plasnu: Please release lightweight version of Retrospective.
Think Tank DID release a lightweight version of the Retrospective series. It's called the CityWalker series. It uses Cordura and lighter synthetics instead of canvas and adds a real buckle clasp (hidden) for greater closure security. But it's still a messenger bag, and the flap opens the wrong direction for use as a working bag. The SubUrban Disguise series solves that problem, but those bags are small.
I've actually handled one of these bags in my local store - The Turnstyle 5, specifically. I have to say that this is a very nice bag for its intended purpose, which is mostly casual photography, travelling light in an urban environment. I really like its ability to switch-hit - to be either a sling bag or a waist bag with a quick shift of the strap. You wouldn't want to do this with anything bigger than the 10 because the bag would hang out beyond your hips. For a medium body SLR shooter, the 10 is the optimum size.
If you want to carry a lot of personal items, look elsewhere or size up; the interior is flexible enough to dedicate a portion to a thin windshirt or guidebook. The front pocket is just big enough for urban odds and ends.
II've pressed slingbags like the Victorinox Monosling Teardrop into service as a stealth camera bag. This is a far better and far better looking solution, and I'm impressed.
No, ThinkTank didn't pay me for this.
Nismo350Z: It would have been a huge improvement to make it 16mm wider but I suppose that would have taken away some sales of the 16-85mm VR.
Marshim, don't forget that the 16-35 f4 is an FX lens. The new f4 24-120 FX lens is also about $1300. It would make no sense for the f4 16-85 to cost as much, the elements in it aren't as expensive to manufacture. Maybe it'll be a touch more than $1K, but very little more, else no one will buy it.
Seeing as this is a 4-stop VR lens with a metal mount and internal focusing, this sounds like a kit lens for the expected D400 this fall. Although in the past the old 16-85 f3.5-5.6 was bundled with the D300, this leaves room in the lineup for the rumored f4 update to the 16-85 to become the step-up lens for the DX bodies. A constant f4 16-85 will probably retail for around $1000, which is too pricey for a kit lens. However, a $600 18-140 is a reasonable complement to a $1600-$1800 D400. It would be a step-up for the D7100 price wise, but I'm not sure what would be gained by trading up to it. When the old 18-135 came out with the D80, I never made much use of the FLs beyond about 85-100, but longed for a good 16mm. The 18-105 made a lot more sense and in several respects outperformed the 16-135. As a point of reference, this lens is only about $100 less expensive than the present 16-85. If it's optically better than the 18-105, people might opt for it...but i don't know.
So where is the front control dial? Around the shutter? I see a rear control dial and the mode dial, and something around the shutter that looks like one would trip the shutter inadvertently if you used it.
Although the EVF placement and articulation is nice, the 17.5mm eyepoint is bad news for this eyeglass wearer and it's unfortunate that Panny cut corners with a field sequential display.
Other than that, this looks to be a very nice camera and much more friendly to left-eye shooters than Oly's overly-retro EM5. Someone characterized it as Panny's NEX-7, 2 years late...it's more like their NEX-6.
I frankly don't worry that much about the lack of an SD card slot, but my usage pattern may differ from yours. I use a wireless SD card reader/hub from Kensington, which lets me back up all my images directly to a portable HDD, and I can still access those images from the tablet wirelessly at relatively good speed since the HDD looks just like another file directory to the tablet. I don't store a ton of programs, image files, or other media on the tablet itself, keeping the on-board memory reserved for those essential programs and files that I can't keep in outboard storage. At 32GB, I would be quite satisfied with the bang/buck of this tablet in my present usage model.
andix: To this day Lowepro failed to understand that sling bags should be AMBIDEXTROUS.
There isn't in the LowePro line, unless you count the Passport Sling - really a shoulder bag. ThinkTank makes a true ambidextrous sling bag called the Sling-O-Matic (and that looks like a big shoebox - it's not popular), Kata makes the 3N1 series (backpack-sling), Crumpler has the Enthusiast (true ambidexterity), Tamrac makes the Evolution series. There are a lot of ambidextrous slings out there, just not many stylish ones.
Timmbits: Minor physical differences aside, I wonder if someone is going to issue a hack of the D3200 so it also does things that are in the d5200, like bracketing for example, which is purely a software decision - same production cost, but big selling price difference.
The actual fabber for the D3200 sensor may still be in question, but it's definitely not the sensor that went into the D5200/7100. It doesn't appear to be an EXMOR architecture sensor.
RStyga: Lack of AF micro adjustment in a 2013 DSLR model???
In answer to my own question: AF microadjust is provided for the alpha mount lens adaptor, which includes its own PDAF module. If you're using E-mount lenses none is required. But it's not featured on the NEX-3 series - only the higher end bodies. Still, given that the NEX-5 is roughly comparable to the D5200 in the NEX lineup, this is a miserly omission on the part of Nikon; high resolution sensors with PDAF need this function. Many photogs using fast glass will be using this body, not just upgrading point and shooters with only low-end slow glass in their kits.
Why would a mirrorless camera need AF micro adjustment at all? There's no separate optical path for the focus module.
The D3200 uses a Sony manufactured sensor designed by Nikon. It also records RAW only in 12 bit mode, whereas the D5200 and D7100 record in 14 bit. As well as use a Toshiba sensor.
bossa: Does anyone know if the D7100 has Amp Glow problems like the D800?
I've got two D800E's and at ISO6400 things start to get nasty with a pink glow at the bottom of the picture. I'd rather use my K-5 or even my $299 K-01 (no amp glow that I can find) than the D800E in low light.
Now I must remember to take 'darks' for subtraction in PS when I'm in tricky lighting situations and operating at ISO6400+.
This may well be an area where a D400 could pick up the ball.
Someone on the D7100 forum has just reported something that looks like really minor amp glow at the bottom of the picture, but at ISO 25600, unknown exposure duration.So that makes two sensor companies whose products are vulnerable to (most likely) heating effects in the surrounding circuitry: Toshiba, and Saint Sony, creator of the D800 sensor.
driftnomore: look at the high ISOs, it does not fall short off the competition, DPR. you just publish the images in the gallery...look again at those high ISO images... time to upgrade my venerable D90.
We agree more than my statements might imply. For most folks, and that would include myself in many situations, a more convenient to use and carry camera that takes good IQ pictures without a lot of fussing afterwards is the ticket. I have another smaller sensored camera for just that purpose. Certainly the new EPL5 is going to be the camera IQ wise that the Series 1 wasn't. The decision to go DSLR vs. mirrorless is one based on personal needs and in a couple of generations everything will have gone the mirrorless route anyway, and I look forward to that day. DSLRs have long ago reached a plateau in bulk performance by conventional measures. The advances are now more subtle, and more backend or operationally oriented. It's up to us to decide whether they constitute advances with regards to how we photograph. Shoot well, and thanks for the interesting discussion.
If speed is the reason that you want a new camera, then the D7100 is not the D400 that you are looking for. It is primarily for the single-shot photographer, though a lot of birders are doing very well with its limited buffering and burst capablities.
I will say this about D70 shots: you can tell the difference between it and a D90/D7000/D7100. The colors don't block upas much, the consequence of having over 2 stops better DR. I shot with a D80 and a D90. I like the D90's look better. Some like the very punchy D40/D70 look. Notice I didn't say a thing about resolution. Today's sensor are better at capturing fine tonal detail, not just spatial detail. Whether or not anyone using these things for posting to the web cares is another matter, and I'm not buying a camera like this for just posting to the web.
I'm therefore not sure that I agree with you that one inevitably loses in all respects with higher MP. But comparing cameras from different eras confuses the issue.
bob, this may sound like gobbledygook, but increased resolution pays benefits when rendering. Noise in the D7100 is quite well controlled at the pixel level. When you have lots of reasonably clean data to work with in post, you can use it to minimize noise while preserving edge detail. When you render - which for most people means downsizing - you've got more information available to better compute the proper tones to use for the rendered image. If your subject holds reasonably still, you can tripod-mount and fire off a burst of images and then average them together in post to lower noise levels even more while preserving detail. I naturally tend to revert to my film era ways and think in terms of single-shot, low resolution capture capability. With today's digital cameras, I have to consider the added dimension of higher resolution and postprocessing capabilities we could only have dreamed of before Y2K. It's not exactly either/or in the modern era. It's more either/and.
mosswings: Amandou, to follow up on your assertions about the D7100's noise:
Your graphs tell exactly the opposite story, if I understand the noise graphs.
The RAW grey and black noise of the D7100, D7000, and 7D are essesntially identical up to ISO 6400. The chrominance noise of the D7100 is essentially identical to the D7000, and it is the lowest of the APS-C sensors; The A77 is decidedly noisier in all respects.
Unless pattern noise in the D7100 is quite high, how can you square your comments with your own assertions? It appears that you read the graphs backward...or I did.
Amadou, thank you for correcting your comments. They now fairly reflect the samples and graph data, and show the D7100 remaining amongst if not at the top of its class. As _sem_ notes, there are still issues of sensor robustness that you've touched on in your comments about shadow pattern noise, but they are very low. Streaking, however is a different and new phenomenon to D7000 owners, also quite low in effect, but geometry dependent. That you felt it not worth commenting on is a good indicator for the "real-world" photographer.
The Noise page comments have been changed to reflect the data. The D7100 is actually no worse than its lower resolution competition, and in fact the only camera in the comparison that is better is the FF D600. It is also no worse than the D7000 and in fact slightly better at the highest ISOs.
Amandou, to follow up on your assertions about the D7100's noise:
Amadou, this on the noise page is interesting:
"The D7100 displays noise levels that place it near the bottom of its APS-C competition."
This appears to mean the competing Canon and Sony, but then there's the D600, which is only one of the possible Nikon competitors. A big question in the minds of many D7000 upgraders is, "is it worse than the D7000?". Using the comparator, I can't really tell much difference between the D7000 and D7100 once resolution differences are taken into account.
Does your statement above imply that, in light of the comparometer results, the D7000 would ALSO place near the bottom of its APS-C competition?
I have a hard time believing that. The Toshiba sensor does exhibit higher pattern noise than the Sony EXMORs sensors that make up most of Nikon's pro line, but the pictures don't quite match DPR's words.
nikos theodosiou: I returned my D7100 already!I ordered it from Amazon but after using it I found that the buffer locks up using continues shooting.My D7000 performed much better in this area!In fact with Nikon cash back you can get a D7000 for £500 half the price of the D7100!!Agreed the extra resolution of the D7100 is nice but its not worth twice the price!Overall I was disappointed with the 7100..
Nikos, did you use the same card in your D7100 tests as you use in your D7000? How fast was this card? If it was anything less than a 95MB/sec card, you will not see the full buffer depth of the D7100. Even a 45MB/sec card reduces the effective buffer depth for continuous shooting by almost 20%. Check the results in this DPR thread:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51110221However, you're not giving up anything important by staying with your D7000 unless the better AF is critical to your work.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review