Marty McBride wrote:
The thing that puzzles me about the comments on this camera is the FPS, here and in other threads. I've looked at the people's pages and their work is predominately llama work, where FPS means very little in most cases. If sports photography is your primary line of work, why in the world would you be looking at an $1100 body anyways?  For what it does do, I'd say it's a tremendous camera for the money....the D7000 certainly was.

Totally agree that the D7000 was/is a bargain - (IMHO) it outperforms any bodies under $2,000 released within 2 years of its release.

Marty McBride wrote:
The thing that puzzles me about the comments on this camera is the FPS, here and in other threads. I've looked at the people's pages and their work is predominately model work, where FPS means very little in most cases. If sports photography is your primary line of work, why in the world would you be looking at an $1100 body anyways?  For what it does do, I'd say it's a tremendous camera for the money....the D7000 certainly was.

First off, you're looking at people's work on a model site, so don't be surprised if you see predominantly models.   Some people even purposefully separate their work, go figure.

Secondly, your question of sports photography and why look at an $1,100 body seems to show a total lack of understanding of a lot of shooters.   The issue is not about price, it is about performance.

Please tell me, if not the D7100, what other Nikon DX body is going to be adequate?

The answer is still the D300s, which will be 4 years old in 3 months, while nearly every other Nikon DX body has been replaced/updated TWICE in the same time frame.

Don't assume that everyone shooting sports or wildlife want an FX body.   Fuck, I own two FX bodies, including a D800...  but for most of what I shoot, I would be better served by a D7100/D5200/D3200 sensor in a real professional body that can deliver FPS and a buffer.

I was actually looking at getting a D7100, even with the 6fps/7fps... until I was reminded of the buffer 3 days ago, and confirmed that if shooting raw you get a BEST of 9 frames.  NINE frames.

So, for $1,100 the D7100 is not adequate...  how much more do I need to spend to get a Nikon DX body that does have adequate FPS/Buffer.

Why isn't the D7100 selling well, I can only tell you why I won't be getting one.  I was ready to sell some gear to buy one, but thankfully I saw it is not adequate for my needs.

DougBPhoto wrote:

First off, you're looking at people's work on a model site, so don't be surprised if you see predominantly models.   Some people even purposefully separate their work, go figure.

Secondly, your question of sports photography and why look at an $1,100 body seems to show a total lack of understanding of a lot of shooters.   The issue is not about price, it is about performance.

Please tell me, if not the D7100, what other Nikon DX body is going to be adequate?

The answer is still the D300s, which will be 4 years old in 3 months, while nearly every other Nikon DX body has been replaced/updated TWICE in the same time frame.

Don't assume that everyone shooting sports or wildlife want an FX body.   Fuck, I own two FX bodies, including a D800...  but for most of what I shoot, I would be better served by a D7100/D5200/D3200 sensor in a real professional body that can deliver FPS and a buffer.

I was actually looking at getting a D7100, even with the 6fps/7fps... until I was reminded of the buffer 3 days ago, and confirmed that if shooting raw you get a BEST of 9 frames.  NINE frames.

So, for $1,100 the D7100 is not adequate...  how much more do I need to spend to get a Nikon DX body that does have adequate FPS/Buffer.

Why isn't the D7100 selling well, I can only tell you why I won't be getting one.  I was ready to sell some gear to buy one, but thankfully I saw it is not adequate for my needs.

My point is this...they didn't build the D7100 to be a professional sports camera. Whether or not they have one in their lineup to suit you is for you to decide. But why be so disappointed in an $1100 camera that kicks ass in every other regard, other than the unrealistic thing you're asking of it for the price. If and when they ever release the D300s replacement, you may find the camera you desire...though I doubt it. If you shoot sports professionally, get with the game, and buy the camera and lenses to get the job done, instead of crying because they didn't meet your expectations with an $1100 camera.

DougBPhoto wrote:
...The answer is still the D300s, which will be 4 years old in 3 months, while nearly every other Nikon DX body has been replaced/updated TWICE in the same time frame...

- Just an aside:

People often base the age of the D300s on the release date of the D300s which was just under 4 years ago (July 2009)...HOWEVER, realistically (in many ways), the D300s is actually 5-1/2 years old, based on the release date of the D300 (November 2007).

I say "realistically (in many ways)" because both the D300 and the D300s have the same sensor and processor...so IQ-wise, they are pretty much the same camera.  The differences between the 2 are in the "whistles & bells": the introduction of video, the addition of a second mem card slot, slightly faster FPS, etc.

And, sorry, but IMHO - the D300 was really not that big a "bump" from the D200 (certainly not the kind of "bump" we've grown accustomed to seeing in the last couple of years with the majority of new model releases).  As I see it, we've all been looking for the mythical "D400" for 7-1/2 years since the D200 was released (in November of 2005).

While I haven't had a chance to try one out personally, it looks like to me that the D7100 is pretty close to what we all most of us were looking for in a "D400".

Marty McBride wrote:
My point is this...they didn't build the D7100 to be a professional sports camera. Whether or not they have one in their lineup to suit you is for you to decide. But why be so disappointed in an $1100 camera that kicks ass in every other regard, other than the unrealistic thing you're asking of it for the price. If and when they ever release the D300s replacement, you may find the camera you desire...though I doubt it. If you shoot sports professionally, get with the game, and buy the camera and lenses to get the job done, instead of crying because they didn't meet your expectations with an $1100 camera.

Why do I need to buy gear to make YOU happy.

I know what I shoot and I know what works best for what I shoot. 

Most of the time that is NOT full frame.  Why should I "get with the game" and buy stuff I am not going to be happy with just to satisfy you?

To repeat, I have full frame bodies, I have access to the gigantic lenses, however, shouldn't I be allowed to want the gear that works best for my needs, or in this case, want for it to exist.

The issue is not that they did not meet my expectations with a $1,200 camera, the issue is that they don't have a more professional version of that sensor on the market AND that given that the D7100 is as good as they currently offer (sensor/processing wise) I have every right to be fucking disappointed/frustrated.

IF they offered a real professional DX body even for $2,500, I would still choose that over a FREE D4 body.   Hell, if it had the specs, I'd pick a $5,000 professional DX body over a free D4.

There are a LOT of photographers who are also wanting/needing what I'm wanting.

The fact that you're content with what you have is irrelevant, because we're discussing why the D7100 is not flying off the shelves... it is not flying off the shelves because many D7000 shooters are happy with what they have, and those needing a D300s replacement comprehend that the D7100 falls short of their needs.

DougBPhoto wrote:

Why do I need to buy gear to make YOU happy.

I know what I shoot and I know what works best for what I shoot. 

Most of the time that is NOT full frame.  Why should I "get with the game" and buy stuff I am not going to be happy with just to satisfy you?

To repeat, I have full frame bodies, I have access to the gigantic lenses, however, shouldn't I be allowed to want the gear that works best for my needs, or in this case, want for it to exist.

The issue is not that they did not meet my expectations with a $1,200 camera, the issue is that they don't have a more professional version of that sensor on the market AND that given that the D7100 is as good as they currently offer (sensor/processing wise) I have every right to be fucking disappointed/frustrated.

IF they offered a real professional DX body even for $2,500, I would still choose that over a FREE D4 body.   Hell, if it had the specs, I'd pick a $5,000 professional DX body over a free D4.

There are a LOT of photographers who are also wanting/needing what I'm wanting.

The fact that you're content with what you have is irrelevant, because we're discussing why the D7100 is not flying off the shelves... it is not flying off the shelves because many D7000 shooters are happy with what they have, and those needing a D300s replacement comprehend that the D7100 falls short of their needs.

It's not about making me happy...I could give a rats ass what your whiny ass buys! I wish they'd come out with something asap, then I wouldn't have to look at your pessimist post everyday!

Gary Melton wrote:
While I haven't had a chance to try one out personally, it looks like to me that the D7100 is pretty close to what we all were looking for in a "D400".

I have a D800 and a D700, yet for many of my sports I prefer the D300s.

Shooting the D300s, I get 18 NEF shots in my buffer, and at the start of events when I need to shoot 20 or 30 competitors rushing by over a hundred feet away, I end up wishing I had a larger buffer.

I don't doubt that the D7100 has a lovely sensor, but 9 compressed NEF (less uncompressed) is not close enough even if it was a hand grenade.

I do agree with you that the D300s is pretty darn old by today's standards, but unfortunately, the D7100 is not even close to being an upgrade for it.

Marty McBride wrote:
It's not about making me happy...I could give a rats ass what your whiny ass buys! I wish they'd come out with something asap, then I wouldn't have to look at your pessimist post everyday!

I'm discussing the camera, and sticking to the topic/thread, you're the one turning a discussion about a camera into a personal attack.

DougBPhoto wrote:
...I do agree with you that the D300s is pretty darn old by today's standards, but unfortunately, the D7100 is not even close to being an upgrade for it.

I've edited the end of my post above as follows:

Gary Melton wrote:
...it looks like to me that the D7100 is pretty close to what we all most of us were looking for in a "D400".

Gary Melton wrote:
...it looks like to me that the D7100 is pretty close to what we all most of us were looking for in a "D400".

Up until this past weekend, I was seriously considering buying the D7100.  Then, on Saturday, I filled the buffer again on my D300s and thought "hmmmm, I wonder what the buffer is on that D7100".

For people who only shoot models or a soccer mom, I'm sure it would be a very good camera.

Unfortunately, I'd still consider it in the D90->D7000->D7100 evolution, not a D300s -> D400.

It has much more in common with the D7000 and D90 before it than it does a D300s, D300, or even a D200.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Up until this past weekend, I was seriously considering buying the D7100.

For people who only shoot models or a soccer mom, I'm sure it would be a very good camera.

Unfortunately, I'd still consider it in the D90->D7000->D7100 evolution, not a D300s -> D400.

But you aren't comparing apples to apples. Forget the fact that the D7100 is twice the MP of a D300s. It's putting those 6 or 7 fps out at 14 bit. Try that on a D300s, which squeaks by at 2.5 frames a second. So if you're after the ultimate image quality in raw, the D7100 wins hands down. Also in shooting sports, most (maybe not you) shoot in jpeg for maximum frame and buffer rate, and for faster transfer of files for instant post. Even if it occasionally maxes out on the buffer in raw mode on your assignment, will it happen often enough to be a deal breaker, considering everything else the camera has to offer?

Marty McBride wrote:
Even if it occasionally maxes out on the buffer in raw mode on your assignment, will it happen often enough to be a deal breaker, considering everything else the camera has to offer?

Yes, at 9 NEF, yes, it will happen often enough to be a deal breaker, that IS WHY I said it IS a deal breaker for me, DUH. 

I'm not saying the D7100 is not a wonderful replacement for the D7000, which is a wonderful replacement of the D90.

However, it is NOT a professional body (like the D300/D300s and even D200 were), not even close, it is an advanced amateur body at best.

A 9 frame buffer, no 10-pin, no pc-sync.   It is an updated D90.

It is a lovely camera, but it is not a professional body, and not a D400.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

That, is likely why the body is not selling as well as we might have thought it would.

DougBPhoto wrote:

Yes, at 9 NEF, yes, it will happen often enough to be a deal breaker, that IS WHY I said it IS a deal breaker for me, DUH. 

I'm not saying the D7100 is not a wonderful replacement for the D7000, which is a wonderful replacement of the D90.

However, it is NOT a professional body (like the D300/D300s and even D200 were), not even close, it is an advanced amateur body at best.

A 9 frame buffer, no 10-pin, no pc-sync.   It is an updated D90.

It is a lovely camera, but it is not a professional body, and not a D400.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

That, is likely why the body is not selling as well as we might have thought it would.

Problem with you is, you are a smart ass, and it makes it impossible to have a civil conversation with a pessimistic smart ass!

DougBPhoto wrote:

Yes, at 9 NEF, yes, it will happen often enough to be a deal breaker, that IS WHY I said it IS a deal breaker for me, DUH. 

I'm not saying the D7100 is not a wonderful replacement for the D7000, which is a wonderful replacement of the D90.

However, it is NOT a professional body (like the D300/D300s and even D200 were), not even close, it is an advanced amateur body at best.

A 9 frame buffer, no 10-pin, no pc-sync.   It is an updated D90.

It is a lovely camera, but it is not a professional body, and not a D400.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

That, is likely why the body is not selling as well as we might have thought it would.

The buffer is solved through the selection of cards. You'll spend more on cards than you may want but it works. I shoot some portraits for a company using lights and it just rocked and should rock --the D7100 or D7000 if you do what I do--use Extreme Pro SanDisk or a similar product, rating has to be 10 and above. I use 16 gigabyte and 32 gigabytes. Prior to using those kind of cards in shoots, even without lights, the camera would stop at times, the buffer just getting jammed. On one shoot outdoors for six and a half hours with the Extreme Pro cards (10 rating and up) I worked that beast of a camera, the mighty D700,  all the way through, didn't have to even change the battery. I learned about this from a forum visited by wedding photographers and they figured it first, well over a year ago.

LA StarShooter wrote:
The buffer is solved through the selection of cards. You'll spend more on cards than you may want but it works. I shoot some portraits for a company using lights and it just rocked and should rock --the D7100 or D7000 if you do what I do--use Extreme Pro SanDisk or a similar product, rating has to be 10 and above. I use 16 gigabyte and 32 gigabytes. Prior to using those kind of cards in shoots, even without lights, the camera would stop at times, the buffer just getting jammed. On one shoot outdoors for six and a half hours with the Extreme Pro cards (10 rating and up) I worked that beast of a camera, the mighty D700,  all the way through, didn't have to even change the battery. I learned about this from a forum visited by wedding photographers and they figured it first, well over a year ago.

Thank you, but this is the standard card that I use.

http://www.sandisk.com/products/memory- … acity=32GB

Per Nikon, that is the card rated at 9 NEF images before the buffer fills with the D7100.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Thank you, but this is the standard card that I use.

http://www.sandisk.com/products/memory- … acity=32GB

Per Nikon, that is the card rated at 9 NEF images before the buffer fills with the D7100.

The D700 uses Compact Flash cards for storage. I've had the same experiences with my D3 & D700 as LA StarShooter. I still hold my opinion that while there are some crop-bodies that do a pretty darned wicked job of completing pro-tasks 90% of the time, they still are no more than what they are. And that's coming from a guy who swore by them just a year or more ago

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

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
The D700 uses Compact Flash cards for storage. I've had the same experiences with my D3 & D700 as LA StarShooter. I still hold my opinion that while there are some crop-bodies that do a pretty darned wicked job of completing pro-tasks 90% of the time, they still are no more than what they are. And that's coming from a guy who swore by them just a year or more ago

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

Danny,

I was trying to ignore the discussion of the D700 since this thread is about the D7100.

I have a D700, love it, and use an 800x CF in it, but I have no idea how LA StarShooter thinks that was relevant to the subject D7100.  I have a D800 also, and love it (and hate it due to slow fps, lol). 

I took his statements to somehow mean to use a faster card to alter the buffer situation, however, as I stated, the 9 NEF buffer is with one of the fastest cards available for that body.

For me, the issue is that when I need to shoot with an effective focal length of around 500mm or longer, I prefer a DX body, not just for the crop effect but also for how the image looks compared to a FX body.... much the same as how for a wider-angle image, I prefer the results from an FX body over a DX body.

DougBPhoto wrote:

Danny,

I was trying to ignore the discussion of the D700 since this thread is about the D7100.

I have a D700, love it, and use an 800x CF in it, but I have no idea how LA StarShooter thinks that was relevant to the subject D7100.  I have a D800 also, and love it (and hate it due to slow fps, lol). 

I took his statements to somehow mean to use a faster card to alter the buffer situation, however, as I stated, the 9 NEF buffer is with one of the fastest cards available for that body.

For me, the issue is that when I need to shoot with an effective focal length of around 500mm or longer, I prefer a DX body, not just for the crop effect but also for how the image looks compared to a FX body.... much the same as how for a wider-angle image, I prefer the results from an FX body over a DX body.

Thanks for clarifying, Doug. I did indeed forget about your mentioning your FF bodies in previous posts   One of my cards is an 800X as well, and holy hell do my images ever get into my computer fast as hell!

I can relate to your concerns for working with an effective Focal Lenggth, which is what pushed me into looking at the D7100 - and subsequently, this thread! I don't shoot the stuff you do however, and the longest length I'd really want to have is 200mm. My dream-lens is the 200mm f/2 prime! (AS-S G ED VR2; $6K!) I'm not annoyed by the 8x10/5:4/x1.2 crop as I am by the DX-crop on the D3/D700. That dark box is *so annoying, I can't compose for crap! I've been looking at the 2 bodies (D7K & D7100) and can't see a super-strong reason to get one over the other. Unless you consider budgeting, in which case the D7K is the winner

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

DougBPhoto wrote:

Danny,

I was trying to ignore the discussion of the D700 since this thread is about the D7100.

I have a D700, love it, and use an 800x CF in it, but I have no idea how LA StarShooter thinks that was relevant to the subject D7100.  I have a D800 also, and love it (and hate it due to slow fps, lol). 

I took his statements to somehow mean to use a faster card to alter the buffer situation, however, as I stated, the 9 NEF buffer is with one of the fastest cards available for that body.

For me, the issue is that when I need to shoot with an effective focal length of around 500mm or longer, I prefer a DX body, not just for the crop effect but also for how the image looks compared to a FX body.... much the same as how for a wider-angle image, I prefer the results from an FX body over a DX body.

I wrote D7000 I believe. I just went and read it and unless my old eyes are just manically playing tricks on me, D7000 is what I wrote and just read. . And on the D7000 I can reel off more than 9 NEFs in a row with the right card. It has dual card slots.  I use to be at nine with slower cards. I haven't used the D7100 but I do think the right card would solve the problem as it did for me with the Nikon D7000. I haven't shot on a 35mm sensor. I haven't shot on a 35mm since the days when film was king. And I offered my experience on the D7000 as the D7100 is posited as its successor and superior. I love the D7000. I want a Mayima, a Phase One and I want the lenses from Schneider Kreuznach . .

LA StarShooter wrote:
I wrote D7000 I believe. I just went and read it and unless my old eyes are just manically playing tricks on me, D7000 is what I wrote and just read. . And on the D7000 I can reel off more than 9 NEFs in a row with the right card. It has dual card slots.  I use to be at nine with slower cards. I haven't used the D7100 but I do think the right card would solve the problem as it did for me with the Nikon D7000. I haven't shot on a 35mm sensor. I haven't shot on a 35mm since the days when film was king. And I offered my experience on the D7000 as the D7100 is posited as its successor and superior. I love the D7000. I want a Mayima, a Phase One and I want the lenses from Schneider Kreuznach . .

You're probably right, I'm just going off of what Nikon told me and they specifically referenced that Sandisk 95mb/s card as their 9 frame buffer, which is also a best-case, as uncompressed and full-bit-depth are rated at even fewer frames than that.

I probably don't know what I'm talking about, since I only asked NPS the specific question, and 9 was the answer they gave with a rate determined using that card.

Still not sure what "the mighty D700" had to do with anything though.

Megean M Photography wrote:
I upgraded from the D7000 and honestly, it didn't feel like much of a leap. The megapixels are better but the biggest leap for me was the upgraded photoshop and the change in editing.

We should get together and fiddle with it some time. 

PS: Welcome to the forums.

photoimager wrote:
Which 85mm were you using RP ?

85 1.8 D (Old-school film-type lens with no motor)

I've had it since 2006 and have never seen this issue before.

Marty McBride wrote:
The thing that puzzles me about the comments on this camera is the FPS, here and in other threads. I've looked at the people's pages and their work is predominately model work, where FPS means very little in most cases. If sports photography is your primary line of work, why in the world would you be looking at an $1100 body anyways?  For what it does do, I'd say it's a tremendous camera for the money....the D7000 certainly was.

This is a model forum.... what did you expect?
People go elsewhere to post their other genre's

SB Glamour Photos wrote:

This is a model forum.... what did you expect?
People go elsewhere to post their other genre's

FPS doesn't mean much to me, and the D7100 seems plenty fast enough.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Thank you, but this is the standard card that I use.

http://www.sandisk.com/products/memory- … acity=32GB

Per Nikon, that is the card rated at 9 NEF images before the buffer fills with the D7100.

Those are the cards I use with my 7100, I get something like 7 FSP at 14 bit raw before it drops down to around 1 FPS. I really don't shoot high FPS very often so I'm not sure on the exact number.

DGI Concepts wrote:
Bought one with the 35mm 1.8 and love it.

Ditto. Upgraded from a d3000.  I photograph models and children.

Marty McBride wrote:
The thing that puzzles me about the comments on this camera is the FPS, here and in other threads. I've looked at the people's pages and their work is predominately model work, where FPS means very little in most cases. If sports photography is your primary line of work, why in the world would you be looking at an $1100 body anyways?  For what it does do, I'd say it's a tremendous camera for the money....the D7000 certainly was.

WOW... really admired Marty McBride's fantastic work and forum input.  He was a true inspiration to me... sad to see him gone...    Yet another amazing 'former' site member who we've lost to an apparent moderation beat-down...