D7100 Review

<p>Mike, but the D300 isn't even mentioned in the part you quoted. That is the point I am getting at.</p>

<p>Instead, this was what I wrote yesterday, June 8 at 12:03pm, on this very thread:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>The entire notion that somehow the D300 is a robust DSLR while the D7000 and D7100 are fragile is silly. The D300 maybe built a bit better, but the difference is small. I have dropped my D7000 on concrete and used it in light rain as well as right on the equator for weeks. It is certainly constructed well enough.</p>

<p>However, if I am going to use it at 10 fps on a regular basis, I would like to have it in a D3, D4 type body that has a shutter rated to 300k, 400k actuations, not a D300 or D7100 type that is rated to 150K actuations.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, if I am going to use it at 10 fps on a regular basis, I would like to have it in a D3, D4 type body that has a shutter rated to 300k, 400k actuations, not a D300 or D7100 type that is rated to 150K actuations.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Up to a point, that's my point! Nikon still don't make a Pro DX action model! Has there ever been a Pro DX camera, <strong><em>after</em></strong> the D3 came out? I think not.</p>

<p>My D300 + MB-D10 +EnEl4 has racked up well over 200,000 frames usually at full-speed, ie 8fps. All I want is a camera with a few more pixels, better ISO and higher DR (via RAW) as a replacement......before it dies! The D7100 is NOT it.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D7100 is NOT it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, if the D7100 is not the camera for you, don't get it. I am not aware of anybody who says the D7100 is the right camera for every single one of us so that everybody needs to buy one.</p>

<p>This was what I wrote yesterday:</p>

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>The fact of the matter is that ever since Nikon introduced the D3 in 2007, the price line that separates FX vs. DX has been moving down. With the introduction of the D3, high-end DX (i.e. the D2 family) immediately disappeared. A year later (2008) FX moved down to the $3000 D700. Last year (2012) it moved further down to the $2000 D600. As a result of that, higher-end prosumer DX (D200, D300) as a category is now gone; in fact, it has been gone for at least a year and half (depending on how you count). Since 2010/2011, top-of-the-line DX has been lower-end prosumer bodies in the form of the D7000 and D7100 at $1200.</p>

<p>I think (almost) everybody understands that pro DX (the continuation of the D2HS and D2XS) will never come back, since it was discontinued back in 2007. Unfortunately, a lot of people are still unaware (or cannot accept) that the D200-300 series was discontinued for good at the end of 2011.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(or cannot accept)</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>or don't want to believe:-).... But yes, I think you're right. I wish you weren't and I'm by no means alone.</p>

-Sometimes I just avoid getting into these conversations because they hammer on one or two points of contention and

never seem to have a finale'. Anyway, yesterday I went to the local "electronics giant" and bought a D7100 to add to my

kit. I had been testing a pair of D5100s since last August(?) to see how these play out for my needs or if I was going to

move into full frame. But kind of to Rick's various points which resonate with me, and various other factors as to what my

continued specific goals are in the photography world, I decided that I'm very comfortable working with the smaller and

lighter DX system.

 

-I did notice that while beautifully made, the D7100 isn't quite a wheel banger like the D200, but more sturdy than the

D5100. All's good, it will be fine. The focus in general I notice even with my D lenses is very fast, so no problem there. It

has a zillion menu choices and doubled up buttons, so that will take some getting used to. I mostly shoot in A or M, once I

set things up it will be fine, but you seem to need a degree in computer logics to figure things out.

 

-In practical use, I will probably strip the functions way down to one focus point at times and either RAW or LFine Vivid

and keep most other functions the same except for the AE/AF lock which I will change to AE only so that I can meter and

recompose quickly without locking the focus too.

 

-My kit is still including when needed the Hasselblad 503CW 50mm CF-fle where I send a roll or two out for soup and

scan. Sorry to say there's something just missing with using any of the smaller formats for critical wide angle work. For

some of my stuff, the basic cheapo 18-55 freebie is actually good enough, but when I really need to get that smack from

edge to edge I still think the Blad is where it's at. I went to the Blad-Bron show in October and the wide stuff coming out of

their $40,000 cameras was just in it's own hemisphere. So, everything needs to be put into proper perspective

accordingly.

<blockquote>

<p>a lot of people are still unaware (or cannot accept) that the D200-300 series was discontinued for good at the end of 2011</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a lot of customers that potentially won't be buying ANY of Nikon's current offerings. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>or don't want to believe:-).... But yes, I think you're right. I wish you weren't and I'm by no means alone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1<br>

Guess there will be a D7100 finding its way into my bag in the not so distant future. Really my only beef is the shallow buffer - and I just need to adjust. But I said it before and I say it again, Nikon not bringing out a $1800 DX "D400" is a huge opportunity missed for a camera maker that needs all niches covered.</p>

<p>This thread is getting more interesting by the post from a business point of view. The D200 and D300 series have been Nikon's bread and butter with an extremely strong and loyal user base willing and wanting to step up to a D400. Instead, Nikon is focusing on full frame cameras while newspapers and media providers are increasingly dumping their photo departments in favor of viewer photo submissions from smartphones. Nikon has also focused quite successfully on the point & shoot market which is now tanking. And finally, Nikon has placed increasing focus on the mirrorless market which is now growing much slower than anticipated. Nice market forecasting. </p>

<p>We need to keep in mind that DSLRs is a rapidly changing field. For example, there were three installments to Canon's "flahship" 1DS series cameras, all introduced at $8000:</p>

<ol>

<li>1Ds, 11MP introduced in September, 2002</li>

<li>1Ds Mark II, 16.7MP, September, 2004</li>

<li>1Ds Mark III, 21MP, announced on August 20, 2007, merely 3 days before Nikon announced the D3 and D300</li>

</ol>

<p>In December, 2008, Nikon announced its own D3X with 24MP, also at $8000.</p>

<p>However, now 6 years later, I am confident that we'll never see any 1Ds Mark 4 as a continuation of that 1Ds series or any other $8000 DSLR from Canon or Nikon. The $3000, 36MP D800 simply blows that whole category away.</p>

<p>So in 2012, Nikon replaced the D3/D3S with the D4, the D700 more or less with the D800/D800E, but instead of the $8000 D3X, we now have the $2000 D600 that sometimes appears at my local Costco. I am sure Nikon is now selling a lot more FX bodies. That D600, in conjunction with the $1200 D7100 that is loaded with features, has killed the D200/D300 series.</p>

<p>I am curious to see whether Canon will indeed introduce any 7D Mark II. At this point, Canon has nothing to match the D7100, which features Nikon's best AF at $1200.</p>

<p>Shun: I like your review. I have already retired my D300 for the D7100. One concern that seemed to be lurking in your review was the increased resolution of the D7100. I am going on vacation trip and would like to travel light. I have the Nikkor 16-85 Zoom. I have used it since I got the D300. I was thinking of getting the 18-200 Lens so I could leave my prime 105 F2/D and/or my 180 F2.8 IFED lens home. However I am concerned about the quality of the 18-200 on the D7100. I would appreciate thoughts on this? Is my fear real?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However I am concerned about the quality of the 18-200 on the D7100.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rafi, it all depends on whether you value convenience or quality. The D7100 is definitely an overkill if you want some vacation images that you are going to e-mail friends and post to social media, or for that matter post to our Wednesday image threads.</p>

<p>Concerning the 18-200 DX super zoom, my experience is that its long end is quite poor even on the 12MP D300S. I am not interested in that lens and won't bother to test it on the D7100. The outcome is quite predictable. However, if your objective is to have a convenient lens to save some memories from your vacation, it may be the right tool for you.</p>

 

I'd be curious to know also, has anybody connected with a wide or semi wide 16-20 range, I don't care where it ends, 35,

50, 105, 200 whatever that can hold the corners together on a DX with a 24mp sensor ?

<p>Recently we had a thread on the 18-105mm DX, and I posted full-size images from the D7100 with that and the 16-85mm DX AF-S: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bfon">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bfon</a></p>

<p>And this is the full-size image from the 16-85: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00bgLg-539297684.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00bgLg-539297684.jpg</a></p>

<p>I think that lens is quite good at 18mm, close to the widest setting. But of course, quality comes with a price. The 16-85 is rather expensive for a slow zoom. (I don't own any 16-85. That test sample belongs to a friend, who bought it second handed last year from some guy who originally bought it in Switzerland. But that lens is holding up quite well after a couple of owners.)</p>

<p>I am currently reviewing the new 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S. That turns out to be optically excellent as well, but slower. At 18mm, it is reasonably good on the D800. On the D7100, since you are avoiding the edges of that image circle, the quality is quite good.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D7100 is definitely an overkill if you want some vacation images that you are going to e-mail friends and post to social media, or for that matter post to our Wednesday image threads.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't feel that a D7100 is overkill for a vacation. Vacations are great photo ops. Even if you are just posting on social media or to the Wednesday thread the ability to shoot at ISO 6400 (or substitute frame rate or handling or viewfinder or ergonomics or shallow dof or...) can make the difference . Its not just about output size. I would never go on vacation without a DSLR.</p>

<p>Thanks Shun for answering my question. I will take my prime 180 for long shots. It’s interesting that when mentioning travel people though in terms of ‘snapshot’ type photos. Actually my real concern was theft and the desire to travel light. I rarely take simple snapshots, I always shoot at high resolution because when crop your photos lots of that full frame resolution falls away. As for the D7100 body, I am looking forward to ‘owning the night’. I use my Nikkor 50 F1.4, Sigma 35 F1.4 or Nikkor 105 F2 on the streets and in museums.<br>

Since I take about 1,000 images a day, then edit of course. Anyway, I reserve images for review later. I shoot architectural details and things of interest. For example, I have detailed photos of the drain pipes at Herculaneum, Pompeii and Ostia Attica.<br>

BTW: the size of the D7100 is great. Much better than my D300. Regarding theft and street photos. I love the BlackRapid strap. I hardly know the camera is there and people on the street, don’t see the camera because it rides behind my hip.<br>

Lastly, I just want to say, the D7100 has put new life in slow lens like the 16-85 Zoom by adding 1-2 F stops in speed. This lens is fantastic. When you are riding in bus, train etc… you hardly know what lens you will need next as you go around a corner. I proved this with lots of photos last year in China.</p>

Thanks Shun for explaining those lenses. The only lens set I'm using right now on the D7100 are the D series, 50 1.4, 85

1.8 and 180 2.8

I have a 35 1.8 on one D5100 and the kit zoom on the other, so I just want to find a newer wide to go on the D7100 that

will stand up to the sensor.

I see already testing the 50 1.4 that the D7100 has fantastic detail depth. So far I'm very pleased with this machine only

20 or so shots in. I also really like the extra little button on the front which I set to Spot meter, that is a fantastic option.

OK, enough babbling, happy trails.

<p>'<em>But I said it before and I say it again, Nikon not bringing out a $1800 DX "D400" is a huge opportunity missed for a camera maker that needs all niches covered</em>.'<br /> That's a mighty small niche considering the cost of the D600 and the earlier migration to FX by those who needed those features.</p>

<p>"<em>The D200 and D300 series have been Nikon's bread and butter with an extremely strong and loyal user base willing and wanting to step up to a D400. Instead, Nikon is focusing on full frame cameras while newspapers and media providers are increasingly dumping their photo departments in favor of viewer photo submissions from smartphones. Nikon has also focused quite successfully on the point & shoot market which is now tanking. And finally, Nikon has placed increasing focus on the mirrorless market which is now growing much slower than anticipated. Nice market forecasting</em>."</p>

<p>Though DX cameras make up most of Nikon's DSLR sales. much has changed since the D200 and D300 were current models--just look at what the current DX line-up delivers. Nikon apparently sees little point in 2013 to making a "pro" DX camera when that segment shifted to FX. Guesstimates are that FX is at best 20% of Nikon DSLR sales. Anyone needing an full-frame body bought one(regardless of brand)and never looked back. FX is used for more than pj work. Nikon was no more or less blind-sided by smartphones than any other p&s maker. Nikon's move into MILCs is more tentative than ruinous. Their indecision is obvious in the CX cameras, the pricey Coolpix A, and in the continued absence of an EVF APS-C MILC.</p>

<p>At any rate, thanks to Shun for a thorough and even-handed review.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's a mighty small niche considering the cost of the D600</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cost isn't everything and to me the gap between $1200 and $2000 is a huge one. If one takes into account used and refurbished prices, then there is something within $100 of each other all the way from $300 to $3000.<br>

To me - and I imagine to quite a few others, the D600 is not a substitute for what many expect a D400 to look like. One is expected to be a fully loaded high-level DX camera, the other one is a stripped-down, meet-a-price-point body whose only claim to fame is the FX sensor. Even if the D400 would cost as much as the D600 - there would be no hesitation on my part on which one to chose. Even if there is no D400, then the price goes to the D7100 and not the D600 - I am quite happy to stick with DX a while longer. FX has no appeals to me - especially not considering the substantial follow-up costs of having to upgrade lenses as I certainly don't want to go backwards to variable aperture ones.</p>

<p>And to say it again - it looks like the D7100 is a great camera with the only caveat that for many the buffer is just too shallow. I imagine, that both technical reasons and the desire to meet a price point are responsible. </p>

<p>I currently use a D300 with 13 year old 80-400 for some of my "not so fast action" photography. I was looking forward to eventually purchasing the new AFS 80-400 but if Nikon isn't going to introduce an 8/10 FPS D400, I guess there is no need to purchase the new AFS 80-400. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>To me - and I imagine to quite a few others, the D600 is not a substitute for what many expect a D400 to look like. One is expected to be a fully loaded high-level DX camera, the other one is a stripped-down, meet-a-price-point body whose only claim to fame is the FX sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D600 is a stripped down model? You are kidding me, right, Dieter?</p>

<p>100% viewfinder and dual memory cards are too important features that are not even available on the D700 (but available on the D3 introduced a year earlier). The D600 also has weather sealing, 39 AF points w/ 9 cross type (far more than the D2H and D2X), metering with AI/AI-S lenses, 2D virtual horizon, 1080 full HD video ....</p>

<p>The D600 is certainly not top of the line, but it is still loaded with modern, high-end features so that it is merely slightly behind the D800.</p>

<P>

However, while the D600 and D300 are at a similar price point, one is a slower FX body with a lot of pixels; the other is a faster DX body. They serve different purposes such that those who want an updated D300 are complaining.

</P>

<p>Regarding the D400 … My opinion is that the pricing on the D7100 was purposely low to get customers into the Nikon stable. After all, the body is just a start. If you will, Nikon is looking at rival makers. The D7100 is small, very capable and making the price super attractive helps Nikon against other competing brands. For us loyal Nikon users, we just got a bonus.<br>

I personally like the DX format because of it makes for smaller & lighter telephotos. As for wide angle shots, they there are DX lens available but I have always found them of limited use for me. I hope never to go back to FX.</p>

<p><br>

Well I've had my D7100 for a couple of months now and so far am really pleased with it. I've changed from an old Nikon D2X which is a monster of a camera body so when I got this, my first impression was that it was very light and small. But having got used to it now I can say that the camera is a really good camera to hold and use with all the controls placed within an easy finger stretch. Certainly easier to carry about!<br>

All in all a fantastic camera which sits at the top of Nikons customer camera range. If you're upgrading to a DSLR from either a bridge camera or one of Nikon's entry level DSLRs then go for it: you'll love it as it will give you room to grow creatively. If you've got a D7000 and are looking to upgrade. I would spend a little more and go for the full-frame D600 - assuming your existing lenses will adapt of course.<br /><br /> <br /> </p>