From D300s to D7100?

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>given that even the D7100 has the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module, it is silly to put the Multi-CAM 4800 on the D600. Expect Nikon to fix that when they update the D600 (and hopefully improve from the Multi-CAM 3500 on the high end).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is what is truly mind-boggling: that a $1200 camera would have better AF than a $2000 camera. see the problem there? nikon is sending mixed messages. and why couldnt nikon have put the better AF module in the 600 to begin with? oh right, not to cut into d800 sales--ignoring the fact that module was previously available on the D300/d300s, which cost less than either camera. further complicating the issue, with the 800 you get the best AF module but only 4fps, making it worse than the d700 for sports.</p>

<p>there's no way to justify such disdain for its customer base and lack of long-term thinking by nikon. although from their perspective, maybe the problem is that the d300 and d700 were too good for their own good. put another way, those holes in the product lineup have left many d300/d700 users without a clear upgrade path. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Eric, as you know, Nikon offered high speed, large buffer, and top AF in several low-resolution camera bodies from 2007-. These didn't sell as well as Canon's high resolution, low speed, consumer AF equipped 5D Mk II. This necessitated Nikon to change their strategy to be more in line with user demands (for resolution), which they did as soon as the high res sensor technology was ready for prime time (D800, D600). Naturally this means the high speed crowd has fewer <em>new</em> options, but there are still all the old cameras that are in working condition, and the D4.I used the D3 for 3.5 years and the number of times I used CH can probably be counted with the fingers of one hand. I prefer manual timing of each exposure in all but a few unusual situations, since I feel I can insert more control into the shots (and my personality) that way. The exception would be situations where the shot is available to me for about 1 second or less (e.g. some sports situations where the subject is available only for a brief moment), which in my case is highly unusual. I think those who really must have high speed and large buffer, a used D700+grip, used D3s or a new D4 should do the trick. </p>

<p>There will always be some advanced feature that is not offered at a low price ... it is necessary to keep products such as the D4 viable in the first place. In the previous generation it was resolution, now it's high speed with an unlimited buffer that calls a premium. I think it's funny how human nature sometimes dictates that we always find that one thing that we cannot have, and complain about that, rather than enjoy the things that we <em> can</em> have. Has your D3s stopped working? Why do you need a new sports camera?</p>

<p>Regarding the D7100, I think the introduction of Multi-CAM 3500 into a camera of this price class makes this camera extremely attractive. The buffer limitation wouldn't ordinarily bother me as I rarely shoot that way, but since all my currently used cameras are of the slow high res variety, I would like my next camera to be one which is not limited in speed or buffer, as I occasionally do run into a situation where this feature is useful (even though it is rare). I was quite amazed at the image quality the D7100 could do with those lenses I tried it with and also the fast AF. I believe the buffer limitation will be alleviated in a subsequent upgrade (call it D7200) and thus I feel it is prudent for me to wait for that (being under no pressure to get the camera now).</p>

[richard_driscoll]

<p>Presumably the buffer issue only really applies to raw photographers. My D7000 manual seems to say that with a suitable SD card (8 GB Sandisk Extreme) you can produce virtually unlimited large medium quality JPEGS at full speed. Can anyone confirm that? I can't yet since my SD cards are probably too slow.<br>

There would seem to be a buffer issue with large fine JPEGS but I can't tell the difference anyway.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Based on my "back of the envelop" type calculation on this parallel thread: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bZgC">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bZgC</a><br>

the D7100 (currently at its $1200 introduction price) has roughly the same amount of memory buffer in terms of number of bytes available as the big-time sports camera D3 introduced back in 2007 at $5000. The D3's buffer can hold about twice as many RAW files as the D7100 can because the D3 is 12MP while the D7100 is 24MP; therefore, the D7100's image files are about twice as big.</p>

<p>As Ilkka points out, it is difficult to have a high frame rate and a high number of pixels at the same time. Today, even the lowest end D3200 has 24MP. Therefore, the D4 is the only specialty sports/news action camera in Nikon's lineup at 16MP, while Canon's 1DX is only 18MP. Any other current Nikon DSLR is at least 24MP.</p>

<p>However, if you are willing to shoot JPEG fine and use fast SD cards, the D7100 has enough buffer to hold 30+ frames. There is still a 100-frame artificial limit for consecutive JPEGs. A couple of days ago I tried the D7100 at the highest JPEG fine level on the entire DX frame (i.e. not 1.3x crop) with a SanDisk Extreme Pro SD card (rated to 95MB/sec). It captured 100 frames in almost exactly 20 seconds, i.e. about 5 fps, sustained. If you are willing to use a slightly lower JPEG quality, you can get the full 6 fps.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>For my horse photography, I 'need' both high fps <em>AND</em> deep buffer. If the light is anything but soft and stable, shooting only large, fine JPEG is too high a risk. </p>

<p>One of the problems with horsey stuff is that you can have a pair racing around comprising a dark black next to a glowing white (aka a 'grey')*.....or a nippy little piebald. On a sunny day they exceed the DR, and depending on the sun angle can go in and out of shade too. Usually DxO can bring back enough from the 14-bit RAW to make it salable. </p>

<p>Yup, it's true.... I want a D4! Their just so darn expensive....:-( </p>

<p>I wouldn't mind using a 'suitable' DX with the Sigma 50-150mm OS in the place of my D700 + MB-D10 + 70-200mm VRII.</p>

<p>*The riders often wash their horses in a 'whitener' soap that fluoresces white in sunshine, so they really are 'whiter than white'.....I hate them!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have been using the D7100 to capture various wildlife for a month now, capturing only RAW and I don't like the 1.3x crop mode. By now, I have over 4000 frames from the D7100. It is certainly not the best sports camera out there, but if you cannot get sufficient great action images from the D7100, I am afraid that the problem is not in the camera but behind it.</p>

<p>Below is a LightRoom view of the many images I captured yesterday. The squarrel was feeding so that the action kept changing. I'll post one I like a lot to the current Wednesday thread: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00baFh">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00baFh</a><br />The lens was a 500mm/f4 AF-S stopped down to f5.6 and I was using ISO 1250 in an overcast day. I printed that image to 8.5x11 and I am very happy with it.</p>

<center><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00baVQ-533975684.jpg" alt="" /></center><div></div>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Am I missing something or is there a 'clue' in that the D7100 has a <strong>CL</strong> setting (menu d5) . <strong>C</strong>ontinuous <strong>L</strong>ow with no <strong>H</strong>igh option <strong>YET</strong>??</p>

<p>1 to 6 fps in <strong>C</strong>ontinuous <strong>L</strong>ow... What's that all about?? Why use Low at-all, not just Continuous? There is no high.</p>

[richard_driscoll]

<p>You can set the frame rate for CL while CH always goes flat out. I think that CL can be set as high as 6 fps because in 1.3 crop mode CH can run at 7 fps rather than the normal rate of 6 fps.</p>

<p> </p>

[richard_driscoll]

<p>After downloading the D7100 manual and comparing with my D7000 manual it looks as if both have about 200 MB of buffer. This means that unless you are prepared to use the 1.3 crop mode you are worse off with a D7100 than a D7000 when shooting NEF. Best case for each is 12 bit compressed when you get 15 frames from the D7000 and only 9 from the D7100. In 1.3 crop mode it goes up to 14 frames.<br>

<br />You'd think that going from 16 to 24 MP they could have made the buffer at least 50% bigger!<br>

<br />Presumably the 1.3 crop mode viewfinder is like looking down a tunnel - even worse than my D40!</p>

<p> </p>

[jti]

<p>Thank you for informative conversation!<br /> I made my decision. Here is a shot of brown hare with my brand new D7100: http://jti.kuvat.fi/kuvat/Brown+hare/Rus.jpg</p>

<p><img src="http://jti.kuvat.fi/kuvat/Brown+hare/Rus.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>After downloading the D7100 manual and comparing with my D7000 manual it looks as if both have about 200 MB of buffer. This means that unless you are prepared to use the 1.3 crop mode you are worse off with a D7100 than a D7000 when shooting NEF. Best case for each is 12 bit compressed when you get 15 frames from the D7000 and only 9 from the D7100.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, you are only considering the size of the buffer. You also need to take into account how fast the camera can empty that buffer. On both the D7000 and D7100, I shoot lossy compressed RAW (i.e. not lossless) so that I get smaller RAW files. The D7000 can write approximately 1 RAW file into the memory cards per second, but the D7100 can write 3 RAW files per second if you use the latest SanDisk Extreme Pro that is capable of writing 95MB/sec. While it doesn't completely solve the problem, you can get away with a much smaller buffer on the D7100 due to its improved write speed with current technology.</p>

<p>Back in 2007/2008, the D3 and D300 (and subsequently the D700) could write only 1 RAW file onto memory card(s) per second with the fastest cards available back then, e.g. the SanDisk Extreme 4.</p>

[richard_driscoll]

<p>Thanks for that Shun and also the picture of the squirrel. I guess that's a regular grey American squirrel like we have in the UK - they pushed out most of the local red ones :-(<br>

The figures I took from the manuals are for lossy compressed 12 bit, both using Sandisk Extreme Pro. Since you've used both cameras I guess you know the answer. If you put both on 6 frames per sec. compressed NEFF, how many frames can you shoot in each case before the rate slows, Sandisk Extreme Pro in each?<br>

Are you really saying that the D7100 can write to the card 4.5 times faster than the D7000 using the same card? (20.2 MB/13.6 MB)*3=4.5. Nikon's figures for file sizes. Seems surprising to me.</p>

<p> </p>

[deanmeeks]

<p>If you feel like your camera's on its last leg, that's one thing. If you're looking for a new camera that will take better pictures, not so sure. If you enlarged any of Ansel Adams prints beyond the capability of the negative, the image will degrade. Why would you do that? He didn't need to, neither will you. Most people post pics on the internet and EVERYTHING looks good. I print my photos. A print use to be the basis of photography. My average size prints are 11.078 x 16.68 or even a bit larger, on a Canon Pro9500. They look really nice. Most recent prints were made with a D5000, D90, or D300. I don't need them to get better because they already look great. Digital already has a much too antiseptic look for my taste, and the resolution that the 12mp sensors (at least Nikon's) delivers is about where I like it to be...for my taste and the size of enlargements I print. I had an 11x14 print made from 4 megapixel setting on a D70 that looked like ASA100 film just a few years ago. The 300s is a great camera. I hate the build and button layout of the D7000-7100 models, etc. The D300 series, like Canon's semi-pro and pro line, feel feel robust and durable, with the buttons in all the right places for me. I counter the high-ISO critics with a tripod. If you shoot indoor sports like hockey or basketball, high ISO is great and you'll get sharper images, but high ISO doesn't improve the quality of light, only light can do that. High ISO makes images brighter with the ability to increase shutter speeds. Indoor sports. Even rock bands I use to shoot at 400 to 800asa film back in the day, looked great when the light was great, when the light wasn't great, high ISO wouldn't have improved it. Images don't need every single spec of information in the shadow areas to be visible. It isn't important, the subject matter is, and the lighting on that subject matter is either good or it isn't. But there's a 100 year history of photography that's proven that about the only thing that can greatly improve an image is the lens and the technique the photographer uses. And just like film, the lack of perfection the any given sensor provides often times adds to a certain "look." Nikon and Canon's sensors are different and will produce a different noise or "grain" pattern when fully enlarged. A point 'n shoot image enlarged can look awesome. Recently I was flipping through some National Geographic books, and after being reminded how timeless and beautiful the images were, even with their very apparent grain, I realized that massive mega-pixels and ultra-high ISO in itself, does not constitute a winning photo. Only you can decide what you need to do that.</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>Marc is on the money with his sensible comments.<br>

A new D7100 goes for $1300-1400. That's also right on the money for a top of the line M4/3 or non-slr digital camera.<br>

Its also buys a lot if you look at used gear. $1400 will get you a mint D700 and D3's are going for $2k. So a sensible person will ask what he wants to achieve with his/her photography. The latest and greatest is tempting but usually not really necessary.<br>

My partner shoots medium format film. She had a Fuji but has now purchased a Hasselblad with 60, 90 and 140 leaf shutter lenses. All up about $1400. Just holding this thing in your hands makes you feel nice. She shoots studio portraits. The results are simply breathtaking when drum scanned.<br>

So, as Marc says, don't get sucked into the depreciation votex. Be more self-critical. Buy what you need not what you lust for.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Here is a sequence captured at continuous high (Ch) on the D7100, using the entire DX frame and capturing 12-bit lossy compress RAW at 1/160 sec shutter speed. I used a 32G Sandisk Extreme Pro SD card (95 MB/sec) to capture an i-Pad in stop-watch mode. Click on this link for a larger version of the image so that the time stamps are easier to read: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00bahd-534181584.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00bahd-534181584.jpg</a></p>

<p>The D7100 can sustain 6 fps for about 11 frames, just below 2 seconds. After it slows down, it can still sustain 3 fps.</p>

<p>Clearly if you have a D4 that can do 9 fps for 3, 4 seconds, it is wonderful for all sorts of action photography. However, with 6 fps for almost 2 seconds on the D7100, which can also dump its entire buffer onto an Extreme Pro card within 3 seconds so that you can "reload" very quickly, it should work quite well for most sports/action photography also.</p>

<p>The key is to use lossy compressed RAW. If you shoot lossless RAW, the file size is quite a bit larger. However, the difference between 12-bit and 14-bit capture is small.</p>

<p>P.S. DPReview just published their D7100 review. However, somehow they only tested RAW performance using 14-bit lossless compressed RAW, which is a mode I would not use on the D7100 if you are capturing action: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100/12">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100/12</a></p>

 

<center>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00bahd-534181584.jpg" alt="" /></p>

</center><div></div>

[deutsh_nehmman]

Yes d7100 better than D300s in

somethings but if you have more

bucks then get D800