Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Nikon D7100 Hands-On Preview

By dpreview staff on Feb 21, 2013 at 04:01 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $1,146.9515 deals

Just Posted: We've had a chance to get our hands on the Nikon D7100 - the company's latest mid-range DSLR. The D7100 looks a lot like the popular D7000 but has been completely overhauled internally. Central to its feature set is a 24MP CMOS sensor with no optical low-pass filter, promising high resolution captures. It also gains a 51-point autofocus system and 1.3x crop mode for both stills and video capture, amongst other upgrades. Click the links below to find out what we thought in our 5-page hands-on preview.

946
I own it
282
I want it
75
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 315
12
andrewcl82
By andrewcl82 (Mar 27, 2013)

Hi, but a17-55 in dx mode like 25-82. In crop mode???

0 upvotes
hlwimmer
By hlwimmer (Mar 20, 2013)

received mine a few hours ago... first impressions are that the build quality is on par with my old D7000 (which was/is quite nice) but the uptick in resolution is quite significant/noticeable — going from 16 to 24 with no OLPF produces amazing results. however, since the RAW converter is not out yet (adobe), i've yet to be able to compare RAW to RAW in photoshop or lightroom.

0 upvotes
hlwimmer
By hlwimmer (Mar 20, 2013)

for pixel peepers, i was able to squeeze out some shots before the sun went down:

http://www.hlwimmer.com/7100/DSC_0010.JPG
http://www.hlwimmer.com/7100/DSC_0011.JPG

0 upvotes
zaakirabdullah
By zaakirabdullah (Mar 5, 2013)

Buffer still sucks. Canon 7D is 8-FPS in RAW for 25 frames. No end in sight using fine jpeg.

1 upvote
driftnomore
By driftnomore (Mar 8, 2013)

buy d the canon 7d if that's your style of photographing images....

1 upvote
Falconest174
By Falconest174 (Mar 2, 2013)

Just added this to my wish list. Will gladly wait for a review or a preview with some actual shots from a production model. <Drool> Of course my present D7K still is working fine but I like the thought of 50% more resolution. More detail is always better.

1 upvote
mbrobich
By mbrobich (Mar 3, 2013)

Agreed. I do lots of landscapes and lots of birding !

0 upvotes
Nikonhead
By Nikonhead (Mar 1, 2013)

Just think of the 1.3 crop mode as shooting with a 4/3rd's camera.

0 upvotes
David Kinston
By David Kinston (Feb 26, 2013)

At first glance I was excited by the 'new 1.3 crop mode'. How disappointing that it turned out to be 1.5x1.3 = 1.95 crop mode!

1 upvote
mbrobich
By mbrobich (Feb 27, 2013)

Well it always was a crop sized sensor. APS-C.

If you are using DX lenses, it's still only a 1.3 crop. If you are using FX lenses then like u said, 1.5x1.3.

0 upvotes
David Kinston
By David Kinston (Feb 28, 2013)

Well, not exactly. A DX 50mm lens (say) covers an area/angle equiv to a 75mm FL lens (on Nikon). I think most people think of the 'crop factor' in terms of FL increase - which is what counts when taking photos - even tho' technically it refers to the area covered by the smaller sensor.

0 upvotes
mbrobich
By mbrobich (Feb 28, 2013)

I don't know of any DX only 50mm lenses. They came out with the 35mm DX lens to make the FOV similar to the 50mm on FX. Focal length on your 50mm is still just that. 50mm.

If you take away the history of FX sensors, then the 1.3 crop on this camera is still only that. An extra 1.3 crop.

Field of View is what is important in this case.

0 upvotes
andrewcl82
By andrewcl82 (Mar 27, 2013)

then 17-55 2,8 nikon becomes 34-110?

0 upvotes
mbrobich
By mbrobich (Feb 26, 2013)

There should be a D400. According to Nikon Europe, they have been told that "..the D7100 is not the D300(s)'s replacement.."

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/02/24/nikon-europe-the-d7100-is-not-positioned-to-replace-the-d300s.aspx/

This should keep the D300 crybabies happy...

1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Mar 1, 2013)

According to my Nikon rep the D7100 IS the D300s replacement. I asked her flat out today.

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Feb 24, 2013)

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.

See http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-06/nikon-plunges-most-since-1985-after-forecast-cut-tokyo-mover

"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."

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Feb 25, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (Feb 25, 2013)

It's about time with the incredibly high profit margins and large volume of sales digital cameras brought for the camera manufacturers.

So maybe now they can focus on some fundamentals instead of simply chasing higher profit margins.

How about instead of the absolutely useless and morally repugnant practice of putting out a new P&S every 6 months, they start putting their money into better prime lenses, or a MF rangefinder style camera, or a truly useful mirrorless, or quality, metal lenses like the old MF lenses of old, or a non-dumbed down SLR body with an interchangeable sensor.

This deliberate business practice of controlled obsolescence has finally come back to bite them in the ass.

0 upvotes
sunkenbranch
By sunkenbranch (Feb 24, 2013)

Where is the monitor cover!! I think they eliminated that. Make the LCD bigger and not protect it. Brilliant.

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Feb 24, 2013)

Sorry - my entry below the next entry was intended to be a reply to this!

0 upvotes
Mike Griffin
By Mike Griffin (Feb 25, 2013)

The best monitor protectors are the GGS ones that you buy on eBay. Forget the Nikon supplied ones.

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Feb 25, 2013)

The newer nikon higher end cameras have a different glass, like Gorilla glass, much more impervious to scratches.

0 upvotes
fireplace33
By fireplace33 (Feb 26, 2013)

Reminds me of people who would buy a new car with nice leather seats yet keep the protective plastic on the seats in case they get dirty??

I took the monitor cover off my D90 a long time ago. You can see the screen better and it still has no scratches.

1 upvote
mbrobich
By mbrobich (Feb 24, 2013)

Have to wonder if the buffer increases if you use the "M" 12MP setting ? Hopefully it does.

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Feb 24, 2013)

Especially if the LCD is welded into the back and the whole of that would have to be replaced. See what iFixit say about that in regard to the D600:

See http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nikon+D600+Teardown/10708/2

"We were disappointed to find that the LCD is fused to the rear case, and cannot be replaced without replacing the entire panel.

If you scratch or crack the display glass on an older Nikon DSLR like the D90, it's possible to find an inexpensive replacement and fix it yourself. With the inseparable glass, though, D600 users will definitely want to opt for some type of screen protection."

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
MaxTheHorse
By MaxTheHorse (Feb 23, 2013)

Does anybody here actually use any of these cameras to take photographs or is the main concern to find ways in which the camera/the company that makes it/the lenses that are available etc. etc. are soooooo inadequate that one simply can't bear to go out and actually use one? I can't wait for the first post that says "The D7100 has been out for 2 days now and it's clearly so old tech that I'm going to hold out for the D7200..."

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Feb 24, 2013)

Take photos? Nobody here actually TAKES photos. That would be too much work. It's much easier to sit around and complain about what features the cameras DON'T have and how bad every lens is.

Everyone here is an expert. Experts don't take photographs. If they did people might find out they are full of crap.

12 upvotes
royt84
By royt84 (Feb 24, 2013)

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

5 upvotes
tbower
By tbower (Feb 24, 2013)

The photos will be taken during the full review which this is not.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 23, 2013)

Does anyone know if it's possible to record just audio on Nikon SLRs these days? And on this one or the D7000 in particular.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Feb 23, 2013)

No audio recording is available on any Nikon DSLR's except the D2 and D3 series. I believe it's gone from the D4.

1 upvote
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 23, 2013)

Thanks for the info JD.

0 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (Feb 23, 2013)

I can't see what is the problem with this camera. Spec wise, seemed very solid and many might not even get to use the full capability of this camera (or even their current one).

For the people who are waiting for a the D400, there is a rumour/prediction in a Japanese magazine that it should be announced/out by June. The D4X by October. If you don't like the D7100, I guess some should wait until then.

3 upvotes
Tomskyair
By Tomskyair (Feb 23, 2013)

Well said. As the street price will most likely drop to around 1000 $/£/€ soon the D7100 looks like an incredible value for money. Hope there aren't any serious QC issues this time.

As I currently no longer have a DX backup body with my D70 being gone I'm going to pick up a D7100 later this year unless Nikon should surprise us with a D400 until then. And even then I may choose the D7100 if the D400 should be a low MP "DX D4" geared towards press, sports and wildlife action photographers as my main subjects are architecture, land- and cityscapes where the D7100 as some kind of "DX D800" looks more suitable. The D300 can then stay as a backup anyways.

1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Feb 23, 2013)

So what I'm wondering is: How much are they going to charge us for the MB-D15?

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 23, 2013)

£279

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Feb 23, 2013)

$425 USD? They really bend you over for these things.

0 upvotes
ed kelly
By ed kelly (Feb 24, 2013)

i saw 275.00 somewhere.

0 upvotes
Tomskyair
By Tomskyair (Feb 22, 2013)

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.

9 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Feb 23, 2013)

Wow! Someone with a clear non-ranting view on things.

1 upvote
FranciscoJG
By FranciscoJG (Feb 23, 2013)

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.

0 upvotes
mbrobich
By mbrobich (Feb 24, 2013)

Actually, if you've held the D600 in your hands, the D7100 is almost identical. The grip part is sharper and easier to hold. The D7000(which I own) has a rounder grip and if it gets a little moist(or wet) down she goes. The D600 and D7100 grabbier edge finger grip should hold better.

3 upvotes
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (Feb 22, 2013)

Well, if this were the new Canon 7D MK2 overall I'd be pleased. Over the past 5 years Nikon has pushed its DX range forward whilst Canon has had a range of cameras that confuse potential users and owners - Canon have introduced new features yes - video - yes improvements in overall quality - doubtful at best. As a Canon fan I hope the Nikon 7100 will KICK Canon into doing something decent as a reply. But I'm guessing not...another small nail in Canon's coffin.

3 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Feb 22, 2013)

As a Nikon user, what's wrong with the 7D?

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 23, 2013)

Nikon used to strive for life for many years.
it's definitelly in Canon users interests that Nikon make better cameras and lenses that the shirker will have to do some work, same for Nikon users.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rjx
By rjx (Feb 23, 2013)

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!

2 upvotes
Nectar D Or
By Nectar D Or (Feb 24, 2013)

@ Sad Joe: you know very well that there's nothing wrong with the 7D. It is a great camera. If it gets a Mk II, we would expect mainly a newer sensor and perhaps an improved AF system.
Canon seem to doing very well with AF systems lately, so I believe it is safe to assume that once they get a newer sensor fully developed they will come up with a new line of APS-Cs.

So I cannot see how Nikon coming up with a new camera would "KICK" Canon's engineers into coming up with the sensor faster. It just doesn't work that way with R&D. Canon doesn't like to rush "half baked" products from development into production, and that's why so many people like and trust their products.

Also: constant ranting on gear sites over Canon's products does not make you a fanboy.

0 upvotes
rithex
By rithex (Feb 22, 2013)

Debating droppinf my Sony A65 for this hmmmm

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Feb 22, 2013)

Great camera IMO.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Justin Francis
By Justin Francis (Feb 22, 2013)

Why r Nikons getting uglier and uglier?

0 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Feb 22, 2013)

why are all your comments so pathetic ?

10 upvotes
Valiant Thor
By Valiant Thor (Feb 22, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Feb 22, 2013)

Aren't all DSLR's ugly?

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

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2013)

@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...

1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Feb 22, 2013)

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.

1 upvote
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Feb 22, 2013)

It's a step up from the D7000, which itself wasn't awful but suffered a bit from the "lumps". Least pretty Nikon dSLR in recent memory was the D5000.

0 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 23, 2013)

DSLRs beautiful.
RETROs are ugly

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
1 upvote
World Traveller
By World Traveller (Feb 22, 2013)

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...

2 upvotes
Britzzzilla
By Britzzzilla (Feb 22, 2013)

Nikon better answer the question of the MIA D400 before Canon does with its 7D MkII... http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-spec-list-cr2/

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2013)

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...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Feb 22, 2013)

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!!

2 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Feb 22, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 22, 2013)

f/2.8 on APS-C cameras cannot be called fast.
it's about 1.3 stops slower (f/4.3 or f/4.5 for Canon)
if you want to get the same quality of image as 35mm-format.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Feb 22, 2013)

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

3 upvotes
World Traveller
By World Traveller (Feb 22, 2013)

I don’t see going to FX as an ‘upgrade’. This 7100 sensor is likely to do an excellent job in terms of image quality for speeds under 1600 ISO. ‘Upgrading’ to FX requires all lenses to be bigger, heavier and more expensive. DX is at its best on the telephoto end because of the extra magnification. I have the Tokina 11-16 which is an excellent wide lens. But there is no 3rd party lens comparable optically in terms of sharpness at the telephoto end. The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is a great lens for sure as are the 200-400 and fixed telephotos but… they are heavier than a DX equivalent would need to be with similar optical quality.

0 upvotes
World Traveller
By World Traveller (Feb 22, 2013)

Say I had both types – 1 DX for the longer end and 1 FX for wide/medium. Today I would still need to buy very heavy FX lenses from Nikon for top quality images for telephoto. If you travel in the wild for a few weeks, carrying big lenses every day is less desirable which is a big attraction of the DX format – good magnification on a smaller sensor but with the high performance of DSLR. That’s also why the D400 would be even better than the D7100. I got a D7000 when the it came out to replace a D300 – a good camera but in picture quality terms, the D7000 is better than the D300 – but some DX users can use a full pro spec with a modern sensor. As another commenter mentions, the Canon 7D mk 2 will no doubt provide that… I don’t think that Canon are much better on quality DX zoom lenses either though…

0 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Feb 22, 2013)

@ Mike99999:

You had to pull in two Tokina lenses and an FX lens to "perfectly" cover the range. I can comment on the Tokina 50-135. My copy was badly decentered but even a good one is only "good" and has no stabilization. That lens also has a really annoying built in tripod collar (but at least it comes with a collar, unlike the Nikon 70-200 f4). The 70-200 f4 is a great lens, but it's an FX lens and therefore bigger and heavier than it needs to be for the DX format.

It's not that there's no excellent DX glass from Nikon, it's that after all these years Nikon still hasn't fleshed out the DX range with fast, high quality DX lenses. Third party offerings don't fill the gaps well either.

0 upvotes
World Traveller
By World Traveller (Feb 22, 2013)

@JD Thomas & @BJN. I think we are in new territory here – 24MP will show up lens deficiencies that we simply didn’t see with 12 or 16MP. It will also show more diffraction softness at higher apertures. Thom Hogan has some interesting comments on this subject. By DX ‘quality’ I mean sharper and preferably with a speed of f2.8 or perhaps 3.5. Surely this would make lighter (& cheaper) telephotos/zooms than the FX designs currently available… One thing I’m fairly sure of is that we will have to put up with middling quality DX longer lenses for a while yet. So you are probably right – I will end up going from the D7000 to the D7100 (or D400… ) and buying 1 big FX telephoto (I currently use the 80-400 but its too slow for focusing on birds in flight… ). But… if we don’t keep shouting out that the DX lens range needs the gaps plugging, Nikon and the 3rd party lens guys won’t even hear us!

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Feb 22, 2013)

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.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 23, 2013)

> So you want Nikon to start making f/1.8 zooms?

I'm only saying that f-number cannot be used when comparing cameras of different formats. the right thing to use is aperture size at the same angle of view.

I agree that APS-C won't be competitive without f/1.8 zooms or f/0.9 primes at comparable prices, or f/2.8 and f/1.4 ones at less than half prices.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
World Traveller
By World Traveller (Feb 24, 2013)

OK. Having made a plea for Nikon to make more pro-spec DX long lenses, I do agree that for now, one has to use FX lenses at the telephoto end – as suggested the 300mm F4 or the 70-200 F2.8. I do appreciate that this is a necessary compromise. With the D7100, the 24MP resolution will give better magnification than with a 24MP FX – though slightly less DR and limits to dawn/dusk telephoto use… I've taken 30,000+ photos with a D7000 and the D7100 will be a further step forward in quality & addresses some of the minor drawbacks of the 7000 – but not the fps and buffer. Another compromise I guess, though it would be nice to know if Nikon are going to release a D400...

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Feb 25, 2013)

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.

0 upvotes
RyanBoston
By RyanBoston (Feb 22, 2013)

If all goes well with the new sensor and this doesn't have issues then this will be the best deal on the market. Lets all keep our fingers crossed.

4 upvotes
Alejandro Kerekes
By Alejandro Kerekes (Feb 22, 2013)

Totally agreed with you. The D7100's 24.1MP CMOS sensor does not include an optical low-pass filter (OLPF) that can give the moiré effect to the photos. Please we need someone that buy the camera and practice diferents shot, high and low iso and conditions of light to test the new sensor, Thanks.

1 upvote
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 22, 2013)

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

5 upvotes
Alejandro Kerekes
By Alejandro Kerekes (Feb 23, 2013)

I mean we need customer reviews for this camera, if someone bought it to know about the D7100's 24.1MP CMOS sensor does not include an optical low-pass filter (OLPF) that can give the moiré effect to the photos. Sorry thats what I mean... to the Nikon people. Thanks

1 upvote
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Feb 21, 2013)

The samples look great, and the body seems it will take at least some exposure to the elements. This plus the crop factor makes it very useful.

I tried reading a few of the comments below and they're discouraging. People believe their wishes and gripes matter. Clueless.

Nikon aren't interested in customer service (they've proven this repeatedly in two countries in which I have "tested" them) and they're certainly not interested in "future" customer wishes; they're interested in selling cameras.

This could sell, so Nikon are OK.

Canon, OTOH, are not interested in all the above, plus they're not interested in Nikon. If you doubt this, by all means ring your rep and ask.

Since next to nobody cares about Pentax (when did you last see one in the wild, and how many bodies and lenses did that person carry?), I can't DPR fault for ignoring them, though personally I am a fan and would like to see the K series tested immediately, one by one, a year before release! Only ads matter.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 22, 2013)

Canon and Nikon are learning from each other.
basically in competitions all the parties should follow similar strategies and techniques or it will be one-sided game.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 22, 2013)

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...

2 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Feb 22, 2013)

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?

1 upvote
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (Feb 22, 2013)

@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).

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2013)

@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?

4 upvotes
froggers
By froggers (Feb 22, 2013)

The D600 is no threat to the mighty D800.
D600 specs are dilute/weak..(entry level).
I cant believe the entry level Canon 6D has no flash. What were they thinking?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Feb 23, 2013)

Sorry Tonio for sounding delusional but I failed to mention that I live in Japan and how things are going here are far different then where ever you are at. I see plenty of Japanese Pentax user on Flickr as well, and their advertisements are seen regularly around town. Also I personally don't care for Pentax, at least not until (if) I pick up a 67II, I run Canon.
And are you delusional? Canon does 'not' understand video, Panasonic knows video and Nikon's DSLRs are far more capable feature-wise and sensor tech for video. I got into DSLR video with Canon and it's been a real disappointment to see virtually no improvement at all in the last 4 years; where's the better output, compression, DR and higher frame rate, and you're either fighting moire or resolution-slaying softness, and they need third party assistance to get things straight

0 upvotes
sirkhann
By sirkhann (Feb 21, 2013)

Good one! I love the No-AA-filter microcontrast pop. To fight the competition, Canon is putting a touchscreen on the 70D with YouTube and Tetris on it!

Aaaaand I bet we will see the D7100 reviewed well before the Pentax K-5 IIs, also without AA filter. Right, DPreview? :)

0 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 22, 2013)

Don't start it sirkhann.. hehehehe

0 upvotes
madeinlisboa
By madeinlisboa (Feb 22, 2013)

Don't forget Instagram on future Canons...

0 upvotes
froggers
By froggers (Feb 22, 2013)

or internet on Nikon screen (with wifi).

0 upvotes
Abraxx
By Abraxx (Feb 21, 2013)

Buffer is already full with a few Raws in only second? Good for hunting snails... ;)
Looking forward to test one, but thats unfortunately already one major design flaw.

1 upvote
SHood
By SHood (Feb 21, 2013)

In crop mode buffer can hold 14 RAW files.

0 upvotes
Octane
By Octane (Feb 22, 2013)

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.

25 upvotes
HBowman
By HBowman (Feb 22, 2013)

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 ...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 22, 2013)

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

3 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Feb 22, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
HBowman
By HBowman (Feb 22, 2013)

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

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

1 upvote
photoenth47
By photoenth47 (Feb 23, 2013)

I like what Octane said. Stop moaning about what a new camera doesn't have. Do you really use the spray-n-pray that much that you actually need more than 6 or 7 fps? So many people vomiting so much rubbish, without really knowing the facts. Is it really the photography you are actually interested in, or just the fancy toys, so that you can boast of having this or that? You are not going to get all the pro features on a less than pro camera. So if you want those, you will need to, as Octane said, "pick the right tool."

0 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 23, 2013)

Would be nice to have a camera which could be extended with more RAM change the sw (like GH2) but officially, upgrade the sensor etc.

0 upvotes
KZMike
By KZMike (Feb 21, 2013)

For the $$$, I'd like to see a rear LCD screen that can, at least, adjust up or down. Such a large % of my shots seem to 'want' this. Can someone tell me why Nikon,Cannon limit this to their "lesser" bodies?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Feb 21, 2013)

largely because enthusiasts and pros use the viewfinder

11 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Feb 21, 2013)

"largely because enthusiasts and pros use the viewfinder"

For video? ;)

0 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

4 upvotes
Abraxx
By Abraxx (Feb 21, 2013)

The 6D at least has build in remote control, which for many situations comes closer or is even better than an articulated display.
Still I agree, in the future I want a FF and APS-C cam to have a flexible screen and build in wifi for remote usage. Uses your mind it opens up more options, be creative. :)

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
philo123
By philo123 (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

1 upvote
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Feb 21, 2013)

@Josh152

No so at all ... a "NORMAL" articulating screen such as found on a Nikon P510 or P7100 ... absolutely does not take away from any potential side to side function buttons. However, a FULL articulating Camcorder style articulating screen (I personally hate those) WILL take away valuable function button real estate.

0 upvotes
robmanueb
By robmanueb (Feb 22, 2013)

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

1 upvote
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Feb 22, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 22, 2013)

Sony has the fastest live view system, so LV is as useful as the VF. Nikon on the other hand, has one of the slowest LV AF.

0 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Feb 22, 2013)

"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.

1 upvote
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 22, 2013)

I think when Nikon eventually put an articulating screen to their pro bodies, Nikonians will automatically accept it as a good thing. Remember the "12mp is enough" argument? When Nikon brought on the D800 with a whooping 36mp resolution, it sells very well.

People resist change. That's a proven fact.

0 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Feb 22, 2013)

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.

1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 23, 2013)

Absolutely. In many cases the VF is useless because the camera and your eyes are not in the same height. :)

0 upvotes
J2Gphoto
By J2Gphoto (Feb 21, 2013)

Am I in the minority in my thought process, where I would prefer one of these companies to PERFECT a lower MP camera instead of trying to cram more and more MP into every upgrade. 12mp was fine with me, 16 was fine with me. Now they keep jamming more and more onto the same size sensor with minimal IQ improvements and lower IQ in some cases. Wouldn't it be nice to have a 16MP that just nails every rating you could have or want in a sensor? With a blazing speed processor that boosts the FPS? I mean really why not PERFECT one before trying to replace it? 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. Another problem with the MP cramming is every time you read reviews they almost ALWAYS say you need to have the BEST glass to get the most out of the 20+ mp sensor. Screw that. Give me a perfected camera with less MP's and I'll be happy.

18 upvotes
Lcky
By Lcky (Feb 21, 2013)

Nikon is taking a big step by removing the AA filter. The D7000 already had a very nice DR, The detail that will come out of the D7100 should be impressive. It will no doubt make any lens look better than it would on a previous model.

7 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 21, 2013)

@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.

5 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
12 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 21, 2013)

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 ;-)

1 upvote
Aasmund G
By Aasmund G (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
robmanueb
By robmanueb (Feb 22, 2013)

The D7100 looks like a nice camera. I agree the MP numbers are meaningless, though it's funny that Nikon dropped the AA filter to help distinguish it from their DX resolution flagship, the D3200 oops I meant the D5200...

0 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (Feb 22, 2013)

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

1 upvote
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Feb 22, 2013)

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.

1 upvote
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (Feb 22, 2013)

Speaking as a D7000 owner who has considered dumping it for a smaller system — having upgraded from a D5000 my biggest issue with the D7000 is its size and weight. I imagine this is exactly the reason many D7000 owners have switched or considered switching. I love the D7000's ergonomics and image quality, I just don't like lugging it around.

My all metal Nikon FA is smaller and lighter than my old D5000.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Feb 22, 2013)

Are you in the minority? Yes. Clearly new cameras come out in response to market demands. Just how many refinements to your favorite lower pixel count camera would it take to get you to buy the new one? And while Nikon was pleasing you, just how many more buyers would be flocking to the competition who didn't rest on its laurels an just polish old models.

And you appear to be way too concerned about the camera when it's glass that has been and always will be the key to getting the best from any sensor or format.

1 upvote
Kwang M Yi
By Kwang M Yi (Feb 21, 2013)

Spec wise, sound more like D7000s than D7100...

Masses flocking to full frame bodies must have inserting good price pressure on crippled sensor camera, pleasantly surprised to see prices at $1,100, substantially lower than introductory price of D7000.

Sony with A58 seemed to outgunned this one, at half the prices, but Sony is driven by spec lovers and fancy ad campaign..

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 21, 2013)

$1199 is for body only. With the kit lens it's $1599 which is $100 higher than the D7000 release price of $1499.

I'm sure the A58 will be a fine camera but I'm not sure how it's 15 AF points and a 460 K LCD outgunned the D7100? Maybe you can explain.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Feb 21, 2013)

What $1,100?

0 upvotes
Kwang M Yi
By Kwang M Yi (Feb 21, 2013)

I was reading an article on newly developed sensor used on A58, some name I can't remember, Tri something, which offers much broader color gamut. I'm not sure which way it will affect the future of digital imaging market, but I'm sure it will be significant.
This may be the one way for Sony to recapture market share, weakened by its highly over-priced and ancient lens collection offered to its customers, I don't know.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
atelier O
By atelier O (Feb 22, 2013)

Maybe Sony will bundle the a58 with a product from their losing tv division. Triluminous is just for previewing from camera to their bravia TVs, its not as if they invented something better than a foveon or bayer array sensor.

0 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Feb 21, 2013)

Assuming that the DSLRs are becoming more video orientated apart from natural improvements as better sensor, focusing, features, one day it would be nice to see global shutter and down-sampling for video

1 upvote
Craig49
By Craig49 (Feb 21, 2013)

My D7000 suffers from Mirror 'slap' at low shutter speeds which I sometimes forget about to the detriment of my pictures.

Will that still be a 'feature' of the 7100?

1 upvote
Robin G
By Robin G (Feb 21, 2013)

I am wondering as well. The D7100 doesn't make me want to replace my D7000, but if the mirror slap is significantly reduced (like on the D600: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3271751#forum-post-42565678 ) it would be worth a second thought.

1 upvote
Craig49
By Craig49 (Feb 23, 2013)

Thanks for posting that link. Good food for thought.

0 upvotes
armanius
By armanius (Feb 21, 2013)

Impressive camera! Might have to buy my first Nikon DSLR. I wonder why Nikon kept the ISO button on the left side. Looks like a winner though.

1 upvote
Trin56
By Trin56 (Feb 21, 2013)

There is a very simply solution to this often quoted ISO Button problem. Assign ISO control to one of the Command Dials.
f6 "Change main/sub" is ON, d3 set to "Show ISO/Easy ISO. Then you can adjust aperture/speed with one and ISO with other.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Feb 22, 2013)

Easy ISO is only a partial solution, and it precludes using the command dial for other assignments. Nikon's UI design is very good, but this is one of those obvious opportunities for improvement that Nikon fails to address.

0 upvotes
teastain
By teastain (Feb 21, 2013)

Just a request to the other commenters:
Just as we keep racism and politics out of the comments, please let's also keep FanBoy-ism out as well.

If you have a helpful comment please share.
If you prefer the way Canon does something, go ahead and say so, maybe Nikon will listen and improve their product!

7 upvotes
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Feb 21, 2013)

@teastain

Sounds like a very good suggestion!
If I ever discover something that Canon does better, I'll be sure to post about it! ;)

3 upvotes
robmanueb
By robmanueb (Feb 22, 2013)

Right. No fan boys, racists or political talk.
Gonna be a fun night...

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2013)

How about a couple of choruses of Kumbaya. Anyone?

Cricket, cricket, cricket...

0 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Feb 21, 2013)

The locking mode dial addresses my biggest functional complaint with the D7000.

But DX remains the poor stepchild format for Nikon with missing high performance fast lenses compared to FX. The D7100's sensor only underscores the gaps in the DX lens lineup.

Wifi and GPS should be built into a modern top-of-its-category camera. Nikon persists in offering bulky, clumsy add-on modules. I think there would be more excitement for the D7100 if Nikon had added more value than a new sensor and some relatively minor feature bumps.

3 upvotes
hiro_pro
By hiro_pro (Feb 21, 2013)

i almost sold my d7000 and pre-ordered the d7100 when i saw the locking mode dial. i love my camera -BUT- there is nothing more frustrating than pulling it out of my bag for a quick shot only to have all my setting go all wonky because it slipped from Aperture Priority to Manual.

1 upvote
nick kessler
By nick kessler (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2013)

Didn't know that Thom Hogan had such a fan club or that he "knows Nikon better than Nikon knows Nikon".

Maybe he should start a camera company or apply for the CEO position at Nikon since he would clearly do a better job. Just like Monday morning quarterbacks, it's aways easier to run a business with the benefit of hindsight.

2 upvotes
footlong
By footlong (Feb 21, 2013)

Thom Hogan this, Thom Hogan that. Who is this man?

4 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 21, 2013)

A blow hard who thinks that having a website makes him an expert more qualified to run Nikon's DSLR business then they are.

6 upvotes
olypan
By olypan (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

9 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 21, 2013)

@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.

6 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

13 upvotes
Daakku
By Daakku (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

5 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (Feb 21, 2013)

@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.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
robmanueb
By robmanueb (Feb 22, 2013)

@ Nick Kessler
I find Ken and Thom equally useful and equally annoying. I will have to have a look at Lloyd Chambers site, thanks for the tip.
I bought a D40, D90, 18-200 and SB400 mostly on Ken's advice and I never regretted those choices.
I think Thom is more focused on photography and technique. Ken is gadget man and given to hyperbole.
Ken often contradicts himself (good on him for being able to change his mind).

0 upvotes
atelier O
By atelier O (Feb 22, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
trustya
By trustya (Feb 22, 2013)

I'd challenge you guys complaining about Thom Hogan to cite a single unfounded criticism he's made. I'd also state that each of his suggestions, if followed, would gain Nikon either greater market share or a yet-more-loyal customer base--in stark contrast to much of Ken Rockwell's musings.

1 upvote
Valiant Thor
By Valiant Thor (Feb 21, 2013)

Nice camera. What I'd really like to see Nikon release is a very cool M4/3 retro-looking (OM-D-ish) camera with a revolutionary sensor with the same lens mount as the Olympus and Lumix M4/3 which would give a broad base of lenses to use. I thought that the Nikon 1 system should have been M4/3 compatible instead of yet another lens system. I'm a mid-grade amateur and have a D5200, OM-D and GH3. It would be very nice to share lenses on multiple M4/3 systems.

6 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Feb 21, 2013)

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

1 upvote
BJN
By BJN (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

4 upvotes
Valiant Thor
By Valiant Thor (Feb 21, 2013)

"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.

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 21, 2013)

Hmm, Oly is an "ethical" company?

8 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Feb 21, 2013)

" I thought that the Nikon 1 system should have been M4/3 compatible instead of yet another lens system."

Yeah, 3-company m43 with on-sensor phase detect and lenses from Nikon to speed-up tracking would be smash hit...

0 upvotes
atamola
By atamola (Feb 21, 2013)

I'm a Nikon (mostly) user.

I cannot help but feel that Nikon's strategy is focused on squeezing the customer by offering minor adjustments rather than clear improvements over previous models.

I don't see Nikon delivering something really new/groundbreaking.

Thankfully we now have Sony, Fuji, and Olympus and the mirrorless options.

I think that Nikon's strategy is doomed to succeed in alienating its custormer base.

In my case at least, I'm now starting to seriously consider dumping al my Nikon gear (D700, SB-800s, and lenses) and switch to another system with a more customer oriented oulook.

One thing is clear for me: I don't see a compelling reason to put another dime in Nikon's pocket.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (Feb 21, 2013)

Minor adjustments? Going from 16mp to 24mp without an AA filter is minor? Really.

15 upvotes
Ed_arizona
By Ed_arizona (Feb 21, 2013)

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

3 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

7 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 21, 2013)

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

5 upvotes
atamola
By atamola (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

4 upvotes
nick kessler
By nick kessler (Feb 21, 2013)

I completely agree. I have been shooting weddings for a living for 9 years now. I am 32. I currently own 2 d800's 24 1.4 50 1.4 85 1.8 3 900's 16-35f4 and have owned tons more.

NIKON has been pushing me away for years. If the Fuji xpro 2 has continuos AF that is capable for wedding receptions and movement I will actually be switching. i got an x100 black recently and love it.

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 21, 2013)

Does D7100 have AF microadjustment? Can't find it in any spec sheet. Or is this feature reserved for the D400?

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Feb 21, 2013)

The D7000 had it so I would assume that Nikon would keep that feature for the D7100 (no product manual online yet so I can't confirm).

2 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Feb 21, 2013)

I bet everyone at Canon is talking about the Nikon D7100 today. That is never a good thing.

2 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 21, 2013)

Actually nobody in Canon cares. Nikon D800 and D600 are not selling as well as Canon 5D3 and 6D despite all their acclaim.

Even Nikon guru Thom Hogan does not seem impressed. And that is never a good thing. :)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Feb 21, 2013)

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

Source of this information?

4 upvotes
frkm0005
By frkm0005 (Feb 21, 2013)

A Canon fanboy... reading a Nikon product launch

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

5 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 21, 2013)

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

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 22, 2013)

@rhlpetrus: you mean the D300s was a mythical camera that never existed?

0 upvotes
snow14
By snow14 (Feb 21, 2013)

No optical low-pass filter at this level of the market ? Most people in this market segment are amateur whom want nothing to do with moire and the extra time required fix it in pp.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Feb 21, 2013)

At this pixel density the filter is not required.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 21, 2013)

> the filter is not required.

for not very good lenses.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 21, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Feb 21, 2013)

Diffraction limits are the same, no matter how good your lenses are. Can't defy the laws of physics.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Feb 21, 2013)

sorry, but your market analysis is plan wrong

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 21, 2013)

I'm a D7000's owner that would love to have an AA-less camera. The base IQ of the D7100, if it uses the D5200's sensor w/o AA filter will be amazing.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 21, 2013)

@rhlpetus

At base to maybe even medium ISO the lack of OLPF coupled with a higher pixel density will likely mean the D7100 will even beat out the D600 for IQ, especially for resolving find details.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
PK24X36NOW
By PK24X36NOW (Feb 21, 2013)

Mike99999, the pixel density does not dictate likelihood of moire; total pixels in the image does. The D7100 will experience moire more often than the D800E.

Josh 152, the D7100 has the same number of pixels on a sensor less than half the size of a D600, and it will not "beat out the D600 for IQ," even with all that moire, er I mean no LPF. Keep dreaming.

0 upvotes
Arsen
By Arsen (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 21, 2013)

@PK24X36NOW

The higher pixel density of the D7100 coupled with the gain in sharpness from the lack of the LPF means it will have slight advantage over the D600 at base iso. More small pixels resolves fine detail better than fewer big ones do. Granted the differnce will be slight and probably not mater much for practical purposes but it will be there. Just having a FF sensor doesn't make the D600 automatically better. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 60 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
PK24X36NOW
By PK24X36NOW (Feb 22, 2013)

Um, 24MP is 24MP, you don't have "more" on the D7100. A sensor more than twice the size is a big advantage, and it is you that will have your bubble burst, once the various test shots are done. The laws of physics will never be suspended, no matter how many pixels they throw at DX.

0 upvotes
PederT
By PederT (Feb 21, 2013)

D@mn, people are whiny!

3 upvotes
snow14
By snow14 (Feb 21, 2013)

I thing it is more like demanding people and given the choses available and the price we pay why not?

0 upvotes
PederT
By PederT (Feb 21, 2013)

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

1 upvote
Ed_arizona
By Ed_arizona (Feb 21, 2013)

I agree Pedert, go to Nikon forum to see much more whining, I like the new upgrade/features, will get one this year

0 upvotes
frkm0005
By frkm0005 (Feb 21, 2013)

Too late. SInce they didn't announce the D400 with a full magnesium-titanium-diamond-platinum body and 123,456,789fps burst rate I sold all my Nikon gear for a 7D.

I thought I'd continue the rant. It's not a Nikon announcement without hearing about the mythical D400.

2 upvotes
Haider
By Haider (Feb 21, 2013)

24MP is useless for TV slideshows, 8x10 or A3 prints. You'd rather just have bigger photosites to give you even better DR and low-light/available light performance. The lens required to make big enough prints for 24MP ain't in the price range of the camera body purchasers???

1 upvote
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Feb 21, 2013)

?????

35mm f/1.8 - $200
50mm f/1.8 - $200
85mm f/1.8 - $400

9 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 21, 2013)

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

3 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 21, 2013)

I meant larger photo sites

3 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Feb 21, 2013)

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

4 upvotes
Haider
By Haider (Feb 21, 2013)

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?

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
1 upvote
rgolub
By rgolub (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

4 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Feb 21, 2013)

@Mike99999, 35mm+50mm=85mm=$400, 85mm by $400 too, so, Nikon are selling the mm by ~$4,75 :)

How much other brands sell the mm?

0 upvotes
Bjorn_L
By Bjorn_L (Feb 22, 2013)

Haider:
The size of the pixels does not change how much light is hitting the sensor. A APS-C sensor of size 'x' will "catch" the same amount of light no matter how many little dots you devide this up in to. The sensitivity of the sensor as a whole does improve with technological improvements. Since as rgolub mentioned the d800 is currently the top in both pixels, dynamic range, color sensitivity and very nearly ISO as well. Clearly it is not harmed by all those pixels.

1 upvote
photofan1986
By photofan1986 (Feb 21, 2013)

Oh, so Fuji makes a technological bold move with its X-trans sensor in order to be able to remove the low-pass filter without inducing moire, and Nikon simply comes and removes the low-pass filter altogether, on a simple bayer matrix?!
Cool! But they should pay some engineers at Nikon instead of investing loads of money into their stupid marketing campaign! "I am Nikon, and I have oil on my sensor"....mmmh yummie!

4 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 21, 2013)

Yes, but think how much sharper the oil spots will look without an OLPF.

7 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Feb 21, 2013)

Imagine the 135mm f2 on this body. Sweeeeeet.

2 upvotes
rishardana
By rishardana (Feb 21, 2013)

Interesting. Hypothetically, would the 24 mpx resized into 12mpx with this new sensor be better at Image Quality than the 12 mpx from 3Ds with the older sensor?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 21, 2013)

it depents. if you test at the same exposure per sensor (instead of per sq cm), all the sensors are quit similar. and if we tolerate some NR, as is sadly found in all cameras, higher resolution sensors have an advantage over lower ones except at extremely low exposures.

higher resolution sensors have the privilege to do NR as long as the resolution doesn't go below that of the lower ones.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Uran
By Uran (Feb 21, 2013)

This is not quite what I was expecting, I like the 3500 Cam the FPS still slower than my D300 with a grip, so for fast moving animals we are forced to buy the D4 or look to the Canon 7D 2 as a bang for buck option.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Feb 21, 2013)

Apparently some 'photographers' may need to look for a D4 upgrade.

It is a good thing though the photography world had those 8fps 51-point AF bodies back in 1905 when NatGeo started publishing wildlife images - what ever would we have done up to the 21st century...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
vFunct
By vFunct (Feb 21, 2013)

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".

5 upvotes
Haider
By Haider (Feb 21, 2013)

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?

3 upvotes
frkm0005
By frkm0005 (Feb 21, 2013)

vFunct, you sound you live in a bubble where pro photographers "only" take photos to sell to an editor. You don't need "high speed" cameras to take commercial shots or portraits. Isn't that considered "pro"?

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Daniel Schapiro
By Daniel Schapiro (Feb 21, 2013)

I went through the specs. It doesn't seem to have HDR capabilities, right?

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 21, 2013)

It does, it's all detailed on the Nikon site. It does HDR jpegs by taking two exposures from one shot and combining in-camera.

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

2 upvotes
Bjorn_L
By Bjorn_L (Feb 21, 2013)

Correction needed:
In several places within the preview you describe the 1.3x crop as a 2x crop. What you should have said the additional 1.3x crop increases the crop factor from 1.5 to 2.0 The way it is written a reasonable person would conclude that using the crop mode would double the effective focal length relative to the same lens on the same camera rather then the actual comparison which is relative to a FX body.

3 upvotes
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (Feb 21, 2013)

If the resolution in crop mode is 15.4mp (probably 4800 x 3200 = 15.36mp) like the announcement says, then it's actually just a 1.25x crop mode, and a 1.875x crop compared to FF.

1 upvote
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Feb 21, 2013)

Ren Kockwell:

" it won't make much, if any, visible difference at less than 6-foot (2-meter) wide print sizes, and only if you use the very finest NIKKOR lenses and technique."

" Readers tell me that their Sigma 105 Macros don't work on the D7100."

" It's pretty much the same as 2010's D7000,"

" There's also an inexplicably silly 1.3x crop mode"

" Only the 15 central sensors can see horizontal lines ('cross type'), the rest only see vertical lines, just like the single focus sensor of the Nikon SP of 1956."

" The extra resolution means nothing in actual shooting"

" The D7100 and D700 are pretty much the same."

" If you've found the time and expense I incur to share all this for free... "

What a f#@$ing tosser.

Greg

15 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 21, 2013)

But they are pretty much the same, or do you believe the inevitable marketing hype that more pixels mean better photo's? What they actually mean is BIGGER photo's.

It's got a few more focus points too, big deal. And the screen is .2 of an inch bigger - we aren't really in revolutionary territory are we?

My first thought was the same as KR's this is a big upgrade from a D90 but a very minor upgrade from a D7000.

18 upvotes
Nuno Souto
By Nuno Souto (Feb 21, 2013)

...don't forget to add the "kenrockwell sux" web site...

0 upvotes
Rocker44
By Rocker44 (Feb 21, 2013)

Who pi55ed on Rockwell's chips?

2 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (Feb 21, 2013)

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 :)

4 upvotes
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Feb 21, 2013)

What's a Ken Rockwell? ;)

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
The Lotus Eater
By The Lotus Eater (Feb 21, 2013)

Ken Rockwell looks like a waxwork of David Walliams that has partially melted.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Feb 21, 2013)

Ken Rockwell is an idiot.

2 upvotes
Peter Bendheim
By Peter Bendheim (Feb 21, 2013)

A ken Rockwell is a thing that vomits every times its mouth opens

0 upvotes
Ed_arizona
By Ed_arizona (Feb 21, 2013)

He also is home counting all the bucks flowing in from his website..jokes on U

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Deeso
By Deeso (Feb 21, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Feb 21, 2013)

The guy is getting dopier by the week.

3 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 21, 2013)

The thing with Ken Rockwell is that he is smart enough to mix in just enough truth and common sense with the hyperbole and nonsensical extreme opinions he uses to drive traffic to his website to keep from becoming completely irrelevant. This careful balance also helps to promote arguments about him on sites like this which also helps increase traffic to his site.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 21, 2013)

Josh152 - as I say, he's no idiot! But he is hilariously, childishly enthusiastic and contradictory. If you read his "All about me" page you find he admits to putting people on.

But he knows a lot about what makes a photo great and it isn't ever the camera. As Ansel Adams said "The most important part of a camera stands six inches behind
it".

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 21, 2013)

@Hugo808

While I wouldn't call him an idiot since what he is doing is obviously calculated to get a specific result, He has no credibility as far as I'm concerned since he seems willing to say whatever is necissary to drive traffic up on his site no matter how untrue or unnecessarily controversial it is. Plus his habit of reviewing equipment he hasn't even used and calling everything but what he is currently enamored with crap doesn't help his credibility much either.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 22, 2013)

Josh - I think you have to read a bit closer than that, he qualifies his opinions well, his current preference for Canon SLRs is because they have superior colour and handling IN HIS OPINION, he does say it very clearly. I think people object to his bombastic approach, but as he also says they are just his opinions if you like something else go for it.

I find his childish contrariness refreshing because behind the simplicity is someone who knows his subject and knows that the obsessive lengths people go to test sensor performance under lab conditions is pointless in an actual shooting situation. You only have to read the comments section here for 5 mins to realise that people take the marketing department's tactics way too seriously.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Feb 22, 2013)

Except somethings he writes simply are not matters of opinion. Like his ridiculous claims the VR/IS made tripods unnecessary. Someone who isn't a raw beginner can sort through his non sense to find a nugget of good info but he is doing a disservice to beginners by giving them incorrect or incomplete info. For that he will never have credibility with me.

0 upvotes
BobYIL
By BobYIL (Feb 21, 2013)

(Let me post here too..)

Remarkable that Nikon began concentrated on Toshiba sensor for DX products, first the D5200 today the D7100. I am sure they have some sound reasoning for not employing 24MP-DX Sony sensor anymore. Now a probability comes to mind: Is Toshiba working on the next generation FF-sensors for Nikon?

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Feb 21, 2013)

Do you think there is a difference between Sony and Toshiba?

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201102/11-0228E/index.html

2 upvotes
AV Janus
By AV Janus (Feb 21, 2013)

LOL! Thats brilliant!
This way it looks like its something special.
Like not SONY. hahaha!

But any way it doesn't matter for the actual photographer...

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

4 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Feb 21, 2013)

True, there is no automatic connection, even if it is likely.

To add to the plot: Sony also provides a 2x magnification hi speed mode, surely support by readout design on the sensor.

Of course a pure coincident that Nikon now offers the same. :)

0 upvotes
BobYIL
By BobYIL (Feb 21, 2013)

@ Eleson..

"Do you think there is a difference between Sony and Toshiba?"

If you can't see any difference even between the D5200 and the Nex-7 at hi- ISO settings on the studio shot comparison widget of DPR then probably you need new eyeglasses..

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Feb 21, 2013)

And?
I commented on the that Toshiba and Sony are working cooperating and that a chip labeled Toshiba doesn't say anything at all about who made the sensopr design. Heck, it may have been outsourced from Sony as well.
But thinking that Toshibas first entry into sensor design would be a complete 'me-too' design compared to existing cameras is simply naive.
And also thinking that their first attempt would blow almost all Canon sensors away, is also naive.

Of course the inners of this camera is a reuse of the 5200 design, Nothing wrong with that. Bringing in another design with possibly other pin-layout and readout mechanisms and other behaviour is simply bad economics, especially if the selling point (MP) remains the same.
Also, If Toshiba decided to enter the market, it would offer something else that atleast separates them from others.
But, it is good for Nikon & Sony that the chip says Toshiba, they can both now claim a unique sensor, not used in competitor cameras.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 21, 2013)

It is my understanding that the markings on a sensor reflect the intellectual property owner or designer, not the manufacturer. Sony sometimes outsource their manufacturing to other fabs, but the sensors are still marked as Sony sensors. The fact that it doesn't say Sony on the new sensor is very odd, if it's in fact a Sony design.

Also, this is not Toshiba's first entry into sensor design. They are an established maker of smaller sensors. It's their first APS-C sensor (that we know of), but we don't know how much R&D money went into its development. We know for certain though, thanks to Chipworks, that the sensor architecture is different from Sony's sensors, even if the performance is similar.

Finally, Nikon could claim a unique sensor already before the D5200/D7100, because the D3200 sensor is not made by Sony either. It's a Nikon design manufactured by Renesas.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 21, 2013)

So the advertising department gets to say it's a sharper camera because of the lack of an OLPF, which you wont notice unless you blow your pics up to 6 foot wide.

But no OLPF means you might get moire which ruins your pics permanently (no matter what they say). Are we supposed to be happy about this? I've waited ages to upgrade my D90 but I am not going to risk moire as I shoot a lot of weddings. You can hardly ask the bride to remove her veil because Nikon can't make a decent camera any more.

I think photographers should be put back in charge of camera design at Nikon. Or at least give us a D7100e which has the OLPF put back where it's supposed to be!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Feb 21, 2013)

The fact is that with resolutions this high the risk of moire is almost negligible.

But you're right: weddings are a special case because of the veils.

6 upvotes
Studor13
By Studor13 (Feb 21, 2013)

Is there some reason why you can't buy say a D600?

I mean, if you are making a living from shooting weddings, surely you can afford $2000?

And if you aren't making a living from shooting weddings then I'm sure the bride is more than happy to get free coverage.

In any case the moire thing is a non issue on the D800 and D800E.

There haven't been any reports of brides having to remove their veils because "Nikon can't make decent cameras anymore".

12 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 21, 2013)

It's the "almost" that worries me, for the sake of a bit of extra sharpness at large sizes we are expected to faff about with image processing software to correct something that needn't have been there but for Nikon's need to have some way of saying it's a better camera than the D5200.

Anyway, let's wait and see what the images look like. Maybe DPreview will take some veil shots to calm me down!

2 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 21, 2013)

Studor - I don't make a living from shooting weddings but I do a lot for friends and family.

I would have brought a D600 but for the crappy autofocus points and the oil spot issue. Why should I spend £2000 on a camera just to have to send it back to be repaired after a few months? Nikon should be begging our forgiveness for that little cock up.

And then there's the extra cost of new lenses, so I thought I'd wait for a D7000 replacement as that one has the typical Nikon overexposure problem in bright light. There is really no excuse for any of these problems.

5 upvotes
Studor13
By Studor13 (Feb 21, 2013)

Hugo, I think that the D600 "issues" have all been resolved.

The D7100 is A LOT of camera. In 3 months time it's going to be around $1000.

No so long ago I paid 1600 euros for a D300. That's some USD 2000!

You need to pinch yourself and be happy with what Nikon has done with the D7100.

Just go back and compare the specs between the D300(s) with the D7100 and then come back and tell me that you are not getting a bargain.

8 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 21, 2013)

As far as I know the D600 still has a DX autofocus module. And people are still returning their cameras for cleaning, but not as many.

I also don't remember saying the 7100 wasn't a bargain, it's what I've been waiting for.... But if it overexposes like most Nikon DX slr's I won't buy it. You take your chances with moire but they could save me the trouble by putting the OLPF back, it isn't like anyone is going to notice.

1 upvote
spbStan
By spbStan (Feb 21, 2013)

The D600 has a Multicam4800fx that has been optimized for FX and by all reports, works very well. The D7100 has the same AF module as the D4 and D800 but modified for DX, with incredible -2ev AF-in-the-dark capability.
Nikon DSLRs have wider DR than any other brand so unless used to meter on a low tone while in presence of strong high tones, the camera does not overexpose but that is a user error anyway with every camera. Read up on exposure, and how to manage a 18 stop scene with a camera with 14 stops of DR. User error is easily corrected with education.

1 upvote
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 21, 2013)

Yeah funny. My old D40 overexposed by up to one stop in sunlight, my D90 doesn't. If you took the trouble to read the reviews here (and anywhere else) you'd know that overexposure has become a problem for Nikon's cheaper DX cameras. It seems to be where Nikon puts the mid tones and not a dynamic range problem.

According to DPreview the D7000 needed compensation as well but the D600 does not. So, it's a simple (and reasonable) question - which one does the D7100 follow? Am I going to be continually checking my screen and adding compensation like I used to, or not?

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (Feb 21, 2013)

The value of my D300s on the used market just dropped a bit with this camera and could be harder to sell now with this camera almost out. Although D300s is still a great camera in decent or moderate light, the D7100 has it beat in many areas. The D7000 missed mostly due to its lesser AF system as reported by some people in these forums, for accuracy in low light, not its resolution.
Nikon needs to update its D600 with a re-labelled D600s without any oil issues at all, so the buyer is confident to buy one and put the 51pt AF in it to help D600 sales. Top DX - AF system is now better than AF system of FX D600. Do we have any evidence that the D600 is free of oil lube splatter problem. I have heard no official announcement.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
PK24X36NOW
By PK24X36NOW (Feb 21, 2013)

Rachotilco, "these resolutions" meaning 24MP? The 24MP DX cam will be far more likely to experience moire than the 36MP FX cam, because it is total image pixels, not pixel density, that determines how likely moire is, unless you're comparing DX with FX cropped to DX, which is meaningless. Take the same image with a D800E and a D7100, and you'll get moire with the D7100 before you get it with the D800E.

0 upvotes
atelier O
By atelier O (Feb 22, 2013)

Ken Rockwell, is that you? How's your D40?

0 upvotes
atelier O
By atelier O (Feb 22, 2013)

Ken Rockwell, is that you? How's your D40?

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 22, 2013)

So good he posted it twice!

1 upvote
Total comments: 315
12