Nikon D7100 IQ

[KmH]

Nikon wants you to upgrade, regardless any improvement in IQ.

Many seem to miss that IQ is mostly determined by photographer knowledge and skill, not the gear used.
So the best way to improve IQ is to upgrade the photographer's knowledge and skill.

 

[Benco]

Nikon sells way more DX than FX bodies--Thom Hogan guesses FX bodies are around 10% of Nikon's DSLR sales. The question is how long Nikon intends to delay introduction of better quality DX lenses in focal lengths its customers want?

Just buy FX lenses instead, why increse R&D cost when there's no need.

 

[cgw]

Nikon sells way more DX than FX bodies--Thom Hogan guesses FX bodies are around 10% of Nikon's DSLR sales. The question is how long Nikon intends to delay introduction of better quality DX lenses in focal lengths its customers want?

Just buy FX lenses instead, why increse R&D cost when there's no need.

Sure. Just hand over revenue to off-brand lens makers who give DX owners what they want. Brilliant.

 

[Benco]

Nikon sells way more DX than FX bodies--Thom Hogan guesses FX bodies are around 10% of Nikon's DSLR sales. The question is how long Nikon intends to delay introduction of better quality DX lenses in focal lengths its customers want?

Just buy FX lenses instead, why increse R&D cost when there's no need.

Sure. Just hand over revenue to off-brand lens makers who give DX owners what they want. Brilliant.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused by that, what exactly is wrong with full frame lenses?

 

[cgw]

Just buy FX lenses instead, why increse R&D cost when there's no need.

Sure. Just hand over revenue to off-brand lens makers who give DX owners what they want. Brilliant.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused by that, what exactly is wrong with full frame lenses?

It's matter of preference for DX owners. I don't think Nikon can afford to scrimp on supplying DX lenses for the majority of the DSLRs they make and sell. It's a poor business decision.

 

[ScottMac]

Nothing wrong with full frame lenses. They are simply bigger, heavier, and generally more expensive to manufacture than an equivalent DX lens and thus only a few high-quality DX lenses available, relative to FX. Not everybody has the desire to "upgrade" to FX, and some DX shooters would rather not have to carry the extra weight or pay the extra price when simple physics would allow for top quality glass to be manufactured that is lighter, cheaper and at a decent enough price to sell heap-loads more than the FX equilavent.....

 

[Benco]

Sure. Just hand over revenue to off-brand lens makers who give DX owners what they want. Brilliant.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused by that, what exactly is wrong with full frame lenses?

It's matter of preference for DX owners. I don't think Nikon can afford to scrimp on supplying DX lenses for the majority of the DSLRs they make and sell. It's a poor business decision.

It appears that Nikon think that they can. Maybe I'm in a minority but I'm cool with that, I still don't see the downside of full frame lenses, as long as they work on my camera...great.
Let me put my previous question another way: What's the advantage of DX lenses over FX?

Edit: I see that ScottMac has answered that. I guess it does come down to whether you're sure you're going to be using DX forever or want to keep your options open for going over to FX. I can see that if you're of the former mindset then Nikon's FX lens bias would be frustrating.

 

[cgw]

Sorry, I'm a bit confused by that, what exactly is wrong with full frame lenses?

It's matter of preference for DX owners. I don't think Nikon can afford to scrimp on supplying DX lenses for the majority of the DSLRs they make and sell. It's a poor business decision.

It appears that Nikon think that they can. Maybe I'm in a minority but I'm cool with that, I still don't see the downside of full frame lenses, as long as they work on my camera...great.
Let me put my previous question another way: What's the advantage of DX lenses over FX?

Edit: I see that ScottMac has answered that. I guess it does come down to whether you're sure you're going to be using DX forever or want to keep your options open for going over to FX. I can see that if you're of the former mindset then Nikon's FX lens bias would be frustrating.

Nikon's moving in strange ways these days. Take a look at Thom Hogan's recent comments sometime.

 

[Benco]

Aye I will, I've seen him mentioned a few times on here and been meaning to have a look at his site.

 

[SCraig]

Nikon wants you to upgrade, regardless any improvement in IQ.

Many seem to miss that IQ is mostly determined by photographer knowledge and skill, not the gear used.
So the best way to improve IQ is to upgrade the photographer's knowledge and skill.

There is no question that Nikon would love for EVERYBODY to run out and buy a new body. They are in business to sell cameras, among other things, and it wouldn't be much of a business if they manufactured a million bodies and nobody bought them. But they continually add new features, and those features ARE important to some people. They may not be important to me or you but they are important to some.

Hypothetical situation: Let's say that you (so there is no question of the photographer's knowledge or skill) are out shooting birds with the finest body made and the sharpest lens that money can buy, mounted on the most solid tripod and head available. The best of the best of the best in every respect. You see a bird you want to photograph but it's at a significant distance and there is no possible way to get closer (let's say you are on the shore and the bird is sitting on a buoy). You shoot a dead-perfect shot of the bird but it's still going to take a lot of cropping, and when you do crop it you see it's highly pixelated. What could have improved that shot? How about 50% more pixels in the cropped area and a sensor with no anti-alias filter?

I don't have the best of everything, but this IS the kind of situation I find myself in frequently. I shoot birds a lot and regularly have to do a lot of cropping because the circumstances just plain will not allow me to get any closer. Having 50% more pixels in the cropped area, assuming that noise doesn't get worse, would make a HUGE difference to me. Probably not to you or many others but it would to me.

 

[Benco]

Nikon wants you to upgrade, regardless any improvement in IQ.

Many seem to miss that IQ is mostly determined by photographer knowledge and skill, not the gear used.
So the best way to improve IQ is to upgrade the photographer's knowledge and skill.

There is no question that Nikon would love for EVERYBODY to run out and buy a new body. They are in business to sell cameras, among other things, and it wouldn't be much of a business if they manufactured a million bodies and nobody bought them. But they continually add new features, and those features ARE important to some people. They may not be important to me or you but they are important to some.

Hypothetical situation: Let's say that you (so there is no question of the photographer's knowledge or skill) are out shooting birds with the finest body made and the sharpest lens that money can buy, mounted on the most solid tripod and head available. The best of the best of the best in every respect. You see a bird you want to photograph but it's at a significant distance and there is no possible way to get closer (let's say you are on the shore and the bird is sitting on a buoy). You shoot a dead-perfect shot of the bird but it's still going to take a lot of cropping, and when you do crop it you see it's highly pixelated. What could have improved that shot? How about 50% more pixels in the cropped area and a sensor with no anti-alias filter?

I don't have the best of everything, but this IS the kind of situation I find myself in frequently. I shoot birds a lot and regularly have to do a lot of cropping because the circumstances just plain will not allow me to get any closer. Having 50% more pixels in the cropped area, assuming that noise doesn't get worse, would make a HUGE difference to me. Probably not to you or many others but it would to me.

Boat?

:mrgreen:

 

[SCraig]

Boat?

:mrgreen:

Acidic water filled with boat-eating sharks.

 

[Benco]

Boat?

:mrgreen:

Acidic water filled with boat-eating sharks.

Damn.

 

[haha101]

i skipped the d7100 and went stright to a d600 froma d5100

 

[gwhiz]

I just recently had my T3i stolen along with all of my lenses and figured it would be a perfect time to jump over to Nikon. I'm a hobbyist but still want nice pictures for when I do save the dates, senior portraits, etc. I'm having a tough time debating between the D5200 and the D7100. I know the sensors are very similar but don't think I'm knowledgable enough to take advantage of all of the bells and whistles of the D7100 and would probably find that my images would be very similar with either. Does anyone think there's enough reason to fork over the extra $400ish for the D7100? Will I be just as happy with less to confuse me or are the advanced features of the D7100 worth learning about and growing into?

Either way, I'm excited about both options.