How is the D7100 shaping up (new owners)?

[owen_omeara]

<p>I am ordering my d7100 this week an hope to be able to contribute to this discussion soon.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>The following is a 3463X4056 crop from a 4000x6000 image ISO 3200 Sigma 150mm macro 1/800 f/3.5. Makes me happy!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>According to its Exif that's a crop of a file from a D5200, John.</p>

[sener]

<p>The following is the 100% crops of the d600 and d7100 pictures without any processing.<br /> The top buzzard photo was taken by me with the d600 + 500/4 vr + tc-14e at iso400, f/8 1/2000. The below picture is from the internet, taken by the d7100 at 22mm, iso200 f/8 1/2000, Ref.[<a href=" /> I did not try the d7100 yet, but if the iso performance is as seen, no way to use teleconverters. Perhaps, if someone posts some other iso200 shots, we may compare the results better. Also, 100% crops are necessary for clear comparison, otherwise down sampled images don't make any sense.<br /> Note: The system resizes the image, I do not know why, please refer to <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17134136-lg.jpg">http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17134136-lg.jpg</a><br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17134136-lg.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="600" /></p>

[dspindle]

<p>I just wanted to add something to my previous post. It's great having full support now for the D7100 in Lightroom and Photoshop. But for some reason my Macbook Pro can't read the RAW files in Finder. Has any one else experienced this?<br>

Thanks.<br>

Dave</p>

 

[ellery]

<p>D90 owner here.....contemplating buying this bodyperhaps soon....I do mostly macro, trying to branch into wildlife (birds, animals, etc), lots of shooting babies/children-family.....<br /><br />im confused about a few things:<br /><br />1) what is this talk about concerns with this camera and TC's?? I am ignorant to the physics/engineering here :/<br /><br />2) for macro, ive heard that the 7100 is a good choice...something to do with pixel density...could someone explain...and if someone has already done some macro with this body, that would be great if they have insight.<br /><br />My current lenses include 17-55mm f2.8 DX, 50mm 1.8, tamron 90mm and a 180mm macro<br /><br />I am on the brink of buying something like the 70-200 f4 or f2.8 (debating that on another thread).....<br /><br />Anyway, I will probably wait to hear more about the bodies before buying myself, but I am not quite clear on my future decision of DX vs. FX....seems most places I read, my interests would lend toward the DX...thus the 7100....<br /><br />Thanks for sharing your experience with the body so far...keep in coming!</p>

[ellery]

<p>Also, I am a bit fuzzy on this 1.3x crop factor addition....so you get 1.5x and 1.3x crop factor? Im confused by this. sounds like I will not need that 1.4x nikon TC with the 7100 body? :)</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Amateur Photographer has done their review today and it got around 87%. The camera was praised for the AF, resolution and handling and was knocked down a notch or two for inconsistent exposure, picture noise at higher ISO and some banding at higher ISO. The summary was that it is superb at lower (under 800) ISO but not so good after and other cameras out there do the higher ISO's better. The resolution was 40 on the marker at ISO 100 (RAW) but droped to 30 at ISO 400. The JPEG's were quite a bit softer than the RAW. The D7100 was the best crop sensor camera they had tested (at base ISO).</p>

[dspindle]

<p>Ellery,<br>

I also shoot mostly macro and come from the D90. In response to #2 on your list, here are my observations. My macro lens is the Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro. What I have experienced that is different from the D90 is that on the D90 I would routinely make use of f/22 for increased DOF. With the D7100 diffraction renders an image that is extremely soft. So be prepared to see diffraction set in earlier than you've been used to. Also, be ready to take a second look at your shooting discipline regarding sharp focus. In other words, the D7100 is giving me stunning macro images, but I am having to pay more attention to the basics than I did with the D90. With the high resolution of this camera any weaknesses in shooting discipline will be quite obvious. The same goes for lenses, use the best you can afford.<br>

It's a marvelous camera that is quite a step up from the D90. Hope this is helpful for you.<br>

Dave</p>

 

[ellery]

<p>that is helpful...<br /><br />But if I can restate...<br /><br />You are saying that diffraction can be worse with the D7100 - so better to use <f22 (I do also use f22 fairly often on the D90 as well)....this will reduce DOF, the in focus area with this camera will be even more sharp, so you have to be more precise in technique...<br /><br />But the D7100 will give me (all things equal otherwise) noticeably better macro photos?<br /><br />I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that losing DOF, but improving sharpness is a good thing for macro? I may be confused. The whole thing has got me to thinking I might want to go the D600 route (although I like the crop factor for macro and tele stuff) :/<br /><br />I read on another thread though (although it would appear I did not fully understand) - that the tradeoffs for macro between say D7100 and D600 - its a bit of a wash or at least splitting hairs as far as comparisons....if that is the case, I would probably continue to stick with DX...<br /><br />Do you have any macro shots with the D7100 yet? Would love to see some!<br /><br />Thanks for the reply!<br /><br />I am contemplating buying this body (or perhaps a FF) - eventually I want both :D :D :D</p>

[dspindle]

<p>Ellery,<br>

Yes, you are correct. Technically it's a bit of a wash since you generally get one more stop of DOF with DX than FX. However this particular DX camera is a 24mpx high res camera. So now I am shooting around f/8 or f/11 along with focus stacking at times for maximum DOF. All I am saying is that it's different than the D90. I have to pay more attention to little things like making sure my camera plane is as parallel as possible with the subject. Macro is hard work, as I am sure you know. So this is really not that big of a deal to me. What is a big deal to me is the final photograph. And the quality is just stunning, absolutely gorgeous. And well worth doing things that I probably should have been doing all along.<br>

Please keep in mind that these observations are based on the use of one macro lens. The Sigma 150. I do not own another macro lens. And I'm to lazy to break out the extension tubes for other lenses! I also am rarely at 1:1, most of the time I shoot around 1:2. It would be interesting to hear other macro shooters impressions. I do have a few images that are in processing, and when I get them cleaned up, I'll send you an email with a link.<br>

Regarding FX/DX, take a look at the post on page two titled "Nikon D600 or D7100?" I started that thread about a week or so ago and there are several pages of very good comments. The responses I received were very helpful to me in deciding to go with the D7100. <br>

Dave</p>

[ellery]

<p>thanks...actually, last night I posted on that thread :D<br /><br />I guess what I am wondering too is just how bad the diffraction on this camera at say f18 or f22 would be compared to D90.....hopefully not so bad the image cannot be sharpened up/cleaned up post...as many issues of diffraction can (more or less) be cleaned up a bit in post....<br /><br />I shoot alot of bugs so far, and so stacking is no good for me mostly....f8 for 1:1 can work (based on my limited experience so far) - but f16-f22 can really be useful for what I shoot at times....<br /><br />I will reserve judgement until I see some more results...thanks for sharing, and I will eagerly await your email :D<br /><br />Keep in mind, I am pretty much a novice at macro still at this point - been tinkering around with it in what little spare time I have as a father of two (3 months and 2.5 years) - both parents full time pharmacists (WHEW!)</p>

[dolph_mccranie]

<p>In reading some of the posts questions were raised about diffraction at small f stops shooting macro. I took my 200 mm Nikkor and shot photos of a fibrous begonia flower at f/8, f/22, and f/40. Other than depth of field I could see no difference between f8 and f/22 when viewed at 1:1 in Lightroom. There was minimal softening at F/40 when viewed at 1:1. at standard resolution I could see no difference. All photos shot at ratio of 1 to 1, manual focus, flash, tripod, ball head and focusing rail.<br>

Some one also stated the with the Nikkor 500 mm f/4 you couldn't use a Tele Extender. I shot a couple of very nice, sharp photos of a rose at F/16 with that combination.</p>

I have also taken photos of a white-lined sphinx moth at ISO of 1250 and 5,000 of a second with no discernible noise. I have seen no moire in any of the several hundred photos taken with the D7100 thus far.

To say that I am happy with this camera is an understatement. It seems a step up from my faithful D300.<div></div>

[ellery]

<p>GREAT to hear about diffraction...<br /><br /><br />I am not like 300 photos in on my new D7100....loving it so far...still have not gotten to truly carefully use it....only a zoo trip with kids tugging at me constantly...but no moire in bird feathers I could see in any shots...no macro attempts yet...will do som this week though...I am EXCITED about this....the focus is quite good so far...if you nail the focus the improved resolution can really shine it seems....<br /><br /><a href="/photo/17194732">http://www.photo.net/photo/17194732</a><br /><br /><a href="/photo/17194714">http://www.photo.net/photo/17194714</a><br /><br />HATE - the ISO button placement....but what is new...same for my D90...</p>

[noreen]

<p>This is what I posted Elsewhere over the weekend:</p>

<p>Some brief and very basic remarks on the D7100, from someone who has been using a D300 since 2008 (and, from 2001-2008, an F100). I'm a rather informal photographer who hasn't played around with the finer controls and who doesn't do formalized experimentation. I can only report on what I've noticed as I've been doing my usual photography, which has been small/medium birds with a 70-300 VR.<br /><br />First, the camera body is bigger than I expected and was hoping for. I'm a 5'6" woman with small-ish hands. The D300 was fine for me; the D7100 is just a bit awkward, though that is mitigated by the fact that I almost always must shoot on a monopod because I use the long end of my 70-300 VR frequently and I have a condition that makes it difficult for me to hold a camera steady. But the weight is good. Placement of the controls has taken getting used to, but that's to be expected of any new body. I frequently adjust ISO and really need to move that ISO button to somewhere more convenient... though perhaps I will become accustomed to its current location (second button from the bottom on the left-hand side of the back). <br /><br />Now, my D300 has been "dying" for some time. Some of the focal points don't work anymore, the sensor needs professional cleaning (it's as if it suddenly became inspired by reports of the D600's issues!), and it just has not been "itself" for quite some time. So I'm not comparing the D7100 to a pristine D300; mine has been through a lot! (Egyptian deserts, Guatemalan jungles, etc.) I do not have a battery grip for either.<br /><br />The D7100 focuses much faster (and better) than my D300 possibly ever did. I have not yet used it in dark conditions yet, so can't compare that aspect of the focusing. It has basically the same focal point coverage as the D300, which is a big plus for me. The "feel" of the shutter took a little bit of getting used to--it doesn't have the same "professional" feel as the D300, if that makes any sense. But this camera is also quieter than my D300. No objection to that!<br /><br />The small-ish buffer, however, is another matter. I've had relatively little trouble with it but can tell that it will be an issue when I'm doing more challenging work. I'm using class 10 SD cards; I will at some point have to play around with the settings (14 bit vs 12 bit, compression, etc.) to optimize the speed. I hope I won't need to buy a battery grip, which will make the body even bigger.<br /><br />(While I think of it, I will insert here that I wish the video didn't require quite so many steps to start. But maybe all DSLRs are this way with video; my D300 didn't have it at all.)<br /><br />As for the results: those files are big! They are also just a tad noisier than I was expecting, even at moderate ISOs (400-800). But I think that the size is a factor here. Downsampling to something closer to what my D300 produces and there is an evident improvement, and even at full size I've been able to take care of things with software (e.g., Topaz Labs DeNoise). The photos are a bit soft, but I attribute that to the fact that I am using the long end of the zoom rather than a fixed-focus lens. The monopod reduces camera shake considerably, as does the lens's VR. And there hasn't been anything so objectionable that a little standard Photoshop sharpening doesn't clear up. <br /><br />I am pleased with the color. Exposures seem good, though I need to pay more attention to determine is mine is underexposing just a little. There IS a moire issue. It appeared on my 152nd photo and many others thereafter. (The feathers of white-winged doves especially seem to confound the sensor.) Another bird photographer on Photo.net has said that he's "all but forgotten" this issue. I hope that I will, too!<br /><br />My bottom line: I am very pleased with my purchase. But if Nikon does release the D400, I will be selling the D7100 in order to gain what I would hope would be a deeper buffer, less noise, higher-grade body, and different arrangement of controls(?), less difficulty resolving fine detail without moire--but I still would have no regrets about having bought the D7100 to fill the gap. <br /><br />I might even keep the D7100 as a back-up body, if my pockets are deep enough. However, despite decent results from the 70-300, I have been eyeing that new 80-400....</p>

[matt_harrison2]

<p>For those that have voiced concern about 24 being too many megapixels, you can easily set the image size smaller. It is nice to be able to select the large image size for those fine details and larger prints.<br>

I have only toyed around a bit with my D7100 upgraded from a D7000. I actually found the ergonomics for my huge hands to be better. All the little fixes, the dial lock, switching the +/- buttons, etc. were all great improvements in my book. I don't know how many times I was shooting and hadn't realize the dial had been turned a few clicks by the camera strap. I also find the display in the view finder much easier to read.<br>

I was really hoping for the articulating display, though. I know this is usually considered an amateur's feature, but I've found it a very useful tool for framing from odd levels, eliminating the need for a ladder or laying in the mud to see into the view finder or even live view.<br>

I have already noticed a huge difference in sharpness as well as decrease in noise. With the d7000, I was skittish to go above 200-400 ISO, but I didn't experience similar noise levels until surpassing ISO settings 4 times higher on the D7100. Incredible!<br>

I usually shoot wildlife or surfing photography, both requiring telephoto lens. At first, I was excited about the 1.3 crop of the D7100, but then quickly wondered, other than increased burst rate and less impact on storage per smaller image size, is there really an IQ, or any other, advantage to using this mode over cropping in post?</p>

[cyndywilliams]

<p>I bought the D7100 for my wife's Mother Day gift. She (and I) have shoot 3-400 images and are VERY disappointed in this model. We are negotiating with the Camera Shop on returning it for a full refund. The reasons are as follows; <strong>1)</strong> I bought the 7100 for it's high ISO to be matched with our long lenses, ie slower lenses (all Nikon glass). The noise above 1250 -1600 is bad to worse. Why place a 3200 - 6400 ISO on this model if you can not use the images at that range?? <strong>2)</strong> The Buffer fills way to soon. This is something we could have lived with had it not been for the rest. <strong>3)</strong> Diffraction at tight aperture stops. We wanted fast and DoF in the same package, but with the noise at higher ISO and diffraction at smaller aperture settings the d7100 provided neither. <strong>4)</strong> Battery life is atrocious. Again we were going to use this d7100 on long Nikon lenses which have the VR stabilizing gyroscopes in them, but with the new style battery we were unable to do a half day shoot. I have shot Nikon for the past 3 decades and my wife is using an old Nikon d50, so for me to say this camera is not worth the money is like a Ford driver switching to Hyundai. Ford promised mileage Hyundai delivered. The d7100 promised a lot, but in my opinion it did not deliver.<br /> Her Husband Tom</p>

[noreen]

<p>I do agree that the high-ISO performance is disappointing, though it is better than my D300 and I do shoot up to 1600 when I need to (e.g., birds under trees).</p>

<p>I will let someone else, if necessary, re-address the buffer, which I agree is too shallow, though I've been managing, even photographing birds and lizards. As for the diffraction... I seldom shoot stopped down very much these days so I haven't noticed this particular area of performance. (I really need to upgrade my wider-angle zoom!) <br /> <br />Regarding the battery: five or six mornings each week I take anywhere from 400-900 shots with a 70-300 VR lens. I go for days without needing to use a new battery. I have not kept track, but am sure that I am not switching batteries every week. The next time I put in a fresh one, I will try to remember to track the number of photographs it lasts. I will report back here, if someone else doesn't provide such data sooner.</p>

[noreen]

<p>Here are my (anecdotal) results re the battery:</p>

<p>New battery installed the morning of May 28. The lens used was a 70-300 VR. Flash almost never fired. During this time I accidentally left the camera on for a total of about 72 hours (most of it consecutive). Subject matter was almost entirely birds and lizards, often under challenging lighting or other environmental conditions, which means a lot of focusing. Weather was warm but not hot (70s-80s).</p>

<p>Total number of photographs taken, before I had to change the battery this morning (9 days later) was 3,983. Performance decrease (e.g., slower focus) was noticeable at some point this morning prior to this.</p>