Just Posted: Nikon D7100 Hands-On Preview

They're not experts.....they call themselves PROs.

I think what Canon's doing is very calculated. Canon just wants to repackage their cameras with updates and bank on existing loyal users throwing their hard earned money in Canon's pockets while brands like Sony, Fuji, Nikon, and others, are trying to innovate and be disruptive to the market; which is great for us photographers!

Actually they are not. When a person is afflicted with mental BO such as yourself, everything you see is filtered through that haze of hopelessness and lack of clarity.

Aren't all DSLR's ugly?

Good thing I'm not planning on marrying it. I only using it to take photographs.

@JDThomas
See that's where the whole "beauty is in the eye thing" comes from. I find this camera and others, like the 5D3, to be extremely good looking cameras.

But yes, I'm already married. And my wife does get a bit perturbed when I go out early in the AM with my camera. I guess she sees the way I look at it...

To me the Leica M9 and Fuji X-Pro 1 are examples of nice camera design.

In any case, I don't see the D7100 being any uglier than the D1 or any Nikon DSLR that came thereafter.

I'd like to see more fast DX primes and UWA zooms similar to the 11-16 2.8 Tokina, but to say that Nikon hasn't offered some great DX lenses or that the current DX lenses aren't won't be splendid on a 24 mp sensor is a bit of a stretch.

10.5 Fisheye, 10-24, 12-24, 16-85 VR, 17-55 2.8, 35 1.8, 40 2.8, 85 3.5, et al are more than up to the task.

These lenses combined with excellent FF lenses like the 28-50-85 1.8G, the 70-200 f2.8 and f4 VR, AND all the F mount lenses from Tamron, Sigma, Tokina and Zeiss, make for a pretty complete kit.

Some fast DX primes and UWAs and perhaps a couple of constant f2.8 standard and tele zooms would be great. But Nikon DX shooters really do have more choices than pretty much any other mount with the possible exception EF mount.

Personally I'd rather stick with a combination of FF and DX lenses rather than all DX glass as then upgrading to FF won't mean selling ALL your lenses and starting over.

The 7D II is going to sell for $2199 so...

The DX zoom range is covered perfectly:
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8
Tokina 50-135 f/2.8
Nikon 70-200 f/4

The primes are lacking in the 16-24mm range, but 35-50-85mm is covered perfectly.

Nikon has been holding back on DX lenses in order to push the D800 and D600 sales. This is also why the D7100 and D400 are kept as such a secret. But with Olympus and Fuji pushing the wide angle primes, I hope Nikon will be forced to finally release that 24mm f/1.8 DX prime, or even an 18mm f/1.8 DX prime!!

Let's see, you don't want the D7100 because it's not a D400. You don't like Nikon's DX line of lenses and you don't want to carry heavier FX lenses. You don't like the quality of third party lenses.

It seems like you should probably wait for about 10 years and then everything will have caught up to your expectations.

Nikon has plenty of GOOD DX lenses. I think what you want is good and CHEAP DX lenses.

Haha. OK. So you want Nikon to start making f/1.8 zooms?

I guess instead of sitting around complaining about what Nikon DOESN'T have I just use whatever they DO have and I make photos. And they're sharp. Because I understand that if you want quality glass you have to make concessions on size and weight.

You want a small, fast, long bird lens? Try a 300mm f/4. 600mm on the new D7100 with crop. Sharp as a tack.

If you all make a donation I'll get the camera and do the donkey work. No problemo....

rallyfan - yet for some reason you think your gripes matter? Seems to me you have the same issues with Nikon that the rest of us do...

Last time I saw a Pentax... oh wait, I see them everyday, they're absolutely everywhere and I see couples both dangling a body around their neck and enthusiasts carrying around extra gear with them to events. And plenty of Pentax film camera users too. Maybe I go out and about too much then?

@Nishi really? Sounds delusional to me.

Canon can do inventory management and QA. Canon knows how to do settings banks and where to put buttons. Canon understands video. Canon makes it clear which of its lenses are "pro". Canon makes its own sensors (sadly their sensors are now a generation behind Sony's). Canon also seems to be willing to put a cool feature like GPS in a lower end camera (the 6D) without fear of cannibalizing higher end bodies. All not true of Nikon (except maybe for making its own sensors).

Nikon knows where to put dials. Nikon uses better sensors (mostly Sony right now).

@Tonio Loewald

Of course Canon is fearful of cannibalizing it's high end. That is exactly what they did with the 6D which is a text book example of protecting the high end. With the D600 we saw the opposite from Nikon.

As far as understanding video, there could not possibly be a better example of Canon protecting the high end of the C100, C300, 1DC, than the 5D III and 6D. How's that uncompressed HDMI on the 5D III or headphone jack on the 6D working out?

It's not a design flaw, it's just not the camera that you want. So tired of people saying the camera is flawed just because it doesn't fit their need. Nikon has other cameras with deeper buffers, higher frame rates, better options, higher resolution, more accessories, larger sensors, smaller sizes, less expensive. You have the choice. Pick the right tool.

Meanwhile, a SIGMA SD15, all clunky as it can be, giving prints as cool as D700, can hold 21 RAW in his buffer at 5 fps. How old is the SD15 ??

Abraxx is right, you, brown nozors !!

Nikon blatantly say : THIS IS THE SUCCESSOR of the D300, this is professional ... No it is not. Even today, buying a D300s isn't a non sense so keep your morality lessons for some noobs.

So yes, it is a good body with good features but the BUFFER is something extremely important for this type of camera (especially because it is labelled as "D300s successor"). Not every body can afford a D4 and, in Nikon New camera, the D4 is now the only sport body and this is bad, compared to 2008 ...

Nikon has said no such thing. In fact someone from Nikon Europe categorically stated this was not the replacement for the D300S.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50901841

Probably posted that to stop people from floodng his inbox crying about their "missing D400".

Yea !! Every were on Nikon site they compare it to the D300s ...
Loony marketing ...

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/features03.htm

If you are an enthusiasts and pros who used to use Hasselblad or other similar cameras, using an articulated screen to compose your shots would be a second nature. Articulated screen is also important for video shooting.

Look at cameras with an articulated screen. The number of physical buttons has to be reduced to accommodate the hinges and the buttons that are left have to be clustered on the right side of the camera. such an awkward control layout is the last thing you want on a pro/enthusiast camera.

AS far as video go's most people are using 5DIIs for that and have no trouble with the fixed screen.

Articulated weather resistant screens really bump up the price due to the more complex sealing needed. Add another £200 in all honesty on a feature that pro's/enthusiast wouldn't put at the top of a feature list.

@Abraxx the Canon 6D is a full frame camera that costs all most twice as much as D7100.

I am just glad Sony has articulating screens in varying degrees in all its DSLRs. Sony has gotten way too many things wrong in recent years but IMO the articulating screens just isn't one of them.

Using a viewfinder exclusively is an archaic and old way of composing. Using the screen at different angles opens so many different compositions that would be difficult to practically impossible without an articulating screen.

I am glad Sony didn't remove the articulating screen from the A99 FF camera which makes it the only FF camera in the world to have a fully articulating screen.

"AS far as video go's most people are using 5DIIs for that and have no trouble with the fixed screen."

Right, because they're using external displays, if not then they work around and not shoot in a way that would require odd angles in which an articulating screen would be very VERY useful. The 5Ds have been used because of it's awesome recording capabilities (back then) while I see more 60D users solely for the screen.

I'm an enthusiast/pro who loves DSLR and mirrorless cameras with articulating LCDs. There are so many great uses that I have to wonder if those who are so quick to dismiss the feature have ever tried it. And I'm talking about still photography. The utility for video shooting should be obvious to anyone.

But small numbers don't sell as much as big ones. Plus, if you read reviews and forum comments, most people are still under the illusion that more pixels give you a better picture. It doesn't, it gives you a bigger one. But while people continue to believe that having 10 more MPs or focus points is going to radically improve their photo's manufacturers won't disappoint.

Having 24mp is pointless on a DX camera because diffraction means you can't use too small apertures, so if you do a lot of landscapes you may as well buy a D7000 and be done with it. They are going cheap at the moment, which is the main advantage of upgrade mania.

@J2Gphoto wrote "The D7000 was hardly perfect. In fact I've read more posts about people dumping them for the micro camera's than any other camera or brand."

Enthusiast/amateurs "dump" larger DSLRs all the time for smaller cameras. Some even buy P&S like the RX100 or small MILCs like the Nikon 1. But that has nothing to do with the D7000 as a camera or it's performance. When it was released the D7000 (along with the K5) set the standard for IQ in an APS-C camera that few cameras have matched even to this day. m43 or NEX style cameras may be smaller, but they aren't better performers and they certainly aren't appropriate for subjects that require AF tracking.

The trend is higher MP sensors which give you more flexibility with better options for cropping. Computers todays are more than capable of processing even the largest RAW file from these cameras so there are no down sides unless you need extremely high fps which I'm guessing most enthusiasts do not.

I'm with you on the megapixel thing. I'm starting to shoot my GH2 more at 8 megapixels than I do at 16. It doesn't make a difference, even when I pixel-peep on the computer. I'm sure I could find a difference between 8 and 16 megapixel images if I did a scientific test and compared every single parameter, but the fact that I would have to do that means, in effect, that there is no difference.

It's interesting how the manufacturers are grasping at straws to distinguish their cameras. It's the result of all the manufacturers doing a good job; the results between cameras are largely indistinguishable. And of course, dpreview, who is in the business of selling cameras, reports these "improvements" in a tone that can only be described as breathless.

Give me a break.

Yes, I've done that experiment. Actually depressing at first as I thought getting a bigger MP camera would be like going from 35mm to medium format, sadly it isn't so as they really are the same.

The good news is you can shoot at a smaller size and save room on your hard drive keeping the high MP count for when you get a job shooting billboards ;-)

Yes you are, back in the days fewer megapixels meant better high-iso performance. These days, due to better signal processing and algorithms, that is no longer the case. Moreover, higher megapixels means cleaner colors and better dynamic range in daylight. So as long as files dont get too large it is all good. Particularly if you want to do medium level post processing (rotations++). And may I remind you that screen are getting uprezzed these days. 4k (8 mp) and 8k (36 mp) is not that far off. it also really helps on flexibility if you can crop for example full frame to descent APS-C or more.

Canon 650D uses the same sensor as 550D, the same 18 mpx, but it doesn't give much better DR or noise compared to 550D..
D600 is 24mpx but it is better in term of DR and noise compared to D700.. ( At least based on DXOmark, I never used D700 so I can't comment much )
D800 is 36mpx and it is better than D600..
So 'why not the same sensor and master it' argument not really valid.. And bigger is worse is also not valid..
I personally don't need high mpx count too.. But technology always move forward, so I choose to go with it and enjoy it :D

I didn't believe in the 24 MP of this camera at first, but that was before I saw the photos.

There's a certain point to high MP in that you should in a perfect world never be limited by the resolution, so if this D7100 only makes use of the full 24 MP resolution at ISO 400 or below + great lenses + f/5,6 and larger apertures due to diffraction... Well, then that's good enough to me, because there would then be plenty of circumstances where the full 24 MP would be usable, and the MP count would never be a limit.

I think this depends on how you look at it. Sure, 10 MP would probably be fine for most uses and look great even at ISO 1600 as well as hiding diffraction effects at f/11, BUT... You'd waste a ton of resolution in cases where you didn't shoot under such poor scenarios.

Actually - you guys clearly have not done your homework on Thom Hogan.

1. Of all the bloggers out there - Ken Rockwell, LLoyd Chambers etc. Thom has for a long time been the best at giving real solid advice for people who actually appreciate photography.

2. I believe his iq is pretty up there and - I dare you to check into his career history and see what he has done in the computer/photography industry

3. he has done legit solid homework for years and knows Nikon better than Nikon knows Nikon.

If Nikon cared as much about making the best product and doing whats best for the customer as they should, the finances they worry too much about would follow.

A man who usually starts a sentence with: "as I predicted, back at the dawn of time". He then continues to explain why a non Nikon product is average at best and that if the said company had done things his way (as predicted by him) they would have avoided these problems and could even be mentioned in the same breath as the mighty Nikon.

@olypan
True. Everything he writes is dripping with an attitude of arrogant superiority. As if he is the final authority on what Nikon and other camera manufactures should do and on what cameras/features people should want.

A little begrudging going on? I actually find his opinions and insights helpful.

The vitriol on this site from nerdy fanboys who hide behind a keyboard and spew hatred is unbelievable.

Ah the internet age. Everyone's got a say, even those who've got nothing to say.

I don't know! Someone at Nikon seems to have done/said something really mean to him. He used to be an ok guy...but lately he's become nothing more than a whiner. Sad really.

Thom Hogan has marketing experience which, in fact, does matter (not sure it helps anyone take a better photo, though). He's also quite a good photographer which should count for something.
But sometimes I get tired of reading Thom's statistics and just want to read stuff that has no basis in fact, I turn to Ken Rockwell. But his Nikon worshipping has been waning lately, too.

@Daakku. I hadn't looked at his site in about 6 months. Seems you are right. But then again I agree with a lot of his frustrations with Nikon.

I'm a Nikon user and have a love/hate relation with them. I'll sometimes seethe with rage at Nikon's decisions.

Why did the D700 only have a 95% viewfinder? That was a deal breaker for me.
Why change the battery grip from one camera body to another?
Why did Nikon take so long to deliver FX?
Why the low buffer rate in the D7100?
What the hell was the gimicky 1 series?
Why no AF on button in the D600 and D7000?
Why change the C-S-M autofocus button on the D600 when everyone's used that?
Where's Nikon's answer to MFT?

I could go on and on. I guess if I was heavily invested in any other brand I'd think the same. But yes, Nikon really really ticks me off sometimes for the above reasons.

He's an expert of vanity, issuing memos to Nikon once in a while. He wil never be as good a photographer as Mansurov, much more McNally. And doesn't have the expertise of Nikon cameras that Rorslett possess.

Nikon's always going to have its own lens lines and mounts.

If you like MFT, I suggest going for it. I have a Micro Four Thirds system that's a great compact complement to my Nikon FX system. I'm moving from my "retro-ish" E-M5 to the Panasonic GH3 however to get better handling and direct controls. The GH3 is as big as a compact DX body, but the lenses are where the real size and weight advantage comes with MFT.

"There's no way Nikon would do that. Why would Nikon support a competing system?"

Because sometimes (rarely I guess) ethical companies do what is best for all and the cause in a spirit of cooperation instead of competition.

Hmm, Oly is an "ethical" company?

Are you kidding me? With the short term thinking and idiocy of Nikon there's no way they'd do that.

But all to their own detriment. If they did create an MFT with the same lens mount as Oly and Pan, they could easily capitalize on that growing market with their name brand. I'm sure many who are invested in Nikon would stay with them.

You know you don't have to buy one, There are plenty of Improvements

If you want groundbreaking from Nikon, go buy a Nikon 1 series camera. If you want a fairly significant improvement to an already great product, buy any new Nikon DSLR.

And 51pt AF, much better video, a new 1.3x crop in RAW that makes AF points fill the frame, etc.

joejack951, I actually bought a V1 mostly for my wife to use it as a point-and-shot instead of her iphone.

I did so when it hit the right price of $299 - that is, at a 67% discount from the original release price.

And even at $299 seems a little expensive.

"Nikon D800 and D600 are not selling as well as Canon 5D3 and 6D despite all their acclaim."

Source of this information?

A Canon fanboy... reading a Nikon product launch

I'm sure Nikon does not care about Thom Hogan in the least....I know I don't. As to sales, I can make stuff up as well....see...the D800 outsells all Canon DSLRs put together.

You can check out Amazon charts:
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941/ref=zg_bs_nav_p_1_p

As of 22-Feb:
#8 6D kit
#10 5D3 body only
#11 6D body only
#17 D800 body only
#21 D600 body only
#22 5D3 kit
#32 5D2 kit
#38 5D2 body only
6D, 5D2 and 5D3 have been outselling D800, D600 for the last couple of months.

You may review the chart for the next 6 months...

Nikon has a tendency to sell in high volume for the first couple of months after product launch. After a while, their sales start to dwindle while equivalent Canon products pick up and stay that way until they are replaced. It's been that way for D300 vs 7D, D700 vs 5D2 etc etc etc

For 6 months after the D800 and the D600 were launched they were in the top 10. Thi sis ridiculous. Both companies are selling very well.

D300 vs 7D? Check the dates those cameras were released, they never competed head to head in the same period.

LOL as if amazon best seller lists, what are marketing tools and probably heavily manipulated, mean anything. There are many more places to buy cameras than Amazon. Even a 100% up to the second accurate best seller list from one retailer means absolutely jack as far as total sales go.

> the filter is not required.

for not very good lenses.

Surprisingly, the Nikon 1 S1 and J3 don't have an OLPF either, and they're at the bottom of the ILC market.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/bodies/j3/features01.htm

sorry, but your market analysis is plan wrong

After owning the D800E, I can't imagine buying a camera with a filter. The moiré fear that people put in our heads is crap. I have shot over 12,000 images so far and never came accross it or atleast i noticed it. Because this body has no low pass filter, its on my list as a second body. I can see some people who don't own this camera would say that.. I know all my friends thought I was crazy.

Nah, in comment sections such as this, some people are just whiny:-).

sorry but it is a myth that smaller photo sites have more DR and better low-light performance.

I meant larger photo sites

Just how much incorrect info are you trying to cram into one short post?

The larger the photosite akin to having a bigger bucket to catch light-in. The bigger the bucket the more lights levels (DR) you can catch before it clips.

Reilly could you please elaborate?

Mike how about zooms?

If you have more smaller photo sites you can gather the same or more light as you can with fewer larger photo sites covering the same area.

OK, then why does the D800, with a small pixel pitch of 4.88 um has more DR than pretty much any camera available?

This argument might have made sense a couple of years ago, it doesn't ring true now. Just look at the numbers instead of the half baked theory.

Pro photographers don't compete against 1905. Pro photographers compete against other current photographers that have high-speed cameras.

Your editor is going to hire the guy that gets the shot, and the guy with the high-speed camera is going to get the shot more often than the guy with the low-speed camera.

Only amateur noob photographers think in terms of "art".

You mean Joe Cornish. Of course is just a noob photographer. That east-end boy David Bailey, he is such a noob. Steve McCurry he is a big noob. Nick Brandt a noob amongst noobs. Mister vFunct you are a big time photograher. Can we look at some of your work please?

Who pi55ed on Rockwell's chips?

as an ex D7000 user, i think D7100 is quite an upgrade..
AF Points, no OLPF, headphone monitoring for video and better screen.. i think the screen is the same with the one on D600 and i find that it is better than D7000's screen...
but everyone have different thought :)

What's a Ken Rockwell? ;)

That's his MO. He makes the dumbest, most inaccurate statements about a product to get page views. It's all in his business plan. I wish people would just ignore this joker. It's pretty low to purposely give out bad info to others, solely for personal gain.

Ken Rockwell is an idiot.

A joker, yes. Idiot? no, he says more truth about cameras than the pixel peeping, spec nerds on here will ever be able to admit. Pixels don't matter, image quality hasn't improved in five years, camera manufacturers like bigger numbers because they make people think they will get better pictures etc.

Bitter pills to swallow but camera makers have an agenda and a business plan and that means trying to persuade you that this years extra 10 focus points are going to somehow make a difference to your life. Truth is no-one notices a bit of shadow noise on a good photo but no amount of clean shadows can save a crap one.

None of which will stop me buying a D7100 though as I like the handling features and the lack of an OLPF sounds interesting, even DPR said it improved all the jpegs of the 800e.

Ken is master of contradiction he judges de camera at the start of the article then he ends

"The D7100 is so new that no one's seen a production model yet. Seeing how the D7000 is the best DX camera Nikon's ever made (I own one myself), I'll presume that the D7100 is more of the same great thing."

So basically you can dump the rest

The guy is getting dopier by the week.

Just because Sony have used Toshiba equipment to increase their manufacturing capability, it doesn't mean that Toshiba's own sensors are designed by Sony. That's a flawed logic.

Chipworks reported that the Toshiba sensor in D5200 did not share the same design/architecture as the Sony 24 MP sensor. In other words, this isn't just the same sensor, only manufactured by Toshiba. It's a different sensor with different technology, and there's no reason to think that Sony designed this one too.

Why must every great sensor be made by Sony? They aren't the only company with semiconductor expertise.