D7100... What D600?

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Holy crap. Looking at the specs/reading reviews of the D7100 I'm not sure I'm all that interested in paying $800 more for the D600 any more.

Compared to the D600:

D7100 has equal pixel resolution and potentially better image resolution with the elimination of the low-pass filter.

D7100 has a far superior autofocus system.

D7100 has equal if not better video capture capabilities.

I haven't read all the reviews yet, so not sure about how the low-light capabilities stack up between the two, but the D7100 is improved over the D7000 and my D7000 is no slouch in this department. I've gotten very useable images in low light at ISO 3200. Autofocusing with the D7100 is better in low-light as well.

Compared to the D7000, the D7100 also appears to have improved image processing speed and capture buffer (though I need to read more about that.) The size of the buffer and it's ability to get the images out of the buffer onto the memory cards is my biggest complaint with the D7000.

Other than the narrower DoF that's achieveable with the FX D600, what would I be giving up with the D7100?

[AKgeoSkier]

I think that the low light performance is still going to be with FX. Same resolution (D600 vs D7100) but 1.5x the sensor area in the D600 means more light gathering ability per pixel on the sensor. Unless Nikon boned us by introducing some crazy new firmware that can beat that, I still think you are going to see an advantage with the FX sensor as far as low light/high ISO goes.

That being said, the 7100 looks pretty slick, lots of great features, especially the autoofocus, which witht he new 80-400 announced yesterday which can take 1.4x teleconverters, means it could be a real awesome "poor man's" super telephoto setup.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Good point, but it seems every new sensor outperforms the older ones. The D7000 has very good low light performance, if the D7100 is better in any meaningful way then it's a win even if it isn't quite as good as the D600. The first review I read said this is a new sensor, not the same one as in the D5100 but I'm skeptical that's true and will wait for further confirmation that it's indeed all-new and not just the D5100 sensor with the low-pass filter removed.

About time they updated the 80-400, but $2700??? Sheesh. Guess I'll stick with my plan to acquire a 300 f4 + 1.4 TC for less than half the price.

[AKgeoSkier]

Yeah, I've been waiting for that 80-400, but after seeing the price (which doesn't even include tripod collar!!!), I was bummed. I've got a 300mm f4 AF (old non AF-S version) and it works just fine for what I need, and coupled with a TC, I'm betting it probably still outperforms the new 80-400mm.

Probably a valid point on the new sensor. I'm betting they removed the low pass filter since the D800E wasn't even really producing much moire...

[hop]

I would love it if the newer Nikons had the same bulletproof "prosumer" construction as my old D200 and N90s. Doesn't appear that they do, although I could be wrong?

[Chainsaw_Willie]

The D7000 and similar bodies don't have full magnesium shells any more, but they're still pretty damned tough. As you can see in this pic, the top and back are magnesium and the bottom, sides and front are polycarbonate and they're well sealed:



It's definitely a big step up from the regular consumer bodies though not as burly as the older D200 series. Still, unless you're going bowling with it, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Some people complain about how much smaller they are, and I have to admit that my D200 felt better in my hands than the D7000 does, but it's really not that big of a deal to me and I'm glad of the more compact size and lower weight when carrying it skiing or backpacking.

I fondled a D600 at Glazer's a week or so ago and it's basically a slightly bigger D7000 and felt a little better in my hands. If that kind of thing is really important to you and you just have to have an FX sensor then that might be a good reason to go with the D600 instead of D7100.

[k2skier112]

I so wanted the D7000, almost had enough saved, then the D600 comes out! I love the slowmo vid it shoots. Now with the D7100 on the horizon I just might have to wait a little longer.

[Vandeezy]

The buffer is what scares me right now. Would love some sort of D200/300 replacement but tired of waiting however the poor buffer (at least on the specs) makes this camera appear to have a significant draw-back.

Hard to say until there are real-world models in the field, however if you can't shoot at top frame rate in RAW then that really limits some ports applications.

[mag1882]

Got my d7000 today, such a great upgrade from a 550d.

Given that the d7100 can only shoot 6 photos at 14 bit I definitely wouldn't get it even if it was teh same price as the 7000, other negatives too, but that's the killer:

http://photographylife.com/nikon-d7100-vs-d7000

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Jesus Christ on a crutch, Nikon. The biggest and only real complaint I have with the D7000 is the puny buffer. I'm constantly running up against it when shooting skiing/sports and sometimes when shooting animals. That the D7100 has a worse buffer is frankly a big, big problem. I can't believe Nikon didn't give this camera at least as big of a buffer as the previous model. Making it smaller is just stupid. How hard is it to put a couple more chips in there and give this thing a few more gigs of volatile memory?

ETA: Maybe this is how they keep people buying the D600, which has a 22 shot buffer @ 12-bit...

mag1882 - what other negatives? In all other respects it appears to be a better camera than the D7000.

[mag1882]

battery life, there was others but I can't remember, not a huge amount.
Larger file size I guess could be one, but I don't consider it one

The main question now is whether or not the d7100 has more or less noise than the d7000.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

From looking at the specs, other than the buffer which is a total deal killer, the D7100 seems to be superior in every respect.

Of course, we haven't seen any objective performance data yet, but I'd bet money it has at least equal low light performance to the D7000. If not, then it's well and truly a bust.

The slightly shorter battery life doesn't bother me. The D7000 batteries last forever. 900-something shots vs. 1100-something shots isn't something I'd bat an eye at. I've carried my D7000 on 7-day backpacking trips with 3 batteries and had power to spare. If I had to carry one more battery it wouldn't be any big deal. It's still way better than the D200 was.

[mag1882]

Yeah, If the d7100 was 16mp, or even better 14, itd solve all problems, buffer would take more shots, noise performance would be ridiculous, and everyone would be happy.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

You seem to be assuming that low light/noise performance will be worse with the 7100 because it is higher resolution.

I'd say the jury is out on that 'til we see some real world results. Sensors have been gaining resolution AND better noise performance with every new generation.

I'm still completely baffled by the buffer. They give it a kick ass autofocus system and a decent frame rate then cripple it's ability to use them. Weird.

[AKgeoSkier]

Yeah you look at D700/D3 (12MP) vs D800 (36MP), and the D800 SMOKES them in high ISO performance. I'm betting the 7100 will be noticeably better at high ISO than the 7000.

[mag1882]

Nah, I'm expecting it to be similar, possibly a bit better, but I'm saying it would be even better if they just kept to lower MP.

[The Suit]

I would love it if the newer Nikons had the same bulletproof "prosumer" construction as my old D200 and N90s. Doesn't appear that they do, although I could be wrong?

My D7000 has spent many days at sea with no problems. I haven't felt like it gives up anything meaningful in that department to my old D200.

[Tippster]

You seem to be assuming that low light/noise performance will be worse with the 7100 because it is higher resolution.

I'd say the jury is out on that 'til we see some real world results. Sensors have been gaining resolution AND better noise performance with every new generation.

I'm still completely baffled by the buffer. They give it a kick ass autofocus system and a decent frame rate then cripple it's ability to use them. Weird.

Do you realise how small a percentage of people fill up the buffer while shooting? They figure if you're a serious photographer who needs to be able to shoot a shitload of frames in a short time you'll spend the money on a professional level camera (which any Nikon with more than one number in its name is not,) and the prosumers that are affected, like you, can just suck it up.

Buy a faster writing card, that might help. Otherwise the spray & pray aspect of photography maybe isn't meant for this camera.

[pointemstraight]

They can pry my D3's with the extended buffer upgrade from my cold, dead hands. Viva le buffer!

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using TGR Forums

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Do you realise how small a percentage of people fill up the buffer while shooting?

Do you realize how many people have cameras with buffers bigger than 6 frames?

I don't always fill up the buffer on my D7000 (which has a 10-12 frame buffer depending on settings) because I've learned how to work around this shortcoming when doing the kind of shooting that would fill it up. In normal day-to-day shooting you're right, it's not much of an issue, but when shooting fast moving action such as sports or animals you need to be able to take a lot of pictures rapidly. I never had problems with buffer size on my D200. Didn't even think to investigate that as a spec when I bought the D7000, it just never occurred to me it would be a problem. Now that I've hit that limitation in this camera, I'm more aware of it, and expecting someone to shoot action with a 6 frame buffer is ridiculous.

They figure if you're a serious photographer who needs to be able to shoot a shitload of frames in a short time you'll spend the money on a professional level camera (which any Nikon with more than one number in its name is not,) and the prosumers that are affected, like you, can just suck it up.

Buy a faster writing card, that might help. Otherwise the spray & pray aspect of photography maybe isn't meant for this camera.

The problem isn't the card. The buffer on the D7000 can hold 12 shots of 12-bit RAW, about 10 shots of 14-bit. The D7100 can only hold 6 shots @ 12-bit. That's pathetic. These cameras can shoot 6 fps. It's REAL easy to fill up the buffer when shooting skiing with a group of people or taking pictures of BiF or other animals on the D7000. I can't even imagine trying this kind of shooting with something that has half the buffer size. Doesn't even have to be a hold the button down continuously scenario, the buffer will fill up with short bursts of 2-3 pictures in rapid succession (shoot 3 frames, wait one or two seconds, shoot another three frames, wait one or two secons, shoot another three frames, etc.) since even with the fastest cards out there it still takes about 1-1.5 seconds to write a single image to the card.

There are a LOT of guys who bought the D300 because it has pro-level features & controls, a fast frame rate, and a big buffer. They like the extra reach the DX format provides for sports/action/wildlife photography and they're waiting for a replacement for what is now a pretty old camera body. The D7000 wasn't it, and the D7100 is a step in the wrong direction. For those of us who bought the D7000 I think it's fair to say we'd like to see those additional features as well and it would be a good incentive to trade up. Frankly, as much as I like all the specs of the D7100, the puny buffer is a total deal killer and I'm not the only person who feels this way. Paying an additional $4000 for a bigger buffer and getting a giant tank of a body along with it that's far harder to carry long distances when skiing and backpacking just doesn't make any sense. If Nikon had given the D7100 a 20 frame buffer, a couple more external buttons (separate WB, ISO, and AF-On buttons at minimum), and a D600 sized body at a $1500-~$1600 price point they'd sell like hotcakes as all the dedicated D300 users would finally have what they've been waiting for and D7000 users like me would see much more value in a tradeup and would get in line with everyone else. They could even price it as high as $2000 to get people really thinking about whether they want to step up to the D600. There is a big market for a top of the line DX format camera for serious hobbyists and pros who want the extra reach of the DX format and the smaller form factor of the body and/or simply can't afford a $5000+ body. That Nikon has apparently abandoned this market segment is baffling.

I will agree that my D7000 gives up nothing to the supposedly more "pro level" body of my old D200 in terms of reliability, weather sealing, and ruggedness. Bitch about the smaller size feeling cramped in your hands or whatever, but don't complain that just because it doesn't have a 100% magnesium shell it's not a ruggedly built body. Like I said earlier, if you're not using it as a bowling ball, you got nothing to worry about.

[Tippster]

Ah. Same MP in the 7100 vs the 7000? I'm not a Nikon guy,,,

[Chainsaw_Willie]

No, 7100 is 24mp, 7000 is 16. Kinda looks like they used the same buffer in the 7100 and with the larger sensor it now holds fewer shots.

The D7100 is *this* close (imagine me holding two fingers a hair's width apart) to being a killer camera. Fast 51 point AF system that can focus down to -2EV, 24mp, 6fps, same solid body as D7000, improved processing circuitry (Nikon calls it "Expeed 3" - same as in D600) and very likely much improved low light/noise performance over the already good D7000. With all that they give it a 6 frame buffer, making it totally useless for sports/action photography.

The D600 is still the only reasonable upgrade for someone like me though I would prefer to stay with the DX format due to investment in glass and for the longer effective reach.

[Tippster]

No, 7100 is 24mp, 7000 is 16. Kinda looks like they used the same buffer in the 7100 and with the larger sensor it now holds fewer shots.

And there's your answer. Again, the vast majority of 7100 buyers will get nowhere near the buffer limit, so why spend more $$$ for a bigger buffer?

[Chainsaw_Willie]

I don't think you quite understand. Nikon is billing this as their top of the line DX format camera yet it's a step down in performance in a couple of key areas compared to what they were offering 4 years ago.

The D300S is a pro-style DX format camera that sold extremely well. Heck, you can still buy one (though it's being discontinued now). That camera sold in the $1600-$1800 range and lots of people who wanted the advantages of DX format in a pro-level body for sports/wildlife photography bought them. The D7100 is supposedly replacing this camera now but while it has a vastly superior sensor, it otherwise doesn't measure up and doesn't replace the role the D300S played in Nikon's lineup.

I'm not sure how much better I can explain this - there are a LOT of people out there who want a top of the line DX format camera and were hoping for an improvement on the D7000 in terms of performance. While the D7100 has a better sensor, it otherwise doesn't measure up.

There are already other lower cost options in Nikon's lineup for people who don't need that level of performance - the D5200 and D3200 which are both also 24mp and do video very well.

I suppose it's still possible, given the projected price point of the D7100 compared to the D300S that Nikon will offer a higher performance model aimed at truly replacing the D300S, it just seems strange they haven't done it yet.

[Tippster]

Gotcha...