Nikon D7100 Full size samples : Yikes !

The noise seems quite terrible at 200 ISO:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/8506180231/sizes/o/in/set-72157632855280350/

even it stays acceptable for low iso shots, I am affraid that the 24MP resolution will suffer towards chroma noise and artifacts above 800 ISO, bringing the whole purpose of shooting high resolution shots only suitable for daylight / tripod work. Those results are very close to what my D3200 delivers, and my D600 fights definitely in another team here.

On the positive side, a bit of pp (noiseware) can help but will reduce micro details, and, the colors seem very accurate.

Here's a ISO 1600 shot. Below is a link to a shot similar to what I like to shoot in lower light and my current APS-C camera doesn't impress me at 1600 with eyelashes and eyes. The 5200 seems better, but the eyes are a little mushy and lacking some clarity, but this might be the best APS-C available:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/8507287480/sizes/o/in/photostream/

I used a D600 for a while and an RX1 for 2 months and that sensor is clearly in another league.

Darn.

The noise you see in the sky will not show up on anything less than a 2' x 3' print - and only upon very close inspection. Pixel peeping is a dangerous sport misunderstood by most. Try looking at the photo at 50%.

Download it and examine it in PS CS6 at 50%. This is the proper magnification, for example, for judging degree and effect of unsharp mask.

I use a D600 which does not do this, but in defense of the D7100 it looks very little different from the D7000 at this ISO - as future tests will probably indicate - or NOT.

--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com

The big question is if they were shot jpeg or raw?

200 ISO is not the main problem here (even if already starts to show color noise, not only luminance noise) - my experience with the D3200 who offering similar results is that, the whole 24MP purpose vanishes after 800 ISO, bringing more artifacts, dull colors, and detail deterioration than actually keeping the details and colors. The 16MP APS-C of my D5100 will deliver better images over 800 ISO, and doesn't need any noiseware pp for the skies at the same print size between 200-400 ISO. Downsampling D3200 images does not help either.

and so? My D3200 24MP APSC raw files deliver noisier images than my D5100 raw files. Pull the shadows, recover an underexposed shot, and noise is showing up everywhere...The main purpose of 24MP is to be able to crop more, but better PP is needed too.

Thanks for sharing, indeed, interesting shot. The face is well lighten (street light or softbox?) so the noise doesn't show up as much as in the background. It is perfectly usable but needs PP for sure. - This seems like a 5000 ISO image from my D600.

before & after pp based on the jpeg file:





EXIF says some of them are RAW+ Capture Nx 2.4.1 M. other are FINE + View NX 2.7 M

Hopefully Nikon fixes this with the production models.

I wish I didn't sell my D5100.

Yep. With half-way decent PP work noise is easy to handle - especially luminance noise.



--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com

I also have similar observation. This seems very similar to the D90 generation of camera, there's grain in shadow area at low ISO. Not a complain, but i expect it to be no grain at such low ISO for this generation of dslr.

Or is it actually normal? Other camera actually apply NR even at low ISO to reduce the grain?

Compare the blue sky on this D5200 iso400 shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/8160826365/sizes/o/in/set-72157631942703170/

The linked pic is a gutted half size jpg chock full of compression artifacts. Full size would come in at 24MP full res.  Don't worry!

Sky looks quite okay here:

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/img/sample/img_02_l.jpg

...and here....

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/img/sample/img_03_l.jpg

Both are at ISO 200.

So either those are post processed very well, this is not a consistent problem, or it's something correctable on camera that some of the pre-production units are seeing. Could it be as simple as a setting?

--
Sammy.
My forum postings reflect my own opinions and not those of my employer. I'm not employed in the photo business.

These are the first shots available, we don't even know if their from a full production model, or how they were processed, or if they have NR or ADL enabled. Over the years I have seen many first shots disappoint.

Why, why, why, why, why, does Nikon persist in publishing images whose rendering does not show off the potential of their products?  This happens with every release.  We have to wait for the reviewers to publish.

Nikon, please, just publish the dang NEFs and let us play.  It's not like we'll steal them...

You like to use the word "my" a lot, as if you're the only one with those cameras.

You don't even know if the shot was super under-exposed to start with.  Quit worrying.

No, that is not "the big question".

To set the bar really low, so that when we still go buy one, we're all extreme happy with our results.  Brilliant marketing.  Hehe.

You're right. The big question is when does it ship?