D7100 Review

<p>The link to the D7100 review on the home page is broken.</p>

<P>

<I>photo.net's system administrator has restarted the front end so that the link should work for everybody now.</I> -- Shun, June 8, 4:30pm EDT

</P>

<p>Yea and no. I am aware of the situation since yesterday when photo.net published the review, as I got a couple of complaints yesterday. That link works on some of my computers but not on some others, such as a couple of phones I use. It is a common issue on photo.net that new links will take hours to work, dated back to 2009 or so.</p>

<p>It is a major problem when we have time-sensitive information to publish, such as various equipment previews I do when Nikon introduce new cameras and lenses, as those previews need to be synchronized with the Nikon announcement.</p>

<p>Typically, those links will work fine after a few hours. Unfortunately, in this case it has been like 12 hours. I'll check with photo.net system admin to see whether they have a fix or not.<br /> http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/nikon-D7100/</p>

<p>Nope, 'New Link' = page not found.</p>

<p>Windows XP laptop.</p>

<p>Excellent review. I agree completely with Shun's conclusions including it filling the position that the D400 might fill. I have used mine for over a month now and I find it hard to pick up one of my other cameras.</p>

<p>How strange--I read the review yesterday (maybe via the Facebook page link?), and bookmarked it, the same link that Shun provides here. But today I get a 404 Page Not Found error.</p>

<p>I second Rick's opinion that it was an excellent review, and, having been shooting with the D7100 for a couple of months, I too agree with Shun's conclusions. (Though recently mine is starting to evidence some trouble it didn't seem to earlier; I have not had time to sit down and assess this so won't comment further.) However, I do hope his assessment regarding the D400 (that it will never appear) proves to be incorrect!</p>

<p>I found this link through google although it does have the word "draft" in it, but it works. Is this it?</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/nikon-D7100/index.draft</p>

<p>The content in the "draft" should be identical now.</p>

<p>I should have informed photo.net system admin staffs immediately yesterday, but I thought it would resolve after a few hours as usual. This time it has taken a while and now it is Saturday so that it is harder to get a hold of someone to look into it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I do hope his assessment regarding the D400 (that it will never appear) proves to be incorrect!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Noreen, I chose my terminology very carefully. Notice that the term "D400" never appeares in the article. As soon as I saw the specs for the D7100 under NDA, a bit before the public announcement, it was very obvious that Nikon never had any intention to update the D300S. Otherwise, it should have happened a least a year earlier. Now with the strong specs for the D7100 at $1200, a successor to the D300S is just economically impossible. However, Nikon could introduce a totally unrelated DSLR, perhaps FX, and name it D400. I sure don't want to get into another silly debate if that happens.</p>

<P>

If it were up to me, I would like to see a DX version of the D4, or some sort of "modern" D2HS, perhaps at $3000 to $4000 with 10 fps and the same type of construction as a D2, D3, or D4. When Nikon introduced the D2H and D2HS in the mid 2000's, they were around $3500 new. However, today, I just can't see them selling a whole lot of units with that kind of spec and price (a $3500 high-end DX body). Therefore, economically, it wouldn't make any sense either. IMO, neither the D7100 nor D300 type body is going to stand up against pro-sports, wildlife photography at 10 fps on a regular basis.

</P>

<p>Shun, thank you for clarifying. I would have worded my post a bit differently if I could have gone back to review your review to see how you had worded that. (I should have at least put "scare quotes" around "D400.")</p>

<p>I wonder what the sales figures really would be for what I will call in shorthand "D4dx" even at the prices you mention, considering that there are wildlife and sports photographers who buy lenses with five-digit prices. Would they be willing to pay two to three times as much for a body with those specs? May be. If my life had taken a certain turn, I might have been willing to. </p>

<p>It will be interesting to see what Canon's 7dII looks like, spec- (and price-) wise, and what the wildlife/sport shooter reaction to it will be.</p>

<p>I got to make the 'draft' link work. Excellent review.</p>

<p>Do you think they'll try the memory upgrade route, as it is their 'Flagship' model?</p>

<p>........or a mid-term > D7200 upgrade?</p>

<p>If I were a full-time sports photographer, I would just get a D4. In sports, the subjects (athletes) are larger and sometimes you need to shoot at night or indoors. Under those conditions FX still has its advantages. A lot of wildlife photographers prefer DX because the subjects tend to be smaller (e.g. birds, small mammals) or you are farther away: shy animals, dangerous animals.</p>

<p>Mike, the buffer is more like a convenient excuse. If you need to shoot many continuous frames on the D7100, just shoot JPEG fine. Hyperthetically, if Nikon doubles the buffer on the D7100, people will complain that its construction will not stand up to rough handling.</p>

<p>I suppose now that Nikon Pro DSLR is undoubtedly FX, it would be unfair to compare the Flagship models the D1, D1X, D1XS, D2x and D2XS with the current DX flagship, the D7100.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you need to shoot many continuous frames on the D7100, just shoot JPEG fine<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Without meaning to sound personal, that is pretty lame for the Nikon Flagship DX camera. What's the point of a high-res, high DR chip if you're going to irretrievably compress it?<br>

<br>

Do Nikon really think a £1600 D7<strong>2</strong>00 would steal sales from the £4300 D4? <br>

<br>

Oh, I see why it's not going to happen...too many really, really cross D4 owners!</p>

<p>Excellent review but very depressing about the D7100 being Nikon's flagship DX camera. I recently used the D7100 on a 10 year old Sigma 300-800 and it worked great at all autofocus points. (My D800 doesn't focus properly on the left point.) Thankfully, the D7100 doesn't have this problem. The D7100 simply isn't fast enough for sports, birds in flight, and surfing. I just got back from the Wedge in Newport Beach (high surf this weekend) and pretty much most of the photographers on the sand were shooting Canon cameras, still. They sure sound a lot faster than my D7100. However, since the surf breaks really close to the shore at the Wedge, I used a Sony A57 (10 FPS) with 70-400 instead of the D7100 with 80-400 because it is simply a lot faster. </p>

<p>I think we have seen a profound change in who buys the so-called flagship cameras. I have no statistics to support the following opinion but the frequent posters here and the many professionals with whom I interact seem to support it.</p>

<p>If we went back to the D2H/X I think that we would have found that the majority of these cameras were purchased by employers for their employees. Or in the case of some few freelancers by themselves for specific jobs. If you had asked me when I got my D2H whether I would ever own a "consumer" camera I would have said no. Then I would have scoffed at the notion of a "pro-sumer" camera. Of course I was not paying to maintain my own cameras. I had bought into the whole durability thing even though a D100 had hung around my neck as a lens-holder/second body for quite sometime.</p>

<p>Then things started to change. I saw my fellow PJs loosing their staff jobs or like me going to independent contractor status. All of a sudden buying cameras was a part of my business model. The $5K was coming out of my pocket. I flirted with a D70 along about that time as a backup camera because I liked the 1/500 flash sync but it was too flimsy IMO. But it never broke.....Even so I continued to buy these top-of-the-line bodies. I was lucky to be able to do it but many of my friends simply weren't. The sports guys were sort of stuck with these $5K cameras because of the frame rate but then along came the D300. I got one right away. It was just a much better camera than my pair of D2Xs and D2H. Again. If it were not for the voice recorders they would have been sold off and replaced with a pair of D300s. I would have got enough selling them used in those days to get the d300/grip for free. Maybe even pocketed some money. I was lucky to be able to afford to keep them and ultimately upgrade to the D3/4 series but by that time I was under no illusion that it was luck and that they were not strictly a necessity. They were luxury items for what I did. Still are.</p>

<p>So I came to see fewer professionals carrying these $6K machines and more enthusiasts springing for them. Today I find that I am more likely to see the 1DX or D4 hanging around the neck of a well-heeled amateur than I am a professional. Put simply, most of us (working professionals) can't afford them. Some of us who can afford them don't see the value in them or prefer to carry something lighter. Some of us buy them because we can and they really are superb machines. But we know what the enthusiast ought to know (and many do) that the choice is a luxury purchase and it has just about nothing to do with the quality of images we produce. </p>

<p>So now what is an average working pros kit? Assuming they do not have left-over cameras it is something like this:</p>

<p>D800(maybe E) - A D700 from a couple of years ago as a second body. Usually the old D300 when we need something fast. And the one most of the folks I talk to have their eyes on is the D7100. There was and still is lots of resistance to the idea but a few minutes with the specs and the camera in hand and the deal is done. Thank God we already have the glass.</p>

<p>So just as an example of the change. Suppose a working generalist/PJ or Wedding photographer had the following kit for bodies: D600, D300/grip and D7100. What picture would he/she not be equipped to shoot? Even in inclement weather? The answer is none. And the whole kit would cost just about 70% of what a new D4 would cost. </p>

<p>As I type this there is a marvelous picture of a surfer that Shun shot with a D2X. A D2X that shoots 5 FPS in DX (slower than the D7100 and with far less resolution) 8 FPS in 2X mode at about 6 MP (one FPS faster than the D7100 in crop mode but with vastly less resolution) and a honking big heavy body. And if it were a D3 (s) you would not be that much better off. Image quality wise there is no comparison. My D7100 blows my D2xs out of the water in every way. The D3 pretty much too. And on this surfer shot of Shuns, less the frame rate, it would edge out my D4 particularly because I do not have a 500mm F4. (The only 'sport' a D800 is good for chess....but that is not what it is made to do.) </p>

<p>So I think that Nikon knows that there was a profound change in the so-called professional market while we were all sleeping. Not only is our very job being redefined but the equipment requirements have changed as well. The D4 is a lovely camera. Mine is not for sale. But if I had to talk about it in church I would have to admit that it is a luxury item, not in a strictly professional sense a necessary one. </p>

<p>Thanks for the excellent review Shun. It tends to confirm that, for me, the lower cost of the D7000 outweighs the advantages of the D7100.<br>

Just a few points:-<br>

1. The D7100 spec says that the DX frame rate slows from 6 to 5 fps when shooting 14 bit NEF. If the big difference in file size is between lossless and lossy compressed rather than between 12 and 14 bit that is perhaps rather surprising. Perhaps it is the actual 14 bit processing that is the problem rather than file size itself?<br>

2. They seem to have removed the remote option from the drive mode dial cf. D7000. That seems a shame since if the inactivity timer times out the only way back to remote mode is via the menu. On the D7000 if that happens a half press on the shutter release wakes the camera up back in remote mode. Why did they change it I wonder? I suppose that the i-menu makes it fairly easy to get back to the remote options and reset. I find the remote mode with an ML-L3 using mirror up very handy on a tripod.<br>

3. The D7100 has the option to turn auto ISO off with the sub-command dial. That is a bonus since I find auto ISO a nuisance when using the built-in flash as the camera can raise ISO to the programmed maximum in dim light. On the D7000 turning auto ISO off involves a trip into the menu system.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Back in 1999, the only Nikon DSLR was the $5500 D1, so by default it was the "flagship" body that happens to be DX. In 2004/2005, the D2X was the "flagship" model at $5000 and also DX. After that, the most expensive DX body has been the D300/D300S at $1800. Today, the "flagship" DX body is the D7100 at $1200.</p>

<p>At least to me, it is very clear that the $1500 to $2000 price range now belongs to FX, with the D600's price gradually coming down. That was a category that never existed before until the D600 and Canon 6D came along 9 months ago. As I mentioned before, a relative of mine recently bought a brand new 6D for around $1550, from a dealer who is willing to break up a 6D kit. Nikon is also building up a supporting lens system for that class of FX DSLRs, such as the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR, the new 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S, 50mm/f1.8 AF-S, 85mm/f1.8 AF-S, etc. All of thost are fine optically but on the slower side.</p>

<P>

In other words, at this point all DX cameras are consumer models, with the D7100 at the lower pro-sumer level.

</P>

<p>I am curious whether Canon will introduce a 7D Mark II to update a category Nikon has chosen not to continue and at a price higher than the 6D.</p>

<p>The D7100 brings a lot of feature and capabilities for $1200. Naturally, it is not going to do everything a $1800 to $3000 camera can do. I sure wouldn't mind having 10 fps if I shoot hummingbirds, but I have hundreds and hundreds of birds in flight images captured with the two D7100 I have used. There are certainly better, and more expensive, action cameras out there, but if you can't get it done with the D7100, I dare to say the problem is not the camera.</p>

<p>BTW, our system admin has restarted the front end so that the D7100 review link from photo.net's home page should work now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are certainly better, and more expensive, action cameras out there, but if you can't get it done with the D7100, I dare to say the problem is not the camera.<br /> <br /> <br /> I sure wouldn't mind having 10 fps if I shoot hummingbirds</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are pretty contradictory statements Shun.<br>

<br /> So all the D3S and D4 users are poseurs with more money than skill? Interesting conclusion.</p>

<p>Mike, those statements are by no means contradictory. I can do an even better job with a better tool, like this hyperthetical DX version of the D4 that could shoot 10 fps I mentioned earlier. However, the D7100 can still get the job done for me. I may get fewer keeps with 6 fps instead of 10 fps, but I still get a lot of excellent images that I am very happy with.</p>

<p>I got to use a D7100 test sample for about a month and half before I bought my own. If it can't get the job done, I wouldn't spend my own money on one. Otherwise, I have a D2X, D300, and D7000 sitting idly at home, not to mention a D700 and D800E. I can use any one of those and get professional-quality birds in flight images, as I have done in the past. However, today, the D7100 is the best tool among all of those.</p>

<p>Shun, would you like a DX version of the 'D4' for £2000 ($3000) for your photographic reasons?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So<strong> all</strong> the D3S and D4 users are poseurs <strong>with more money than skill</strong>? Interesting conclusion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Poseurs? Not all but a bunch of them. Tell us you have not been to the zoo and seen some chartered accountant with a D4, vest and some outrageous lens shooting beavers in a pond. So why does he/she do it? They like the feel? Always want the best? Poseurs? I think many of them are. But then Mike, if I took my D4 out to shoot my nephew's birthday party I would be a bit of a poseur too. I would be carrying a much more expensive and capable camera than was required for the "job".<br>

I know you did not intend to imply that there is some correlation between skill and the kind of camera a well off person can buy. Actually there is no correlation in that regard but there is certainly a correlation the other way. There is a correlation between what a person of average or limited means chooses versus what they would choose if they were wealthy regardless of their skill level. And that is exactly where many if not most professionals are these days. And talented amateurs. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, would you like a DX version of the 'D4' for £2000 ($3000) for your photographic reasons?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What market would it be aimed towards? Perhaps the sports shooter would like it. If it had voice memo and shot 10 FPS for $3K I might buy it to replace my two D2X 'rodeo' cameras. But then again, maybe not. I would have to justify paying 3X what the D7100 costs win, lose, or draw. It is the same argument. Certainly such a camera might sell but the irony is that I don't think it would sell to many professionals. And what does an enthusiast need with a voice memo? So that leaves 10 fps versus 6 fps and some bragging rights at a cost of $1800.00. That is a lot of money for a buffer upgrade. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rick, I was just 'interpreting' ..</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but if you can't get it done with the D7100, I dare to say the problem is not the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.....kinda implies <em>no-one</em> actually <em>needs</em> a D3S or a D4.... and if they don't actually need it (I think they do do, by the way!) they must have another reason and pose value seems the most obvious...no??<br /> <br /> .....it also says if you need <em>more</em> than the D7100 can offer, you, the user, aren't skilled enough and can't use it properly.<br /> <br /> Maybe I mis-interpreted the statement, but it seems pretty clear-cut.</p>

<p>Mike, I would appreciate that you stop "interpreting" what I wrote. In case what I wrote is unclear to anybody, they are free to ask me for clarification.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>kinda implies</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And never say someone "implies" something; never. As soon as you do that, you are putting words in their mouth. That is definitely not appreciated.</p>

<p>I see what you mean. I agree that there are a few photographers who need the D4. I actually think I am one to some extent. That darned voice memo is just the coolest thing for PJs. It really is quite useful. And my D2xs won't break or the D4 would be my rodeo and rough stock camera. But if I am forced to be totally honest, there are practically no shots that I could not just as effectively, if not as conveniently, take with less expensive cameras. Yes 10 FPS is cool for some things but unless one is shooting some kind of sport.....and even then. </p>

<p>I will freely admit and even assert that the pose value is sometimes important. My big body cameras and ginormous lenses get me past the police, firemen and other gatekeepers quite often. There are quite a number of times when I deliberately dress the part. Domke vest, black t-shirt and all. Even sometimes at least one lens that is bigger than I really need. It makes doing my job easier when people just assume I ought to be there.</p>

<p>That is not my point though. The cold fact of life is that there is an increasing number of working professional photographers who simply can't afford the luxury of a 1DX or D4. My point is that for the vast majority of their work they have much less expensive alternatives available and that the D7100 figures prominently among them. And I believe that both Canon and Nikon have this metric down pretty well. So that is why I believe that they (Canon and Nikon) are considering their "pro" bodies as more aimed at the luxury market than at the working one.</p>

<p>By the way, this is happening somewhat with lenses too. Just look at the price of the new Canon 200-400 F4. There is no way that they came up with the $12000.00 price because the professionals who might want it could in any significant numbers afford it. Very few of us earn that kind of money. And we already have 300 F.2.8's anyway. Right? Now if the boss is paying that is another thing. My personal opinion is that this lens is aimed right at the luxury market. I would be willing to wager that there are more of them in the back of Land Rovers than there are in Toyotas. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry Shun, when I reread it it came out far more personally than I intended.</p>

<p>I fully agree that the D7100 is the best overall DX DSLR that Nikon have built so-far, but that the Flagship model has these shortcomings is far from ideal. Admittedly Nikon will not please all the people all of the time doesn't mean there appears to be a gap in the line up....at the top. </p>

<p>You, yourself said that the D7100 is not built to take the abuse of the D300 series. Where is the DX camera that <strong><em>is</em></strong> built for the DX action hero? It used to be the top model, now it isn't in the current DX line-up anywhere. Many people want a D400, at-least on here anyway!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You, yourself said that the D7100 is not built to take the abuse of the D300 series.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, when did I say that? Could you provide a reference?</p>

<p><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bZgC?start=20">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bZgC?start=20</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Another problem is that once you do that, people are going to use the D7100 as a big time sports/action camera. I kind of doubt that the D7100 can hold up for that kind of abuse.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No need for interpretation here.</p>