Is the D7100 Nikon's best camera?

sevencrossing

just as the D400 would be a better DX companion to a D800 or a D4 for the same reason.

lets be honest , The best camera is without question the D400 as it seems to match everyone's requirements regardless, of what they need or have to spend

Cujo

The fact this forum ( unlike the café) is not divided into sections, means we continually go off topic

things have not been helped when another question was asked

I'm looking at a cost-effective way to add a second body for action shooting


Point taken, apologies. I should have started another thread.

sevencrossing

, apologies. I should have started another thread.

Don't apologize it would probably would have been closed and you told to do a search

adamz

going continuously off topic and starting another discussion about what hardware do I need to process my D800 files is not the same. wanna discuss this, please don't do it in the d7100 thread.

FreezeAction

I have a D7100 question and it may sound dumb and might be. Does anyone shoot a D7100 tethered? How much control do you have over the camera if you do? What software? I've been on Nikon's site and it doesn't seem to help much with the info they publish. I need to shoot strait down from a horizontal tripod arm where it is impossible to see through the view finder. After digging deep into the stats on the D7100 body I have a use for one tethered if I can control it from a laptop or at least a tablet. I'd really like to tether one with the USB cable.

spraynpray

What about the WU1a adaptor? I am thinking about buying one for exactly that reason but also need to hear from somebody with actual experience of using one.

sevencrossing

Does anyone shoot a D7100 tethered? Have a look at Camera Control Pro 2

FreezeAction

Does anyone shoot a D7100 tethered? Have a look at Camera Control Pro 2

I did that first and was hoping to hear from someone using it. I might be just to thick headed to understand until I see it work. Don't mind the price if it does what I need.

adamz

I was shooting tethered from Aperture on D800, you don't have to many controls but you can easily fire the shutter and the files is almost instantly transferred to the aperture library - so you could see it.
Camera control is nice - my friend uses it at work to shoot packshots.
There's also a free tethering software for windows with liveview support: http://www.remotedslrcontrol.com/ though I'm not sure if it will work with D7100.

sevencrossing

I have it, but have not used it for years
from what remember you can control the aperture and shutter speed but not zoom or focus
it works very well in a studio, not so good, in the field
there is a limit on how long the USB cable can be
files are sent direct to the computer not to the camera card
LR5 and LR4 have a basic tethered function. it can be downloaded free for 30 days

FreezeAction

Thanks for all answers. I was hoping to find focus as well as being able to work the shutter in the field when a tripod is in such position that you can't really see the back or through the view finder.

sevencrossing

focusing is possible as well as zoom, pan and tilt

but you may need a D4 plus ££££

search "MRMC’s SFH-30 robotic heads"

spraynpray

Is the D7100 Nikon's best camera? It is the best DX at the moment, and better in nearly all ways than the D610 too IMHO.

donaldejose

spraynpray: A DX D7100 sensor better than an FX610 sensor? Interesting. Why do you feel that way. I think most people would assume the FX sensor is better as a function of it being so much larger.

spraynpray

I actually said 'in most ways' Donald. I am very happy with my D7100 sensor though. The difference is less than it used to be strangely. Sensor apart, the D7100 is better than the D610.

donaldejose

For some time now I have been thinking that DX sensors are getting so good you won't really be able to tell a difference between DX and FX on your monitor or in photos printed as large as most inkjet printers can print. The biggest remaining difference seems to have been at high ISO but the recent DX chips that are rated up to 12,800 may have bridged this gap up to the size most of us view our work.

WestEndBoy

For some time now I have been thinking that DX sensors are getting so good you won't really be able to tell a difference between DX and FX on your monitor or in photos printed as large as most inkjet printers can print. The biggest remaining difference seems to have been at high ISO but the recent DX chips that are rated up to 12,800 may have bridged this gap up to the size most of us view our work.

I remember being quite impressed with the ISO capabilities of the D3. I have since come to realize that it is just a setting that does not necessarily produce a good result. Nikon could rate the D5300 to ISO 25,600 with a software tweak. However, I imagine that won't change the results above a certain threshold being "aweful" regardless of this.

For me, annoying is above ISO 3000 on my D800 and ISO 1000 on my Coolpix A, though I likely have to loosen up a bit as I probably have an irrational intolerance for noise and a "threshold" is really arbitrary. But ISO 12,800, even on my D800? Yuck!

donaldejose

Oh, I, and everyone else, certainly agrees. No one thinks just because Nikon set the upper numerical ISO at 3200 for the D3100 IQ is acceptable to us at that level, or at ISO 6400 for the D7000. For me ISO 800 was acceptable on the D3100 and ISO 1600 on the D7000. Note those numbers are one stop apart just as Nikon marked the top numerical ISO one stop apart in the two bodies. But my point is that as the maximum numerical ISO number moves up so does IQ at each ISO all down the range. Basically, I am suggesting the IQ of the D3300 at any given ISO is likely one stop better than IQ of the D3200 at the same ISO. We will see if this is true, or not, when the testing is done. If so, the latest DX chip with Expeed 4 processor may be perfectly adequate for high ISO (say 800 to 1600) shots up to print sizes 16x24inches. If so, that would be a remarkable achievement. I am not sure we are there yet. But I am suggesting that when printing up to about 16x24 inches the difference between an FX sensor and a DX sensor is diminishing to our eyes. When you print 24x36 inches you will notice more difference because the FX advantage, expecially with the D800's 36mp, will be evident.

spraynpray

I agree entirely with your assessment of the D3100 and D7000 Donald.

When I got my D7100 I shot a string of interior shots with it at each ISO stop taken in horrible low energy bulb light and sent them to a friend and fellow photographer. He couldn't see the difference between ISO 100 and 6400 any more and being a Canon shooter, I enjoyed that he was very envious ) . My point is that we cannot talk about ISO in such a loose fashion anymore. If there is enough light, 6400 is brilliant and very usable on my D7100. If it is low light (moonlight or close), then noise pops up a lot - but then even FX isn't great in those circumstances.

Ronin_1

Let me preface this by saying I am an amateur. I have both the D7000 and D7100 and use both of them with the battery grips which I like when changing from landscape to portrait, although I find myself shooting in landscape most of the time when shooting events.

Several friends who shoot professionally have commented "you can make money with those", but I have had to remind them that I do not intend to turn pro.

As you have commented, you would need more lenses if you were to add a FX body. Virtually everyone I know has changed bodies as sensors and so on improve, but lenses are a longer term affair. As you are in the first year of your business, the fairly obvious priority is to watch expenditures. That tends to suggest the D7100. My experience with the two bodies has been that the are similar enough that there are no big problems with different controls, menus and so so that they compliment each other as a two camera set. I believe the high ISO noise in the D7100 is slightly less than the D7000 and it seems to clean up a little easier in LR. That said, the high ISO performance of these bodies is not in the same class as the D3S or D4, which comes as no surprise. I have played with friends' D3 and D4 series cameras. They are remarkable, but I would have to think very long and hard about plunking down that amount of money right away unless I felt that I was not able to deliver the quality of work my clients demand with my current kit. Where that will likely be is in very low light available light. I suppose my observation here would be to ask if you believe that the D7000 is adequate for the conditions you find yourself shooting? I would describe the D7100 as a little bit better D7000. I know one man who is still shooting weddings wit a D200 and his clients appear to be happy with his work.

If you were to go FX, the lenses most people seem to be using are the f2.8 "trinity" with a few specialty lenses tossed in and a handful of speed lights and strobes that apply no matter what camera you are using.

I can only echo the comments of the others to urge you to use the second card as backup rather than overflow. Periodically, there are lawsuits over botched weddings because of failed equipment, mostly cards. There are some parts of weddings that just can't be reshot.

Best wishes in your endeavors.

Msmoto

@Ronin_1

Welcome to NRF. I agree with your comments.

Killerbob

Regarding the second card, I really like that I can have the JPGs on one, and RAW on the other. I know it is not "backup" (but close), but it makes workflow easier, and I can always get a JPG from my RAWs if necessary.

As for the discussion regarding bodies, I myself switched from a D7000/D90 combo to my current D800/D7000, and I haven't looked back. I can appreciate the notion that gear does not make the photographer, but the right gear also does not hold you back... I'd rather have the right gear and not need it, than not have the right gear, and needing it... Since I upgraded to D800 I have most certainly become better at taking photos, and although I care about composition when I take the shot, I certainly enjoy the capability of being able to work with cropping and aligning at home. The bigger the RAW image, the more freedom you have in post-processing.

Go for the D7100, and continue focusing on good glass, and when you can afford it, upgrade to FX - if necessary. Today's DX DSLRs are as good technically as their FX counterparts, and depending on your hand-size, the bigger FX cameras can be big to log around.

adamz

I also can't agree more @ronin_1

as for the D3300, I'm not following the line, but was quite interested when I checked the specs today and found out that it has CAM 1000 - that's the same AF module that was used in D200, which means it's really good for most situations. Also I've found out that Nikon put a higher magnification to the viewfinder... that two makes this camera really interesting.

cards - one must be crazy to use the two cards solution in overflow setup. only yesterday, one of my sandisk extreme cards died. what I do on my bodies, I put an older CF card to one of the slots and use it as a jpg backup, while I shoot RAW in the main slot.

ptrmcky

So after a bit of a play with a few different cameras I ended up going for a D800 and a lovely 24-70mm 2.8 to go with it. Now I'm trying to work out whether to upgrade the D7000 to a D7100 or another D800. I really like using a crop sensor with the 135mm f2, so I would need to replace that combo if I went totally full frame, and get a new wide angle zoom.

WestEndBoy

I love my 135 F2. The replacement in a longer focal length is the 200 F2. $$$$$ Might be cheaper to crop.