Why the D7100 is a better camera than the D810

[runnah]

And why is no one here mentioning the Canon 50mp cameras?
Go big or go home: 50MP, full-frame Canon 5DS and 5DS R unveiled, world’s highest-res full-frame DSLRs

Because its really only geared towards a specific crowd and not many are a part of.

I'll sum it up. There is no BEST camera, there is only the BEST camera for you.

 

[Braineack]

I feel like you are basing the entirety of your argument on one spec. In reality all specs of a camera come into play.

Just like a car. You don't buy one because it has the most horsepower, otherwise you'd be trying to drive a dragster to drop the kids off at school.

your car sucks if it doesnt have a power to weight ratio of 20:1

there's the evidence.

that's fact.

you cant debate that.

 

[Braineack]

And why is no one here mentioning the Canon 50mp cameras?
Go big or go home: 50MP, full-frame Canon 5DS and 5DS R unveiled, world’s highest-res full-frame DSLRs

its pixel density is 17% less than the D7100.


why would you ever shoot such a POS?

 

[Designer]

(...waiting...)

"the Nikon D7100 is the BEST camera for wildlife photography"

I'm off to work now, but I will read your argument when I return later.

 

[astroNikon]

in which case, the d5500 should be the best camera.

the D5550 has an articulating screen.

the articulating screen does not add to the final image.


therefore the D550 is the worst camera Nikon has ever made, it should be disconintued along with the D4.

and everyone should buy the Canon 5DR 50MP camera.

Yeah but you can flip the screen backwards so the black plastic side faces out.
That, for some people, improves the final image.

 

[Auslese]

The D7100 has a higher pixel density than the D810 thru the entire image, so you are right. However the center of a spot weighted image is typically the most important part and typically not discarded by cropping.

oh good point.

you know, Sony would be smart to make sensors with higher pixel density in the center.
actually they should just make sensors smaller and pack in more megapixels into a smaller area.

actually they should stop making sensors and start making a new device that literally captures what youre shooting and puts it in a cage for your viewing. nothing beats seeing something with your own two eyes. lets get rid of the middle man that is a digital picture.

The fact is that these cameras are becoming computers in a way, and computers become obsolete overnight if another company makes a better CPU or sensor or type of ram. That said Nikon cameras are no different, and Nikon is falling behind even with the D810. the thing that keeps people dedicated is thousands of dollars of lenses, if not for that every photographer would opt for a 50mp sensor.

 

[goodguy]

I see I must say this again

 

[runnah]

The fact is that these cameras are becoming computers in a way, and computers become obsolete overnight if another company makes a better CPU or sensor or type of ram. That said Nikon cameras are no different, and Nikon is falling behind even with the D810. the thing that keeps people dedicated is thousands of dollars of lenses, if not for that every photographer would opt for a 50mp sensor.

Oh for sure they would if tiny little things like, AF speed, AF points, ISO performance, dynamic range and frames per second speed weren't an issue.

 

[Auslese]

The fact is that these cameras are becoming computers in a way, and computers become obsolete overnight if another company makes a better CPU or sensor or type of ram. That said Nikon cameras are no different, and Nikon is falling behind even with the D810. the thing that keeps people dedicated is thousands of dollars of lenses, if not for that every photographer would opt for a 50mp sensor.

Oh for sure they would if tiny little things like, AF speed, AF points, ISO performance, dynamic range and frames per second speed weren't an issue.

Af points do not matter if they are not recorded with the highest pixel density possible, and the D7100 produces a smaller overall image, with 56 percent higher pixel density. I was surprised to learn this myself, and am also mystified as to why Nikon is lagging so far behind the pack in mp.

 

[astroNikon]

==> How important is sensor pixel density really? | Photography Forum

 

[cgw]

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.

By all means, you're totally correct. No doubt about it. Gratified? Good! Next patient, please?

 

[runnah]

The fact is that these cameras are becoming computers in a way, and computers become obsolete overnight if another company makes a better CPU or sensor or type of ram. That said Nikon cameras are no different, and Nikon is falling behind even with the D810. the thing that keeps people dedicated is thousands of dollars of lenses, if not for that every photographer would opt for a 50mp sensor.

Oh for sure they would if tiny little things like, AF speed, AF points, ISO performance, dynamic range and frames per second speed weren't an issue.

Af points do not matter if they are not recorded with the highest pixel density possible, and the D7100 produces a smaller overall image, with 56 percent higher pixel density.

Alright at this point I am considering you a troll or at least someone who doesn't want to have a conversation but instead push their point forward regardless of the evidence to the contrary. You'll push and push until people give up trying to discuss the issue at which point you will feel like you have "won".

 

[Auslese]

==> How important is sensor pixel density really? | Photography Forum

That post is from here, in 2010, which is approximately 3000 calendar years years in computer sensor/CPU/RAM years. Also neither the D7100 or D810 existed in 2010, so get current or get left behind.

 

[Auslese]

The fact is that these cameras are becoming computers in a way, and computers become obsolete overnight if another company makes a better CPU or sensor or type of ram. That said Nikon cameras are no different, and Nikon is falling behind even with the D810. the thing that keeps people dedicated is thousands of dollars of lenses, if not for that every photographer would opt for a 50mp sensor.

Oh for sure they would if tiny little things like, AF speed, AF points, ISO performance, dynamic range and frames per second speed weren't an issue.

Af points do not matter if they are not recorded with the highest pixel density possible, and the D7100 produces a smaller overall image, with 56 percent higher pixel density.

Alright at this point I am considering you a troll or at least someone who doesn't want to have a conversation but instead push their point forward regardless of the evidence to the contrary. You'll push and push until people give up trying to discuss the issue at which point you will feel like you have "won".

Am I wrong that the D7100 has a higher pixel density than the D810? Yes or No?

 

[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.

By all means, you're totally correct. No doubt about it. Gratified? Good! Next patient, please?

I am also correct about this Go big or go home: 50MP, full-frame Canon 5DS and 5DS R unveiled, world’s highest-res full-frame DSLRs