Cameralabs D7100 review up: verdict...

Started Apr 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
yray
Contributing MemberPosts: 881
Like?
Re: no need
In reply to mosswings, Apr 19, 2013

mosswings wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Reilly, cameralabs is among the most respected photography review sites there is, and I've never seen this Guy with a testing agenda.  At this point you appear to be getting angry with anyone who holds even a slightly different opinion from yourself. Making absolute categorical statements doesn't make them correct.

Sorry if it came over that way.  We do tend to get worked up around here.  Let ye without sin cast the first stone, etc.  I think you have been enjoying the back and forth more than most if the number of threads you have started on this very subject are any indication.  As well, we have seen a variety of categorical statements in this thread and many others.  The underlying or overt premise of some of these posts is that the Nikon is simply doing a marketing gimmick and that everything is the same, we're seeing things that aren't there, we're being dishonest with ourselves, blah blah blah.

Well, I can state categorically or otherwise that things are indeed different and better, all things considered, as many of us have already noted.  I shall have no hesitation in so saying, I hope in a manner consistent with Mako's blood pressure :^)

I'd never even heard of Cameralabs 'til now.  Everyone who knows Nikon DSLRs well knows that the jpgs are okay at best, but not representative of the best the camera can produce.  The respect factor you mention would have increased if he had shot raw and worked with the files a few minutes longer.

In Gordon's defense, he did shoot RAW and employ an optimized LR-only rendering strategy, like most photogs do.  So in this context his review site does represent a fair swath of the photographic hobby, in fact what would be commonly called the "serious" contingent.  That being said, I do think we're retreating to our respective corners, and I'm trying to pull us all out from those comfortable places into an area where we might be able to come to some greater perspective.

Reilly's point is well taken. Microcontrast and detail will have beneficial roles to play as they improve the RAW data quality, and this leads to improved rendering, even downsized, when it's required.  As much as I'm impressed by Reilly's work on the studio shots and the D7100's performance in this milieu, I've even more impressed by what Jim and especially Rudy are turning out.  Jim, showing what's possible with the very best optics and technique, Rudy showing what those of us with more constrained budgets, skills, and subjects can reasonably expect. Neither are snapshooting, as many of the first-shots now being posted are.  The results from this latter category are as to be expected; nothing fantastic.

A while back someone posted a 4 shot downsized series including the D40, D300, D7000, and D7100. On cursory inspection the D40 shot looked great - punchy, apparently really sharp, all that.  The others looked rather more restrained in comparison - but they were more accurate.  I finally understood why my friend with a good eye and a D40 always came back from a flower venue with such attractive, punchy, contrasty shots seemingly effortlessly...his camera wasn't picking up everything mine was, and I had to work the file to get similar results.  But that file let me do more.

Never held D40 in my hands, so not sure I can defend it, but one thing I did notice is that the desire to pull every last detail from the shadows often results in lower overall contrast to the point of making for a more bland, less interesting shot. I often prefer to discard some uninteresting detail to get a punchier shot. Maybe that's just me. It is all a matter of degree of course.

We need to choose the tool based on our desires and capabilities.  Today's best cameras are capable of better images, but they demand more of us to do so.  No different that with any other pursuit.

Also, not sure I would agree with your other comment that D7000 made us less attentive to exposure by virtue of being so forgiving. To the contrary, I find D7000 less predictable with exposure than any other Nikon I ever used (all originally released earlier than D7000), and so in my opinion D7000 actually demands more fiddling with exposure, especially in bright conditions, than was needed before it appeared.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
D5KNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow