Why the D7100 is a better camera than the D810

[Auslese]

The D7100 has a 56 percent higher pixel density than does the D810. If you are shooting wildlife, that is happening from hundreds of feet to hundreds of yards away, you have no need for the outsides of the images that an FX camera produces, as you will be computer cropping your shots anyway. What matters at this point is the density of the pixels on the part of the image that you will be using, at this point the D810 can not even try to compete. Thus the D7100 is the best camera Nikon makes for wildlife photography, I was rather surprised to learn this, but it all makes perfect sense, as the part of the image that you will be using is all that matters, and the bigger FX sensor with further apart pixels is a big waste of money for the average shooter.

 

[sabbath999]

With all due respect. this post would be better titled "Under what circumstances I think the D7100 is a better choice to use than a D810".

You might be shocked to learn that only a very small percentage of people use their DSLR's to shoot wildlife....

The D7100's a fine camera, but for a LOT of photographic needs it's not as good of a choice as a D810. One size does not fit all.

PS: I don't have a horse in this race, I own neither camera.

 

[jake337]

So you're basing your conclusion that the d7100 is a better camera than the d810 based solely on pixel density?

Most serious wildlife photographers use longer focal length lenses so there is little to no cropping needed.

 

[jaomul]

So the d810 has bigger photosites, a more pro build, a bigger buffer, a aps-c crop mode if required, a bigger viewfinder, 1.5 times the resolution, better higher iso, but the d7100 is better because it has denser pixels. Not so sure on this one, if you have the right lens for the job on both cameras the only advantage of the d7100 that immediately springs to mind is the 1fps faster, and even in raw that doesn't apply

 

[Auslese]

With all due respect. this post would be better titled "Under what circumstances I think the D7100 is a better choice to use than a D810".

You might be shocked to learn that only a very small percentage of people use their DSLR's to shoot wildlife....

The D7100's a fine camera, but for a LOT of photographic needs it's not as good of a choice as a D810. One size does not fit all.

PS: I don't have a horse in this race, I own neither camera.

And you might be correct that only a small percentage of photographers shoot wildlife, but that does not matter to me. If other people want to shoot buildings and sidewalks, because they live in a city, more power to them. I however strive to nature, so for me the higher pixel density of the D7100 will clearly produce a better image, and this is not opinion but can be reduced to a math equation that is provable. I crop 99 percent of the images that I use, if I do not want to crop, then I just use a wide angle lens, but for ALL IMAGES the D7100 has a higher pixel density. It's a math fact. If one needs wide landscape shots an FX camera will be wider, but for tele DX is clearly better if the density of pixels is higher.

 

[Auslese]

So the d810 has bigger photosites, a more pro build, a bigger buffer, a aps-c crop mode if required, a bigger viewfinder, 1.5 times the resolution, better higher iso, but the d7100 is better because it has denser pixels. Not so sure on this one, if you have the right lens for the job on both cameras the only advantage of the d7100 that immediately springs to mind is the 1fps faster, and even in raw that doesn't apply

The 810 has LESS RESOLUTION AT THE CENTER OF THE IMAGE, NOT MORE, because the D7100 has a higher pixel density per millimeter. If you use spot metering for fast action sports photography, the edges typically get cropped off in the computer anyway. This is a math issue, the D7100 has more pixels, there is no argument to this. The only thing that you mentioned about the 810 that might get a better picture is the bigger buffer, I could use this in high speed mode, as I often need to let the camera catch up. That said the problem is not so big that I have upgraded to the fastest card, which should help.

 

[jaomul]

Put the correct lens for the job on your camera and your last post is ridiculous.

A 400mm lens on a d7100 and a 600mm lens on a d810 would be a good example of two set ups that will frame a certain subject similarly. The d810 has more resolution everywhere in the frame.

I'm talking correct tool for the correct job

 

[Auslese]

Put the correct lens for the job on your camera and your last post is ridiculous.

A 400mm lens on a d7100 and a 600mm lens on a d810 would be a good example of two set ups that will frame a certain subject similarly. The d810 has more resolution everywhere in the frame.

I'm talking correct tool for the correct job

You do not understand photography, as those lenses are fine with either camera, the fact is that the distance to the target is the issue. If you are doing portraits where the good little subject does what you say the 810 might be fine, but when the subject ALWAYS flees the moment they see you, or they see you and then lick their lips because you look good for lunch, the 810 has no advantage over the higher pixel density in the D7100. The fact that some photography sites get kickbacks from camera makers does not distort the truth, which is that the D7100 has a higher pixel density in the center of the image, that is ALWAYS used.

 

[jaomul]

 

[gsgary]

The only reason anyone would buy the D7100 over the D810 is because they can't afford the D810

 

[Braineack]

This just in: the D7200 is a better camera than the D7100.

I was shocked to learn this myself.

You guys got to remember, PD means everything. You should know this by now. I'm glad @Auslese has the balls to be able to say it.

 

[Auslese]

Here is a no nonsense review for you to laugh at.

Again the D7100 has a higher pixel density, do you deny this fact?

A yes or no will do.

 

[Auslese]

This just in: the D7200 is a better camera than the D7100.

I was shocked to learn this myself.

You guys got to remember, MP means everything. You should know this by now. I'm glad @Auslese has the balls to be able to say it.

No the D7200 has a flimsy moveable monitor that is useless, and it incorporates wifi which is useless to producing better images.

 

[jaomul]

If it's on YouTube it had to be correct, I've no time to watch it, I'm to busy counting the pixels on the centre of my wildlife shots

 

[Braineack]

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!

the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 is the world's best camera with a pixel density of 24 MP/cm2 over the D7100's 6.6 MP/cm2.

If you shoot wildlife you need to sell all your Nikons and Canons and stop giving this site kickbacks and buy the Panasonic so you can use short lenses and not get eaten and crop in resulting in the best resolution wildlife shots in the world.