68 replies to this topic

[TomR1]

It is being reported that the new sensor will provide better detail, no? Therefore, if I crop 50% to 12MP I should have a better picture than a native D-300 shot as long as I have clear water, no? Being further away I have more flexibility in strobe placement, no? I also can simply keep my focus point in the center and crop later to get the presentation I want, no? In addition edge diffraction will be minimized, No?

 

I other words, if I simply give up some outdated idea that 1:1 and "composed in the camera" is importent, I should be able to get a better shot whith this camera than my old D-300. Or am i kidding myself?

 

Regards,

 

Tom

[DiverPam]

My question would be D7100 or D800?      With the specs on this camera - what does everyone think about the difference?  If you were getting ready to upgrade, what would you consider with this new camera coming out.     I know part of this discussion will be FX versus DX.    And I really like my Tokina.  Thoughts......

 

Pam 

[JimSwims]

Personally for me, although this new DX camera really does excite me I'm even more interested in what could come out in the

next tier, that is of course if it(D400/D9000) comes out. As another D90 user I've been more than happy to stick with that camera

as my skills progress, I am after all not a pro. It always has made sense to me to wait two generations before upgrading.

 

DX as a format really suits me. As I dive basically 100% of the time in temperate waters I shoot mostly macro. Also topside

my main interest in photography is nature, with birds being my most common subject. As such the 1.3 crop of this new

camera has added interest for me. I like how they have made it a super imposed frame for that crop rather than the tighter

viewfinder image of the D800 on DX mode. I guess there is a technical reason that is so?

 

If I went to FX I too would miss the 10-17, even though I hardly use it in home waters

 

To upgrade from the D90 to D800, for me would mean

1- a much more expensive body upgrade,

2- a more expensive housing upgrade,

3- new lens required,

4- some of my lens would become obsolete or less useful.

 

As a hobbyist on a tight budget there is simply no incentive. 

 

Cheers,

Jim.

[loftus]

My question would be D7100 or D800?      With the specs on this camera - what does everyone think about the difference?  If you were getting ready to upgrade, what would you consider with this new camera coming out.     I know part of this discussion will be FX versus DX.    And I really like my Tokina.  Thoughts......

 

Pam 

I can't really think of a single advantage of a 36MP FX camera over a 24MP DX camera as an underwater diving camera. it will be interesting to see how low light etc compares Then you add in all the reasons Jim mentions and I think a 24MP DX camera is going to be a better choice for most photography situations given lens choices etc. If you stay with DX, you will see similar quality to the D800, without having to make a single lens / port adjustment. 

The D800 has the small advantage that you effectively can shoot 36MP FX, or 24MP DX - either by letting the camera crop, or cropping manually in post, so it provides some leeway to 'throw away some pixels'. The D800 is a better studio camera, but in my opinion the D7100 is a better underwater and general wildlife camera; I think it's just a pity that Nikon have not yet produced a real pro level DX camera yet to really replace the D300 with high frame rate, large buffer etc. What's so frustrating is you know they have the technology, it's just a matter of combining it in one camera.

Edited by loftus, 24 February 2013 - 05:21 AM.

[DiverPam]

Loftus - Thanks for the feedback.  I notice that you have both the D800 and D7000.  Which one do you use most underwater? And why?  Do you think these comparisons will hold up with the new D7100?  

 

This camera is shaping up to be a great choice based on what we are reading - especially if you like the DX format.  

 

Pam 

[Scubysnaps]

Eventually finding the time while i relax, and having a deluged look at the spec etc. 1/250 flash shutter speed? Is that right? Wasn't the 7000 and 300 1/320? A bit shit that its the same as an Olympus mirrorless if so.
Also noticed wireless was listed as built in, whereas it was referred to the wu-1a was needed?
With the removal of the low pass filter does that mean that everyone who spent a fortune on the d800 (no E) is a bit pissed off that theyve rightly accepted that after their "experiment" of giving 2 "options" with the 800 they were right to remove to.

I'll still have one tho, sold my d90 housing last may, spoilt 2 planned trips already, be good to get back in the game

[loftus]

Loftus - Thanks for the feedback.  I notice that you have both the D800 and D7000.  Which one do you use most underwater? And why?  Do you think these comparisons will hold up with the new D7100?  

 

This camera is shaping up to be a great choice based on what we are reading - especially if you like the DX format.  

 

Pam 

Hi Pam,

I personally use the D800 mostly, but that's specifically because I shoot mostly pool studio and large animal wide angle, and more importantly my daughter has the D7000 most of the time. (She's a marine science undergrad at University of Miami.) I rarely, if ever, shoot macro. I just think DX is overall more versatile for a wide range of shooting situations. The high MP of the D800 has advantages for a more limited set of situations only.

[Scubysnaps]

D800 would only ever be suited to wreck divers, get as close as you want with no harm of scaring any wildlife.

What do people think about the crop feature for macro work, giving the opportunity to using a 60mm in a similar way to a 105mm? Would this work?

[KirkD]

Intrigued by the 1.3 crop that you can turn on. Just because that would give you a 14mb file instead of a 24mb file. I doubt Iwould use this feture underwater, but msy use it for xmas pictures eith my family or b day parties. I mean, who needs 24mb for this. Would also be interesting for sports shootingas well.

I was hoping that it shot 1080p @ 60fps instead of 1080i

[ToddB]

It looks like a decent iteration.  It will undoubtedly have a higher quality sensor than the D7000 and the body is a bit more robust.  Better video.  It feels like Nikon just realized they needed to bump megapixel again but they are still ignoring the high-end DX user in my opinion.  Glad they finally added the weather resistant body.

 

It is *not* a full on replacement for the D300s. It's a shame that Nikon has still left off features I had on my 2007 D300.

 

- Same stupid left hand dial to let me select "landscape" or "portrait".  Really?  That's flagship?  I'd rather have the old WB/ISO buttons from the D300

- 51 autofocus points?  Yes, that's nice, but it's a shame the D7100 is essentially getting the same focus system I had on the D300 6 years ago - shouldn't it be even better?

- Dual SD cards?   Compact Flash is still faster.  I'm betting the D7100 will still have a small buffer and will stop shooting at the most inopportune time.

- Where's the DX primes?  Or anything cool and new in DX lenses?  

 

Please don't misunderstand; this is definitely a better body than the existing D7000 and a very nice evolution.  But it also shows me that Nikon wants to move the former D300 user off to FX just like I said in a thread about 3 months ago -- I predicted back then Nikon would never release a D400 but would instead make the next rev of the D7000 it's new top of the line DX.  

 

For an underwater photographer who currently has a D7000, does this make you want to iterate and buy yet another $2500, (sorry, $3000-$3300) housing for what is essentially a megapixel increase or does this make you want to jump to FX?  Is this a good enough iteration to keep people from jumping to Olympus OM-D which is much cheaper and has a better lens selection?

 

At least Nikon has finally told us the D400 is not to be...

 

Cheers,
JP

 

I don't know that the D400 is truly not to be, the below link is mildly encouraging, I can't figure any better reason to limit the buffer as they did than their wanting to provide a compelling point of differentiation with an upcoming pro-dx to squeeze a few more bucks out of folks.

http://forums.dprevi...m-post-50901841

[Alex_Mustard]

I am not convinced that the buffer is that nobbled - considering it is dealing with 24MP 14-bit files at 6 per second. This is a big jump from the D300 dealing with 12MP files. I would rather have a D400/D9000 than the D7100, but just because we want it, it doesn't mean it is coming. 

 

Although it has been very strange how Nikon have introduced the 24MP sensor to the DX range. Normally you bring in new tech at the top of the range and let it trickle down. But the first Nikon SLR to get a DX 24 MP was the D3200, then the D5200 and now the D7100. So maybe it will finally make its way it to the top DX camera next?!

 

Alex

[loftus]

Sounds like Nikon Europe still thinks the door is open for a top of the line DX. Just from a competitive standpoint I think Nikon has little choice but to provide a real alternative to the 7D and it's iterations

http://nikonrumors.c...-the-d300s.aspx

[Alex_Mustard]

Good info Jeff. 

[Scubysnaps]

I feel the D7100 will do me fine, its lighter and smaller than any D400 will be and I've seen fantastic photos taken on less than or equal to the D7000, by other photographers too I also hope to pick up a full frame camera to compliment my professional land work. I have character (yes, me!), cheek, respect where due, passion, enough knowledge, and perseverance, all of these will make my dreams work. The pennies saved on the D400 will go into the FF. After all there's loads more money in local land work than there will ever be in the underwater world. Which in turn pays for my real passion under the waves.

[mcgowman]

Would the 1.3 crop mode effectively work like a 'virtual teleconverter'?

 

Meaning I could use my existing lens & port setup for normal & crop mode instead of buying a TC and extension ring?

[E_viking]

Would the 1.3 crop mode effectively work like a 'virtual teleconverter'?

 

Meaning I could use my existing lens & port setup for normal & crop mode instead of buying a TC and extension ring?

To some extent yes! You can call it a lot of things, but it is effectively digitally zooming ( cropping)  into the Photo.

However, you loose pixels at the same time.

TC etc are not throwing away pixels. So, there is the difference.

 

/Erik

[KirkD]

To some extent yes! You can call it a lot of things, but it is effectively digitally zooming ( cropping)  into the Photo.
However, you loose pixels at the same time.
TC etc are not throwing away pixels. So, there is the difference.
 
/Erik

Even when you "throw" away those pixel, you still got plenty left though. If memory serves correctly, doesn't it give you an 18mp file? Which is plenty. Hell my Nikon D90 is 12mp and i have not had any trouble with not having enough pixel to print. I've printed up to 20x24 without any issues. Just my 2 cents.

[TomR1]

I see multiple comparisons of the 7100 to the 7000 but not my D-300. The real question is how much do I gain, other than video, by upgrading?

 

Tom

[Alex_Mustard]

I had the chance to do some qualitative, but at least, back to back AF tests with a full production (as opposed to a Nikon demonstrator) D7100 at the weekend, at the London Dive Show. Nauticam had brought one to show off their working prototype housing for the D7100 (which included their new vacuum pump system).

 

D7100 Housing is almost identical to the D600 I just reviewed - just tiny changes to positions of controls

 

 

 

Inner workings of the multi-selector in the Nauticam.

 

D7100 AF performance seemed equal to the Nikon D800 with 60mm AFS I was using. This is a big jump on the D7000. (Although the most noticeable thing was how much brighter the viewfinder was in the D7100 compared with the D800.)

 

 

 

The D7100 is therefore better than the D300 in AF, but not hugely. It obviously has twice as many pixels and yet, I'd expect it to be much better at higher ISO. Nikon has made such gains in this area since the D300. I'd also expect considerably better dynamic range, but haven't tested it. Plus smaller, but less robust, less RAWs in buffer. Larger screen, video etc.  

 

But if you shoot UW in the tropics, are mostly interested in macro and don't want to make large prints - you'd probably struggle to see that much difference from the D300 in the final results.

 

Also we won't have to wait long for D7100 housings since the camera is physically so similar to the D600. Subal had a very compact prototype D600 on display and you can be certain that the D7100 housing will be almost identical - which should speed deliveries of all brands.

 

Subal D600 prototype (photographed here without handles) - expect everyones' D600 and D7100 housings to be almost identical.

 

In fact, at the show we were joking that housing manufacturer's need do little more than cross out D600 and write on D7100 in crayon.

 

Alex

 

 

[E_viking]

Even when you "throw" away those pixel, you still got plenty left though. If memory serves correctly, doesn't it give you an 18mp file? Which is plenty. Hell my Nikon D90 is 12mp and i have not had any trouble with not having enough pixel to print. I've printed up to 20x24 without any issues. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed!.. You would still have roughly 12Megapixels to work with!