D7100 Review

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by john_reynolds|10, Jun 8, 2013.

  1. The link to the D7100 review on the home page is broken.
    photo.net's system administrator has restarted the front end so that the link should work for everybody now. -- Shun, June 8, 4:30pm EDT
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    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.
    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.
    http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/nikon-D7100/
     
  3. Nope, 'New Link' = page not found.
    Windows XP laptop.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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.
    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!
     
  6. pge

    pge

    I found this link through google although it does have the word "draft" in it, but it works. Is this it?
    http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/nikon-D7100/index.draft
     
  7. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The content in the "draft" should be identical now.
    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.
    I do hope his assessment regarding the D400 (that it will never appear) proves to be incorrect!​
    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.
    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.
     
  8. 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.")
    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.
    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.
     
  9. I got to make the 'draft' link work. Excellent review.
    Do you think they'll try the memory upgrade route, as it is their 'Flagship' model?
    ........or a mid-term > D7200 upgrade?
     
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    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.
     
  11. 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.
    If you need to shoot many continuous frames on the D7100, just shoot JPEG fine​
    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?

    Do Nikon really think a £1600 D7200 would steal sales from the £4300 D4?

    Oh, I see why it's not going to happen...too many really, really cross D4 owners!
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    So now what is an average working pros kit? Assuming they do not have left-over cameras it is something like this:
    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.
    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.
    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.)
    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.
     
  14. 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.
    Just a few points:-
    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?
    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.
    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.
     
  15. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    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.
    In other words, at this point all DX cameras are consumer models, with the D7100 at the lower pro-sumer level.
    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.
    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.
    BTW, our system admin has restarted the front end so that the D7100 review link from photo.net's home page should work now.
     
  16. 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.


    I sure wouldn't mind having 10 fps if I shoot hummingbirds​
    Those are pretty contradictory statements Shun.

    So all the D3S and D4 users are poseurs with more money than skill? Interesting conclusion.
     
  17. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    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.
     
  18. Shun, would you like a DX version of the 'D4' for £2000 ($3000) for your photographic reasons?
     
  19. So all the D3S and D4 users are poseurs with more money than skill? Interesting conclusion.​
    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".
    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.
    Shun, would you like a DX version of the 'D4' for £2000 ($3000) for your photographic reasons?​
    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.
     
  20. Rick, I was just 'interpreting' ..
    but if you can't get it done with the D7100, I dare to say the problem is not the camera.​
    .....kinda implies no-one actually needs 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??

    .....it also says if you need more than the D7100 can offer, you, the user, aren't skilled enough and can't use it properly.

    Maybe I mis-interpreted the statement, but it seems pretty clear-cut.
     
  21. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    kinda implies​
    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.
     
  22. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  23. Sorry Shun, when I reread it it came out far more personally than I intended.
    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.
    You, yourself said that the D7100 is not built to take the abuse of the D300 series. Where is the DX camera that is 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!
     
  24. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    You, yourself said that the D7100 is not built to take the abuse of the D300 series.​
    Mike, when did I say that? Could you provide a reference?
     
  25. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Mike, but the D300 isn't even mentioned in the part you quoted. That is the point I am getting at.
    Instead, this was what I wrote yesterday, June 8 at 12:03pm, on this very thread:
    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.​
    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.
    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.
     
  26. 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.​
    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, after the D3 came out? I think not.
    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.
     
  27. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The D7100 is NOT it.​
    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.
    This was what I wrote yesterday:
    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.​
    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.
    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.
     
  28. (or cannot accept)​
    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.
     
  29. -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.
     
  30. a lot of people are still unaware (or cannot accept) that the D200-300 series was discontinued for good at the end of 2011​
    That's a lot of customers that potentially won't be buying ANY of Nikon's current offerings.
    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.​
    +1
    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.
     
  31. 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.
     
  32. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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:
    1. 1Ds, 11MP introduced in September, 2002
    2. 1Ds Mark II, 16.7MP, September, 2004
    3. 1Ds Mark III, 21MP, announced on August 20, 2007, merely 3 days before Nikon announced the D3 and D300
    In December, 2008, Nikon announced its own D3X with 24MP, also at $8000.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  33. 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?
     
  34. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    However I am concerned about the quality of the 18-200 on the D7100.​
    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.
    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.
     
  35. 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 ?
     
  36. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bfon
    And this is the full-size image from the 16-85: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00bgLg-539297684.jpg
    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.)
    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.
     
  37. pge

    pge

    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.​
    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.
     
  38. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  39. 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.
     
  40. '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.'
    That's a mighty small niche considering the cost of the D600 and the earlier migration to FX by those who needed those features.
    "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."
    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.
    At any rate, thanks to Shun for a thorough and even-handed review.
     
  41. That's a mighty small niche considering the cost of the D600​
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  42. 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.
     
  43. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.​
    The D600 is a stripped down model? You are kidding me, right, Dieter?
    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 ....
    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.
    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.
     
  44. 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.
    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.
     
  45. 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!
    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.
     

Share This Page