Jump to content
Rocha

Nikon announces the D7100

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

 

post-713-0-29344900-1364319253_thumb.jpg

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

 

post-713-0-63056100-1364319304_thumb.jpg

 

 

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.)

 

 

post-713-0-48384800-1364319171_thumb.jpg

 

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.

 

post-713-0-59480900-1364319662_thumb.jpg

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would I not be right in thinking that it probably has the same sensor array as the D800 but in a smaller space, ie 24MP DX instead of 36MP FX?

Edited by John Bantin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the sensor is a generation on from the D800. The D800 and D7000 are pretty much indistinguishable as DX sensors - of course for the D800 that is just a small part of the FX sensor.

 

This is a new sensor, with more, but smaller pixels. I look forward to seeing if it can deliver on the resolution promises or not.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sensors are very different not only in size but also in the pixels density

FX 36MP 36000000 / 861 = 41811 pixel/mm2

DX 24MP 24000000 / 365 = 65753 pixel/mm2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex,

 

Thanks for your analysis of the D300 vs. D7100. I do shoot macro in the tropics and i don't print larger than 13 x19, usually no bigger than 11 x 14.

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not sure I have a feel for where folks are going with the D7100. D7100 or wait for a possible D400? Alex....do I read you correctly in that side by side the D7100 did well in the AF area?

 

Pam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see if the Sensor in the D7100 represents a step in Sensor Technology or just a tweak of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the D7100 AF is very impressive. From a 5 minute back to back with the D800 with the same lens, I'd say it was just as fast and accurate. And has much better frame coverage.

 

Alex....do I read you correctly in that side by side the D7100 did well in the AF area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to have a good Sensor as well. However no gigantic Sensor technology step, as expected.

I assume that the Sensor Technology has entered the mature state!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...