Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review

Started Apr 25, 2013 | Discussions
Blindman
Contributing MemberPosts: 970
Like?
Re: They did
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, Apr 26, 2013

"You guys will get it sooner or later, when you upgrade and your whole perception of what is sharp and what isn't will get moved up a major notch.  The fact that Nikon has come alarmingly close to the D800 with the D7100 is a great achievement, one which will evidently take some time to appreciate.  There's nothing new here.  Just as the D7000 did for the D90, so the D7100 will do for the 16MP cameras."

I have to admit that the review doesn't do justice to the 7100 vs 7000 debate. I have over 30k shots on the 7000 - most processed with LR4, PS CS5, NIK plug-ins. In the three weeks with the 7100 I've noticed (on a 27", 2560 x 1440 high gamut monitor) that the detail/dynamic range in pictures is much better and the pictures require virtually no editing (sharpness is incredible w/ LR default setting for RAW conversion). Sure I'll still tweak them for shadows/highlights, etc.

I love my D7000, but every pic needs TLC to bring out the best. The 7100 pics just have some intangible quality difference that's hard to explain. BTW, would have bought D600 if it had the 7100's focusing system or the D800 if it had better frame rate/U1-2/ and a few other features. I'll likely go full frame with the nex iteration of either of these cameras.

-- hide signature --

John

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gar Ber
Regular MemberPosts: 115
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to Amadou Diallo, Apr 26, 2013

Good camera,  I only find it a bit peculiar that there's only a small mention of: "Faint noise patterns are visible as low as ISO 100."

I'm not saying they are not faint, but I think the pattern nature of it should deserve a sentence of two more. Again, maybe not due to the amount of noise pattern itself, but because I guess Nikon DX users got used to having practically none of these issues in the semi-recent past (D90 -  D7000 maybe even before) and they might find it surprising / unexpected to see noise pattern when pushing shadows in gig/concert, night or "extreme DR retrieval"  kind of photography. They need to be ready to deal with it if it becomes visible. But this is just an opinion about this information being relevant; I know it is for me and a couple of people in my "photographic bunch". There were several posts about this already so it's pointless to go into details once again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mosswings
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,010Gear list
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to Gar Ber, Apr 26, 2013

Gar Ber wrote:

Good camera,  I only find it a bit peculiar that there's only a small mention of: "Faint noise patterns are visible as low as ISO 100."

I'm not saying they are not faint, but I think the pattern nature of it should deserve a sentence of two more. Again, maybe not due to the amount of noise pattern itself, but because I guess Nikon DX users got used to having practically none of these issues in the semi-recent past (D90 -  D7000 maybe even before) and they might find it surprising / unexpected to see noise pattern when pushing shadows in gig/concert, night or "extreme DR retrieval"  kind of photography. They need to be ready to deal with it if it becomes visible. But this is just an opinion about this information being relevant; I know it is for me and a couple of people in my "photographic bunch". There were several posts about this already so it's pointless to go into details once again.

The reason why they didn't comment more on it is because 1) they are not aiming the review at the posters who use the camera at "extreme DR retrieval" conditions and 2) it's not that great of a concern to any but a small fraction of the user base.  However, they were not unaware of these issues. They even introduced a new test in this review to search for it - the dim corner lighted studio shot to induce extremely deep shadows.  They saw nothing worth commenting on.  They did some pretty hefty shadow pulling (the shadowed gate shots).  They saw nothing worth commenting on.

From this I would conclude that they have concluded that it is worth nothing more than a small comment, and that those who are really concerned about it know what to do, either to a) deal with it, through pattern-aware NR and changes in shot and processing practices, or to b) avoid a purchase.  By dedicating an excessive amount of space to a rather minor problem, DPR runs the risk of the bulk of their readership misinterpreting the importance of it to their purchase decision.

Personally, I'd like some others evaluation of the streaking issue, but again, it's a minor problem of concern only to the limit-testers, and it will not be fixable by a firmware patch, so again those who are affected by it have already decided to either sit back and await the D400 or to move on to a FF Nikon (or other mfr.) that appears artifact free.

 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
brucet
Senior MemberPosts: 1,553
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to mosswings, Apr 26, 2013

Why is it that everyone looks at the 'quality' of the output at extremes with a new camera rather than the 'new' features that make taking the photo easier for some.

For me it's not all about 'quality'. Yeah it's very important. But other features such as 5 shot bracketing are more important. For me. Plus some other goodies. 24 meg gives me more cropping ability. 51 point. etc etc etc.

There's more to a new camera, or an old one for that matter, than JUST pixel peeping at EXTREME examples. It's about the journey. How you take the photo.

All IMHO.

regards

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
greg mclemore
Contributing MemberPosts: 723Gear list
Like?
Re: They did
In reply to sshoihet, Apr 26, 2013

Maybe there is no difference for you, but for me there is, I had the D 7000 and loved it, but the better af, sealing and crop 1.3 setting sure was enough me and my use. As for as the 5200, the motor, top lcd and body is well worth the differrence.

 greg mclemore's gear list:greg mclemore's gear list
Canon EOS 20D Nikon D2H Nikon D200 Canon EOS 7D Nikon D7100 +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
KenHanson
New MemberPosts: 8
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to Amadou Diallo, Apr 26, 2013

Terrific review - seems like a great camera.

Under Pros for the D7100, you wrote it had "in-camera raw processing." There is some confusion about the meaning of this point.

Did you mean that it processes the raw data to produce JPEG output images or it processes the raw data to produce raw output images?

The first interpretation is hardly unusual for DLSRs so it wouldn't seem worth mentioning as a good point. I read it as "in-camera processing for the raw output file," which would be worth noting, but contradictory to the meaning of raw.

Related to this question is whether the in-camera setting for noise reduction can affect the raw output files? I would have said no, but you comment made me wonder.

-- hide signature --

Ken Hanson

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jonrobertp
Forum ProPosts: 11,154Gear list
Like?
Re: They did
In reply to sshoihet, Apr 26, 2013

sshoihet wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Unfortunate that the staff couldn't see the difference between the D5200 and the D7100.  Maybe if they had looked here.

They did see the difference...and noted well it's impact in practical terms

We tell people not to pixel peep and then say "there's a difference", but it's only noticeable by pixel peeping.  No wonder people are confused

There's no practical difference, and for most, there won't be an appreciable difference between the D7000 and D5200/D7100.

"no practical difference" ..is right.  Tis why I'm glad I waited...if my D7K has more bad fits...like today...the 5200 may fill in until Canon has a chance to compete.   Q is when ?   The electronics in the D7k...sad...otherwise, good sensor.  But quit on me again today...at major media event.  duh.  not good.

Same IQ as the old cam...at 6400.  And still not cross sensors at the sides.  sigh...

 jonrobertp's gear list:jonrobertp's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X II Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon EOS 70D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mosswings
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,010Gear list
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to KenHanson, Apr 26, 2013

KenHanson wrote:

Terrific review - seems like a great camera.

Under Pros for the D7100, you wrote it had "in-camera raw processing." There is some confusion about the meaning of this point.

Did you mean that it processes the raw data to produce JPEG output images or it processes the raw data to produce raw output images?

The first interpretation is hardly unusual for DLSRs so it wouldn't seem worth mentioning as a good point. I read it as "in-camera processing for the raw output file," which would be worth noting, but contradictory to the meaning of raw.

Related to this question is whether the in-camera setting for noise reduction can affect the raw output files? I would have said no, but you comment made me wonder.

-- hide signature --

Ken Hanson

Modern Nikons can convert an (actually save another) image stored as a pure RAW file into a JPEG file with several editing and rendering options totally within the camera.  This can be useful if you decide, for example, that you want to upload a JPG, suitably cropped or rendered, to a computer or a social networking site, or to display for a client.

 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
Gar Ber
Regular MemberPosts: 115
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to mosswings, Apr 27, 2013

mosswings wrote:

Gar Ber wrote:

Good camera,  I only find it a bit peculiar that there's only a small mention of: "Faint noise patterns are visible as low as ISO 100."

I'm not saying they are not faint, but I think the pattern nature of it should deserve a sentence of two more. Again, maybe not due to the amount of noise pattern itself, but because I guess Nikon DX users got used to having practically none of these issues in the semi-recent past (D90 -  D7000 maybe even before) and they might find it surprising / unexpected to see noise pattern when pushing shadows in gig/concert, night or "extreme DR retrieval"  kind of photography. They need to be ready to deal with it if it becomes visible. But this is just an opinion about this information being relevant; I know it is for me and a couple of people in my "photographic bunch". There were several posts about this already so it's pointless to go into details once again.

The reason why they didn't comment more on it is because 1) they are not aiming the review at the posters who use the camera at "extreme DR retrieval" conditions and 2) it's not that great of a concern to any but a small fraction of the user base.  However, they were not unaware of these issues. They even introduced a new test in this review to search for it - the dim corner lighted studio shot to induce extremely deep shadows.  They saw nothing worth commenting on.  They did some pretty hefty shadow pulling (the shadowed gate shots).  They saw nothing worth commenting on.

From this I would conclude that they have concluded that it is worth nothing more than a small comment, and that those who are really concerned about it know what to do, either to a) deal with it, through pattern-aware NR and changes in shot and processing practices, or to b) avoid a purchase.  By dedicating an excessive amount of space to a rather minor problem, DPR runs the risk of the bulk of their readership misinterpreting the importance of it to their purchase decision.

Personally, I'd like some others evaluation of the streaking issue, but again, it's a minor problem of concern only to the limit-testers, and it will not be fixable by a firmware patch, so again those who are affected by it have already decided to either sit back and await the D400 or to move on to a FF Nikon (or other mfr.) that appears artifact free.

I can see the reasoning in what you're saying, I'm not so sure it'll have such small impact as you imply, but we'll probably never be able to ascertain how many people will come across this issue while using D7100 (or D5200) anyway. Do you think it's really such a small number of people that will  need to push such dark shadow areas ? I'm really asking for your opinion, because even in my small-ish circle (maybe fifteen) of photographer peers, three of us regularly deal with such situations (But yes. we've learned to deal with them as necessary by our diverse gear, that was besides the point.)

On another point actually the reviewer has succeeded in "producing" some noise pattern in the gate shot, but not in the foliage but in the wooden frame beneath the roof - easily not noticeable since it's not a homogeneous background anyway. This is just an observation and it doesn't invalidate the above reasoning; D7100 is a good camera.

Just as a curiosity, how are you so certain how DPreview conducted the research for this review ? (I'm truly asking just as a curiosity, since you sound pretty certain asserting they did this and that.)

Thanks for your time mosswings.

Cheers

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gar Ber
Regular MemberPosts: 115
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to brucet, Apr 27, 2013

brucet wrote:

Why is it that everyone looks at the 'quality' of the output at extremes with a new camera rather than the 'new' features that make taking the photo easier for some.

For me it's not all about 'quality'. Yeah it's very important. But other features such as 5 shot bracketing are more important. For me. Plus some other goodies. 24 meg gives me more cropping ability. 51 point. etc etc etc.

There's more to a new camera, or an old one for that matter, than JUST pixel peeping at EXTREME examples. It's about the journey. How you take the photo.

All IMHO.

regards

I don't know who precisely you're referring to when you say everyone; I don't see everyone (even in this post) looking at the IQ at the extremes. Quite the contrary.

If you're specifically talking about me mentioning the noise pattern though, it is really simple. I'm looking at it because I have to deal with it with my kind of photography. It's the same as 5 shot bracketing (as an example) for you. Because it matters for your kind of photography.

I do agree with you though in the sense that judging camera performance for parameters that have no relevance for one's photography to be practically pointless...or for conversational purposes at best.

Each of us has his own needs in camera gear. D7100 is a good camera in many/most aspects.

Cheers.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
KenHanson
New MemberPosts: 8
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to mosswings, Apr 27, 2013

mosswings wrote:

KenHanson wrote:

Terrific review - seems like a great camera.

Under Pros for the D7100, you wrote it had "in-camera raw processing." There is some confusion about the meaning of this point.

Did you mean that it processes the raw data to produce JPEG output images or it processes the raw data to produce raw output images?

The first interpretation is hardly unusual for DLSRs so it wouldn't seem worth mentioning as a good point. I read it as "in-camera processing for the raw output file," which would be worth noting, but contradictory to the meaning of raw.

Related to this question is whether the in-camera setting for noise reduction can affect the raw output files? I would have said no, but you comment made me wonder.

-- hide signature --

Ken Hanson

Modern Nikons can convert an (actually save another) image stored as a pure RAW file into a JPEG file with several editing and rendering options totally within the camera.  This can be useful if you decide, for example, that you want to upload a JPG, suitably cropped or rendered, to a computer or a social networking site, or to display for a client.

Yes, I know all that. I guess I didn't make myself clear. My question is whether the D7100 does any processing on the data that it outputs as the raw file?

The statement in the review seems to indicate that it may, which contradicts my understanding that the raw files contains the sensor measurements without any processing, except possibly to compress the data.

-- hide signature --

Ken Hanson

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
coudet
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,814
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to brucet, Apr 27, 2013

brucet wrote:

Why is it that everyone looks at the 'quality' of the output at extremes with a new camera

Because that's one of the things new cameras allow users to do, to push more and more into those extremes. And why wouldn't you want to know this information?

If anything, I always felt dpreview are not doing enough to show everything a demanding user might need to know. But, that's ok, that's what forums are for.

rather than the 'new' features that make taking the photo easier for some.

Look at both.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mosswings
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,010Gear list
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to KenHanson, Apr 27, 2013

KenHanson wrote:

mosswings wrote:

KenHanson wrote:

Terrific review - seems like a great camera.

Under Pros for the D7100, you wrote it had "in-camera raw processing." There is some confusion about the meaning of this point.

Did you mean that it processes the raw data to produce JPEG output images or it processes the raw data to produce raw output images?

The first interpretation is hardly unusual for DLSRs so it wouldn't seem worth mentioning as a good point. I read it as "in-camera processing for the raw output file," which would be worth noting, but contradictory to the meaning of raw.

Related to this question is whether the in-camera setting for noise reduction can affect the raw output files? I would have said no, but you comment made me wonder.

-- hide signature --

Ken Hanson

Modern Nikons can convert an (actually save another) image stored as a pure RAW file into a JPEG file with several editing and rendering options totally within the camera.  This can be useful if you decide, for example, that you want to upload a JPG, suitably cropped or rendered, to a computer or a social networking site, or to display for a client.

Yes, I know all that. I guess I didn't make myself clear. My question is whether the D7100 does any processing on the data that it outputs as the raw file?

The statement in the review seems to indicate that it may, which contradicts my understanding that the raw files contains the sensor measurements without any processing, except possibly to compress the data.

-- hide signature --

Ken Hanson

RAW is never really truly "raw" anymore, just minimally processed.  The sensor measurements are encoded and a lot of low level processing is done on the signal to reduce and balance noise contributions.  Long Exposure NR is an example of this: a dark frame subtraction is done.  High ISO NR is another.

 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
mosswings
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,010Gear list
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to Gar Ber, Apr 27, 2013

Gar Ber wrote:

mosswings wrote:

Gar Ber wrote:

Good camera,  I only find it a bit peculiar that there's only a small mention of: "Faint noise patterns are visible as low as ISO 100."

I'm not saying they are not faint, but I think the pattern nature of it should deserve a sentence of two more. Again, maybe not due to the amount of noise pattern itself, but because I guess Nikon DX users got used to having practically none of these issues in the semi-recent past (D90 -  D7000 maybe even before) and they might find it surprising / unexpected to see noise pattern when pushing shadows in gig/concert, night or "extreme DR retrieval"  kind of photography. They need to be ready to deal with it if it becomes visible. But this is just an opinion about this information being relevant; I know it is for me and a couple of people in my "photographic bunch". There were several posts about this already so it's pointless to go into details once again.

The reason why they didn't comment more on it is because 1) they are not aiming the review at the posters who use the camera at "extreme DR retrieval" conditions and 2) it's not that great of a concern to any but a small fraction of the user base.  However, they were not unaware of these issues. They even introduced a new test in this review to search for it - the dim corner lighted studio shot to induce extremely deep shadows.  They saw nothing worth commenting on.  They did some pretty hefty shadow pulling (the shadowed gate shots).  They saw nothing worth commenting on.

From this I would conclude that they have concluded that it is worth nothing more than a small comment, and that those who are really concerned about it know what to do, either to a) deal with it, through pattern-aware NR and changes in shot and processing practices, or to b) avoid a purchase.  By dedicating an excessive amount of space to a rather minor problem, DPR runs the risk of the bulk of their readership misinterpreting the importance of it to their purchase decision.

Personally, I'd like some others evaluation of the streaking issue, but again, it's a minor problem of concern only to the limit-testers, and it will not be fixable by a firmware patch, so again those who are affected by it have already decided to either sit back and await the D400 or to move on to a FF Nikon (or other mfr.) that appears artifact free.

I can see the reasoning in what you're saying, I'm not so sure it'll have such small impact as you imply, but we'll probably never be able to ascertain how many people will come across this issue while using D7100 (or D5200) anyway. Do you think it's really such a small number of people that will  need to push such dark shadow areas ? I'm really asking for your opinion, because even in my small-ish circle (maybe fifteen) of photographer peers, three of us regularly deal with such situations (But yes. we've learned to deal with them as necessary by our diverse gear, that was besides the point.)

On another point actually the reviewer has succeeded in "producing" some noise pattern in the gate shot, but not in the foliage but in the wooden frame beneath the roof - easily not noticeable since it's not a homogeneous background anyway. This is just an observation and it doesn't invalidate the above reasoning; D7100 is a good camera.

Just as a curiosity, how are you so certain how DPreview conducted the research for this review ? (I'm truly asking just as a curiosity, since you sound pretty certain asserting they did this and that.)

I'm sounding certain because I'm grumpy, but also because I'm applying some principles of writing for public consumption that I learned in my career.  It's very important that you write in a style that gives appropriate weight to the topics discussed, otherwise your audience can spin off in a tizzy about minutia.  DPR is in the business of writing comprehensive reviews of gear but also to provide a balanced assessment of any flaws they find.  So it's not certainty you hear, but a pretty high level of confidence in a deduction based on experience.

We have to remember that the people who frequent this forum are gearheads and measurists, so there will be a high percentage of them who probably do push like that.  I don't, a lot of others with better technique than I don't either.  There are some segments of the photographic guild that do use things like one-shot HDR in time-lapse photography, where pattern noise causes more post work but not outright capture failure.  Hogan wrote on this a week or so ago.  What we're seeing in the D7100 is something that Canon shooters have had a lot worse for years, and they've been able to make some fine images in similar situations.  Art Wolfe, for instance.

 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
greg606
New MemberPosts: 16
Like?
Nikon D7100 Dynamic Range better than D800?
In reply to Amadou Diallo, Apr 27, 2013

Correct me if I'm wrong but does the charts suggest better dynamic range than for D800?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
coudet
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,814
Like?
Re: Nikon D7100 Dynamic Range better than D800?
In reply to greg606, Apr 27, 2013

greg606 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but does the charts suggest better dynamic range than for D800?

It absolutely does not have better dynamic range than D800.

And this might be helpful: LINK.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sshoihet
Senior MemberPosts: 2,387Gear list
Like?
Re: They did
In reply to jonrobertp, Apr 27, 2013

jonrobertp wrote:

sshoihet wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Unfortunate that the staff couldn't see the difference between the D5200 and the D7100.  Maybe if they had looked here.

They did see the difference...and noted well it's impact in practical terms

We tell people not to pixel peep and then say "there's a difference", but it's only noticeable by pixel peeping.  No wonder people are confused

There's no practical difference, and for most, there won't be an appreciable difference between the D7000 and D5200/D7100.

"no practical difference" ..is right.  Tis why I'm glad I waited...if my D7K has more bad fits...like today...the 5200 may fill in until Canon has a chance to compete.   Q is when ?   The electronics in the D7k...sad...otherwise, good sensor.  But quit on me again today...at major media event.  duh.  not good.

Same IQ as the old cam...at 6400.  And still not cross sensors at the sides.  sigh...

The D7100 is a great camera and for anyone coming from a D90 or lower it's a nice upgrade but I don't think the average user is going to see much difference upgrading from a D7000.  It has some nice additional features which might be a good reason to upgrade but not IQ.  And really, did they have to change the order of the buttons on the left side of the body to screw up anyone was used to a D7000 or uses both?

 sshoihet's gear list:sshoihet's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Nikon D7000 Canon EOS M Nikon D600 Nikon D7100 +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brucet
Senior MemberPosts: 1,553
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to Gar Ber, Apr 27, 2013

Yes I was talking 'generally' and aimed my comments at no one or no one statement.

regards

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gar Ber
Regular MemberPosts: 115
Like?
Re: Just published: Our in-depth Nikon D7100 review
In reply to mosswings, Apr 27, 2013

mosswings wrote:

Gar Ber wrote:

mosswings wrote:

Gar Ber wrote:

Good camera,  I only find it a bit peculiar that there's only a small mention of: "Faint noise patterns are visible as low as ISO 100."

I'm not saying they are not faint, but I think the pattern nature of it should deserve a sentence of two more. Again, maybe not due to the amount of noise pattern itself, but because I guess Nikon DX users got used to having practically none of these issues in the semi-recent past (D90 -  D7000 maybe even before) and they might find it surprising / unexpected to see noise pattern when pushing shadows in gig/concert, night or "extreme DR retrieval"  kind of photography. They need to be ready to deal with it if it becomes visible. But this is just an opinion about this information being relevant; I know it is for me and a couple of people in my "photographic bunch". There were several posts about this already so it's pointless to go into details once again.

The reason why they didn't comment more on it is because 1) they are not aiming the review at the posters who use the camera at "extreme DR retrieval" conditions and 2) it's not that great of a concern to any but a small fraction of the user base.  However, they were not unaware of these issues. They even introduced a new test in this review to search for it - the dim corner lighted studio shot to induce extremely deep shadows.  They saw nothing worth commenting on.  They did some pretty hefty shadow pulling (the shadowed gate shots).  They saw nothing worth commenting on.

From this I would conclude that they have concluded that it is worth nothing more than a small comment, and that those who are really concerned about it know what to do, either to a) deal with it, through pattern-aware NR and changes in shot and processing practices, or to b) avoid a purchase.  By dedicating an excessive amount of space to a rather minor problem, DPR runs the risk of the bulk of their readership misinterpreting the importance of it to their purchase decision.

Personally, I'd like some others evaluation of the streaking issue, but again, it's a minor problem of concern only to the limit-testers, and it will not be fixable by a firmware patch, so again those who are affected by it have already decided to either sit back and await the D400 or to move on to a FF Nikon (or other mfr.) that appears artifact free.

I can see the reasoning in what you're saying, I'm not so sure it'll have such small impact as you imply, but we'll probably never be able to ascertain how many people will come across this issue while using D7100 (or D5200) anyway. Do you think it's really such a small number of people that will  need to push such dark shadow areas ? I'm really asking for your opinion, because even in my small-ish circle (maybe fifteen) of photographer peers, three of us regularly deal with such situations (But yes. we've learned to deal with them as necessary by our diverse gear, that was besides the point.)

On another point actually the reviewer has succeeded in "producing" some noise pattern in the gate shot, but not in the foliage but in the wooden frame beneath the roof - easily not noticeable since it's not a homogeneous background anyway. This is just an observation and it doesn't invalidate the above reasoning; D7100 is a good camera.

Just as a curiosity, how are you so certain how DPreview conducted the research for this review ? (I'm truly asking just as a curiosity, since you sound pretty certain asserting they did this and that.)

I'm sounding certain because I'm grumpy, but also because I'm applying some principles of writing for public consumption that I learned in my career.  It's very important that you write in a style that gives appropriate weight to the topics discussed, otherwise your audience can spin off in a tizzy about minutia.  DPR is in the business of writing comprehensive reviews of gear but also to provide a balanced assessment of any flaws they find.  So it's not certainty you hear, but a pretty high level of confidence in a deduction based on experience.

We have to remember that the people who frequent this forum are gearheads and measurists, so there will be a high percentage of them who probably do push like that.  I don't, a lot of others with better technique than I don't either.  There are some segments of the photographic guild that do use things like one-shot HDR in time-lapse photography, where pattern noise causes more post work but not outright capture failure.  Hogan wrote on this a week or so ago.  What we're seeing in the D7100 is something that Canon shooters have had a lot worse for years, and they've been able to make some fine images in similar situations.  Art Wolfe, for instance.

Hehe, ok, thanks for the explanation I see where you're coming from.

I know Canon uses have had worse noise pattern results..and for a long time. Just to be clear, I don't think I ever suggested exhibiting noise pattern the way D7100 does would prevent anyone from obtaining the photographic results they're after (if I somehow did that was not my intention at all). It can be dealt with quite successfully. The only thing I suggested was that the whole matter maybe deserved a little more attention from the review; however as you point out this depends on the target audience.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rhlpetrus
Forum ProPosts: 23,498Gear list
Like?
Very good review; thanks and a comment on DR
In reply to Amadou Diallo, Apr 27, 2013

It confirms my impression that the D7100 is the top APS-C camera on the market at the moment. If only Nikon would make that buffer deeper, then it would be the almost perfect APS-C dslr.

DR is an outsting feature of the D7100 and Nikon ssem to have finally nailed a good balance between midtone contrast and DR tone curves, especially Portrait with ADL off (ADL, even low, looks a bit agressive for my taste, in particular the way it will likely flatten midtone contrast). Neutral shows a bit more DR but at midtone contrast cost, just like with the D7000.

-- hide signature --

Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads