nick_baker

<p>yes you can focus manually with D7100. You may find that the focus confirmation indicator is more reliable than the focusing screen (I do). There are even some tricks for increasing the accuracy of the focus confirmation device, although I have never explored them.</p> <p>I am not sure you will find a 28mm flatfield lens for DX, other than a 24mm PCE and I am not sure of your budget. In general, FX would improve your wide angle options but as the widest DX micronikkor is 40mm and the widest FX micronikkor is 55mm it may not make much difference in your case.</p>

<p>On looking into it I am not sure what there is flat field with a shorter focal length than the current 40mm f2.8 G. Since you are DX you could do worse than simply obtain the current DX pair of the 40mm and the 85 f3.5 G VR. You can also consider 90mm macro lenses from others such as Tamron.</p>

<p>If you will focus manually then you have access to an extensive back catalog of F-mount lenses that will be very inexpensive used. </p> <p>I would suggest googling Bjorn Rorslett lens evaluations. He comments on just about anything every made and he has an interest in macro.</p> <p>I am not sure whether there has ever been a flat-field 28mm lens for Nikon. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Having said all that, I can't claim I've ever shot with a 50MP sensor, and I'm not disputing the merits of digital medium format backs (even if most of the sensors are much smaller than 645). So I'll take your word for it that there's an advantage in switching format. I'll be interested to see whether the results of testing a high-end lens (by which I mean something like the Zeiss 135mm) on a 5DsR hold up well - the jump over 36MP is small enough that I'd actually be surprised if there's an issue, but I'm here to learn. Of course, it'll have to wait until June when the cameras are actually released - although since Nikon barely announced anything (of interest to this forum) at the show, a delay in shipping isn't the worst crime.</p> </blockquote> <p>On the contrary, you could have determined the effects of this pixel density for yourself at any time in the past couple of years using any of several 24MP DX bodies. 50MP FX does not represent a new pixel density.</p>

<p>Hi Shun<br /> <br />Yes, I am a bit surprised that you disagree. My strong impression, when taking close-up pictures of insects where one cannot always get close enough (I'm using 300mm F4AFS or 200mm micronikkor lenses so more reach is not really an option), is that one can clearly get more from cropping a D7100 than a D7000. I say 'impression' because I did not own these two cameras simultaneously, and there was no direct comparison. As you would expect, pixel-sharp images are more difficult to obtain, and it is wise to keep the shutter speed high. I suppose it has to be said that the images that requiring cropping to 100% from the D7100 are never the best ones, and would not be saleable if that was my purpose. Still, I am sure they are better than I could obtain from the D7000. The lack of an AA filter on the D7100 may contribute in addition to the increased pixel density.</p> <p>I suspect that your wildlife shots typically employ wider apertures than I would use for close ups; perhaps that has an impact.<br /> <br /> I agree with you about the superior AF of the D7100, of course.<br /> You will appreciate, I hope, that I am in no way disagreeing with any of the points about the many limitations of increasing MP sensors. The original point was that it is surprsing the same MP-sceptics that complain about 36MP FX (or now 50MP) rarely seem to question 24MP DX.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Sounds as if you believe that more mega pixels produce better photographic images...</p> </blockquote> <p>There's no need to respond to posts you don't understand</p>

<blockquote> <p>Any advantage is more in marketing and <a id="itxthook6" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00d73D" rel="nofollow">internet<img id="itxthook6icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>bragging rather than any real difference...However, very few people need 36MP, let alone more</p> </blockquote> <p>I doubt I will rush out to buy a 50MP Nikon, but I am puzzled why people would criticize a 50MP FX camera while accepting 24MP DX? According to Shun's arguments, D7100 should have no real advantages over D7000 (sensor wise). I think everybody would agree (including Shun) that when cropping for reach, D7100 <em>does</em> have real advantages over D7000. 50MP FX is just extending this pixel density to FX, and no doubt it will have its uses.</p>

<p>Right now BestBuy is selling the D7000 packaged with the 18-140VR lens for $630. That is an incredible deal for a camera that can (probably) focus your legacy lenses. But, since it comes with a good lens already, you probably won't need them. I guess in principle you could flip the 18-140VR and use your old lenses, but I wouldn't advise it.</p>

<p>I have compared the 70-300VR with the 70-200f4VR + TC1.7EII. In my opinion the latter is sharper at 300mm. Without the TC, the 70-200f4VR is also sharper at wider apertures from 70-200. Stopped down, there's not much difference. My tests at shorter focal distances, which was my interest.</p>

<p>I made this change because of the improved AF. <em>But</em>, I was one of those dissatisfied with D7000 AF, if this is not an issue for you then the switch may not be worth it. I've also found the greater resolution and lack of AA filter of the D7100 an advantage, the enhanced cropping possibilities are very significant. I also find the D7100 a bit less likely to be fooled into strange exposure choices. Unlike most Nikon DSLRs the D7100 has a Toshiba sensor which some don't like. Bottom line, there are measurable advantages to the D7100 (of course) but they may not be properties that are critical for you and D7000 remains a fine camera.</p>

<p>Thanks. since I never use ViewNX I had not bothered to open the View NX2 disc and did not realize that it updated Nikon Transfer. The link mentioned in my second post repairs the damaged NEF files.</p>

<p>OK I guess Nikon Transfer might be the problem. From the Nikon website:<br> http://d7100.org/how-to-open-and-edit-d7100-raw-nef-image-files/</p>

<p>This must have been addressed many times but I could not find the answer by searching. I thought Capture NX2 supported the D7100 but my NEF's are opening with 1620x1080 resolution. What am I doing wrong? I am using Capture NX2 v2.4.7 on Mac OS10.9.5. My NEFs are full res lossless compressed, all ~32MB on the drive.</p> <p>thanks</p>

<p>When I got my D7100 a year ago it focused only intermittently with my 300 f4AFS. Whether coincidentally or not, the problem first occurred while I was using a TC. I exchanged the D7100 body but the next one had the same issue. I did a lot of contact cleaning, examining the contacts, holding the lens firmly in place, etc. The lens worked flawlessly with other bodies (D5100, D700). The D7100 works flawlessly with other lenses. I never resolved this problem, which sounds similar to yours.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Huh? The D7100's autofocus is, as far as I know, every bit as good as the D300's. It doesn't have the latest D4s updates, but it's not far behind.</p> </blockquote> <p>No, the AF motor in the D7100 body is not as powerful as the higher-end bodies such as D800. There is a noticeable difference in AF speed with, say, a 200mm F4 micronikkor (an AF-D lens)</p>

<p>I can't help with this specific question but regarding some other points that have come up: I own the CV 180mm f4. Wonderful lens but, in my opinion, not at its best at closest focus, and not a competitor for any dedicated macro. I also own the Nikon 200 AF-D f4, and regarding its AF speed, this will be significantly affected by the body used. In particular, D7100 does not have the same AF motor as D800 and AF is fairly painful on D7100. No-one, in my opinion, should purchase the 200mm micronikkor except for macro and close-up, I don't find it particularly good with distant targets and it would be a slow, bulky, expensive and inferior choice as a general telephoto. Great macro lens though. </p>