The D7100 has landed (1 Viewer)

mpe said:

Not sure why are people so much excited about the 1.3x crop mode. In fact it is not 1.3x crop. It is crop of the crop 1.3 * 1.5= 1.95x crop of the full-format.

There are no 1.95x lenses so there is no point of having it in the camera (unless you cosnsider 7 vs 6fps diffrence as significant). You can always do the crop in the postprocessing.

Click to expand...

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. The 1.3X crop mode a nice feature, but I think the only real benefits it offers are (1) a slight burst more fps, (2) less space used storing the 15 MP images on your memory card, (3) increase in time before your buffer fills up and maybe (4) the autofocus points more completely cover the cropped frame (but the frame is also cropped in the viewfinder, so that sort of cancels out this benefit in my mind).

I am more excited about the higher resolution sensor in combination with a few other features not present in the other previous DX bodies. The lack of the AA filter potentially offers a very noticeable improvement in sharpness/detail. Also I'm glad they included 51 point autofocus with "algorithms from the D4," better low light focusing and the center point functional at f8. And they claim the build and weatherproofing is very good. I don't know how much the high ISO performance has improved compared to the D7000, but I'm sure it is significantly better than my old D300. Again, for the price, my first impression is that it is a hell of a camera and I'll probably pre-order one.

My God, I was starting to think Nikon would never offer a major upgrade to the D300, a camera announced over 5 years ago.

--Dave

BillN said:

this is a bird forum and a lot take images of these small things ........ major cropping can be commonplace ........ as the centre of the image is usually where the bird is ........... getting as many MPs as possible on the image is good ......... plus the centre of my Nikon 300mm f4 is where my subject usually is

Click to expand...

Yes I know, by turning on the 1.3x crop you are asking camera to save just a part of the picture to a file. So the effect is exactly same like if you just do it in the photoshop. It just gives you slightly smaller files and more buffer/card space. It will not give you any extra pixels on your subject.

Yes, the 24mp resolution is quite generous for DX camera and if you have a really good lens, the D7100 will be great. Also I like the ability to focus at f/8. That's the great help for birders. But I couldn't care less about 1.3x crop.

mpe said:

Yes I know, by turning on the 1.3x crop you are asking camera to save just a part of the picture to a file. So the effect is exactly same like if you just do it in the photoshop. It just gives you slightly smaller files and more buffer/card space. It will not give you any extra pixels on your subject.

Yes, the 24mp resolution is quite generous for DX camera and if you have a really good lens, the D7100 will be great. Also I like the ability to focus at f/8. That's the great help for birders. But I couldn't care less about 1.3x crop.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your explanation - now I understand - so does that mean that if you take an image from say the FX D800 and crop it in PS to 18 x 12 it will have the same IQ as what the D7100 achieves using the 1.3 crop i.e. 18 x 12

I'm totally non technical so if I have mis understood, do not hesitate to point it out

The 1.3X crop mode may not do much to help you get a better photo, but the more I think about it, as long as it is very easy to quickly switch back and forth between full <--> 1.3X, I might find myself using it fairly often, but the main reason would be to save space on my memory card and to save space later on my computer. A 15MP file is significantly smaller than 24MP.

--Dave

opticoholic said:

The 1.3X crop mode may not do much to help you get a better photo, but the more I think about it, as long as it is very easy to switch back and forth between full <--> 1.3X, I might find myself using it fairly often, but the main reason would be to save space on my memory card and to save space later on my computer. A 15MP file is significantly smaller than 24MP.

Click to expand...

I used to do that too on my D700 and even had a button dedicated to that. However, I realized that sometimes it is good to have these extra pixels. Sometimes there is a good composition in the full frame and you might not notice that as you are focused on the detail of the bird and you wish to have extra space in the frame. Now I always take save all pixels and crop when processing. The cardspace is cheap and for 12mp D700 there is just not any benefit.

BillN said:

Thanks for your explanation - now I understand - so does that mean that if you take an image from say the FX D800 and crop it in PS to 18 x 12 it will have the same IQ as what the D7100 achieves using the 1.3 crop i.e. 18 x 12

Click to expand...

Yes, in principle you are right. However, the new D7100 has slightly higher pixel density than the D800. Therefore, the D7100 could still have a higher resolution than cropped D800.

However, practically 24M pixels on DX frame is quite a lot. Most likely the lens will be limiting the resolution not the sensor unless you are using exceptional exotic lens like AF-S 400 f/2.8 or similar.

mpe said:

I used to do that too on my D700 and even had a button dedicated to that. However, I realized that sometimes it is good to have these extra pixels. Sometimes there is a good composition in the full frame and you might not notice that as you are focused on the detail of the bird and you wish to have extra space in the frame. Now I always take save all pixels and crop when processing. The cardspace is cheap and for 12mp D700 there is just not any benefit.

Click to expand...

Thanks, good point. But I'm starting to carry a camera with me all the time when birding (even when I'm with a big group), and I'm taking more photos simply to document uncommon species or for study of field marks later on my computer. This was one of the reasons I bought the lightweight affordable 300mm f/4 AF-S. In these common situations where I know I'm not close enough to get an awesome magazine cover shot, I could see myself doing a quick switch to 1.3X crop mode.

--Dave

BillN said:

Thanks for your explanation - now I understand - so does that mean that if you take an image from say the FX D800 and crop it in PS to 18 x 12 it will have the same IQ as what the D7100 achieves using the 1.3 crop i.e. 18 x 12

I'm totally non technical so if I have mis understood, do not hesitate to point it out

Click to expand...

Not really. You can't compare different sensors as if they are the same.

Cropping more always reduces iq when you view the finished image at the same size, ie a monitor. This happens whether the camera crops or you crop in post.

There is one good reason to have an in camera crop and that is if the bird is small in the frame the 1.3 crop will make for smaller file sizes and slightly faster processing. Normally though the aim would be to fill the dx frame with your subject. This would result in greatest dynamic range and lowest noise.

Hope this helps

RMWD said:

Not really. You can't compare different sensors as if they are the same.

Cropping more always reduces iq when you view the finished image at the same size, ie a monitor. This happens whether the camera crops or you crop in post.

There is one good reason to have an in camera crop and that is if the bird is small in the frame the 1.3 crop will make for smaller file sizes and slightly faster processing. Normally though the aim would be to fill the dx frame with your subject. This would result in greatest dynamic range and lowest noise.

Hope this helps

Click to expand...

Thanks Rich

it is a pity the D7100 is not "in the shops now" as I have the money and am back in the UK for two weeks, (the Euro price is always even more than the £ price), BUT I still think the D7000 is a stunning deal at the current street price ...... the problem is I'm getting enticed by the new Swarovski ATX range which is confusing my cash flow forecast for 2013

BillN said:

...I still think the D7000 is a stunning deal at the current street price...

Click to expand...

Bill,
Regarding getting a D7000, I think it will be worth it for you to wait the extra month or so and pay the extra what, ~$300 (? not sure what that translates to in Euro or £), to get the D7100. The D7100 really sounds like a significantly better camera in many ways. I never found the D7000 that compelling because the autofocus system is a step down from my D300, and the resolution and other features are not that much of a step up.

--Dave

No "AF ON" button, no focus point selection button and no CF card, seems that Nikon are widening the gap between the pro and consumer market or am I living in the past? Use the AF on button and not the shutter release to focus, switch focus patterns quite regularly especially when shooting moving and static birds. Mega pixel wars are like broadband speeds, everybody wants more but very few ever need the full amount

I am left wondering if Nikon has any plan to update the D300s at all. They certainly have a space in the price point for a true pro-body DX. And certainly many pro-features in addition to Steve's peeves like TIFF file handling, even faster FPS, 91k RGB metering, more F8 AF points and cross sensors, more aspect options, and a built-in grip like the D4. I also would like to see built-in WiFi and/or GPS like Canon is now offering instead of having to add on their bulky accessory kludges (Eye-Fi SD cards seem better/cheaper to me!)

But their advertising for the D7100 is calling it the new DX flagship with specific comparison to the D300s implying this may be all there is for DX. Certainly the DX lens lineup gets no luv! I can think of only a few that are still capably sharp with the current 24mp DX lineup.

Steve, RJM,
I think Nikon will eventually offer a "true pro-body DX" with the additional features that you mentioned. But in the meantime, I'm pleased because with the D7100 I think Nikon has finally given me genuine major upgrade option from the D300/s! Do you agree? Sure they could have given us more, and I think they will eventually. The reason: DX is a legitimate format. A lot of full frame enthusiasts just don't get it: Not everybody wants or needs a full frame camera that is capable of creating poster-sized prints! Full frame is the new medium format. AND, the small niche of the market known as wild bird photographers will always be attracted to DX because most of the time we cannot fill the full FX frame anyway, so the extra sensor area is wasted on us. A fresh rumor suggests the Canon 7DMarkII will become real later this year, and many say that would force Nikon to answer by releasing a new "flagship DX," but it would sort of cripple D7100 sales for them to tell us that now... Flagships are usually temporary. It will be interesting to see if someday the smaller mirrorless cameras with APS-C sensors totally displace and wipe out the larger APS-C mirrored SLR's. I could see that happening, along with a whole line of smaller professional telephoto lenses designed specifically for mirrorless APS-C. That would be cool because with the smaller but equally capable cameras and lenses we could forgo with tripods more easily. But evolution takes time. Nikon is clearly still committed to DX; we just have to wait a little longer to see if they will still support "true pro DX." I think they will.

--Dave

Sorry, FX has little to do with print size. That's what resolution is about. It's about the availability of quality lenses.

DX has been a kludge from the beginning. A supposedly cheap entry into digital. It's primary advantage is price point and the HOPE for a FULL SYSTEM of smaller/lighter/cheaper high quality lenses. And Nikon had dropped the ball badly with DX lenses. As a FULL SLR SYSTEM, DX a decade on is STILL seriously lacking a FULL RANGE of lenses, especially now that the sensors are capable of such high resolution that most of the existing DX lenses are inadequate! If I have to buy FX lenses now anyway, why compromise on the body? Especially now that FX body is below $2000? Certainly not for the DX crop (or a crop of the DX crop) factor!

Really, only Pentax seems to be doing APS-C right with small, relatively lightweight bodies AND lenses at good prices. Uses a standard RAW format too. If I were starting over for a nature kit, the K5IIs and new 560mm lens would be at the top of my list.

RJM said:

Sorry, FX has little to do with print size. That's what resolution is about. It's about the availability of quality lenses.

DX has been a kludge from the beginning. A supposedly cheap entry into digital. It's primary advantage is price point and the HOPE for a FULL SYSTEM of smaller/lighter/cheaper high quality lenses. And Nikon had dropped the ball badly with DX lenses. As a FULL SLR SYSTEM, DX a decade on is STILL seriously lacking a FULL RANGE of lenses, especially now that the sensors are capable of such high resolution that most of the existing DX lenses are inadequate! If I have to buy FX lenses now anyway, why compromise on the body? Especially now that FX body is below $2000? Certainly not for the DX crop (or a crop of the DX crop) factor!

Really, only Pentax seems to be doing APS-C right with small, relatively lightweight bodies AND lenses at good prices. Uses a standard RAW format too. If I were starting over for a nature kit, the K5IIs and new 560mm lens would be at the top of my list.

Click to expand...

RJM,
With respect, I think we may be misunderstanding each other. I hesitate to "step into it" with you because I'm sure you know more about this stuff than I do.

I follow and agree with a lot of what you say. I agree that Nikon has not supported the DX format with lenses designed specifically for DX. I understand that if you use an FX lens on a DX size sensor, you are essentially throwing away a lot of what the glass is designed to do, and you may risk the lens becoming the limiting factor, or the "sensor outresolving the lens." I would also agree that a full range of telephoto lenses specifically designed for DX sensors would be much better for the DX cameras. So I understand your sentiment that "If I have to buy FX lenses now anyway, why compromise on the body?" I guess my answer to that question is that right now, for wild bird photography, using an FX body with an FX telephoto lens feels like more of a compromise to me than using a DX body with the same FX lens. I know that most of the time I would struggle to fill the FX frame with a bird, even if I use teleconverters, which degrade image quality. So I would be forced to crop, and that seriously degrades my image quality. So given the choices right now, I'd rather try the D7100 with my pro FX telephoto lenses than the D800 or D600 or D4. Can you understand that, or would you tell me I'd be better off with the D800?

You lost me when you said, "FX (sensor size) has nothing to do with print size." The way I see it, a full frame sensor can give you more megapixels of any given density, and more megapixels equals more resolution which equals bigger prints. In other words, if I fill the full frame of a D800 with a bird, I can get a bigger print than if I fill the frame of a DX camera with the same bird, assuming equal pixel density. But it's okay with me that it is hard for me to fill the frame of an FX sensor with a bird because I can get a very big print from a DX sensor.

When I said, "DX is a legitimate format," maybe I should have just said "APS-C is a legitimate format." I was just thinking that generally, as a sensor size for digital photography, APS-C is more than adequate to replace old film SLR's and rangefinders, while full frame sensors really are approaching or equaling medium format film. Because historically there was always a place in the market for "pro" film SLR's & rangefinders, it seems logical that APS-C will survive with choices at the "pro" level. Of course I could be wrong. Nikon certainly has been slow to give us pro DX bodies with the very best current capabilities, and they continue to force us to use FX lenses on DX sensors. But the results of that have not been completely terrible, it seems to me... Because I'm already heavily invested in my pro FX telephotos, it seems the best I can do right now is to slap them on the best pro DX body Nikon will give me. But I still like the idea of smaller mirrorless or rangefinder-sized bodies with APS-C sensors and smaller telephoto lenses specifically designed for those smaller APS-C cameras.

--Dave

RJM

are you saying that you feel that Nikon need to produce CHEAPER, lighter, FAST, (i.e. f2.8 or f4), LONG DX telephoto glass........ this seems a contradiction! - light, long and cheap(er) .. just don't go together.

IMHO It ain't gonna happen and anyway who needs cheaper glass, (the 70 300mm VR f4.5/5.6 is there and popular); Nikon need to continue to develop their "pro" range of lenses and produce a VR version of the 300mm f4.

Dave I originally posted a rather long (for me) somewhat technical response but then deleted it an hour or so later. I don't want to spoil anyones enthusiasm for a new camera, especially for the long suffering D300 owner (like me!).

I've already made my bet with FX now too. I have the D90 and a D300s now, and a NIB D600 I picked up during the Xmas blowout waiting for me to collect when I return to Texas in April.

I don't anticipate the D600 being a "compromise" over the D300s at all. In fact, expect it to be significantly better and far more capable of exploiting the potential resolution of my primary wildlife lens, the 300mm F2.8 VR, than the current 24MP DX bodies.

Bill, I am saying Nikon needs more DX fixed apeture primes across the range. The current generation of DX sensors do not require the large apertures that an FX sensor does. F2.8 is adequate on the wide end and F5.6 on the supertele. An 800mm F5.6 DX prime would be significantly smaller/lighter and cheaper than the current FX equivalent.

So, let me ask this, if this camera had a D400 sticker on it and it shot 8fps would everybody have gone AAAAHHHHH WOW AWESOME, or would some still be bleating.

6fps is 1 frame every 0.1666 seconds and 8fps is 1 frame every 0.125 seconds, thats a difference of 0.04 of a second... Seriously...

C'mon guys, give Nikon praise where its due, this is a bloody good piece of kit.

Regards

Duke Leto said:

No "AF ON" button, no focus point selection button and no CF card, seems that Nikon are widening the gap between the pro and consumer market or am I living in the past? Use the AF on button and not the shutter release to focus, switch focus patterns quite regularly especially when shooting moving and static birds. Mega pixel wars are like broadband speeds, everybody wants more but very few ever need the full amount

Click to expand...

Lack of AF-ON is unfortunate. However, AE-L is not that far away on the smaller bodies and can be programmed easily.

Focus patern switching is not needed. The whole point of using AF-ON technique is to be able to stay in AF-C dynamic area all the time and not having to switch between focusing patterns.

The biggest issue I have with ergonomy of lower class of bodies like D600 or D7100, is that I don't like the position of ISO button. Furthermore, I strongly prefer dedicated switch for metering modes instead of metering button + wheel.

I take dual SD card slots as advantage. Cards with modern UHC-I interface are as fast as the best CF cards of the same genearation. They are cheaper, available everywhere and you don't need to carry reader to import them on a Mac. I also strongly prefer one type of card instead of CF+SD or CF+XQD combinations. In fact I don't see the point of XQD and hope they die soon to prevent fragmentation.

MPE & Swainsons

Nope I wouldn't be saying aaah if it was badged D400 as it's not an upgrade of the D300, it's a refresh of the D7000 and I believe this is the route Nikon have gone down, the price between the D600 and the D7100 doesn't allow commercially for another body ( I do hope I'm wrong), if the D400 were to be launched it would surely be priced at or above the D600.

On my D300 the difference between 6 and 8 fps is amazing when you try and capture a BIF with the wings exactly where you want them

MPE, I often change between single point AF, 9 or 21 point multipoint depending on a number of factors, subject, contrast, single or multiple subjects etc etc. and my issue isn't directed at just the 7100, the 4, 800 and 600 are the same, I guess I'm just old fashioned. Oh yes I agree with the metering switches as well, forgot about that one

Which is why I bought a D700 to work along side my D300, since owning the 700, the issue with FX vs DX hasn't arisen in my photography, I haven't reached for the dx body due to distance issues and in fact at this time of year I can happily go out shooting noise free images at 2000 iso where it was never possible with a dx body. My Hawfinch in the gallery was shot at 1/50th f5.6 iso 2000, the BB Dipper between 1250 and 2000 iso, only dreamt of with a dx body

Horses for courses and before anyone reacts, I have no particular beef with any equipment but what I like and wont happen again is that when I change a body in the field the controls are in the same place, oh I love the D700 / 300 for this. It doesn't just affect Nikon its Canon as well as friends who have the 5Dmk3 and the 7D have to contend with different layouts.