JDThomas: I have both the D5200 and the D7100. For all practical purposes the image quality is the same. The only real difference that I've noticed between the two is that the D7100 is really starting to show the limitations of Nikon's lenses. The flagship DX lens, the 17-55 f/2.8G is almost unusable at f/2.8 because if the apparent softness. The D7100 retains detail, but the image is veiled in a soft glow similar to a diffusion filter.
What Nikon really needs to start working on is updating their pro lenses to match their sensors. My 14-24 just got back from NPS repair so I haven't had a chance to test it out, but so far the only two lenses I have that are holding up wide open are the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 C.
???? I've used the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR II and the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR with D7100. Not only names and prices of these lenses are impressive, but certainly also the results with D7100.
I keep my D3S.
And I am still waiting for the D400:Lightweight DX 18MP8fps without battery packageBuilt-in GPSFaster AF than D300/s
kk123: D600 - unfortunately not the answer for replacement of the D300/s -D7000.
- Too low fps 5,5 isn't good enough!- Too low resolution for DX - only 24mp/2,25, not more than 10mp in the DX area.
Nearly useless for bird photos.
Maybe I should buy an old D2X - with 8 fps.
Why on earth isn't Nikon listening to its customers? I refuse to buy D600!
And where is an update of the 80-400mm? And a 300 f4 with stabilizer. And I could use a 500 f5,6. Come on NIKON!!
Yes - but D600 ??? Why can't Nikon make the D400? How long are we going to wait? I sold my D300, bought D7000 as a camera in between. Very many want a 10fps DX camera with say 17mp and fast AF. Ideal for bird and animal shooting.
D600 - unfortunately not the answer for replacement of the D300/s -D7000.
I think you will be amazed when you compare AF on 400+2x converter with a pure 800mm, especially on fast moving subjects like birds in flight. I have tested that for 300 f2,8 + 2x compared to 600 f4, and can assure you much better AF and higher quality. I asume the same will be the case for 400/800mm.
If you reallly believe you get the same sharpness with the converter, especially on long distances, I think you also should do some homework.
D800 cropped = D7000 in resolution. None of them an answer to the D300 as a folllow up DX camera.
Finally Nikon replies Canon. Why is Nikon so slow? VR came too late, 800mm too late. I sell my 600 VR and by the 800 for sure. And I am still waiting for the D300 follow-up. The good thing with the 800 by the way, is the "light" weigth compared to the magnifying capacity. And a 400 mm with 2x converter is not an issue. The converter ruins the quality of the photo, and AF does not work nearly as well as it should with converter. Fast AF is a must for a bird photographer.
WilliamJ: To everybody, here is something to read when thinking about a big telephoto-lens : http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml
Informative, meaningful yet quite funny as always with the proud Michael Reichmann's analysis.
But Nikon 500mm and 600mm now both have stabilizers, so this must be some years old.