Is the D7100 Nikon's best camera?

Ironheart

Wouldn't a 200mm f/4 give the equiv DOF as 135 f/2 on DX (way off topic) and be cheaper?
Back on topic, the D7100 / D800 combo doubles your lens collection and the D7100 gives you 24mp on subject while the D800 only puts 16mp on subject in DX crop mode.

adamz

+1 on the 135/2 replacement on FX

WestEndBoy

Wouldn't a 200mm f/4 give the equiv DOF as 135 f/2 on DX (way off topic) and be cheaper?
Back on topic, the D7100 / D800 combo doubles your lens collection and the D7100 gives you 24mp on subject while the D800 only puts 16mp on subject in DX crop mode.

The 200mm f4 is probably my next lens purchase for its macro abilities so I have looked at it closely. I think that you are roughly correct on the DOF. There are numerous websites that will do the calculations for you.

However, the bokeh on this lens is very mediocre, especially compared to the 135mm f2.

spraynpray

+1 on the 135/2 replacement on FX

[-X Off topic!!!

DaveyJ

Although the D7100 is by far my favorite camera ever I would say that Nikon's best camera depends on your needs. I sold my D700 as it did not have video. Few would have done that. But recently video has become more importance to us. FX though I still am not ready to buy into. Lens costs like the 80-400VR new one do not promote spontaneous purchases. I wish when I was spending huge money on Large and medium format I had been able to buy FX Nikon DSLR gear and not invest in film gear that I abandoned for VERY GOOD REASONS!

Ronin_1

I would second Golf 007sd's suggestion to rent some equipment and see for yourself how it performs and whether it suits your needs. If your friend who is recommending a switch to Fuji is close by, ask to borrow his equipment for a "test drive".

I have a D7000 and recently added a D7100 and while I like the D7100, its high ISO performance is only marginally better than the D7000. If that is a concern to you, compare the results you get with the D610 and so on. Even if you don't rent them, take some cards down to the camera store and ask to see one, pop your card in (don't forget to format it) and shoot some in the store to test it out and then examine the image files at home. (As I am sure you are aware, the little LCD screen on back always makes things look great, even when they may not look that way on your computer screen at home.)

The D4's high ISO performance is outstanding. (I have used some that friends have.) I am sure that the upcoming D4s will at least match that performance, but there is a big difference in price between it and a D800 or a D610. I am not a particular fan of the Df, but the sensor in it appears to perform quite well and you may as well look at it too. It is not a "pro" camera in several regards, most notably the absence of a second card slot, but it can be used professionally as can the D7000 and D7100 for that matter.

Think about your long term objectives and see how the available equipment choices fit into that. For example, Fuji may have nice cameras and lenses, but what is available in the way of speedlights for it? (I am not familiar enough with the Fuji world to say.)

Best of luck in your decision.

spraynpray

Well, that goes to show how you can ask 10 people the same question and get 10 different answers. Having bought and been happy as Larry with the D7000, it was the D7100's low light performance improvement (a whopping 2 stops) that sold it to me so I bought it.

@Ronin_1: You say 'Only marginally better' - can you tell us what test you did to find that please?

heartyfisher

@Snp you are the only person i know that says it's 2 stops better. I have seen other comments that say that the d7000 is marginally better.. I hope to have a play some time and see for my self.. problem is I may then have to buy it :-)

donaldejose

It might depend if you are viewing the photos at 100% or if you are viewing two photos at the same size. For example, even though noise may be visible at 100% that noise may be in small sizes because the sensor has so many megapixels. Thus, when you reduce the photo to a given size, like 8x12 and view it against an image taken by the D7000 viewed at 8x12 the smaller noise pattern of the D7100 makes noise less visible. Thus, for a given size, perhaps the D7100 could perform two stops better at ISO 3200.

spraynpray

Like I said, it was IMHO real world testing in terms of method of use, location, setting and evaluation of results. I have had great results with two different D7100's too - mine and a friends. As the images I take will be printed to 16 x 12 (if they are good enough), and we all stand close to a good print and pixel peep, I evaluate them at 100%. At 100% - like I said before - the D7000 at 1600 was still worse than the D7100 at 6400 making it a hair over two stops. The colour noise from the D7000 at higher than 2 stops gave a really prominent magenta cast which was much worse than the almost non-existent colour noise of the D7100. The exposure varied by more from ISO stop to stop on the 7K too.

If you don't pixel peep, they are considerably closer of course, but the variation in exposure and magenta cast was still very apparent. Like I also said before, there is a difference in the in-camera processing as the D7100 images have a slightly plastic look to them at high ISO and very low light which the D7K's don't have.

Other people's mileage may vary but the results sprang money from my wallet when I was actually conducting the test to confirm that I didn't need to upgrade. :-?

EDIT: Just to add that these were very low light (night time street light) results) not just dusk or cloudy conditions. If I were trying to minimise the difference I could have conducted a less harsh test.

heartyfisher

That's my worry too..;-)

donaldejose

Two stops high ISO improvement is really an amazing leap in one camera generation. I have a D7000 and I don't like it above 1600 ISO either, but it is ok at 1600. To feel that way about ISO 6400 is a big wow! I hope the sensor/processor/software in the D400 is a even a bit better. ISO 12,800 anyone?

dissent

I just posted a shot in PAD I took at ISO 6400 with my D7100. Did some noise reduction in LR, but it seemed to clean up pretty good from my point of view. I can't claim two stops, but I feel a lot more confident going to 6400 with my D7100 than I do with my D7000. Perhaps I'm just easily impressed ...

donaldejose

For a DX sensor at 6400 ISO, I think that is amazing performance.

Golf007sd

@dissent: The noise level on the image you posted on PAD is well done. I also like your shot posted on our "Your Best Shot for 2013" which was taken with the D7000.

Photobug

Bringing this thread back to light for a couple of comments.

Bought the D7100 in September 2013 and I love it. Took some getting use to over the D300. Then in November 2014 bought the D750.

I have been on vacation for 6 days and for two days had the D7100 with the 70-200 F2.8 around my neck and the D750+24-70 F2.8 on my shoulder. They really compliment each other

One of the finer points I noticed when switching between cameras was the difference of the outer skin of both DSLR's. The D7100 outer material is smoother than the D750. The D750 skin grips my hands better than the D7100. It's a small difference but I really like the deeper better grip on the D750 Okay, I am being picky.

It's not a huge negative, just a difference. Nikon needs to use the same material on both cameras.

Pistnbroke

Earlier someone said does anyone run a D800 and a D7100 ..yes but the D7100 has a 18-140 and the D800 is for wide angles with a 14mm..The pictures go seamlessly together in the wedding presentation.But the D800 is very very noisy and those terrible "pro controls"
Why all this talk of D7000 been there done that ...old tech ,not enough pixels,junk picture IQ comp to a D7100.
did someone mention a D90 ??

spraynpray

@Pistnbroke: "Why all this talk of D7000 been there done that ...old tech ,not enough pixels,junk picture IQ comp to a D7100."

Nobody could ever say that the D7000 had 'junk picture IQ'. If you compared it to the D90, it was a good jump in IQ havinglower noise, more pixels and a good Sony sensor. At the time, it was a worthwhile upgrade over the D90. Next thing you know somebody will post that the D7100 'has junk picture IQ when compared to a D7200' which would be just as pointless. It's called progress.

haroldp

I updated my Macbook Pro last month to a fairly well kitted out 21.5 inch iMac. 32GB of RAM and the 3.1Ghz i7 should handle the files, but I like to keep the RAW files on a hard drive for a good while just in case. I would probably have to spend a fortune on additional hard drives.

Hard drives are cheap. I just ordered 3TB toshiba 7200 rpm drives from B & H for 89.95 each.

For mac, I pair them up as a raid 1 (mirror) array for current processing in an OWC thunderbay (4 bay thunderbolt 2) enclosure (about $300).

Alternativly for really massive storage, a 5 bay raid 5 usb3 enclosure is about $200 and with 5 of these 3tb's will give you over 10 tb of redundant storage.

I am using a new model 6 core mac pro.

... H

DaveyJ

Having used the D7000, the D7100, and the D7200 a fair amount I would say that the D7100 and the D7200 are a step up from the D7000. My D300 I have not used in a few years. Maybe 4 years of no use of my D300. I kept it as a reminder of good times and good photos. I know photo pros who still make lots of use of their D300s. Again I choose to pass on any D400. My D90 is now owned by my youngest grandson who has the Nikkor 35mm f 1.8 on it and uses his cell phone almost exclusively. We are using 8 core Mac Pro and I have quite a few Mac Book Pros with Retina Display. A Mac Book Pro 17 still gets used everyday by my son who is the most advanced of all of us as a working tool. All of his video and photo editing is dome on the 8 core Mac Pro. So the question on is the D7100 the world's best camera? I can only answer it is the Camera I use most for images that I care about as it is wearing my recent 16-80 Nikon lens. Cameras and everything else are evolving.
Nothing is so constant as change.

heartyfisher

Bringing this thread back to light for a couple of comments.

Bought the D7100 in September 2013 and I love it. Took some getting use to over the D300. Then in November 2014 bought the D750.

I have been on vacation for 6 days and for two days had the D7100 with the 70-200 F2.8 around my neck and the D750+24-70 F2.8 on my shoulder. They really compliment each other

One of the finer points I noticed when switching between cameras was the difference of the outer skin of both DSLR's. The D7100 outer material is smoother than the D750. The D750 skin grips my hands better than the D7100. It's a small difference but I really like the deeper better grip on the D750 Okay, I am being picky.

It's not a huge negative, just a difference. Nikon needs to use the same material on both cameras.

I have a similar setup .. D7200 with 70-200 F4 and D610 with Tammy 24-70F2.8...
Yes they must have the new material on the D7200, its a nice grip :-).
The lenses interchange once in a while. depends on what I am shooting. Recently with a few more street and portraiture its the D610 + 70-200 and the D7200 with the 24-70 .. but generally its the other way around...

WestEndFoto

I think that the D810 is the world's best camera, but I would recommend a DX camera (with FX lenses) to most enthusiasts.

Photobug

@heartyfisher -when my D750 was at Nikon for the 2nd service advisory I had to use the 24-70 on the D7100 and it was fine. Fortunately I did not need the extreme wide angle and the 24 or 36mm equivalent worked just fine. It is a nice combination if you don't need that wide angle...more than 35mm.

Again today was shooting both cameras and the grip difference is not a big deal...it's just different. I actually got to use the wife's D5500 and it also has the better grip. It's good to hear the D7200 has the better grip.

Sent from the Hill City, SD, near the center of the Black Hills. Got some great images the last few days.

Pistnbroke

Another best camera feature is the use of U1 and U2 controls...when you turn it on you know where you are and thats important to me...I just hope if we get a 56Mp its an upgraded D750 not a D810 but I think the chance of that is about zero !!

WestEndFoto

Another best camera feature is the use of U1 and U2 controls...when you turn it on you know where you are and thats important to me...I just hope if we get a 56Mp its an upgraded D750 not a D810 but I think the chance of that is about zero !!

Which lens in your signature is good enough to benefit from more than 36 megapixels, or even 24? Especially when you are probably shooting as wide open as those lenses will go in those dark churches.

It seems to me that you should trade your cameras in for some D750s. 24 megapixels are more than your clients will appreciate, you have U1 and U2, and they currently have the best auto-focus barring the D4s.

I have made some assumptions based on what I have read from your posts. Am I missing anything?