kk123: I won't buy D810. Stick to my D7100 until a D400 or D9300 with at least 8 fps comes.
The buffer size of the D7100 is not an issue, since the D7100 has very high write-speed to the card. With a 95MB/S card solved.
D810 "only" 38 Mp. D7100 24MPx2,25= 54MP in pixel density comparison. D7100 has much higher resolution, ideal for cropped pics. Of course the same discussion, where D7100 is the winner for long distance bird and animal photos as an example.
I won't buy D810. Stick to my D7100 until a D400 or D9300 with at least 8 fps comes.
RRJackson: Here's something I don't understand at all. Metering on modern cameras can break the frame down into thousands of segments for complex metering calculations...but nobody can seem to make a metering system that prevents highlight clipping. No way at all to reduce the exposure if the highlights are clipping? Really? In 2014 we can't make that happen? The system can analyze 91,000 segments of the frame, but can't tell if one of them is clipping?
The active lighting in Nikon is inserted before the AC/DC conversion and means a correction of measurements of the low and high end. The dynamic range is thereby decreased in 0 and 255 areas. (Forced picture underexposure and increased selection of lightest areas in the darkest part of the picture.) A smart. but not always very efficient method. A more direct change to a more appropriate ISO in parts of the picture seems better. I.e. adapted exposures of each segment of metering.
LucaPCP: Old cameras had big lenses, and relatively small bodies around them (because film did the trick). This D4s is ugly: a tiny lens attached to a huge black brick that contains the circuitry. It's starting not to make sense. I wish they gave me a light lens+sensor combo, tethered to the rest of the computer that I could keep in my backpack. It's like taking a photo while handholding a desktop computer.
The body is too big, too heavy. Why on earth can't they make this camera smaller and more handy? The battery is not the full explanation. In any case, to little to upgrade for from D3s.
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.
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.