Is it time to upgrade my D7100

[ToddnTN]

I have had my D7100 for 4 years now and it has been a great camera. The only area that is lacking is high ISO performance. For me, anything over ISO 1600 is pretty much unusable. I do a lot of night time shooting under high school football field lights and better high ISO performance would be great.

The lenses I use most are:
Nikon 180mm F2.8
Nikon 80-200 F2.8
Nikon 300mm F4

Have things advanced enough for me to look at new bodies?

 

[Designer]

Have things advanced enough for me to look at new bodies?

Possibly. I've heard that the D500 has excellent low light performance, but I don't know anything about possible noise at high ISO.

 

[astroNikon]

I'll try to remember tonight to provide some high school football field (soccer) at night under the lights with the D500 and a 80-200/2.8 then a more restrictive 150-600 @ f/8 at the high ISO levels.

I also have a plethora of ISO shots of the D500, D7200, D5500, D750 etc that I can reload to flickr for comparisons of most ISO levels at the same location on the same fixed subjects under the same lighting going from one camera to the next.

Here's indoor soccer example of higher ISO ==> D500 vs D750 Indoor Soccer Shootout

 

[pixmedic]

I have had my D7100 for 4 years now and it has been a great camera. The only area that is lacking is high ISO performance. For me, anything over ISO 1600 is pretty much unusable. I do a lot of night time shooting under high school football field lights and better high ISO performance would be great.

The lenses I use most are:
Nikon 180mm F2.8
Nikon 80-200 F2.8
Nikon 300mm F4

Have things advanced enough for me to look at new bodies?

ISO performance is probably the #1 reason i hear for people wanting to upgrade. but is the D7100 really failing you in low light performance?
or are you just not utilizing the camera properly for the scenes you are shooting?
I have a 10 year old sony a700 that takes perfectly usable shots at ISO 1600 and even 3200 when metered properly and the D7100 is a far better camera. (I owned one)
your only option for any sort of significant ISO performance upgrade is to go to a full frame camera.
look for a used D600 or D610. (i had 2 D600's and loved them)
if your shooting underexposed to keep ISO numbers down and then fixing the exposure in post, it wont matter what camera you get...its going to look ugly.
properly metered the D7100 should get you usable pics up to ISO 6400, assuming your using software for noise reduction.
you can see some test shots I did with the 12mp a700 Sony a700 test shots
your D7100, properly used, will far outperform my sony in both dynamic range, shadow and exposure recovery, and base ISO performance.
again, if you want better low light performance, your going to have to go full frame.

 

[fmw]

You have clearly defined what it is that your camera doesn't do well enough for you so an upgrade could be a good move for you. No doubt that the D500 or the full frame Nikons will perform better in low light. The question is will they perform better enough to suit your needs. I recommend you rent or borrow a camera body and take it out on a night shoot.

 

[table1349]

The best upgrade would be the body and the 300 f4 to the 300 f2.8. Of course it is only money.

 

[benhasajeep]

D600 with out a doubt! If you don't want used. Then D610! Best bang for the high iso performance you can buy! If that 300mm f/4.0 is too slow and you don't mind the old screwdriver lenses. 300mm f/2.8 D's are around $1,500 now for good shape ones. Less if you don't mind dings and dents. A Tokina 300mm f/2.8 AF is on Keh for $1100 or 1,200 I think. Of course your going to have to carry that extra weight for that extra stop though.

80-200 f/2.8 and 300mm f/2.8 is what I used to shoot college football with. Probably little better lighting than high school though (MAC school).

 

[table1349]

D600 with out a doubt! If you don't want used. Then D610! Best bang for the high iso performance you can buy! If that 300mm f/4.0 is too slow and you don't mind the old screwdriver lenses. 300mm f/2.8 D's are around $1,500 now for good shape ones. Less if you don't mind dings and dents. A Tokina 300mm f/2.8 AF is on Keh for $1100 or 1,200 I think. Of course your going to have to carry that extra weight for that extra stop though.

80-200 f/2.8 and 300mm f/2.8 is what I used to shoot college football with. Probably little better lighting than high school though (MAC school).

Even FBS stadiums are low light once you are behind a camera. It's not that I am a fast glass snob that all my lenses are f2.8 or faster, it's because the advantage that 1 full stop in aperture gives me one full stop with my ISO and still allows me to maintain the shutter speed I need. Sport shooting is never cheap.

 

[Braineack]

the D750 would be a great all-around body that wiill produce stellar results in poor and good lighting.

the D500 is a great sports camera in good lighting.

the D750 has the FF advantage, nikon's newer sensors however, aren't that much better than the D7100.

 

[astroNikon]

Here's a bunch of various ISO shots of D5500, D7200, D500, D750. I have more but that's a good bunch to compare.
==> D500 ISO Test

This is a Stadium lighting (modern LED) D500 with ISO up to 51,200 ==> Strikers_20170503

 

[Braineack]

Judging by those the D500 does not handle itself as well as the D5500, D7200, or the D750 in higher ISO.

It looks like its applying some sort of awful noise reduction algorithm that's destroying the image.

where the rest show fine detail, but just get noisy.

d500 vs d5500 @ 28000


give me noise over that mushy poo any day.

 

[astroNikon]

Judging by those the D500 does not handle itself as well as the D5500, D7200, or the D750 in higher ISO.

It looks like its applying some sort of awful noise reduction algorithm that's destroying the image.

where the rest show fine detail, but just get noisy.


View attachment 141918


give me noise over that mushy poo any day.

The D750 kills the D500 in higher ISO.
not only are the images much cleaner but you still have another FX advantage.
I've found on fast moving subjects that I need to have a higher Shutter Speed on DX than on FX due to the image moving faster across the more condensed pixels on the DX sensor. So you lose another stop in shutter speed. Plus if you check DxOMark you'll still see a significant difference between the D500 and D600/D750. Having owned all 3 I totally see it too.

But I still use the D500 for night games under the high quality stadium lights for the FPS.
Indoor sports though which I did the D750 v D500 it was very poor quality lighting which really showed a big difference.

 

[ToddnTN]

Thanks everyone. Looks like I am going to stick with my D7100. There have been improvements, but not enough to justify upgrading just yet. Think I will buy more glass instead.
BTW, I listed the 300 F/4 as a lens I use, but I never use it for night games. I probably should have left that off the list for this discussion.

 

[goodguy]

Just get the Nikon D750, in its class and price range it is still the best camera, the D610 is very close in many ways but if you can pay the little extra then get the D750.

 

[astroNikon]

Thanks everyone. Looks like I am going to stick with my D7100. There have been improvements, but not enough to justify upgrading just yet. Think I will buy more glass instead.
BTW, I listed the 300 F/4 as a lens I use, but I never use it for night games. I probably should have left that off the list for this discussion.

I had a 300mm /4 AF which has a long focus throw. You have to continuously focus for outdoor sports as its on the slower type focusing lens compared to today. Though nice lens. I sold mine as it was a redundant focal length and I ended up not using it.