mckracken88: that said, the RAW noise is a bit better than the D600 - a camera that costs 2x times as much.
Yeah, not so much.
MikePursey: Quote: The battery door has a tendency to open during normal operation. Taping it shut when working in wet conditions might be prudent ....
I have to say I have had the K-7 (same body as the K-5/K-5II/K-5IIs), the K-5 MKI and now the K-5II and have taken thousands of shots with each camera. The only time the battery door has opened is when I was changing the battery, not once has it done it otherwise.
mark25: sadly, another camera review with horrible sample photos... i'm afraid no one pays attention to the samples anymore here on dpreview.com... back in the day, when most reviews were done by Phil Askey, the samples were so much better in terms of content and composition...
Actually, Phils reviews were never known for artistic shooting. Workman and useful come to mind. Todays images have more than enough useful information to make a informed purchasing descision, as well as some good shots.
sdribetahi: Anyone else chuckle when they mention that by the time the review is out, the price has now dropped by 33%, which now makes it a great deal! I guess we Pentax users can look at this as a positive, as those unfortunate Canikons that get reviewed the week the things hit store shelves get reviewed at their launch price.
It is a great deal. Whats unfortunate is that it is marketed so poorly that the price has dropped to a point where there cannot be much profit in it for Pentax. I've always like Pentax cameras, a shooters camera and incredible build at the price point. Unfortunately, Pentax can't sell them.
G1Houston: Most camera manufacturers include a RAW editor and/or converter with their cameras. Some of these bundled and FREE software, such as the Olympus View, is quite comprehensive. It seems that in the best interest of the consumers, it is more important to evaluate whether these free converters can do a very good job on the RAW files generated by the cameras with which they intend to work. It seems a big waste of money not to use these free softwares and spend hundreds of dollars buying these other programs that may not work well with one or more RAW formats.
ViewNX2, convert tab, select output as jpg or 8 or 16 bit tif.
Howaboutraw your wrong, View NX comes with every Nikon DSLR on CD. And it is fully capable of extraction as jpg or TIF, 8 or 16 bit. Of course it can print. And its a pretty strong program for a freebie, and does a fine job on conversion. And why would Nikon put the ability to edit canon files in its software?
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.
Amadou, So with the D7100 and fast cards, you can basically shoot 2.7 fps with a full buffer? Isn't that pretty quick buffer clearing for a 24 mps camera and doesnt that mitigate the small buffer complaints abit? I do miss the burst sound recordings DPR used to offer.
ProfHankD: Interesting. Go to the studio scene comparison tool. Add the NEX-7. Compare. Up to ISO 6400, the NEX-7 (out since 2011) clearly wins on both raw and JPEG. Above, the D7100 may be a bit better, although both look nasty and the NEX-7 seems to have both more noise and more detail.
Here's the point: the NEX-7 raw and JPEG image quality scores in the summary at the end of the review are POORER than those of the D7100! Huh?
Not even close. At 1600 in raw the 7100 is a least half a stop cleaner.
dharma108: Hmmm...a gold award for a $1200 DLSR that shooters of sports/action and/or wild life--as in birds of flight, etc--can not realistically shoot in raw mode because of the buffer limitations?
Something does not compute for me here. The buffer limitations is a total deal breaker for me. Should it now be known that the 7100 is just for still photography?
A bigger buffer would be nice but the D7100 has fast enough processing power to shoot 2.7 fps buffer full. That's quick. So is 3.5 fps in 1.3 crop mode. My type of shooting would not be handicapped by the buffer I think. After seeing some images being shown on the forum, I think this is a great camera for birders and wildlife shooters, especially with the improved Af module.
Buffer is too small, otherwise a great camera and a nice review. Still, the D7100 has fast enough processing power to shoot 2.7 fps buffer full. That's quick. So is 3.5 fps in 1.3 crop mode. My type of shooting would not be handicapped by the buffer I think. After seeing some images being shown on the forum, I think this is a great camera for birders and wildlife shooters, especially with the improved Af module.
Kabe Luna: Nearly double the cost of the outgoing lens? Fantasy pricing for this slow lens - unless, that is, build and optical quality are beyond reproach. We'll have to see.
Lets wait and see what Canon charges when they upgrade their version, probably soon.
R Thornton: Nikon have gone completely mad! Defiantly doing too little too late and trying to cover it up by charging ridiculuous sums while balancing on the verge of the abysss - this can only end in one way. After 40 years with Nikon, I bought Canon 5 D Mk III last year. I've kept my Nikons but with every further step they take they pressure me to consider selling all my Nikon stuff and say farewell! How much more stupid can this get?
Well, they can't get much more stupid than your post.
chillgreg: Come on Richard, admit the truth. You guys get a massive kick from the inevitable comments from a(nother) fail Nikon. I bet you're all in the boardroom right now with a live comments stream on the projector! ;)
It won't fail, the fact it says nikon on it means it will sell. And well outsell any other brand single similar camera, it fails here, because this is where the geeks live.
World Traveller: On paper, the D7100 looks an improvement but... 24MP needs good DX lenses. Nikon: Where are they?
The super zooms will struggle (18-200 & 18-300) with this resolution as it will show up their softness.
DX users dont want to carry the weight of FX telephotos or Zooms...
DX is the biggest market for Nikon. Make some decent DX lenses... Please!
And if Nikon don't listen, Tokina, Sigma, Tamron... up your quality for the DX ranges please. Higher resolution needs sharper and faster lenses. Small apertures will show up diffraction more too...
And finally... while the D7100 looks ok on paper, the D300 was one of Nikon's great success stories. Where is the D400 - with higher fps, buffer etc... There are pro and serious enthusiasts who will pay for a higher performance DX...
Plenty of FF lens that are available. I wouldnt spend a lot of money on DX, they can't be used on a FF. Kinda like paying 1300 for a 17-55 that you sell for a loss when you go FF. Better off buying FF primes, and nikon makes some pretty damn good midrange zooms for dx. Oh, and BTW, the 70-200 f4 is lighter than the 24-70, does not need a tripod collar, I was glad to see it optional.
sunkenbranch: Where is the monitor cover!! I think they eliminated that. Make the LCD bigger and not protect it. Brilliant.
The newer nikon higher end cameras have a different glass, like Gorilla glass, much more impervious to scratches.
keepreal: Those of us who say that the D7100 is not the legitimate successor to the D300s might be interested to learn that according to Businessweek Feb 7 Nikon are having financial problems. This might also have a bearing in problems with the D600 and lead to other quality issues. Let's hope not.
"Nikon Corp., Japan’s third-biggest camera-maker, plunged the most since 1985 in Tokyo trading after cutting its profit forecast because of slowing demand in Europe and falling prices.
The company dropped 19 percent to 2,139 yen at the close. That was the biggest decline among the 225 members of the Nikkei 225 Stock Average."
They missed their forcast and took the market by surprise. They also reported 450 million in profits that were higher than all the other Mfg. camera divisions combined excepting Canon. In fact only Canon and Nikon are proffitable. it's a horrible market for high end electronics right now with a very anemic world wide economic recovery.
bigeds1977: I love that one of the new features to make it more useful is a 1.3 crop mode to offer greater coverage on the sensor with the af array. I think mft users have enjoyed this for awhile lol.
It increases the fram rate and places the AF points edge to edge.
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.
No Frank, you just like slamming Nikon, looking at your numerous negative posts.
Marksphoto: I can do the same quality with my old Nikon D50. The new sensor may impress at low ISO shots but daylight shots look all the same.
Where are the high ISO samples? and why hasn't the quality changed much since 10 years ago. Looks good on paper but we need real dynamic range improvements now, stop waisting our time on pixel count and insignificant improvements Nikon and Canon.
I guess speed and ruggedness makes up for image quality improvements but for the real photographers D7000 is still the king.
Where to start? So many misstatements. Ehhh, never mind, just not worth it.
keepreal: Why are such galleries almost always such a joke? I think it is because the providers are far too lazy to do the job properly. Unfortunately, that also includes DP Review.
The pictures in the Nikon 6-image sample gallery have to be the worst selection I have ever seen. Usually the selection DP Review provides is pretty poor too but this is a new low, so much so I have not even bothered to download the full size images to take a closer look.
One needs a good amount of detail and colour to judge sharpness, distortion and chromatic aberrations right into the corners and at a typical distance one might use for taking real pictures.
DP Review uses a standard indoors setup but but why, oh why show a closeup of a coin in which the colours are limited and the sharpness of the minted coin original so inadequate to judge by?
Their out of doors shots from one review to another are never the same, so making a judgement about the results is always a case of comparing apples and oranges.
These are Nikon images, linked to a Nikon page, Dpreview has not shot with it. That seems pretty obvious. And for first images, they are fine, and show case the detail and sharpness nicely, which is what they were trying to do. There will be plenty more, and soon.Nikon hasn't had a camera with crappy IQ in years, pretty sure this one won't.