JustUs Foto wrote:
LOVE mine

What did you upgrade from?

What specifically do you love about it?

Gary Melton wrote:
I did a search of the forums and was amazed to find that there has only been ONE forum thread EVER (on Model Mayhem anyway) specifically about the Nikon D7100.  AND - it was started BEFORE the camera was released...AND has fairly close to 0 comments from actual users of the camera.

So - it's been available for purchase for almost a month now...comments from people who have ACTUALLY used one?

I'd especially be interested in hearing from people who have used both the D7000 and the D7100.

'Just a little better than a D7000, or a pretty big leap forward?

I moved from the D7000 to D7100, and glad that I did.  The resolution increase is nice and noticeable (not just a theoretical advantage).  I haven't run into any moire, even though I shoot woven fabrics almost exclusively.  I no doubt will, but that's just a fact of life using a Bayer sensor.

There are a number of other features that really have improved the user experience and image quality for me.  Tweak-able minimum shutter speeds for auto ISO (great for spring-time location work under highly variable skies), addition of a white-dot in the LCD screen (noticeable improvement in the accuracy of image preview-review), higher video frame-rates, audio "meter" in the LCD and audio output for headphones, and a number of minor improvement that haven't seemed to make any highly noticeable difference to my shooting (additional focus points, crop mode, newer processor).

I know that common knowledge says that a "pro" will "want/need to shoot full-frame".  However, not every pro needs or wants access to the small handful of attributes of an image shot at 24x36mm as opposed to 16x24mm.  What I shoot generally is printed at 8 1/2 x 11" @ 300dpi (our full page standard trim book format).  I virtually never shoot wide open, generally between 5.6 and 11.  I've ran tests (Canon 5d MkII vs 7D) at apertures to yield "equivalent DOF" , put them into a book on adjacent pages, and had to go back and find my notes to see which image came from which camera.

If a DX format camera works for what you shoot, I don't think you'll be disappointed with the D7100.  At least until the D7200 is released!  8-)

still-photography wrote:
...I know that common knowledge says that a "pro" will "want/need to shoot full-frame"...

Like the old saying "age is just a number", "full frame is just a size".

I'm sure most DX cameras released in the last two years are capable of more quality, etc. than FX cameras of five years ago.

Gary Melton wrote:
I'm sure most DX cameras released in the last two years are capable of more quality, etc. than FX cameras of five years ago.

There is no doubt about that.

Gary Melton wrote:
Like the old saying "age is just a number", "full frame is just a size".

In general, age also means experience. The same goes to the full frame

Gary Melton wrote:
I'm sure most DX cameras released in the last two years are capable of more quality, etc. than FX cameras of five years ago.

Not really true.  In 2007 Nikon released the D3 followed up by the D700 in 2008.  Both these cameras shoot iso 6400 clean enough for most people including me.  Point me to a DX camera that shoots iso 6400 as clean as these cameras.

Gary Melton wrote:
I'm sure most DX cameras released in the last two years are capable of more quality, etc. than FX cameras of five years ago.

Studio Still wrote:
Not really true.  In 2007 Nikon released the D3 followed up by the D700 in 2008.  Both these cameras shoot iso 6400 clean enough for most people including me.  Point me to a DX camera that shoots iso 6400 as clean as these cameras.

Hmmmm, I was never happy with either the D3 or D700 at ISO 6400.   To me, it was great up to ISO 1600 and passable at ISO 3200.  ISO 3200 had too much noise for me for enlargements.  That was corrected in the D3s. 

I suspect that the D7100 is very close to what the D3/D700 were/are.  I agree that it won't best them, although it will best the original 5D. 

I don't think Gary is saying that the APS-C sensor has, or ever will, surpass full frame.  But it is, most definitely true that technology improves.  The D7100 is way ahead of the D300 and they are both APS-C.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

Gary Melton wrote:
I'm sure most DX cameras released in the last two years are capable of more quality, etc. than FX cameras of five years ago.

Hmmmm, I was never happy with either the D3 or D700 at ISO 6400.   To me, it was great up to ISO 1600 and passable at ISO 3200.  ISO 3200 had too much noise for me for enlargements.  That was corrected in the D3s. 

I suspect that the D7100 is very close to what the D3/D700 were/are.  I agree that it won't best them, although it will best the original 5D. 

I don't think Gary is saying that the APS-C sensor has, or ever will, surpass full frame.  But it is, most definitely true that technology improves.  The D7100 is way ahead of the D300 and they are both APS-C.

If you are unhappy with iso6400 out of a D3 don't look at it from a D7100, it might make you cry.

You don't have to "suspect" that a D7100's iso performance is close to what a D3 is, there are plenty of comparison websites around.  Have a look for yourself.  You will change your mind.

Those of us who were buying cameras through the early part of this century got used to rapid image evolution, 3 year old cameras being "old technology".  Its no longer the case, physics has caught up.  Many believe that the best iso performer to date was the D3s.  Old technology.

GreatMomentsPhotography wrote:
ISO won't mean much if your into flash photography. I can definately say the these prosumer bodies cannot compare to a pro camera body like the D300 or D700. Once I got hold of the smaller cameras I never wanted to shoot for longer periods of time and the big lenses balances better on a pro body too. I had a D7000 for a few weeks and didn't not like the outcome- the auto WB produces a yellow cast on the pictures and its harder to get a focused picture. I will be going to the store to try out the D7100 and see if its the same outcome.

According to the dpreview now out on the Nikon D7100:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100

the D7100 has:

- the AF of the D4

- the weather sealing of the D300s

- the auto ISO program of the D800


(and these are all verifiable on Nikon website, from product information and press release for the D7100)

GPS Studio Services wrote:

Hmmmm, I was never happy with either the D3 or D700 at ISO 6400.   To me, it was great up to ISO 1600 and passable at ISO 3200.  ISO 3200 had too much noise for me for enlargements.  That was corrected in the D3s. 

I suspect that the D7100 is very close to what the D3/D700 were/are.  I agree that it won't best them, although it will best the original 5D. 

I don't think Gary is saying that the APS-C sensor has, or ever will, surpass full frame.  But it is, most definitely true that technology improves.  The D7100 is way ahead of the D300 and they are both APS-C.

Studio Still wrote:
If you are unhappy with iso6400 out of a D3 don't look at it from a D7100, it might make you cry.

You don't have to "suspect" that a D7100's iso performance is close to what a D3 is, there are plenty of comparison websites around.  Have a look for yourself.  You will change your mind.

Those of us who were buying cameras through the early part of this century got used to rapid image evolution, 3 year old cameras being "old technology".  Its no longer the case, physics has caught up.  Many believe that the best iso performer to date was the D3s.  Old technology.

You are sensitive ... I am not criticizing the D3.  It is a great camera, but it is old technology now.  My response was to the other poster's comment that technology is improving.  The D7100 sensor is way ahead of the technology in either my D300s or your D3.  It is clearly better than the D300s.  It hasn't reached the point of low noise of the D3, but it has come very close in color depth and dynamic range.  It also has very acceptable low light performance.  I don't like ISO 6400 on either camera.  I agree with you, the D3 is better at that range.  The point though is that the newer APS-C sensors have closed the gap on what was revolutionary in full frame 4-5 years ago.  As compared to a 5D III, a D4, a1D X or a D800, the D7100 has a long way to go.

I have been buying cameras for a lot longer than the 21st century.  My career started in 1971.  I have seen a lot of technology over the years.  I think your analogy was wrong.  When digital first came out, the changes in cameras came fast and furious.  You were almost forced to buy a new camera often.  I agree with you at that.

Where I disagree with you now is that I don't think the improvements have slowed  down.   The D800 is a great example.  The anecdotal belief, for years was, as you increased pixel density, noise would have to increase.  The D800 showed that wasn't necessarily true.

To me, what happened was that, when we reached the generation of the Canon 5D II and the Nikon D3 / D700, cameras reached a point where they had usability legs.  improvements to technology hadn't slowed down, but they were less dramatic in terms of usability.  A pro can still take great images with a D3, but that doesn't mean that the D4 isn't better.

To me, it is no different than film cameras.  I shot with the same, Pentax LX system for 20 years.  The only thing that got me to change was that my eyes got t to the point where I needed autofocus.   In terms of more contemporary cameras, the Nikon F4 was a great system for its day.  When the F5 came out, it was, undoubtedly better.  That didn't make the F4 bad.  It was still capable of doing everything it could when it was new.

The same is true of cameras today.  A pro with a D3 has a great piece of equipment.  He may well be able to skip a couple of generations.  That doesn't mean that the D4 isn't better.  We need our industry to stabilize so that a camera will last 5-10 years.  Our glass does. We need the bodies to so that the economics will work.  Digital camera bodies are already expensive.

Robb's comments were not meant to be offensive.   Technology improvements come to both APS-C and full frame.  The D7100 is several generations newer than the D3.  That doesn't diminish the D3 in any way. It does mean that the D7100 has closed the gap in a lot of areas.

Good shooting to you.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
We need our industry to stabilize so that a camera will last 5-10 years.  Our glass does.

True that.  IMHO... the best thing to do is purchase a camera with the most impressive sensor technology currently available... included within a body that's ergonomically designed and durable enough to last.  In the FX format, that's why the D600 was 'a no brainer' for me.  The D7100 is looking like that camera choice in the DX format...

Select Models wrote:

True that.  IMHO... the best thing to do is purchase a camera with the most impressive sensor technology currently available... included within a body that's ergonomically designed and durable enough to last.

Wouldn't that be the D4 or D800 rather than the D600?

Biggs Photography wrote:
Wouldn't that be the D4 or D800 rather than the D600?

Nope... boogy on over to DXOMark.com and do a 'sensor comparison' between all 3 cameras (D4/D800/D600) and you'll see which one came out on top.  DPReview also gave the D600 'the gold award' one of the highest ratings ever recorded on the site.  The D800 and D600 are pretty much 'neck and neck' over at DXOMark, with the D600 beating D800 in low noise at almost $1000 less in price.  The D600 is hands down the best 'bang for the buck' FX camera in the Nikon camp...

DougBPhoto wrote:
I'd have thought this thread would be generating a lot more traffic.

Is the demand for the D7100 really so weak that so few people around there have bought one?

I'm still wanting to hear some real world experience with this body.

Edit:   Wow, a buffer of only 9 frames for the most compressed NEF...   GLAD I read that, sadly this camera is now totally worthless for my needs.

I've been wondering about the lack of discussion as well. Perhaps other new owners are facing the same backlog situation I am in which they have only recently been able edit images from it and wish to judge only after they've done so.

So far the frame rate hasn't been an issue for me with this body or the D300, D80, and D50 before it.

rp_photo wrote:

I've been wondering about the lack of discussion as well. Perhaps other new owners are facing the same backlog situation I am in which they have only recently been able edit images from it and wish to judge only after they've done so.

So far the frame rate hasn't been an issue for me with this body or the D300, D80, and D50 before it.

I shoot more than just models, and for some of my sports stuff I prefer DX to FX with some of my longer lenses, and in much of what I do, burst rate/buffer size is crucial... I had originally concentrated on FPS but neglected to consider buffer size which is also VERY important, and 9 raw shots before a full buffer is WAY SMALL for me.

It appears I need to keep waiting for a body from Nikon that may never come.

-fpc- wrote:
the D800 is overkill

Totally agree. I see no need for FF other than being forced over to due to lack of DX options.

rp_photo wrote:
Totally agree. I see no need for FF other than being forced over to due to lack of DX options.

That is exactly what I'm finding... it appears that right now, due to the D300s being so out-dated according to today's standards, the D800 is Nikon's only professional-grade DX body on the market.

IF they had an option for the D800 to be faster FPS and lightly larger buffer, OMG.

DougBPhoto wrote:
I'd have thought this thread would be generating a lot more traffic.

Is the demand for the D7100 really so weak that so few people around there have bought one?

I'm still wanting to hear some real world experience with this body...

Yes - this has really surprised me as well.  Based on specs/features for this camera (and initial pro reviews), it appears to be a fairly big upgrade.  (It also appears that it might very well be one of the very last "prosumer" level DX cameras we see released.)

I wonder - are we all FINALLY getting tired of constantly upgrading our cameras?

Studio Still wrote:
Not really true.  In 2007 Nikon released the D3 followed up by the D700 in 2008.  Both these cameras shoot iso 6400 clean enough for most people including me.  Point me to a DX camera that shoots iso 6400 as clean as these cameras.

+1

Took this a coupla months ago with *my D3, converted in LR3. No retouching, no tweaking.....just my preset applied, converted to a web-sized jpeg (yes, I shoot concerts in low-light RAW too especially, so they stay at a higher bit-depth and have less noise):

Oh....ISO 10,000.........