DXO releases D7100 Measurements

<p>DXO has just released their 'numbers' for the D7100, and shows it just marginally improved in the IQ department over the D7000. Nikon's FX bodies, including the D800 and D600 remain the IQ champs, especially at high ISO.</p>

<p>The image below is reprinted with permission from DXO. You can see the full, interactive results here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/865%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/834%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/680%7C0/(brand3)/Nikon">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/865%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/834%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/680%7C0/(brand3)/Nikon</a></p><div></div>

<p>To view the various scores and differences between the cameras, clink on MEASUREMENTS. You will be able to view 5 sets of comparisons. The D600 exceeds the D7100 in all tests. BUT, the D7100 has a better AF module.</p>

<p>The D7100, feature wise, appears to be an exceptional body, especially when paired with its advanced AF module. For low light shooters, the D600 has an almost 2 stop advantage over the D7100. When in comes to IQ, the improvement over the D7000 is minimal (and may not even be visible in normal prints).</p>

<p>For top IQ, it appears Nikon's newest FX bodies are still the way to go...</p>

<p>Thanks for this Elliot, very handy.</p>

<p>I think the final aspect of the table, Sports, ie Low Light ISO still highlights why for dark and/or fast sports, you still need FX. </p>

<p>Maybe this is why they haven't made a useful (to me) Sports DX camera. It simply can't compete with it's FX brothers. </p>

<p>For comparison, the D700's ISO is 2300 and the D300 is a lowly 679</p>

<p>having tested both the d600 and d7100 side by side, I'll disagree with Mike about sports. The D7100 is clearly a better choice of the two as its AF module is faster to lock on, locks on in lower light, and handles moving subjects better. Having one more stop of ISO does you no good if your lens is busy hunting back and forth. The D800 has the same AF module as the D7100 so I suspect performance there is the same. However, that camera is more than TWICE the $$ and you are losing the 1.5x crop. I.e., the D7100 renders a 70-200mm f2.8 as 300mm. Compare that to the price of a 300mm f2.8 lens the D800 would need. In the end, photography is always about the total system, not just the pieces, and how it performs in the field.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, that camera is more than TWICE the $$ and you are losing the 1.5x crop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see it the other way around...... you don't loose the 1.5x crop...... You get an FX body which can be also used as a DX camera with enough resolution.</p>

<p>For <em>my</em> type of sports photography, the ISO is rarely below 1600, with fast moving horses in poor indoor arenas. The nearly 2 stops of FX ISO advantage needs RAW processing to get the best out of it....and that means the buffer filling in 1 second, I think I'd prefer FX, they all have much better buffers.</p>

<p>My statement about FX being 'better' than DX were specifically referring to ISO performance. If Nikon had meant the D7100 to be a sports/action camera, they'd have given it a sensible buffer. They didn't and they can't be that shortsighted. They want you to buy a D4....or the mythical sports DX to come :-)</p>

<p>As you mention lenses, the other problem I have with DX for fast sports is a suitable lens to 'replace' my 70-200mm VRII that I currently use on my D700. The Sigma 50-150mm OS is my only option and @ £950, this makes the maths somewhat different.</p>

<p>The current D600 price is ~£1500, the D800 is ~£2000 and with the D7100 being ~£1000. The 70-200mm VRII is £1500. It makes for an interesting set of options.</p>

<p>Thanks for the information, Elliot. I have been wondering how the D4x, 56 meg would perform when it is released. It looks like a great studio, architectural and landscape camera, but not so much for low light. I will need to keep my D800E for that.</p>

<blockquote>Each 1000 point difference in the low light number represents about 1 stop differnce</blockquote>

<p>Where is this referenced? I see 1 - 1 1/2...most likely 1 1/3 stops</p>

<p>The DXO SPORTS ISO reference number used to compare camera's low light performance. Per DXO:</p>

<p><em>"When shooting a moving scene such as a sports event, action photographers’ primary objective is to freeze the motion, giving priority to short exposure time. To compensate for the lack of exposure, they have to increase the ISO setting, which means the SNR will decrease. How far can they go while keeping decent quality? Our low-light ISO metric will tell them."</em><br /> <br /> DXO has set a minimum image quality 'standard' and the SPORTS ISO reference documents what ISO setting from a given camera will give similar acceptable results as compared to another camera.<br /> <br /> So, for example, if one camera has and ISO Sports number of 800 and another has 1600, you have a one stop difference. If one has a 800 rating and another had a 3200 rating, you would have a 2 stop difference. <br /> <br /> In the case of the D7000 and D7100, the difference is so small you would really not notice a difference - the D7000 at ISO 1167 will give about the same results as the D7100 at ISO 1256, while the D600 can be shot at ISO 2980, not quite a 2 stop advantage but almost. The bottom line is that the D7100 offers just a marginal improvement over the D7000. The The D600 and D800 are much better in the high ISO area.<br /> <br /> These number are not bad, but not as good as perhaps some had hoped for. Based on my experience with the D7000 (I owned one for about a year), the high ISO results, after post processing RAW image (with DXO of course) were about as good as my D3. Considering the difference in DXOMark ratings, the results were quit impressive! (DXO claims their advanced denoising of high ISO images gives you back 2 stops of image quality and I have to agree)<br /> <br /> I used to call my D7000 a 'mini D3' (except for the AF module which is quite good on its own) because its image quality was so good compared to the D3. Now that the D7100 has the D3's AF module, the 'mini D3' title fits even better. Although I am not currently in the market for a body, this (D7100) is one I would invest in. Its list of features and high resolution sensor are quite impressive, especially considering its low cost. I have seen many sample images online and they are very impressive.</p>

<p>Kent, I don't believe the D800 and D7100 share the exact same AF module. I believe the D4 and D800 share the same AF module, which is an 'improved' version of the one used in the D3/D300/D7100 In any case, both are excellent and the choice between the two bodies (D7100 and D600) is a tough one with one giving slightly better AF and one giving slightly better high ISO performance. Except for the slow frame rate, the D800 give the photographer the best of both...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D7100 at ISO 1256, while the D600 can be shot at ISO 2980, not quite a 2 stop advantage but almost.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Elliot, 1256 to 2980 is less than 1200 to 3200, which is equal to 1 1/3 stops. That's closer to 1 stop than 2... <br /> More importantly, your quote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Each 1000 point difference in the low light number represents about 1 stop difference</p>

</blockquote>

<p>is wrong. Iso 100 to 1100 is over three stops, yet the point difference is still 1000. Iso 1600 to 3200 is one stop, but the difference is 1600 points. At the very least, it could be very confusing the way you phrased it...</p>

<p>The D600 does not have "almost" 2 stop difference over the 7100. To see 1 stop difference, double (or halve) the ISO value. So for approx 1256 for the 7100, 2 stops improvement would require an ISO of approx 5024, a long way from 2980. (The math should be done on a log scale, to be a better comparison).</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>Each 1000 point difference in the low light number represents about 1 stop difference"</em> My description was in reference to the range of values for the three bodies shown and meant to be a very general guide to understanding the information. Obviously this will not make sense if comparing a camera with a score of 100.</p>

<p>The bottom line is all three bodies give excellent high ISO results - the overall scores reflect that. By comparison, the D300 has an overall scores of 67 with a sports ISO score of 679, while the D2H has an overall score of 40 and a sports ISO score of 352.</p>

<p>According to the DXO site, ' <em>A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable".</em> Here, the difference percentage wise is is <em>I </em>believe over 200% which according to their info should be over 2 stops. I really don't know how to calculate it but based on my experience with the D800 (which is very similar to the D600 in high ISO performance), there appears to be about a 2 stop advantage to the D600 over the D7?00 bodies. What the exact number is I will leave to you guys to figure out.</p>

<p>Fortunately, all recent Nikon bodies appear to deliver exceptional IQ</p>

<p>Numbers aside, :-)..... </p>

<p>When it comes to Shutter Speed & freezing motion, as opposed to Aperture & Dof, just 1 stop will get you from no-where-near-enough 1/250 to OK(ish) 1/500th........and 1.1/3 stops will squeeze out 1/640.....which will do OK.</p>

<p>You might want to check out Lloyd Chamber's site, diglloyd.com for some observations on the D7100.</p>