6fps with a six frame buffer?
lmfao!
Printable View
6fps with a six frame buffer?
lmfao!
I'm still waiting for a D400, I guess I'll be waiting forever now. Maybe Nikon thinks we have enough resolution to crop with the D4. I'm still using my D300s as my backup and it gets almost as much use as the D3 when I do big events, since I throw it on the supertele when I need a really long shot and don't want to use a converter.
Anyone using or considering the Pentax k5IIs? I'm curious as to how it'd function in the field. All the reviews I've seen state that the image quality is stunning, and the buffer's more substantial than the 7100, so I wonder if the significantly fewer AF points are up to the task of shooting skiing...
Not familiar with any of the Pentax line... <scurries off to Google> Hmmm. Hard to say. An 11 point AF system seems rather paltry, but depending on how it's designed it might be perfectly adequate. The rest of the specs look good.
I have a K5. The build quality is excellent - feels really solid in your hand and the weather sealing is nice to have, although I am not sure it is as big a deal as some make of it. It is also really compact given its spec. I like that. If you have giant clumsy hands you might not.
Autofocus on the K5 was supposed to be quite weak compared with equivalent Nikons. That said, for me it has been decent enough in good light. The K5II is supposed to be an improvement. Certainly worth checking out if you aren't totally committed to Nikon.
The main reason I din't consider Pentax was their use of in body stabilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnite
this made me sick to my stomach that I've waited for the next gen 7000....Quote:
Originally Posted by outabounds
Why is that a bad thing? Thought the advantage to that was that it works with any of their legacy lenses...???Quote:
Originally Posted by k2skier112
The only viable disability that comes to mind is durability, because you could easily turn off the stabilization, but I'm not sure if the sensor constantly moving would make it more likely to break.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainsaw_Willie
Having the stabilization closer to the lens makes it more effective. Only draw back for me is VR lenses can hurt bokeh. Now I'm back to drooling over the D600, and saving $$$.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainsaw_Willie
Guess that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by k2skier112
And yeah, gonna need to save a lot of money to go FX. The D600 is sweet but I only one lens that'll work with it and most of the good FX lenses are darned expensive. That and I'll really miss the extra reach. But, who knows, maybe Nikon will give us a sports/action oriented DX replacement for the D300s at the $1800 price point in another couple of years...
Anyone pull the plug on a D7100 yet?
Reviews look good for DR, AF and high ISO, pretty comparable to the D600 from what I'm seeing. Should have one shortly to mess around with.
SHIT!!! Sold my D7000 and picked up a D7100 today. I am not a happy camper, either I got a lemon or packing 24mp on a dx sensor isn't smart. On 100% crops my D600 is sharp, my D7000 was reasonably sharp and this D7100 just sucks even with good glass.
Sellers remorse bigtime.:(
edit:The sun came out finally and lots more testing is yielding better results. May have jumped the gun with initial tests.
So here is what I'm happier about.
1
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8542/8...7ccde12a_z.jpg
D7100 test-0843 by jrmorris-mt, on Flickr
2
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8530/8...fd7dd782_z.jpg
D7100 test-0885 by jrmorris-mt, on Flickr
3
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8263/8...4d6564de_z.jpg
D7100 test-0596 by jrmorris-mt, on Flickr
4
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8265/8...16f92f5e_z.jpg
D7100 test-0660 by jrmorris-mt, on Flickr
5
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8241/8...48947aa9_z.jpg
D7100 test-0604 by jrmorris-mt, on Flickr
6
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8265/8...a567b4d9_z.jpg
D7100 test-0639 by jrmorris-mt, on Flickr
Any more reports on the D7100? My D200 is slowly telling me it wants to retire but I'm not sure what I want to replace it. I, like many really want the non-existent D400.
I have enough DX glass that I want to stay DX.
I would buy an inexpensive used D7000 and wait for the elusive D400.Quote:
Originally Posted by hop
Damn, is this legit??
http://gavelworks.net/index.php?rout...oduct_id=27835
I guess that solves that.
I have been looking at the D610 and D7100. The buffer issue with the D7100 is a concern because 85-90% of my pictures are of skiing or mountain biking. I was curious to see if anyone has been using either of these cameras for action (ski/mtb) shots. After doing more research it seems like the D7000 might make more sense? Any suggestions on these or other cameras would be much appreciated!
Thanks!
I've shot some auto racing with my D610 and haven't hit buffer issues. Fwiw I generally shoot JPEG for action stuff though.
7dmII is gonna be a great camera for anyone focused on action. time for a switch?
D600 is a solid camera, if shooting raw, there is a buffer issue...as with all cameras recording large files.
I am no expert AT ALL.
I read a bunch before purchasing my D5300. It is supposed to have the same sensor as the 7100 but at a cheaper price. I don't need the extra buttons.
I have a Canon T4i, and I was not happy at the exposures I was getting inside the house, or school, where flash is not allowed..Very pixelated.
The 5300 seems to be a step up. I have only had it for a couple weeks but, it seems pretty damn good.
Don't know if anybody likes this guy, or if you even need his opinion, but he helped me make up my mind, as a newbie, wanna be.
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5300.htm
LeeC - not knocking you or your choice at all, merely commenting on K. Rockwell's shtick - he can be a real idiot at times.
Comparing a pro body FX format camera (D4) to the consumer oriented D5300 and then saying the D5300 is better because it has bells and whistles that simply aren't needed and wouldn't be used by the people who need a D4 is stupid. The D4 costs a boatload because it's a camera for people who make their living taking pictures. It's a tool, not a spare time accessory, and it's built like a tool with a full magnesium frame, full weather sealing, and features that mean something to a pro photog. (There is no reason to have a "Macro" or "Sports" or "Scenery" mode or a built-in flash on a pro camera), so saying the D5300 is somehow better than the D4 because it has those things is disingenuous at best and idiotic at worst. Two different cameras for two different kinds of people and thus Rockwell displays his own special brand of retardation. It's like saying a Camry is better than an F1 car because the Camry has airbags and gps and a radio...
FYI, for Nikon reviews, I usually read By Thom (Thom Hogan). Rockwell has good SEO, but I don't trust his opinions much.