Why Nikon must kill the D7100

[astroNikon]

I just look at it like this:

The d7100 is the best overall features in the DX category, including low light (well it is a couple years old now and the d5300 and d3300 are better but still).

When you compare it to FX ... FX & DX are just two different categories and there are various other differences too. "focal length" of lenses, low light, etc.

I think they are two different categories after two different market segments. OF course now Nikon has their new category definitions to further blur it.

But looking at the dxoMark numbers for low light you actually see two different segments. All the FX cameras D810 = 2853, Df = 3279, d700 = 2303, d4S = 3074, d4 = 2965, d3x = 1992 are simply in a different category numerically than the DXs.

I was pessimistic before I bought a d600. But I immediately noticed the differences in low light. My d7000 is closer to the d7100 than it is a d610 if you just look at the numbers. It is what it is.

I think from another thread the d610 is about 1.5 stops faster than the d7000 in low light. I think you gain even more once you add in the higher ISO capabilities.

But the best way to find out is to get one yourself and then compare. I did that in the other thread with the same ISO, aperture and lens and the exposure time of the d7000 was twice that of the d600. and the d7000 dxomark is very close to the d7100. Both the d7000 and d7100 are significantly farther away in the dxomark to the d610.

But it all comes to how you use it and what you can afford.

 

[Vince.1551]

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.

You might be in a dream. Go back to sleep lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[goodguy]

I would never go FF. But just like you I know it would be quite stupid. Luckily one thing stops me - size and weight. Even a prosumer DX like D7100 feels ridiculously big and heavy in my hands, never mind FF.

D750 is 10% bigger then the D7100 and 75gr heavier, pretty small difference, when I put my Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 on my D7100 (almost 1.5KG) an added 75gr will not change much LOL.
I dont think size or weight is why somebody should or shouldnt consider the D7100 over an FX body, well thats my logic anyways.

 

[goodguy]

Not by much. When you factor the lenses, especially good FF zooms, it is simply prohibitive for me. I just see no sense in a camera that stays home six days a week. I prefer the one I can throw in my bag (not a camera bag, just any bag) and have it with me most of the time.

This reminds me a debate my buddy nd I have again and again, we both have the D7100 and he wants to get the Olympus micro 4/3 while I want to get bigger and bigger.
I am not enjoying schlepping around the big camera and big/heavy lenses but the results simply make it all worth while.
For me the weight doesnt make differance, I have a Canon G15 which is a lovely and capable little camera but after a day of use with it then moving to my D7100 and its lenses I know with the D7100 I am in my happy place.
I think its a very personal issue and there is no right or wrong, for me if size means better pictures then I will continue schlepping heavy equipment, I am fine with it

 

[goodguy]

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...

And thats why all my lenses are FX, well thats and the fact I really want to get an FX camera.....well someday

 

[sashbar]

Not by much. When you factor the lenses, especially good FF zooms, it is simply prohibitive for me. I just see no sense in a camera that stays home six days a week. I prefer the one I can throw in my bag (not a camera bag, just any bag) and have it with me most of the time.

This reminds me a debate my buddy nd I have again and again, we both have the D7100 and he wants to get the Olympus micro 4/3 while I want to get bigger and bigger.
I am not enjoying schlepping around the big camera and big/heavy lenses but the results simply make it all worth while.
For me the weight doesnt make differance, I have a Canon G15 which is a lovely and capable little camera but after a day of use with it then moving to my D7100 and its lenses I know with the D7100 I am in my happy place.
I think its a very personal issue and there is no right or wrong, for me if size means better pictures then I will continue schlepping heavy equipment, I am fine with it

I am not that dedicated today I saw a great scene when I was on a street for a lunch break. Grabbed my little Ricoh GR that is always in my bag or pocket, pointed, shot and read on the screen that there was no memory card inside.

 

[astroNikon]

I am not that dedicated today I saw a great scene when I was on a street for a lunch break. Grabbed my little Ricoh GR that is always in my bag or pocket, pointed, shot and read on the screen that there was no memory card inside.

I just did that yesterday with my d7000 .. Luckily I was at home and only had to run back inside and grab the SD cards.

 

[Derrel]

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

The dynamic range of the D610 is basically one full stop better than the D5300 at all ISO values, and it is also better than the D7100 at all ISO values.

I think if Nikon made a D7100 follow-up with a faster write speed and a bigger on-board buffer, it would seriously hurt sales of higher-end cameras. Nikon has been down this road before, where the FE-2 hurt sales of the F3; where the N90s hurt sales of the F4; where the F100's amazing abilities hurt F5 sales tremendously.

 

[Mach0]

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

The dynamic range of the D610 is basically one full stop better than the D5300 at all ISO values, and it is also better than the D7100 at all ISO values.

I think if Nikon made a D7100 follow-up with a faster write speed and a bigger on-board buffer, it would seriously hurt sales of higher-end cameras. Nikon has been down this road before, where the FE-2 hurt sales of the F3; where the N90s hurt sales of the F4; where the F100's amazing abilities hurt F5 sales tremendously.

And d700 hurt the d3 sales


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[astroNikon]

and the iPhone hurt dSLR sales ... lol

 

[goodguy]

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

The dynamic range of the D610 is basically one full stop better than the D5300 at all ISO values, and it is also better than the D7100 at all ISO values.

I think if Nikon made a D7100 follow-up with a faster write speed and a bigger on-board buffer, it would seriously hurt sales of higher-end cameras. Nikon has been down this road before, where the FE-2 hurt sales of the F3; where the N90s hurt sales of the F4; where the F100's amazing abilities hurt F5 sales tremendously.

Thats the point I was trying to make that the D7100 is such a good camera that for some it makes no sense to move to FX because its just so good.
I do agree of course the buffer on it is its weaker point, not a huge deal to me as I am not an avid sports shooter, if you had a bigger buffer on the D7100 it would be a better, more rounded camera with really no real big drawbacks.

 

[Derrel]

how much does an FX sensor cost again ?
I thought that was a large part of the total cost because of its size.

Sensors Are a Moving Target | byThom | Thom Hogan

"There’s no sign that the sensor progress is anywhere close to stopping. Plus all this talk that APS/DX sensor cameras will go away is nonsense. Look at that ten year gain and project it forward. Then remember that the larger full frame/FX sensor costs eight times as much to make, all else equal, and is the most expensive part in the DSLR-type cameras." and also, a bit later: "The real issue for the APS/DX future is tradeoff. We’re trading off a few quality factors for price, basically. As long as the cost of an APS sensor stays in the US$20-50 range and the average price most people want to pay for a competent interchangeable lens camera is in the US$500-1000 range, the tradeoff works. "

 

[TheLost]

My Mythical Nikon Lineup.. (MMNL.. trademark TheLost 2014)

Mirrorless DX D1x00 - $399 with 18-155 lens.
Mirrorless DX D5x00 - $699 (better AF, twisty-tilty screen) with 18-105mm lens.
DSLR DX D7x00 - $900 (even better AF, basicly what we have now) with 18-105mm lens.
DSLR FX D6x00 - $1600 (what we have now) with 24-85mm lens.
DSLR FX D7x0 - $2200 (Pro AF, Pro Buffer, small body)
DSLR FX D8x0 - $3000 (High MP, Pro AF, small body)
DSLR FX Dx - $5000 (Pro AF, Pro Buffer, Pro Boddy)

2 low end mirrorless bodies..
2 DSLR DX bodies.
2 DSLR FX small bodies.
1 DSLR FX pro bodie.

It would solve the 'What camera should i get' question.

 

[astroNikon]

^^^ good idea

Except Nikon builds so much inventory that they are still selling d3100s alongside d3200 and d3300s. 5100/5200 & 5300 and the d7000, with the d7100s. The 810 with the 800e/800. So that screws everything up.

I see Nikon finally removed the 300s from their website.

 

[sashbar]

My Mythical Nikon Lineup.. (MMNL.. trademark TheLost 2014)

Mirrorless DX D1x00 - $399 with 18-155 lens.
Mirrorless DX D5x00 - $699 (better AF, twisty-tilty screen) with 18-105mm lens.
DSLR DX D7x00 - $900 (even better AF, basicly what we have now) with 18-105mm lens.
DSLR FX D6x00 - $1600 (what we have now) with 24-85mm lens.
DSLR FX D7x0 - $2200 (Pro AF, Pro Buffer, small body)
DSLR FX D8x0 - $3000 (High MP, Pro AF, small body)
DSLR FX Dx - $5000 (Pro AF, Pro Buffer, Pro Boddy)

2 low end mirrorless bodies..
2 DSLR DX bodies.
2 DSLR FX small bodies.
1 DSLR FX pro bodie.

It would solve the 'What camera should i get' question.

This range has no camera for a street shooter. Or, for that matter, any photographer who wants a prosumer/pro level camera he/she can carry around most of the time.