Why Nikon must kill the D7100

[Derrel]

I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.

Yeah...that does kind of suck...

Above we had a comment, "Never forget that, for a FX camera, you also need FX glass." Ummm, yeah, that is mostly true, but not entirely accurate, since ALL DX Nikkors will mount and shoot on all Nikon FX sensor cameras. Something like 90% of the current Nikon system, and 99.9% of the entire, historical Nikon lens system, is "FX" glass. And always remember, the MAJORITY of DX glass is cheap,slow,plastic, consumer-grade 18mm -XXXmm stuff...

 

[astroNikon]

But there's NO reason someone with a DX can't buy FX glass anyways.

 

[Derrel]

But there's NO reason someone with a DX can't buy FX glass anyways.

EXACTLY!!! The majority of the best Nikkor lenses are lenses that people call "FX"...the highly-desired Nikkors are almost all lenses designed for FX coverage! And, in the faster zoom categories, and in the majority of primes, and the majority of wide-angles, and in ALL of the longer zooms, there are NO DX lenses! There is NO SUCH THING as a "DX" 300mm f/4, or a "DX" 70-200. The huge preponderance of the Nikkors that people would really love to own are....NOT DX lenses...

 

[sashbar]

I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.

Wow. I am still looking for my first image that I could call "amazing".

I'm still waiting for "the truth"

OK. I will try to explain. There is, of course, an undisputed difference in IQ between a crop and FF. This difference, though, is purely technical. Less noise at high ISO etc, we all know about it. But all these differences mean nothing, absolutely nothing unless they become meaningful for a particular image(s). If we fail here, what we will get, at best (see above), is an "awesome looking image that is not good".

It depends on a genre, of course. With astro photography, which is quite technical, these FF qualities, probably, do shine through, excuse my pun. With many other genres it is not that obvious. One has to be quite advanced in his/her photography for these differences to become MEANINGFUL for their images. I often see images taken with a FF camera that would be exactly as good/bad/average as if taken with a crop.

Maybe it is just me, but I tend to look for an artistic intent/aesthetic side first and foremost, and if it is not there, I do not care about technical stuff like colour gradation or high ISO noise or any other advantages offered by FF. More than that, sometimes I see ( DISCLAIMER: NOT ON THIS FORUM ) a "test" photo by some new proud FF camera owner with words "Just tried my new full frame camera - WOW! I am so impressed!". I honestly try to be impressed as well, but for some reason fail. The image looks no better than if it was taken with a crop. I guess a computer screen is not the best tool to evaluate an image quality? Or maybe there is another reason?

The way you work with the light, for example, is SO much more important for the quality on your image than the difference between FX and DX, you can not even compare it. If your work sucks here, the difference between FX and DX becomes negligible. It is like when you spill a can of tomato soup on your trousers, nobody really cares if your trousers are well creased or not.

Then there are photographers, who know what they are doing and their technique in many aspects is near flawless. In that case I would say, it would be ridiculous for them NOT to use an FF format. But now we are talking about the minority.

The majority are cheerfully carrying around these huge FF bodies/lenses not being able to translate its advantages into their photography. That is the "truth".

PS Yes, I can see four cans of tomato soup flying in my direction...

 

[astroNikon]

I totally agree

But there are a few people ezaxmples
D BJ comes to mind and a couple others who upgraded and went "wow" but as you mentioned we see a small exported version of what they see.

For me, yup, pointing it up to the planets and stars was mighty impressive. I was able to significantly crop a 300mm shot at 25600 ISO and see the planet Uranus. Utterly "wow" . It was noisy but the d7000 was a no go in that at least without getting significant object movement.

 

[Braineack]

I took an iq test and got an 80. I decide 80 was close enough to 120 that I laugh at all those people with larger iqs

 

[JacaRanda]

Under nicely light conditions it really doesn't matter.
when it gets darker then you start seeing the differences.

I use my d7000 alot, except when it's dark. Then the d600 comes out to play.

On the extremes ... and I mean the extremes, the d7000 simply cannot get a shot at all whereas the d600 can capture an image.

And as it gets darker without a flash (kids soccer games with no lights), the d600 would win too as it has a higher usable ISO than my d7000.

I have both and have been using both, with the same lenses. So to me it's obvious.

How much difference is there between the D7000 and the D7100. I keep reading how great the D7100 is in low light, as if it's comparable to FF's in low light (not counting old crummy sensor ones).

Ooops, sorry Nikon. I did not see your post up there ^. Got a D7100 all packaged up for you

 

[JacaRanda]

I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.

Wow. I am still looking for my first image that I could call "amazing".

I'm still waiting for "the truth"

OK. I will try to explain. There is, of course, an undisputed difference in IQ between a crop and FF. This difference, though, is purely technical. Less noise at high ISO etc, we all know about it. But all these differences mean nothing, absolutely nothing unless they become meaningful for a particular image(s). If we fail here, what we will get, at best (see above), is an "awesome looking image that is not good".

It depends on a genre, of course. With astro photography, which is quite technical, these FF qualities, probably, do shine through, excuse my pun. With many other genres it is not that obvious. One has to be quite advanced in his/her photography for these differences to become MEANINGFUL for their images. I often see images taken with a FF camera that would be exactly as good/bad/average as if taken with a crop.

Maybe it is just me, but I tend to look for an artistic intent/aesthetic side first and foremost, and if it is not there, I do not care about technical stuff like colour gradation or high ISO noise or any other advantages offered by FF. More than that, sometimes I see ( DISCLAIMER: NOT ON THIS FORUM ) a "test" photo by some new proud FF camera owner with words "Just tried my new full frame camera - WOW! I am so impressed!". I honestly try to be impressed as well, but for some reason fail. The image looks no better than if it was taken with a crop. I guess a computer screen is not the best tool to evaluate an image quality? Or maybe there is another reason?

The way you work with the light, for example, is SO much more important for the quality on your image than the difference between FX and DX, you can not even compare it. If your work sucks here, the difference between FX and DX becomes negligible. It is like when you spill a can of tomato soup on your trousers, nobody really cares if your trousers are well creased or not.

Then there are photographers, who know what they are doing and their technique in many aspects is near flawless. In that case I would say, it would be ridiculous for them NOT to use an FF format. But now we are talking about the minority.

The majority are cheerfully carrying around these huge FF bodies/lenses not being able to translate its advantages into their photography. That is the "truth".

PS Yes, I can see four cans of tomato soup flying in my direction...

I could not have written or said this any better. Thank you thank you thank you.
I super duper want to see the differences and totally believe much of what I read both from TPF members and on DxoMark when it comes to ratings etc.

I want to have that hallelujah moment that makes me get all poopie pants. Side by side comparison I guess in real life, large up on a wall in a perfectly lit museum or something.

 

[Nathan7.1k]

but price is still king

d3300 with 18-55 and 55-200 kit is $615
d5300 18-55 / 55-220 is $997
d7100 18-55 / 55-300 bundle thing $1,685
not similar bundle on BestBuy for a d610 ..

most people would opt for the low cost option

You probably just mistyped, but if not I wanted to correct ya that the D7100 comes with an 18-140 (the newer 500/600usd lens) not the 18-55 when buying it with the 55-300.

 

[astroNikon]

DxoMark ISO tech specs:

with the 3 selected the D610 is a much better performer at 2925
then the d5300 at 1338
then the d7100 at 1256
==> Nikon D5300 versus Nikon D610 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

 

[astroNikon]

DxoMark ==> Nikon D3300 versus Nikon D7100 versus Nikon D7000 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

D3300 is top at 1385
D7100 at 1256
d7000 at 1167


Yes, the d3300 and d5300 had better ISO performance according to DxoMark than the d7100

 

[astroNikon]

and there's plenty of ppl comparing the d7100 and d610 out there for low light, such as this ==> D610 vs D7100?: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D4, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

My d7000 is no slouch. When it came out the astrophotography world hailed it as the best low cost (ie, non full frame) camera out there for low light photography. And it is, for a crop sensor camera, of course being pushed back to newer iterations from Nikon. Of course one of the big websites out there the website owner used a d7000, until he upgraded to a FF camera.

 

[JacaRanda]

and there's plenty of ppl comparing the d7100 and d610 out there for low light, such as this ==> D610 vs D7100?: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D4, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

My d7000 is no slouch. When it came out the astrophotography world hailed it as the best low cost (ie, non full frame) camera out there for low light photography. And it is, for a crop sensor camera, of course being pushed back to newer iterations from Nikon. Of course one of the big websites out there the website owner used a d7000, until he upgraded to a FF camera.

I like the 3rd reply by anotherMike.

 

[bribrius]

I supposed everyone make their choices based on their own expectations and needs at that moment so technically there's no right or wrong, to each his own. Just enjoy shooting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I probably should have but I went with the random dart board methodology and kind of just said "okay I guess I am going to get one of them"

I do see the drawback with dx in low light, I will admit. Like when I am trying to take a photo of my dog running by around midnight with no lights I get really upset the camera just wont work for me. I should go fx so I can photography my dog running in the yard at night easier. And I hate tripods they are too hard to carry around. I know everyone says to use a tripod in low light but I have trouble carrying it around especially with the camera on it trying to keep up with fast moving subjects. wicked bounce and camera blur.

 

[bribrius]

Under nicely light conditions it really doesn't matter.
when it gets darker then you start seeing the differences.

I use my d7000 alot, except when it's dark. Then the d600 comes out to play.

On the extremes ... and I mean the extremes, the d7000 simply cannot get a shot at all whereas the d600 can capture an image.

And as it gets darker without a flash (kids soccer games with no lights), the d600 would win too as it has a higher usable ISO than my d7000.

I have both and have been using both, with the same lenses. So to me it's obvious.

How much difference is there between the D7000 and the D7100. I keep reading how great the D7100 is in low light, as if it's comparable to FF's in low light (not counting old crummy sensor ones).

Ooops, sorry Nikon. I did not see your post up there ^. Got a D7100 all packaged up for you

I really don't think my 7100 is that great I low light.
what is the difference if it isn't a moving shot anyway? you have to wait another five seconds on a long shutter?