Nikon D3300 vs D7100

[fotolopithecus]

<p>I was just over at imaging resource this morning and got quite a surprise. Having recently gotten a D7100 I thought I'd compare the two models on the compareometer and was surprised that the D3300 bests the D7100 overall. I compared them at 25600, and 6400, to find everything visually as good, or better with the D3300. The only thing The D7100 seemed to have a clear edge in was if flash was used. Check it out for yourselves if you doubt me. Look just under the chin of their dummy, and you'll see much better color from the D3300. Clearly this D3300 sensor is something very impressive at least up until 6400. Anyone have any explanations on this. Do they do these tests with care or not? Check the black fabric in the still life enlarged at 6400 too. The black of the D300 is blacker, and equally detailed.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Didn't you just buy a D7100? Still looking for its replacement?</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00chPr">D7100 replacement?</a> http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00chPr</li>

</ul>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Yeah Shun, I bought one a few months ago, but I am kind of interested in it's replacement depending on how it tests out. I am kind of surprised by the D3300 being as good as it is though.<br>

Correction, I bought the D610 a few months ago, but the D7100 a few weeks ago.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Bruce, as I said last month, you can keep asking this same question every month, until Nikon announces a new camera, you can read all sorts of rumors, but you will never get anywhere. For example, there has been this so called "D400" rumors since 2009/2010, and they even renewed the model number to D9300, but it still remains vaporware.</p>

<p>If you want good ISO 6400 results, go FX; it is simple physics. As long as the sensor stays at 16x24mm DX with 24MP, it doesn't matter whether Canon, Sony, Toshiba, Fuji ... makes it, the lesser amount of real estate will always puts it in a disadvantage compared to FX.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>So a newer model beats an older model in some extreme situations where processing the data makes a load of difference? What a surprise, or not. Sensor development and product optimisation happens continuously. It is no miracle a newer model can beat the older one, in as far it concerns the sensor and handling the data coming from that sensor. However:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the D3300 bests the D7100 overall</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe according to the "compareometer", but in real life, taking photos, I doubt it is the case. The second you need the AF on anything that moves, the D7100 wins. Manual focus on the viewfinder? D7100. Learning to get grips with exposure, first DSLR? D3300.... Quickly change a setting? D7100.... Use a lot of older lenses? D7100 again.<br /><br>

The extreme focus that most sites have on these "image quality" things, with testshots at extreme ISO values is all really nice but realistically, what are we talking about? What can a camera can do in real life scenarios? Where things move and change, where you need to react, where handling becomes vital. A studioshot at ISO 25600 isn't a real world scenario, is it?<br>

But I admit, as a website it is easier to get people to watch that studioshot than it is to make people read a comprehensive review on what it is like to use a camera, and what kind of uses it excels at, and what not. But it would be nice if it was more clear that the ultra-high-iso-compareometer doesn't actually compare cameras.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Nah Shun, you misunderstand me. I'm not whining about the D400, or whatever people know about the new D7100 in this post. As a matter of fact the endless crying about the nonexistent D400 got on my nerves a couple of years ago. I'm just remarking on my surprise at the D3300 performance. In other words wondering what you think of it, and trying to gin up some conversation on what might account for it. Is it the sensor, expeed 4, theories thereof. After all, it's a photography site if we can't speculate (BS) a little what will we talk about. </p>

[elliot1]

<p>The problem with the Imaging Resource site is that they compare in-camera JPGs, not RAW files.</p>

<p>After post processing of RAW files, you likely would not see any differences. DXO rates them pretty much the same (it should be virtually impossible to see any real differences in identically shot/processed RAW files).</p>

[cc_chang1]

<p>The D7/5/3xxx series traditionally have the same sensor technology but they differ in other ways. Thus I don't think anybody should be surprised that a new D3300 camera is slightly better than the now almost two years old D7100. When the D7200 comes out, it may be better, IQ wise, than the D3300, and this will go on. For my intended use, D7100 has the feature sets as a whole so it is my camera of choice.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>By the numbers, IQ would basically be the same between the two cameras.</p><div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>How do you use your photos? That has more to do with how your images will be than one camera vs. another.</p>

<p>Now that the whole DX line is 24MP, a good photographer can probably get the same image from all of them.</p>

<p>But... there are too many things you can't do with a D3300 that would make it not even worth comparing to a D7100. off-camera CLS flash, etc.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>I think the wisest advice I can give any new photographer (and one that I have a hard time with myself) is to ignore that little wheel on your mouse when looking at pictures. </p>

<p>There is NO appreciable difference between the image quality of a D7100 and a D3300 for all practical purposes. There are so many technique, processing and exposure variables that comparing two static photos is virtually pointless. </p>

<p>This is pole-vaulting over mouse droppings.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I have a D3200, and like its successor, it's a lot of bang for the buck. At the cost of some features that an old film shooter like me never had anyway, what's left is very good. My wife has a D7100, and while I can gripe a little about some of the features on that that I wish I had, I don't really miss them. </p>

<p>However, I notice that the D3300 uses the same AF system as the 3200. It works quite nicely for most things, and for those of us whose previous AF experience was with an F4, it's very modern, but the difference between this and the AF of the D7100 is considerable. If one of your goals in using a modern DSLR is to shoot difficult animals that move, the D7100 has an advantage well beyond basic image quality. After all, you have to catch that bird before you can pick apart its feathers. </p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p> Some interesting points have been made, but to me image quality is of prime importance. I don't particularly care if the auto-focus is better on the D7100. I'm never going to shoot at 25600 ISO, but it's easier to see a cameras weaknesses are relative to another that way. Now maybe it's the case as mentioned that being jpgs you would never see this difference in the raws, but nonetheless there is a striking difference, not a small insignificant one.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>There are some minor differences in how different Nikon DSLRs process the files to yield in-camera jpgs (these are mimicked by Nikon's raw converter software as well). In the lower end cameras the colour accuracy is considered to be a lesser priority and the algorithms tend to aim for a bit more vivid and punchy colours (to catch the eye). Since DXO basically show that the quality of the raw data is similar across these 24MP DX sensors, by using a non-Nikon RAW converter of your choice, and if necessary, by making a custom camera calibration profile you should be able to minimize visible differences between the outputs from the cameras. Of far greater significance to practical image quality is, e.g., the advanced Multi-CAM 3500 autofocus module in the D7100 and also the user interface is better suited to advanced users whereas the D3300 user interface is aimed towards the novice and can easily get in the way of the user trying to take control of the process. Not to mention the horrible (in my opinion) pentamirror viewfinder in the D3300. I would not get hung up on tiny differences between particular sensor implementations in different cameras especially as they seem to be very slight in this case.</p>

<p><em>you'll see much better color from the D3300</em></p>

<p>This is subjective clearly and if you want you can take control over the colour, you can do that. It is just numbers after all.</p>

<p><em>Do they do these tests with care or not?</em></p>

<p>In my opinion it is very difficult to do a large number of tests with various cameras and account for all sources of variability.</p>

[jonb]

<p>Bruce, if image quality is the prime thing to you, you wasted money buying a D7100. As you have discovered, the differences between Nikon cameras of the same generation have much to do with things other than the sensor. I had a D7000 and changed to a D7100. The IQ is no better -- at low ISOs, it may even be very slightly worse. But the better AF system was huge for me as a sports shooter.</p>

<p>Although if you are serious about that IQ thing, you should really be targeting the greater DR and color depth of an FX camera like a D600/610.</p>

[jon_porter]

<p>You're comparing the wrong feature between the D3300 and the D7100. Any differences between their sensors is inconsequential. The advantage of the D7100 is it's pentaprism viewfinder and support of mechanical autofocus and AI metering.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>All this is very interesting but it doesn't sound like many of you have checked the imaging resource pictures I suggested. Personally I wouldn't be interested in the D3300 because of the horrible viewfinder pentamirror imbroglio. What I am saying, by my eyes and not any other means the D3300 color looks cleaner, and IQ generally superior in the noted places. Look just below the chin area on the dummy at 6400, and 25600 enlarged. Look at the black fabric in the basket the same way.</p>

[richard_driscoll]

<blockquote>

<p>In the lower end cameras the colour accuracy is considered to be a lesser priority and the algorithms tend to aim for a bit more vivid and punchy colours (to catch the eye).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka,<br>

I've seen this claim before but have never ever seen it supported by any measurements. Rather to the contrary I did look up saturation errors from imaging resource a few years ago and found that the D90 and D5000 had less saturation error than the D3 and D3x, while the D40, D60 and D40x had a more error. My conclusion was that there was really no difference in terms of camera type or market segment.</p>

 

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>Bruce,<br>

Maybe in a few days when we will know about this year Photokina, we shall be able to see if a newer DX Nikon model should be released soon. Till then my friend the best DX purchase is the Nikon D5300. Cheers!</p>

[User_5050610]

<p>Regarding the D3300--on a recent trip, I found it to be an ideal travel camera while on a tour. There was lots of walking around, no chance or even need for a tripod--etc etc--just decent photos. The D3300 is lightweight--which was real criteria for me--and the autofocus was fine. Low light performance is great. In short--it was the best $$$$ I'd spent on a camera in a while. It did great with the jostling of the crowds--especially with the new retractable lens. The only limit I found was the fellow behind the camera--and even then, we got several keepers---:-) The 5300 may have been better for the built-in GPS--but lots more $$$. I am very pleased.<br>

Thanks, Nikon!<br>

Paul </p>

[Two23]

<p>I don't think comparing jpegs on the internet as a very useful way to judge a camera. There are too many variables, and really h ow many of us are mostly shooting jpegs from the camera any more instead of NEF? Shooting jpeg locks down a lot of your processing choices. NEF gives you much more flexibility! So, I'm not buying the premise that the D3300 is better than the D7100 because of it's in-camera jpegs.</p>

<p>That said, over the past few years I've drifted into the camp that thinks there is very little (if any) image difference between Nikon's recent cameras. I honestly doubt I could tell the difference between an image made with a D3300 or a D7100 or a D810, under normal circumstances. sure, there is a difference at the extremes but I just deal with those so rarely it's not the driving factor in camera choice for me. What I've come to think is that how you use a camera (or any photo gear) should be your main consideration. If small size is important, the D3300 wins. If value is the main consideration, D3300 wins. If fast AF is important to what you photo, the D7100 wins. If you shoot pro sports, the D4s wins. As is always, the case, you are best off selecting photo gear not so much by looking at DxO type numbers, but rather how the gear is going to work for you specifically.</p>

<p>Kent in BC</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Personally it may be as some have suggested, just a difference in JPG's. I can tell you that if you do eyeball the evidence you will see the difference. I'm thinking it has more to do with the difference in sensors between Toshiba & Sony, but who knows maybe not. So far it sounds like everyone is just speculating, but I don't think anyone has actually gone, and looked from the sounds of it.</p>

[cc_chang1]

<blockquote>

<p>"So far it sounds like everyone is just speculating, but I don't think anyone has actually gone, and looked from the sounds of it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I for one did not and will not because I don't care. What we are trying to tell you is that since there is no major sensor upgrade, any difference is not "substantive" or worth the time to sweat over.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p> CC Chang you make it sound like looking is a time consuming ordeal. You care enough to post your opinion here, (which I appreciate) but I would think curiosity alone might prompt you. In any case, as you like. ;)</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I went to the site mentioned, but unfamiliar as I am with it, I did not find what was being referred to. So perhaps looking is a time consuming ordeal, if one does not know what to look for. I found a comparison between the two cameras, but saw no pictures. Perhaps some further instruction would help.</p>