Four-third, APS-C, FX ,Médium Format, and others ?
The market is done by our needs, despite the efforts of marketing to make us need that don't even need.
There are photographic needs that require a lot of compactness, so compact, that compact cameras begin to be threatened by the best mobile phones.
There are photographic needs that require larger sensors (FX) which makes photografic machines larger and heavier, but this is well accepted. To say that, with this format no longer need the APS-C ?
False, there are to many situations benefits of APS-C on FX, I remind me of sports, social photography, reportage... Yes, APS-C as more versatility (advantages) then FX.
Smaller sensors tend to disappear, Yes and thank goodness.
But the FX is not the future, it's just part of it
I don't understand and never will understand how these gentlemen want to remain owners of something that I "forced" to buy if I want to make use of it. Bought a use license, it is mine. I will never work in the cloud, will never be owner of something even though I pay does not seem to me to belong. The rules of this game are not like this. The money is mine, the terms may be agreed, but never decided unilaterally in this way. And how spent my money to me belongs to decide. Digital photography existed before the CS and will exist without it. In these terms, nothing I want from this company. Their ridiculously high prices are not pleasent.
oeriies: I've been using the D7100 for 3 weeks with a 500mm f/4G and a 35mm f/1.8G. I've been a Pentax user for a while, currently owning a K-5. There is a lot of detail in the D7100 shots, which is important for birds and wildlife, and the continuous autofocus system is a dream compared to the K-5. The bummer is the buffer, as others have noted and as is clear in the DPReview appraisal. I spent an hour shooting seagulls in flight the second day I had the camera just to try to learn my new gear. I knew from the specs that I should get 6fps shooting raw. Fired off a burst to catch an on-coming bird -- 5 shoots and the camera stopped dead. I thought that for sure I had a defective unit. It was only when I went to the user forum here that I found that this is how the camera is designed. Nikon, you've got to be kidding. I hope there is at least a partial fix via software for the buffer problem that we'll see soon. It is a crippling flaw in an otherwise excellent camera.
My Pentax K5II makes photo continuously during 4.5 seconds, at 7 frames/s rate, in Jpg (31 images) until the buffer is full. Or during 3.5 seconds at 7 frames/s rate in Raw+Jpg (24 images). With the full buffer, continues to shoot continuously at 3.3 pictures per second up to exhaust the memory card. This is enough? For me Yes.Is a very balanced product in all aspects of its construction, since the overall quality, ergonomics, excellent image quality, everything very carefully and thought to eliminate the weaknesses, which very few have.Always wished a Nikon, I ended up buying this Pentax, but I can't regret that, on the contrary, these news are demonstrating that I made a good decision.This Nikon D7100 makes five or six images only? What, during a second or less, and has the buffer full !? in a rate lower than my Pentax !? What can I say?
Ginetto: I still have to decide if to get this or the 16MP Pentax MKII s Still prone to choose the Pentax due for the marvelous ergonomics and building; if I can read its review before the end of the year... :)
Corrections to my previous comment, I did new tests to my Pentax K5II: if the shutter speed is greater than or equal to a thousandth of a second, it makes the 7 images per second guaranteed; after the buffer becomes full, the machine ensures 3 to 3.3 frames per second (not in two seconds as I stated previously) continuously until the memory card becomes full.Movies, have very good image, excellent when played on a large HD TV.Weak point so far? In movies, does not focus after it has started. Is a very good product and very balanced, but not perfect. Solution? Put in manual focus mode before starting the video, and focus manually, it is easy to focus while shooting, very effective.For a non-professional product is just perfect. Better than some who claim to be.I do not understand Nikon with its D7100, how you can make a product with a good sensor, a high-quality autofocus and fail in terms of overall balance!!?Learn with this Pentax, this time you deserve to hear this.
I bought one K5II. I am delighted with it. Flawless ergonomics, impeccable build quality. Shames the latest Nikon products without doubt, by the sheer consistency which features in all the details of its construction and ergonomics design. The autofocus works fast and without hesitation on the inside, even when at f/2.8 the machine calculates a shutter time greater than 4 seconds, and only in a very dark the focus assist lamp lights up. I do not know whether it actually makes 7 frames per second, but I measured guaranteed 6.7 frames per second. The mirror is particularly silent, as well as the shutter. Even taking photos in Raw+Jpg, the buffer fills only around 24 to 25 pictures taken, and from there makes 3 photos in 2 seconds continuously, until there is no space on the memory card. If shooting in Jpg only, fills the memory between 32 and 35 photographs taken. This is done with a SDHC card 400x. At high ISO, the results are Extremely Good even at 1600ISO, and Very good at 3200ISO
Hello Pentax's Creators. Excellent product that is your Pentax K5II. I am your customer and believe that there is a market for a zoom APS-C,a 23-69mm with constant f/2.8 aperture (fulframe equivalent to a 35-105mm).It is not too much, just a 3x zoom. Would be perfect for family photos, often made in the interior.Your weak point is in the range of lenses, you need to think well and produce what the others did not. Going down your own path, the other brands that will behind you, never the other way around.It is too expensive to produce with aperture f/2.8? Ok, f/3.2 or f/3.5 at most.
Nikon was a brand that has consolidated its position in the market for its professional products, having been the most used in the most demanding environments in static photography, and by technically more demanding amateur photographers.And so continued in the era of digital.With the constant evolution of digital photography, this democratized in such a way that everyone has a thing for shooting.All brands have had to create very low range DSLR products in order to survive.But many of the demanding Nikon customers, those who gave him the aura and the fame are being defrauded. For the beginning amateurs, D3xxx , D5xxx and D7xxx ranges have everything they might need, but remains an unbalanced product for the others.D600 was a mistake.Given its higher price and imbalance similar to D7xxx, is further from the first and still not serve the others.D800 serves only as camera for specific purposes.Missing the point of balance, which was once done by a D200, D300.Is too obvious to be ignored
Vekephoto: By the looks of it, this may be the best dx camera available ever.Weather resistant, 51-focus points, no aliasing filter, great 24m resolution.This is set to be the perfect crop factor camera that will again show that dx format can deliver some stunning photography. Can't wait to get one.
Wrong, Sandy bIn the summer of 2009 the Nikon has updated its D300 to D300s. In September 2010 Nikon launched his D7000. This, despite a poor construction and poor ergonomics, overcame the D300s in image quality, in several aspects, as at higher ISO. Since then always waited to buy my new Nikon, which would have to be the direct heir of the place of the D300s. It is now more than two years, I've seen more 2 or 3 models release, so many updates, but the anachronistic D300s (in image quality and video capabilities) was never replaced. For this love to Nikon's work, and my desire to have a Nikon, sacrificed two years, but enough is enough.Yes, I have reasons to slamming on Nikon.And now, the patience is over, I will give up this dream, and shoot with another brand. Because shooting is a dream much more than having my Nikon. No matter the brand, but the performance of the machine and mine with her in hands. At the moment, I can only say Hooray for Pentax K5II
Tomskyair: Specs look great, like the omission of the OLPF for better detail and the improved AF. Coming from a D300 I would have loved to see a true successor to it of course. But if that mythical "D400" doesn't come the D7100 may pretty well take its place in my camera bag and breathe new life in my 12-24 and 16-85 DX optics.
I don't really care about the "small buffer" as I usually don't employ the "spray 'n pray" shooting style. But I definitely like the shape of the D7100's body compared to the D7000 (and lesser extent also the D90): despite almost identical dimensions with the D7000 the D7100 looks much beefier and is more ergonomically shaped. This goes especially for the grip which is more rounded and wider almost as on a D300/D700. Actually that was my primary dislike with the D7000; although having rather small hands the D7000 always felt edgy and awkward to me and I could never befriend myself with its ergonomics. The D7100 looks much more promising in this regard.
I agree with you entirely. Ergonomically the D7000 is unpleasant to use, and this is his major defect.If this problem has been effectively gone, then the D7100 will be an excellent product for its price.It remains to be seen how behaves in higher ISO.
Be resistant to water and dust is very important. That's why the Pentax K5II have these seals. As well as some of their objectives.Referring to just one of the negative aspects, the last time I took a job with a D7000 I got pain in my wrist and fingers of my right hand, due to the weak grip of the machine. Never felt that with the D200, nor with the D300s, nor with the Pentax K5II, nor with the Canon 7D, just to mention those with who actually worked in the last 2 years. Will the D7100 no longer has this problem? Is that if you compare pictures made by any of these machines, you will not find very large differences, nor very obvious limitations for most situations. What makes all the difference in a car, cannot just be your engine, or seats, or the steering wheel. No, it has to be evaluated as a whole. And as a whole, there is greater balance in all that I have mentioned, getting the D7000 in last position. Just to speak of what I felt working with them.
I am a consumer frustrated, a demanding photographer Nikon disappointed. Nikon has been fail completely in commercial terms.Has for those who want to spend little, the D3000 and just above, the D5000 series. They are Ok in is level.After had for those who can spend some more, but require a lot of machine, the D300. It's old today. From here, totally lost.Created the D7000 serie to be what can't be. Created the D600 that neither is nor cease to be what they wanted it to be, it's just a commercial flop.Created a D800 that would be an excellent machine, if it weren't too generous in Mpx, which puts them in difficult situation in other fields.Only the high range, which is very professional but unreachable, still perfect as always was.What future for you, Nikon?! I do not know.
Love the Nikon brand. Differences in autofocus and more Mpx has no importance. Handling and so on Yes. Seriously, it is better a Pentax K5IIs which has better build quality and comfort. Already photographed with her? Perfect in use, even for those who need to be many hours straight in an event. The difference in resolution with and without this filter depends on what you can spend on buying a very good lens. If you do not put the best, there is no difference with and without it. Where is the replacement of the D300s?! This D7100 is not even at the level of a Pentax K5II
"By the looks of it, this may be the best dx camera available ever.Weather resistant, 51-focus points, no aliasing filter, great 24m resolution." ?????If you are a true photographer, you should know that you did not mention anything that really has big importance in a camera, seriously. This serves only to sell to those who do not know what makes the difference between an amateur camera and a seriously one.
D7000 users will be happy but the D200 and D300 user are left in the dark. I'm considering to over six months to purchase a Pentax K5 II, but always dreaming that Nikon quickly put on sale a real D300 replacement.Certainly not the Pentax that I want, but after shooting with her and with the D7000, doubts are not. The Pentax is better machine, similar in image, but far above the Nikon D7000 in construction and handling.These improvements in D7100 cause any enthusiasm, because the main problems have not been resolved. Has 24 Mpix? What for more than the earlier 16? It's a Sony pixel race?! The Nikon D300s is far superior in construction and handling, even higher than the Pentax K5 II, so I would wait for his replacement, but I've had enough.Nikon today just sells poor quality plastic for toy photographers, or extremely expensive products for professionals.In the Middle, is a total wasteland.Thanks, but I'll go for the Pentax then.I've had enough of disorientation from Nikon, what a waste
On the other hand, the D800 is a good bet, but not as good as it should. Has a very good overall quality level, but a sensor with so many pixels, it wasn't the best idea they could get from the customer's point of view. Lost slightly on higher ISO for cheaper machines, and lost by having to reduce the number of images per second, far below the ideal. Process images so heavy has its price.Imagine this same machine with an excellent sensor of 24 Mpixel. It would be wonderful. I would say almost perfect.Yeah, so It took sales to a D4 without doubt, and all its higher range. This was one of the reasons to bet on this sensor, the other was throwing the eye to medium format.Still, a very serious product. I'd buy, but its high price and the disadvantages of so many pixels, no thank you.But the D800 is at the high level of the best on Nikon. Honestly, today in a ratio quality/products, I would say that in 12 products DSLR, Nikon has only 2 or 3 choices. But all at a very high price.
The D600 is clearly a lost bet, Nikon never will recover the investment made in this model.Low quality plastic, assembly at the level of a $600 model, inaccuracy in the use of the machine, all very amateurish despite their high price. The use of this D600 is not anything better than with a D7000. Yes, it has better image, but this is far from enough for the price. A disaster, although the idea of being able to access an FX sensor at lowest price to be good. But not in this way. Give up this, make a product that sells, this doesn't matter anymore.
Pentax K-5II for me.Yes, it's just an APS-C, but it is a product made with care and quality. Exceeds the Nikon D7000 in everything, is better than the D600 in build quality, ergonomics and handling, autofocus, and only slightly lower in image quality, at a price that is nearly half.Best buy yes.
saiko: Why Nikon is not talking about the dust issue at all?! Should we buy D600 or wait?
I will wait no longer. Exclusively for errors of Nikon brand, this model is a technical and commercial failure.A bet that is going to blur and fade quietly from the market.I'll wait for a new machine, but Nikon, do not delay so much ...
Backstage: Years ago I choose Nikon because the handgrip was perfect for my hands. Now I choose not to buy the D600 as for me the grip was simply unpleasant. I could not imagine myself using it. Sorry Nikon.
The problem with the handgrip is the shape, texture, and size. Perfect match to you, all of them.
FranciscoJG: The positives of this machine are clear and true. And true are the negative aspects mentioned, many sweet and veiled form, for reasons that we all know but do not accept. The truth is that for this price point, "the least good" cannot be forgiven. And to get off the bar, and be forgiven at the level of the low-range segment, which represents a significant improvement over a D7000, the machine has a price value unforgivable. And when you start using, buying good objective becomes evident and more expensive is the initial investment.Thanks, but does not suit me. I can pay less for an APS-C faster and effective enough, or spend more to get the same on FX, and yes, with benefits in image quality. This middle ground, "hybrid", has no sense from an economic point of view. Is a bad investment. We spend a lot, but we have only one machine often slow and indecisive, with weak grip.
It is not a matter of having too much or too little money to buy, you can even take a match and burn your money. It is thinking about alternatives, to spend better what has to spend. Each decide for themselves what they do with what they have. A machine cannot be evaluated by the price only, or image that can produce under certain circumstances, has to be evaluated but by pictures that did not allow be lost, through their effectiveness and comfort in use. This is where this proposal misses, getting close to the machines of own brand at half the price, and very close to the price of other more expensive, but really best on almost everything.