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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>Little of what you're saying makes any logical sense to me, but you only have to please yourself so go for it. ;)</p>

<p>I left my cake out in the rain once. Clearly the man has more money than sense.</p>

<p> Try a different card 1st of course. Nikon has a list of approved cards in the manual, and I'd stick with them if I were you. If that's not the problem try to return the camera if it's new because this sort of nonsense happens far to often in my opinion. All else failing, send it to Nikon to repair. I recommend Melville if you have a choice.</p>

<p>I don't think there will ever be a D400 regardless of what Canon does. Nikon has their plan and they're sticking to it. Someone said get a D7100, and I agree, or wait for the D7100 replacement which should be along in the relatively near future.</p>

<p>I disagree with some here. The D90 was a fabulous camera in it's day, and still holds it's own, but the D7000 surpasses every other DX camera in it's ability to lift shadows. I now own a D7100, but in some ways preferred the D7000. If I had realized how great it was while I still had it I may never have switched to the D7100. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with the D7100, but the D7000 was just a very, very, good camera. Either way, good luck with your choice, both cameras are winners.</p>

<p>Yeah, I forgot to mention that I'm only shooting NEF myself, but if I ever do shoot JPG's I guess that would probably mean no need to sharpen.</p>

<p>Thanks Andrew, I guess Ill approach it the way you suggest, which is judiciously.</p>

<p>Thanks Guys, yeah this only just occurred to me since I previously owned a D300, D7000, and D610, all of which had filters. I have noticed that you can sharpen the D7100 images to some effect, but I was more or less wondering if you should. In other words would I create other issues by sharpening. So far I haven't noticed any particular problems. I'm told that the D7100 actually does have an AA filter but that that's corrected by another filter over the sensor. I was told that by the fellow who makes Copperhill products, but I haven't heard it elsewhere so I'm not sure.</p>

<p>Do one sharpen D7100 images inasmuch as it has no AA filter? All my previous Nikon's had a filter, and thus required it.</p>

<p>Yeah BeBu, I would likely buy the D7200 if it had a Sony sensor. I would have to see how it tests out first, but if it was similar to past Exmor's yes I'd get it.<br> Ilkka, I do believe the Sony sensors are a little better, and having owned the D7000, and D7100 I'm pretty confident of that. Of course it depends on what's important to you. For instance if higher resolution, and slightly better noise performance are most important to you then the D7100 would be your choice. On the other hand in the real world the D7000 does not have any banding issues when lifting shadows as the D7100 has in some cases. The D7100 also has a tendency to display a green tint in some shots rather than the blue normally seen in other models. This is a subjective thing, I mean which do you dislike more green, or blue, and for me it's green.<br> All of that said, I think the D7100 is a great camera, and I'm not disappointed in it in the least. It's just different, but Sony does seem to have a technological edge in sensors.</p>

<p>Yeah BeBu, I've just bought a D7100 and would have preferred a Sony Exmor sensor because it's generally considered superior to Toshiba's. Having said that I so far have not seen any evidence of the much talked about D7100 banding issue on another site. Having had a D7000, and more recently a D610 I've just become fond of Sony sensors and their shadow lifting abilities.<br> In truth I'm quite happy with the D7100 thus far, but would probably like it even more with an Exmor.</p>

<p>Much like the Bushes Beans dog I think Shun knows more than he's letting on. He isn't talking so I propose thumb screws because he displays a suspicious lack of curiosity if you ask me.</p>

<p>I know the D7100 is a relatively recent model, but lets face it Nikon has been replacing models on a yearly basis lately. Anyway I'm interested in peoples opinions on when, and what will supplant the D7100, and who will be the sensor manufacturer. I think Sony has made the D5300 sensor, which seems to preform as well if not better than the D7100. They have been jumping around with sensor makers in the last few years even making their own on certain models. ;)</p>

<p>Anyone have a clue when the replacement for the D7100 will/might appear? Seems new models have been coming out sooner, and sooner in recent years.</p>

<p>Nikon should concentrate on building a high quality D7100 replacement, and a pro build DX D400. They will not, but they would be wise to do so.</p>