Just Bought D7100, should I be worried about D5300?

spraynpray

We disagree. I find most shots are taken in the region of a cameras abilities that are not where the real gains are hence most shots are the photographer not the camera. Start using the full dynamic range, blowing up pictures large or using high ISO and you are right, but like I said, that isn't most shots IME. At most projected and printed sizes, even the resolution advantages of the newest cameras don't help.

haroldp

@pitchblack

You are correct, but that is only part of the story.

I actively use a 400/2.8 with tc20-eIII for BIF on a D810, and have only started to get results near the potential of this rig after extensive practice (on a gimbal head) and careful AF fine tuning, and determining which AF parameters work for me.

When using this combo, I also carry an 80-400G with tc14-eII (on a D3x) handheld because there are shots that simply cannot be made from a tripod. (BIF overhead etc.)

Is the 400/2.8 sharper ?, certainly, but not for shots that were never made.

I also have never figured out how to get the 400/2.8 on an airplane and still have a toothbrush, so on airplane trips it is 80-400 again.

Th question of potential IQ is often discussed. Understanding how in varying circumstances to actually approach these theoretical limits is equally interesting, and may not be obvious.

For example, in this discussion thread, the advantage of the newer 5300 sensor (over the 7100) is cited, but those of us (like myself) who are used to Nikon's pro UI, would have trouble changing settings to optimum using the 5300 menu system and might miss shots or be at sub optimal settings for the circumstance.

For me, the 16mp of the D810 in crop mode is better than the 24mp of the D7100, because I am familiar with, and can set the D810 (or D3x) in the dark, and am more likely to be properly set.

Someone familiar with the D7100 might be in a reverse situation.

If I tried to be expert with both, I would achieve neither.

... H

spraynpray

@spraynpray: What if you need to take shots at high ISO? What if you want to limit your depth of field? What if you have extremely fast-moving subjects? A D4 with a 400mm/2.8 will mop the floor with a D90 and an 80-400. That doesn't mean you can't get good shots with the lesser gear, but I can guarantee you they will be few and far between. The number of examples i can throw out are without end.

To a large extent you are describing your style and other genres that do repay more capable gear. I am saying the majority of shots taken are not your style or extreme subjects. Effectively you are presenting the same case I am. Glad you agree!

henrik1963

@PitchBlack: The significant part of your argument is the "what if....". Well if you have a real need for a new feature then you have a good reason to upgrade. But what if that is not the case? What if what you do stays well within the cabability of your current camera. In that case you do not need to upgrade IMO.

In the first case gear will have an impackt on image quality. In the latter case it will have none.

But my argument - and thus @spraynprays - only holds as far as we keep doing the same things. Some times new cababilitys will lead us to do things we are not normally doing - like shooting at 1.4 all the time because we can thanks to Sigmas Art lenses. In that case new possiblitys may lead to better pictures.

tcole1983

I will chime in on this one as I have my D5000 and D5200 now (obviously I don't spend tons of money on my bodies!).

@pitchblack....of course in the extremes a $6000 body and $10000+ lens are going to be better. But in the middle of the day with good light and say something that can be photographed in the 20-200mm range I really don't think you could tell that much of a difference....this encompasses 90% of pictures taken for most people. With the very expensive gear you aren't really paying for it to take great pictures when most everyone else can get great pictures...you are paying for that times when you need the high ISO or high FPS. Not doubting there is IQ difference in say the D810 and my cameras, but until you start enlarging them you probably can't really tell that much.

However give Joe Schmoe a D810 and he isn't going to take great pictures from the start. And I would say google pictures or look on flickr of pictures taken by some of the "lesser" bodies...you will probably be blown away. I have chosen to spend more money on my lenses...compare photos with my 300 F4 or even the F2.8 on any of the other bodies out vs my D5200 and I think you will be pretty hard pressed to see the couple thousand dollar difference in IQ.

Just looking back through my flickr pictures I can tell you there has been a slow progression in how my pictures look. As I learned more I feel like my pictures have gotten better. There have been new styles and shots I have done. Cameras, lenses, flashes are all tools, but just like anything else it takes practice and knowledge to use the tools properly.

henrik1963

@PitchBlack: I dont think anyone is claiming that a D90 + 18-55 will give the same results as a D800 + 24 F1.4. Someone suggested that the difference between a D7100 and a D5300 was so small that you would not be able to see the difference in the final output.

Some upgrades are more important than others. Going from say a D700 to a D800 will make a difference that i large enough for a lot of people to see the difference. The same goes for D90 to D7100. But I am not sure that many people will see a difference between a D800 and a D810 in the raw output.

BTW Chasing kids around a dark house will be taxing on any camera - even on a D4s if it involves high shutter speed and low light.

On the other end of the scale taking a sunny 16 shot outside - even a D90 + 18-55 will do very well for most people - that is the kind of people who is not following this grea forum :-).

henrik1963

@PitchBlack: I have no problem with that paragraph. And I have no problem with the statement that better gear can give you better results.

But I remember reading an article where a pro who normaly uses MF digital gear for land scapes took a shot with a Canon G camera. None of hes pro friends could tell the difference between the MF shot and the Canon G shot when printed not to large - I dont remember what size print. Granted it was not a demanding shot. Hes point was: Sometimes there is no real difference. BTW he did not want to part wiht his MF gear.

So back to the question if gear matters more than the photog. The answer seems to depend on what you want to shoot. Sometimes there is no real difference. Sure there is a techinal difference in the file. But no visible difference in the final output.

BTW the context here is the difference between a D7100 and a D5300. I think it would be very difficult if not impossible for anyone to tell the two cameras apart in the real world.

tcole1983

@PitchBlack...I think you also changed the statement that brought up your discussion. Most likely the same photographer could get better results out of better equipment IF they had the skills to use the "better" equipment. Is the D7100 better than the D5300? Almost all aspects of the pictures that come out of the other end of the D5300...no not really. Does the D7100 have more features (pro features if you will)...absolutely. However step up to the D800 and you have a whole different set of features. I have held and used my friends D800E and I was lost...even with what I think is a decent knowledge of dSLRs. Give the average person a D800 with 36 MP and no I don't think they will take better pictures....the skill level isn't equal to the equipment. Do I know that the pros are shooting $10000 lenses to get their wildlife photographs instead of a D5200 and 300 F4...of course and I think you can tell. Could you tell as much with landscapes...or even portraits....no I doubt it and especially not if they aren't printed huge. People thought we had someone professionally shoot my daughter's two year pictures...shot with a D5000 and 105 F2.8. Do I think my D5000 and 300 F4 could compete with a D4s and 600 mm lens taking pro football pictures...nope. AND that is where the price and equipment plays the biggest roles...those times that there is the need for that specialized expensive stuff.

As for the saying it is the photographer and not the equipment. I have seen lots of amazing pictures taken with not amazing equipment. I have seen some not amazing photos taken with amazing equipment. There is skill and knowledge in there somewhere.

calengor

I got to compare pictures that a friend took with her D5300 vs some that she took with my D7100 of basically the same types of scene with same ambient lighting, same lenses, and same settings, and I would say the images look better in RAW without doing anything to them out of the D7100. That's not to say that the D5300 is bad, I just found it not as good as the D7100. D7100 also does higher ISOs better, but that was to be expected.

tcole1983

b-(

Parke1953

Better tools always get better results. That's why you buy better cameras because you get better results. IMO. Just read all the threads where people have new gear,cameras,tripods and so on. Why did they buy them,to get better results and they love them.

tcole1983

I would really be curious to see some pictures comparisons with high end glass on these two or even something like the D800 and D7100 or D52(3)00. Wonder how much difference there really is at ISO 100.

Maybe I will even try it tomorrow when I am with my buddy and his D800E.

proudgeek

+1 Pitchblack. I took two very similar trips three years apart. One to the Galapagos Islands, where I shot primarily with a D90 and an older 80-400. The second trip was to Costa Rica and I shot primarily with a D800, a 300 f/2.8, and a TC14. I suppose over time I'd gotten a little better (or maybe I was less of a hack). Rather than calling myself a better photographer, let's I had developed a better understanding of what a camera could do from a technical standpoint. But in my mind, the difference in the images from the two trips was like night and day. I don't think owning better gear will make you a better photographer, but it will certainly increase the chances that the pictures you take will be of better quality. Of course this doesn't refer to composition. I know people who shoot with iPhones who have better composition skills than I do.

henrik1963

The point is not to show that a D800 is a better camera than a D90 - it is - end of story.

PitchBlack has a D7100 and a 35 1.4 Art. If he would I am sure he could take a low demanding shot. Then do the same shot using he's D800 + 50 1.4 Art. Then display both pictures on a HD TV. I would say that it would be hard to tell the difference. All provided that he did not do something that would disqualify the D7100.

All that would have been proven here is that if you set the bar low enough - output on a Full HD TV - you might not be able to tell the difference between a D7100 and a D800. Even if that is true the D800 is still a better camera that can do things a D7100 can never do.

Back to the D5300 vs D7100. I would find it difficult to device a test that would show any meaningful difference in final output for most people.

Parke1953

+1 PitchBlack, I think some have missed the point.

heartyfisher

I give up.

LOL I was smiling at all the previous posts .. but this totally cracked me up as I was just imagining your face as I was reading them !!

manhattanboy

the context here is the difference between a D7100 and a D5300. I think it would be very difficult if not impossible for anyone to tell the two cameras apart in the real world.

The output from the sensor should be nearly the same. Its the focus and speed of acquisition that are different. These 2 things can lead to dramatically different results depending on how you are using the camera.

PitchBlack has a D7100 and a 35 1.4 Art. If he would I am sure he could take a low demanding shot. Then do the same shot using he's D800 + 50 1.4 Art. Then display both pictures on a HD TV. I would say that it would be hard to tell the difference. All provided that he did not do something that would disqualify the D7100.

There are differences in the dof and these will result in different images that most good photographers could tell. But assuming you shot with a narrow aperture, then it might be difficult to tell them apart. Most of the time the reason why people like the extra pixels is to crop to the right frame in post. Downsizing also helps things look sharper if you have a crappy lens, but really if you have a sharp lens then crops at 100% are just as good.

manhattanboy

I disagree. You can tell a sharp lens from a not so sharp lens with excellent color contrast even on Facebook. It's obvious. At least to me.

Kudos, because for me when I shoot a pic and then need to check the sharpness I have to zoom in on the back of camera LCD. Maybe my skills suck and with more practice I could just tell from the small image displayed on the LCD, but I find I need to zoom in to be able to tell if the shot is sharp or not.

henrik1963

@manhattanboy: I agree that AF, VF, controls ect. are far more important than minute differences in sensor output between the two cameras. And that is why OP should be happy with the D7100.

In my experience the only way you will get at decent result out of a "not so good lens" is by stopping it down to something like F5.6. If that does not help I know of no software tricks that will save a picture from the "del" key.

The one place I tend to agree with PitchBlacs statement that gear makes about 50% of an image is when it comes to lenses. When I was shooting D90 I got a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR2. The difference in image quality blew me away. Even the old tech D90 delivered excellent pictures at 2.8. At F5.6 the difference in image quality between that and my cheaper lenses was not so apparent.

I do agree that what looks a bit blurry at 100% on a D800 may look OK when down sampled but there is a limit to what you can hide even on face book :-)

henrik1963

@PitchBlack: You just might get close if you try with a Nikon AFS 50 1.8G :-)

safyre

My 2 cents.

Gear matters up to a certain extent depending on what you're shooting. Would a D4 help me take better pictures on the sideline of an NFL game as opposed to a D90? Hell yes it would. Would that same D4 help me take cleaner pictures at a dimly lit concert as opposed to a D90? Hell yes it would.

But with that said, a real photographer should NOT use that as a crutch for why his/her photos suck (as it appears that more and more people have been doing lately). There are numerous photographers in the past that have made much more with far less than we have in modern technology. All cameras, and I literally mean ALL cameras, modern or not, are capable of taking great photos as long as the person behind the camera is competent enough to use it. If you truly want to know what the camera you have is capable of, I suggest you go to 500px, sort their photos by camera model, and be prepared to be blown away by the amazing photos that can be created with the cheapest, "least professional" cameras on the market. Until your photo quality can match theirs, I suggest you spend your time going back to the drawing board instead of blaming the equipment you have.

henrik1963

I think Thom Hogans concept of "last camera syndrome" is relevant here. For a lot of people upgrading gear will not improve their pictures - it may improve the technical quality of their raw files but it will bring them no visible difference in the final output.

That is of course not the case for all photographers. Some will still benefit from an upgrade.

Few will view a D40 as their last camera. But more people may view something like a D800 as their last camera. The last camera may not be the last camera. A new feature or tech may come along and change your perception of what a last camera looks like :-)

heartyfisher

I really don't see how anyone is disagreeing here.

)

NSXTypeR

Few will view a D40 as their last camera. But more people may view something like a D800 as their last camera. The last camera may not be the last camera. A new feature or tech may come along and change your perception of what a last camera looks like :-)

The D40 was almost my last camera... until it decided to die on me.

KnockKnock

My sister-in law shot casually at a wedding with her D40. The results were more consistent than the invited "photographer" friend shooting with a 7D. She knew the D40 inside and out because she has used it for years (a decade?) shooting thousands of shots of her kids growing up. So she nailed focus and exposure. The 7D user was a lot like you might imagine - all over the buttons, overriding the auto-settings and missing. Shooting too low a shutter speed to catch motion, or shaking the camera blurry or ignoring higher ISO possibilities. Misgauging DoF. However, he did have an excellent eye for framing and was great with people.

Anyway, a D40 wouldn't be a bad last camera for anyone. Big-ish sensor, manual control of anything, simple controls, huge array of lenses.

... what was the original topic?...