Cameralabs D7100 review up: verdict...

Started Apr 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
mosswings
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,756Gear list
Like?
Re: Cameralabs D7100 review up: verdict...
In reply to Richard, Apr 21, 2013

Richard wrote:

mosswings wrote:

I consider the D7100 an better 12MP camera than the D90 is - the extra resolution provides more post processing options and reduced noise levels.

I would say a tiny amount of noise difference and what other processing options? Cropping, maybe but again I would say people would probably see a bigger differences in the camera if you were upgrading from a D7100 or a D90 to a D300 upgrade camera say the D400. D90 to 7100 is baby steps.

1+ stop at ISO 1600 for equivalent DR at 8-12MP is tiny?  That's what I'm attracted to.  Good high ISO, small lenses is a win.

Well, if the D400 stays a Bayer filtered DX camera, the relatively little difference in bulk sensor performance that we see between the last 3 generations of DX sensors would suggest to me that I would see little if any difference between it and its predecessors as well.  I doubt that Sony or anyone else at this point has cooked up anything earth shaking.  So what I see here is an argument that staying DX is the real problem; one has to go FX to see a real bulk advantage in capture performance.

And then there's the entire issue of whether this actually makes a difference at all at typical viewing sizes and resolutions.

not a D7000; have no intention of going full frame for reasons of weight and bulk;

If you want to go telephoto with better AF, faster glass you are going to increase weight. Same with FF, IMHO they are both worth it.

Yes, and no.  In the midrange where I mostly work, there's a clear size and weight advantage between a 17-50 or 17-70 (not the 17-55 nikkor, bloated thing that it is) and a 24-70 f2.8 FF.  All I usually use is an f4-5.6 70-300 for tele.  Travel photogs don't often venture beyond 85mm.

Travel photogs probably need no more than 12 mp or a d90, unless you are a traveling pro photojournalist. Who are you going to be selling your photogs to? Or are you going to post them on the web

No, I'm going to be enjoying them at moderate sizes at home, mostly.  And yes, even 12MP is too much for that. The real issue is one of versatility in low-light and compact lenses; the D90 struggles at ISO 800.  The D7000 less so.  One can always get an f1.8 prime, but one also does not shoot at that wide an aperture most of the time. Obtaining a versatile low-light capability is very beneficial.  Working the file in post to obtain downsizing benefits is part of this equation.

The D400 will come out, but I see no real reason for it as it will be a pro body camera which is a total pain to carry about all day.  What I'm really hoping for is a mirrorless APS-C from Nikon that I can use my legacy lenses on and shrink the kit down when I want to go light.  It'll be here in a generation or two.

If that is what you are looking for, smaller size in the camera body, that may be something worthy of upgrade but if all your lenses work with it. Lens size is not going to reduce thus you are probably better off at looking at another brand or another system. But your D90 will do everything a d7100 or a 4/3rds system.

Looking at your gallery, those images are re-sized down. so any fine grain noise is reduced, any resolution is reduced to a web sized image, I don't see any advantages for a new camera there.

For easy viewing on this forum, of course.

You may even argue that FF would not help you since you are not doing bokey or wide angle stuff.

But that is my opinion. I see a lot of people with gear way past their needs, requirements or what they use it for. Now if you said, I want it because I want it and just want a new camera and I can afford it. You can't argue with that.

We may be taking baby steps here, and I for one am not wed to buying a new camera.  The interesting question to be answered here is whether a high quality, high resolution capture can produce a better HDTV or 4K level rendered image than a lower resolution capture can.  The answer I think may be yes, but it's a very subtle yes.

Certainly, even good quality travel shots not intended for critical viewing don't require anything more than an RX-100 or a V2.  With a lot of money invested in a Nikon DX system, switching to a smaller format system doesn't pencil out that well either.

Bottom line, we're in a diminishing returns corner here.

 mosswings's gear list:mosswings's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Nikon D90 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +1 more
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