Why Nikon must kill the D7100

[Raj_55555]

Yes, 7100 lacks a low pass filter and is sharper.

As does the D3300!

 

[Paul Josaph]

So, Nikon's new business plan is to drive all DX users (about 75% of their income) to Canon and the 7D II.
Brilliant strategy

Yup i also have the same feeling, its an awesome idea..

 

[qleak]

Yes, 7100 lacks a low pass filter and is sharper.

As does the D3300!

Source

Wow you're right! I didn't know that

 

[JTPhotography]

Same here, those should be removed from all bodies.

 

[Raj_55555]

Same here, those should be removed from all bodies.

Dude, don't be an extremist!
(Just kidding )

My question still stands though, I have seen many real world photographs where the D7100 produces FF quality photographs, but can the D3300 do the same in terms of picture quality? They do share the same sensor after all (AFAIK)!
I have a feeling that most folks, who know what they are doing, switch to an upgraded model like the D7000 or a D7100, so we never really get to know what these little devils are capable of in real world scenarios! Let's say for example that you're strictly into landscapes and portraits, but can't afford to go FF right now, is the little difference in the DR or the colour depth worth the difference in the price? I guess we'll never know for sure!

 

[astroNikon]

Same here, those should be removed from all bodies.

Dude, don't be an extremist!
(Just kidding )

My question still stands though, I have seen many real world photographs where the D7100 produces FF quality photographs, but can the D3300 do the same in terms of picture quality? They do share the same sensor after all (AFAIK)!
I have a feeling that most folks, who know what they are doing, switch to a upgraded model like the D7000 or a D7100, so we never really get to know what these little devils are capable of in real world scenarios! Let's say for example that you're strictly into landscapes and portraits, but can't afford to go FF right now, is the little difference in the DR or the colour depth worth the difference in the price? I guess we'll never know for sure!

With the same sensor, I think the differences really come in everything else around the sensor.

The d3300 has the Expeed 4 image processor where as the now older d7100 has the Expeed 3.
But the 3300 has 11 focus points, the d7100 has 51
the d7100 has a Commander mode and can handle remote flashes much better. Dual control wheels, button menu versus a software based menu (some ppl like, some don't) and other better body designs.

One thing I've learned is the not only is the 11 focus points provide less focusing options than 51, but the software itself of focusing seems stripped down. Reading the manuals in the past the 3x00 series has a simplified focusing system which is more "general". Whereas the d7x00 systems have a more high caliber focusing system.

I see so many photos from "pros" on FB that are done with the 3x00 and 5x00 bodies and I see so much OOF issues. Reading the manuals I now understand those issues .. at least I think so. I have never had a 3x00 or 5x00 body though.

 

[astroNikon]

Also any sensor can provide stunning results.
A FF camera provides other benefits. One is low light ability. Even though the d7100 was a Low light king, it is for a Crop sensor. When you look at the numbers, it's not even close for current FF and current Crop ==> dxoMark Nikon ISO numbers | Photography Forum

 

[Raj_55555]

[QUOTE="astroNikon, post: 3379430, member: 154561]With the same sensor, I think the differences really come in everything else around the sensor.
The d3300 has the Expeed 4 image processor where as the now older d7100 has the Expeed 3.[/QUOTE]
Yup, agree with everything you're saying. I'll try to strip down my question, lets say if we go all manual and don't use the external buttons in the D7100, and shoot RAW; will we notice any difference in the image quality?

I know the huge difference between the multicam 1000 and 3500 AF modules, one of the reasons I would prefer the D7100 over any other dx camera being a wildlife guy. But what I meant was purely in terms of picture quality, is there any difference. For example, going by my previous hypothetical example, does the AF system really matter that much if you're doing a portrait or landscape?

In a FF, other than the low light abilities we usually get significant DR for landscape work and much better colour depth and shallow dof for portraits than any DX, those are major advantages just based on the sensor.

BTW I know the rendering of the jpegs will be different for different processors, but does the difference in processor really matter in terms of image quality, if we shoot RAW?
Admittedly, I am clueless about flash and how it works, so I'd conveniently avoid that topic

 

[astroNikon]

Yup, agree with everything you're saying. I'll try to strip down my question, lets say if we go all manual and don't use the external buttons in the D7100, and shoot RAW; will we notice any difference in the image quality?

I know the huge difference between the multicam 1000 and 3500 AF modules, one of the reasons I would prefer the D7100 over any other dx camera being a wildlife guy. But what I meant was purely in terms of picture quality, is there any difference. For example, going by my previous hypothetical example, does the AF system really matter that much if you're doing a portrait or landscape?

In a FF, other than the low light abilities we usually get significant DR for landscape work and much better colour depth and shallow dof for portraits than any DX, those are major advantages just based on the sensor.

BTW I know the rendering of the jpegs will be different for different processors, but does the difference in processor really matter in terms of image quality, if we shoot RAW?
Admittedly, I am clueless about flash and how it works, so I'd conveniently avoid that topic

don't worry about being clueless about flash. I'm clueless on most of it - just technical reading and seeing other people examples and fiddling with some cameras at various times.

The key in general studio portraiture is focusing on the nearest eye and getting the depth of field correct and getting the entire portrait in focus. Any camera can do that, some maybe easier than others.

in focus landscapes. I don't see why any camera can't do this either. The proper aperture/depth of field and you're all set.

I guess an added part of the equation is the Dynamic Range especially for varied Landscapes.
It all make a difference in small amounts. It all depends upon how minute technically you want to get. That's why the better cameras are better - you add up all the extras.

The Dynamic Range of the d3300 is 12.8 whereas the d7100 is 13.7.
It's only significant if it's needed and something is lost because of it. But what exactly is the difference between 12.8 and 13.7 ? I don't know.

 

[Raj_55555]

It's only significant if it's needed and something is lost because of it. But what exactly is the difference between 12.8 and 13.7 ? I don't know.

Neither do I!

 

[jaomul]

I would very much doubt anyone could tell the difference between two similar shots with similar settings and similar lenses taken with a d7100 and d3300. Image quality will be very similar.

This thread seems to suggest the d7100 is "to good". It is a great camera, but the opposition companies have similar or even higher spec cameras in same price range/ Pentax k3 is probably even better

 

[Braineack]

Yes, 7100 lacks a low pass filter and is sharper.

The D3300 does not have an optical low pass filter either. The IQ will be completely on par with the D7100 in regards of sharpness.

The D7100 might have an advantage in RAW where it can capture more information than the D3300, but that's probably more of a firmware limitation.

The D3300 also has the EXPEED 4 where the D7100 only has the 3. I'm not sure how much of a bearing that has on the final image. But dxomark rates the any lens tested with the D3300 and D7100 the same sharpness rendering. If you compare the D3200 with the D7100 the sharpness measurement drops.

 

[goodguy]

D3300 vs D7100

When looking purely at the sensor performance between these two cameras you can clearly see how good the D3300 sensor is considering the price differences between the two cameras.

Nikon D3300 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

D7100 has an advantage in DR but in low light the D3300 has about 5% advantage
Over all both very capable sensors and indeed I would say the true differences will be with processes, AF, Colour Matrix and extra dials/options.
In true everyday use I wouldn't expect any big differences between the 2 cameras.
BTW I saw an interesting review on the Canon 7D II and at the end they compared picture in high ISO compared to the cheapest DSLR in Nikon current range the D3300 and the D3300 was considerably better.

 

[greybeard]

That D7100 seems to me, to be a freakin amazing image maker (in the right hands). Based on your OP, sounds like you agree. Is any amount of bokeh worth an extra $1k? Exactly what else would you want from it? It seems the buffer issue is absolutely the only issue (that I can tell) and unless you really are shooting burst all or most of the time, even that should not be much of an issue.

What does a full frame do that the D7100 does not (in terms of image quality) and how well can you tell the difference viewing online or printed?

Let me say I use the D7100 and I get paid for doing portraits part time. I won't say I am the best, but I think attached image speaks volumes to how good the D7100 is with off camera flash and a good understanding of photography. I will use this camera for a few more years at least...

View attachment 89698

I don't think that there is any debate on the image quality of the upper end DX product, the real debate is will Nikon continue to support it or try to move everyone to FX. I personally still like my D7000 but when I upgrade it I'm sure I'll go FX. Probably D750 when the reburbs get down to my price range.

 

[goodguy]

That D7100 seems to me, to be a freakin amazing image maker (in the right hands). Based on your OP, sounds like you agree. Is any amount of bokeh worth an extra $1k? Exactly what else would you want from it? It seems the buffer issue is absolutely the only issue (that I can tell) and unless you really are shooting burst all or most of the time, even that should not be much of an issue.

What does a full frame do that the D7100 does not (in terms of image quality) and how well can you tell the difference viewing online or printed?

Let me say I use the D7100 and I get paid for doing portraits part time. I won't say I am the best, but I think attached image speaks volumes to how good the D7100 is with off camera flash and a good understanding of photography. I will use this camera for a few more years at least...

View attachment 89698

I don't think that there is any debate on the image quality of the upper end DX product, the real debate is will Nikon continue to support it or try to move everyone to FX. I personally still like my D7000 but when I upgrade it I'm sure I'll go FX. Probably D750 when the reburbs get down to my price range.

Mirrorless is a big player here, if it will take more and more DX shooter to MFT then you will have less and less people interested in DX bodies.
Those who want FF cameras have very little competition compared to DX.
You have Nikon, Canon, Sony, if you got someone buying your FF body with FF glass this person is probably yours for a long time.
Will you have DX in few years from now is a good question, big question is when Nikon will move to mirrorless and what lens range will it offer to try and buy those it lost to MFT which is obviously inferior in low light due to its smaller size sensor.