Nikon Introduces D7100 DSLR with MB-D15 Grip

<p>Why would they call this the D7100 - gives the impression it's already at its end-of-life like the D3100 and D5100 (for which the successors D3200 and D5200 already exist)? At the very least call it D7200 - or even better, D7400. It's not like Nikon is going to run out of numbers for this series anytime soon - so there isn't the danger of reproducing the D100-D70-D50-D40-D40X-D60-D80-D90 numbering mess.</p>

<p>And one month before the camera is available - really? The pre-order list will have epic proportions. Maybe Nikon want's to avoid the obvious inventory debacle of the D600 (available right when it was announced) which resulted in fire-sale prices around Christmas.</p>

<p>Since I won't be pre-ordering (lest history repeats itself), I have another 6 months to decide on how to move forward - by which time the D400 might already be announced.</p>

<p>I wonder how many people here would be happy if this new camera, D7100, was instead called D400???????????<br>

This is not the first time I say it but every time Nikon comes out with a new model, the thread ends out not to be about the new camera but what Nikon doesn't come out with.....<br>

I consider it ridiculous......</p>

<blockquote>

<p>here would be happy if this new camera, D7100, was instead called D400</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd be happy if it actually WAS a D400. Just calling it such doesn't make it so, unfortunately.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I consider it ridiculous....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or an indication that Nikon isn't producing the cameras that people want.</p>

<p>I see Shun's point - if Nikon indeed intends to produce a D400, it should have come out before the D7100. Just scalp the early adopters with the more expensive camera, then bring in a reduced feature one at a lower price (just like the D800 and D600 - both of which still leave a lot of people wishing for the true D700 successor). Nonetheless, I still think that there will be D400 - Canon's release of a 7DMKII will force Nikon's hand. Though the lack of a D400 may have Canon rethink a 7DMKII release too. And while I agree that the DX lens system is far from complete - it's incomplete for the D7100 too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And one month before the camera is available - really? The pre-order list will have epic proportions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is a pretty standard practice in the industry. In fact, I'm surprised it's only a month until it's available.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Or an indication that Nikon isn't producing the cameras that people want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think everyone wants what they want yesterday.....<br>

All manufactures go by their own pace..... as long they are making as much money as they can they are happy.<br>

In a few weeks from now everyone will be talking about how great this camera is....<br>

just look at the thread when the 1 series cameras came out..... and then the D800.... the D600 and now this..... Thinks will come when Nikon decides they should come..... we have to wait..... Why don't we start talking about how good this camera seems to be??????</p>

<p>The D7100 is certainly a very compelling camera - introducing the MCAM3500DX into a D7000-type body certainly erased the one argument in favor of the D300/D300S - the better AF. It only leaves the poor ergonomics of the latest Nikon bodies (D7000, D600, and even D800) - which is something we (grudgingly) need to get used to I suppose. Let's just hope there won't be a "left AF" problem and/or a "oil and debris on sensor" issue; in fact, let's have no issue with this one at all.<br /> The one thing I am missing is a dedicated AF-ON button. And a deeper buffer (though this might not be an issue if the card write speed is sufficiently fast). Not a big fan of SD cards, but it is what it is.</p>

<p>I don't like to carry different cards and batteries (and chargers) around - maybe my best option would be to dump my D300 and D200 bodies and go for a pair of D7100s. To be determined sometime this year, I suppose.</p>

<p>Looking forward to see how this camera performs in the ISO 1600-3200 range, as I still believe in purely technical limitations of squeezing so many pixels into the sensor. But if it performs equally to the d7000 - that would be a no brainer.</p>

<p>I'm excited for this camera, I will try to purchase it before Nov. as I'm getting to go to Italy. I will keep my current D7000 and use it as back up and or keep another lens on it and carry both at the same time, like a wide lens on one and normal on the other.</p>

<p>The D7100 should perform about the same or perhaps a bit better than the the D5200, which is marginally better than the D5100 (all according to the DXO mark site).</p>

<p>When side-by-side comparison are available, I would imagine the difference from the D7000 would be all that great/noticeable when it comes to IQ. But, the D7100 certainly has an impressive list of features that greatly distinguishes it from the D7000.</p>

<p>You can view the comparisons here at the DxoMark site:</p>

<p>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/850%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/698%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/680%7C0/(brand3)/Nikon</p>

<p>I have to assume that - even before discount - Nikon were selling a lot more D7000s than D300s. Maybe that's because the D300s is old, maybe it's because the market for the high end really is limited - this forum is probably quite a skewed sample. There weren't many people to whom I'd recommend a D300s before today, and a lot of people just want a "pretty high end" camera (D90 handling with a current sensor). Since it's probably difficult to explain why a D7000 is better than a D5200 when it has fewer pixels, moving the whole line to 24MP makes sense - though I'm curious who makes <i>this</i> one. I still suspect there's a market for people who will pay for a lot of camera but want the reach of a DX high pixel density sensor - so 24MP to an extent was the urgent bit - and at least not likely to pull sales from the D4.<br />

<br />

I'd be pretty confident that the ISO performance over the image will not be significantly less than the D7000. Per pixel, it may be a bit worse, but resolution increases giving worse ISO performance seems to have gone away with the gapless sensor.<br />

<br />

Anyway. Looks like a decent camera. I'll be interested to see the reviews. I'd love to see a D4dx appear (high pixel density D2x successor, which I increasingly think is more important than something in the D400 line), but since I won't be buying it it'd be hypocritical of me to complain about its absence. A brief moment of congratulating Nikon, rather than criticising them.<br />

<br />

I will be interested to see what a 7D2 looks like, but only out of academic interest. I was going to claim Harvey was trolling with the "best all-rounder" comment, but actually, in the 5D3, I think he's right (though I suspect the D600 is marginally better than the 6D and - because I don't <i>want</i> an all-rounder - I'm perfectly happy with my D800E). The 7D has had a resolution advantage over the D300s for a very long time, so I'll be interested to see the 5D3/D800 cycle repeat should the 7D2 pick up the 5D3's AF system. Interesting times.</p>

<p>I'm glad that nikon has put it's best autofocus module in D7100. For me precise focus is more important than low image noise. Still using my d300s and looking forward to get this new camera.</p>

<p>I don't believe this is the end of a D300 successor because of price point. Once you weed out the out-of-date cameras from the lineup, you have a big leap from the D7100 at 1199 and the D600 at 2099. The prices of the D600, I suspect, will fall faster than the D7100 but not that much faster and not by that many dollars either. Leaving space for a ~$1600 which is what the D300s is now. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>None of the current generation of mid-range cameras - D600, D800, or D7100 - have the D300's very useful combination of handling, AF, buffer size, and framerate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>all nikon had to do was to make a d300 with better hi-ISO, and maybe 16-18 mp. le sigh. as for "2007 image quality," i had to laugh when i read that. i shot with my d300s just a few days ago and the pictures didnt seem dated at all. sometimes, i think people get a bit caught up in marketing hype. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>as for "2007 image quality," i had to laugh when i read that. i shot with my d300s just a few days ago and the pictures didnt seem dated at all. sometimes, i think people get a bit caught up in marketing hype.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Eric, did you use your D300S at ISO 1600 or above?</p>

<p>I am actually fine with 12MP (although I wouldn't mind 16MP), but not the D300's ISO from 800 and up. I also don't need 24MP for DX, but that is just my preferences.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun -- Was 11pm GMT-5 the announcement hour? Which is what, 10a.m. in Japan?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Japan is actually GMT + 9. Nikon's announcements are usually at 1pm in Japan, which is either 11pm or midnight US Eastern, depending on whether it is Daylight Saving time or not.</p>

<p>We were required to post this information at one minute after 11pm Eastern last night. It is not a coincidence that I started the thread at 11:01pm instead of 11:00 sharp. And I live in California, so it was a very early 8:01pm for me. There was no need to stay up late. At home, I have a clock that is sync to the US Atomic clock, and I hit post at exactly 8:01.</p>

<p>Richard, why do you feel that the D200 was arbitrarily limited in its features? I find it to be a very high-performing model for its time with good features, good framerate, good AF system that has withstood the test of time through most DX cameras produced since, etc.</p>

<p>Harvey, I find MANY people that would disagree with the 5DIII being a better camera than the D800.</p>

<p>Dieter, one month from announcement to availability is pretty impressive. The only "inventory debacle" was that Nikon wanted to pad its sales numbers before the end of the year.</p>

<p>Eric, although cameras such as your D300 and my D200 still produce great images, give credit where credit is due. The D7000 rewrote the book for Nikon DX image quality, at any ISO. My D200 still makes good enough photos, but I'll readily admit that it doesn't hold up against the newer cameras out there, and anything in the Nikon lineup today will slaughter it.</p>

<p>I guess this answer from Nikon Europe clears something regarding the position of the D7100 vs. the D300s and its replacement:</p>

<p>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50901841</p>

<p>Interesting. </p>

<p>Ariel, I'd say giving the D200 a new AF module with only a single cross-type sensor was Nikon's way of protecting D2X sales (was it really cheaper to develop a new module than to use the better module they were already making for the D2X, or was this all about product differentiation?). Even the F100 had 3 x-sensors, in the same module as the flagship F5, just as the D300 got a state of the art module. The battery life was also oddly much shorter than the D70 before it and the D300 after, though I doubt this was a deliberate decision. Otherwise an excellent camera which I'd agree holds up well today.</p>

<p>That is interesting, Ilkka. Good find, if still vague by necessity. </p>

<p>Yes, very interesting, and this even scoops the Rumour Blog That May Not Be Named!</p>

<p>I reckon someone in Nikon R&D wanted to put a XQD card into the forthcoming D400 and someone important said <strong>NO</strong> (after they'd already done it), and set it back 6 months before they could make it fast enough to be a <strong><em>proper</em> </strong>Flagship DX....not this half baked D300s replacement, that it clearly isn't.</p>

<p>I too think that there is yet room for a D400, for two logical reasons. First is the gap in price. The jump between the D7100 and D600 is a pretty big one, and that $1,500 price point has always been an important one for both Nikon and Canon. Second, having no D400 means that Nikon has only one camera with really blazing fps, and it's an expensive one at that. Who knows if a d400 will actually appear. One thing I'm finding very humerous is NikanRumur was predicting on Monday that the 'big announcement" would not be a D7100 but rather an APS-C point & shoot. That suggests to me that a D400 could possibly come out of nowhere. I'm not going to continue to wait though. I'm intending to buy the D7100 after a few months go by (and potential bugs are dealt with), along with a D5200. If a D400 appears I'll simply dump the D7100, probably at a slight loss. I was starting to think about buying a used D800 this fall to shoot weddings, but I won't do that now. I highly doubt any customers are going to be able to tell the difference between images made with a d800 vs. D7100. I take paying jobs to put money in MY pocket, not Nikon's.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p><em>Correction to my post above:</em></p>

<p>"When side-by-side comparison are available, I would imagine the difference from the D7000 would <strong>NOT</strong> be all that great/noticeable when it comes to IQ [compared to the D7100]"</p>

<p>This is a very interesting announcement, and it looks like the end of the DX "pro" line, especially since Nikon has labeled this as its DX flagship model. Aside from the body build (weight and weather sealing namely), this camera is not that far off from what we would expect from a D400. The frame rate maxed out at 7 fps in this new 1.3x crop mode could be a little disappointing, but I believe this is the same frame rate of a D300/D300s without the grip. And for many people wanting a higher frame rate DX camera (meaning higher than the D7000's 6 fps) were really using it for the high-speed, cropped-frame shooting anyway (sports, wildlife, etc.), so again, aside from the build, I think it's a perfect model from a business standpoint. And I'm happy it has the 51-point system versus the 39-point autofocus system.</p>

<p>When I bought a D800 earlier this year, I really wanted an updated D700 and was disappointed at the D800's frame rate, so I kept my D300s...until I shot with the D800 around ISO 2000. The difference between the two cameras is night and day. I couldn't use that D300s in good conscience anymore. Once the D600 was announced (a camera I don't really care for personally), I traded my D300s in for a used D700 so I can have the higher frame rate, but I missed carrying my 16-85 DX lens around when I was just kickin' it and not working on a paid gig. Bought a 24-120 f/4 to use, but that lens is quite heavy and hence not as convenient as the 16-85. All this said, if I'm happy with the 1.3x crop mode frame rate of 7 fps and the ISO performance at 1600 to 3200, then I'm definitely getting one of these. Lugging the D700 and the 24-120 around on vacation recently made me appreciate the days when I had a D90 and the 16-85.</p>

<p>We wanted a D700 replacement and didn't get a true replacement. We wanted a D300s replacement and didn't get a true replacement. The current lineup is the new norm, and personally I think we all still have some great choices that will give us great images for years to come.</p>

<p>Its really annoying that this new camera and the d7000 don't use the same grip...</p>