Only if Canon can fix the banding issue and increase DR.  Also, the 7DII would have to be the same price as D7100 for Nikon to put out a D300s replacement.

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:

Only if Canon can fix the banding issue and increase DR.  Also, the 7DII would have to be the same price as D7100 for Nikon to put out a D300s replacement.

I don't know the price point, but what is described for the 7D II makes the D7100 look like a bad joke.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=886009

Select Models wrote:
So no optical low pass filter (a first time ever feature in the Nikon DX lineup, for supersharp images)... 24 megapixels... 51 point auto focus... 1/250 flash sync... 7 frames per second... 2 SD card slots... 1/8000 max shutter... magnesium alloy body... a deeper handgrip for better holding stability... new 'I' button for maximum control access... U1 and U2 programmable exposure modes... built-in single shot HDR... and ALL THIS for less than $1200!

WOW... Nikon pulled out the stops on makin the D7100 a serious photographic weapon...

DougBPhoto wrote:
it is cute how easily satisfied you are

Hopefully a Canon 7D Mark II will get Nikon to really pull out the stops, and pull their head out of their butt and give a real professional DX for sports and wildlife.

Actually quite satisfied... since my current DX camera is the D5100 (also have a D600)... which is still no slouch... but the D7100 kicks it's tail on so many levels.  Until it hits the shelf... your fictional 7D Mark2 is just a dream... and reality trumps dreams everyday...

DougBPhoto wrote:
Thanks for nothing Nikon...


/still waiting for D300s replacement



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

+1  (!!!!!!!!!! Y'know?!?!?!?!?!)

Dan K Photography wrote:
I don't get what you are saying. I don't use Nikon so I do not know but does the 7100 come with a built in 2x teleconverter?

That would be cool if you can turn that on or off.

Dan, sorry if no one replied to this.

No, there is no optical tele-converter.

Basically, Nikon full-frame (FX) has no crop factor, but there are crop factor modes, such as a D800 can be put into 24x16 DX mode and get the 1.5x  "effect".

The D7100 (and all Nikon's DX bodies) starts at that 24x16 DX sensor area giving the 1.5x effect, but the D7100 has a further crop option that they are calling 1.3x... but for comparison purposes it is easier to understand saying it is going from 1.5x (compared to FX) to 2x (compared to FX).

So, yeah, you can move from the "normal dx" 1.5x to crop dx of 2x.... I'm not sure how good that will look/work though, as the D2x had such a "high speed crop mode" (IIRC) and I was never very impressed with the quality in that mode.

I am wondering about this body more now though, due to that 2x crop mode which also bumps it to 7fps...

ACPhotography wrote:
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....

Sadly (because of all my rants about a "D400 coming" in 2012, I must agree with this wholly & completely. I'll even postulate that Nikon may be creating a divide between the two sensor-sizes altogether, where crop-sensor Nikons may in the future be designed only for hobbyists and/or semi-professional shooters, and Full Frame bodies for the different types of professional photography. With an entry-level FF body, for those from Group A (AKA Group DX ) who want more or would like to explore FF Nikon photography for about 2 grand. You've got their flagship, the D4 - with it's high fps shooting-speed, high-high ISO performance and all those other bells & whistles. You've got the D800, the industry-leader in print-sized shooting (36.3 megashnitzels) with an astounding ISO ceiling well-over ISO 2800! At one point, the D300s was cutting-edge and more than professionally-viable - in spite of it's having the IQ of any cropper and an ISO ceiling (tested by dXo & others) of roughly 845 (?). Back in the day, I had a 486 with an AMD chip with 40 MB of memory that smoked Pentium 75's. Next, I got a Pentium 75 and over-clocked it to 133 meg (Pentium 133 equiv). 2 years ago, I shot with a D90 and rocked-out in the nightclubs....so long as I rarely needed to print anything. Times change. Just cuz Nikon *used to make a DX body that was dirt-cheap and commercially-viable don't mean they always will. Pony-up, or take what you're given at the sales counter

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

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. Anyone who questions the weight of my opinion(s) is free to validate my words based upon their review of my work – which may/may not be supportive.

D90; Winter 2011+:

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
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

Yes he has:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7100.htm

I love mine BTW with the 1.8 35mm

Select Models wrote:
Actually quite satisfied... since my current DX camera is the D5100 (also have a D600)... which is still no slouch... but the D7100 kicks it's tail on so many levels.  Until it hits the shelf... your fictional 7D Mark2 is just a dream... and reality trumps dreams everyday...

Yep... close to a year's gone by... still no sign of it... not even a rumor...