Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Nikon D7100 in-depth review

By dpreview staff on Apr 26, 2013 at 00:44 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $1,146.9515 deals

We've just published our 25-page, in-depth review of the Nikon D7100. Sitting atop Nikon's APS-C DSLR lineup, the D7100 offers a 24MP CMOS sensor sans AA filter and a 51-point AF system that borrows heavily from the D4. In terms of ergonomics and handling the D7100 will feel familiar to D7000 users looking to upgrade, but it also inherits recent changes we've seen from Nikon in the D600 and D800 models. Is the D7100 a compelling option for enthusiasts tempted by the recent wave of affordable full frame DSLRs? Click the links below to find out.

949
I own it
283
I want it
75
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 394
12
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Apr 26, 2013)

Fantastic review and a great camera. I think Canon just folded their hand and went to the bar to rinse away their sorrows.

I was a little disappointed about the video aspects. However, the GH3 really has that market cornered. For stills this D7100 really is hard to beat.

That being said. Compare the Olympus OMD EM-5 to the D7100 in the comparometer. I was surprised at how close they were up to ISO 3200. The D7100 pulls away after that though.

Bravo Nikon. Bravo.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (Apr 26, 2013)

Agreed, mpgxsvcd. Along the line of weak video, I would also add that the lack of articulated touch screen further limits it's usefulness in video and some photo shooting situations. The slow live view could further add to the frustration in using the rear LCD screen. I am very surprised that DPR gave it such a high mark in the viewfinder/screen department.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

Like the D5200, the D7100 is an excellent video camera which has a huge advantage over most of the other cameras in it's class because it has virtually no moire/aliasing and is excellent in low-light.

Expect EOSHD to post some side-by-side D7100 videos with other popular cameras like they did with the D5200 vs 5D Mk IIIand D5200 vs GH3, both of which were total eye openers where the D5200 came out smelling like roses.

3 upvotes
Halstatt
By Halstatt (Apr 26, 2013)

Did I read this correctly: "...any moiré that we did see was far from distracting" (re: absence of a low-pass filter)?

Yes, a little moire just livens up an image.

2 upvotes
Escape
By Escape (Apr 26, 2013)

Nice! Now, where is an in-depth review of the D5200? :)

0 upvotes
senn_b
By senn_b (Apr 26, 2013)

wow !!! .. what a commercial rapidity .. when dpr has posted its "Review in progress: Pentax K-5 II and K-5 II S" I have expected a more recent CANIKON camera imminent in-depth review; .. well done guys .. but stop taking no CANIKONers for idiots ;) :)

5 upvotes
SylvainBdg
By SylvainBdg (Apr 26, 2013)

hum..85%...Nikon and its delicious GREEN skin tones...I am wondering what % is allocated for colour reproduction...my wedding was shot 3 weeks by 4 photographer using 4 different gears..Canon 7d, Nikon D7100 and D700 and Sony A77..guess which camera produced the most natural pics? (apart from the noise pb)..well it was the Sony..I am always surprised to see how much Nikon cameras score...Nowadays people just seem to care about pixels and sharpness..what a pity!!!

7 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Apr 26, 2013)

Are you talking about green skin tones on out of camera jpeg?

0 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (Apr 26, 2013)

I'm a wedding photographer and I use Nikon..
And i never got complain about green skintone..
So there are 2 possibilities, first one is the photographer doesn't know how to use it, second one is that u are a fanboy troll..

20 upvotes
SmilerGrogan
By SmilerGrogan (Apr 26, 2013)

There is definitely a weird green thing with Nikons, but it comes and goes in my experience. I was shooting pasta with my D7000 the other day and even with custom white balance, those tan noodles were swung way toward green. I was able to pull the green out with the sliders in Camera Raw, but it was a tense few minutes when the client first saw them coming off the camera.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Apr 26, 2013)

He's a Sony A77 using Troll. I just checked. No doubt he's not telling the truth about this supposed wedding either. Time to note the screen name for further consideration in posts and other area. I'm not sure why some Sony fanbois need to validate the camera model they chose by coming to a Nikon review with such nonsense. Nice catch, Illumina.

5 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Apr 27, 2013)

He could have made a more reasonable complaint, as I'm sure the camera isn't perfect, but skin tone problems (in jpegs) seem to have been solved by all makes now. Even recent Panasonics have very pleasant skin tones, where ones from a couple of years ago were hideous.

0 upvotes
SylvainBdg
By SylvainBdg (Apr 27, 2013)

Hey guidenet..check my FB account ok. take a look at the pics ok. I got 3 photographers hired. one with a canon 7d, two using Nikon..d7100 and D700..no complain about the D700...one of my friends was using my A77 and btw if u have checked on the forum, most of the pics I've uploaded are taken with Canon cams...so i guess u haven't checked anything troll!!! Now if u want me to send some raws no worries, we'll make the comparison!!

0 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Apr 27, 2013)

Sylvain, that was trollish. You shoot an A77. I did check. You dont shoot Nikon. Moreover, any green cast is a Jpeg setting, not some problem with the camera. I can make your A77 have a green cast or my Nikon D3S. A RAW file is not an image. It's the red, green and blue values stored digitally. So troll elsewhere. Facebook page! Priceless!

Then we have SmilerGrogan with the same foolishness and a brand new accound. You guys. LOL

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 27, 2013)

"skintones", the last bastion of net photography mythmakers and irrationality.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
SylvainBdg
By SylvainBdg (Apr 28, 2013)

Guidenet, next time take more time to read my comment ok... I didn't say I shoot Nikon. I said my wedding was shot with D7100 and D700. I think some people know what I am talking about. I didn't say Nikon cameras are crap btw..I am talking about green tones only. I am not a Sony fanboy. I am a Fuji fanboy. But still when I look at the files, I honestly think that the Sony's colours reproduction is better.It really happens that skin tones are green. As a matter of fact I am shooting mostly Asians and I have noticed the same issue with many Nikon cameras. (the brown skin has green nuances in it)
I hope that you are "attacking" everyone who write a negative comment about a camera you like buddy. I pointed out a negative aspect and you got mad at me..frankly, I' am fine if you don't share my point of view but be polite in the future.Show that you are civilized.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Apr 28, 2013)

I shoot Sony, Nikon and Fuji. Nikon has at base a bit to much red stitch, but later models to much green, but if you set manually the WB with a white test sheet, that is gone. Any responsible wedding shooter will anyway set his WB manually. On Sony's I can adjust color level manually prior to shooting and to my taste, what is a bargain, and on Fuji S5, I only adjust WB, shots are perfect in color.

0 upvotes
1971_M5
By 1971_M5 (Apr 26, 2013)

My D300 was stolen about a month ago and I was very sad about it. Bought the D7100 as a replacement. At first, I was a bit unimpressed (mainly the ergos), but now, after a few weeks of work, I am truly amazed at how the D7100's IQ blows away the D300. I'm very satisfied with the D7100. I shoot mostly landscapes, but also dabble in some HS soccer (night; lights) and have not had any problem with the frame rate in continuous mode (recording both 14-bit RAW and JPG on separate cards). GREAT camera.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Apr 26, 2013)

Put Pentax K-30 into the image quality comparison.

Sometimes I think Pentax K-30 doesn't make it to the comparo because it just might steal the show...

5 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 26, 2013)

That's one theory. More likely it is because only maybe 2-3% of photographers use Pentax vs 35-40% use Nikon.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Apr 26, 2013)

You can add whatever camera you like to our comparison, yourself.

5 upvotes
joseluismx
By joseluismx (Apr 27, 2013)

Barney, could you fix the Comparison tool in the Conclusions page? Because it's showing too few cameras. For example, it doesn't list the Pentax K-5 nor the K-5II/s (I'm sure these haven't been reviewed, but at least the K-5 has).

0 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (Apr 27, 2013)

You can't review an electric toothbrush without some Pentax fanboy getting offended by some perceived slight?

1 upvote
joseluismx
By joseluismx (Apr 28, 2013)

I wouldn't call the D7100 an electric toothbrush. It's more like a toaster.

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Apr 26, 2013)

I tested (2) 35mm lenses on the D7100; the Sigma 35/1.4 Art FX ($900) and the diminutive Nikkor 35/1.8 DX ($200). I was surprised that the Nikkor was nearly as sharp (you must pixel peep to see the difference) and rendered colors identically to the Siggy. The Sigma a bit more contrasty. The Nikkor combo is so much nicer to shoot with...with the Sigma attached, the rig feels like an anvil. Bokeh from the Nikkor was very nice as well. Not too shabby for 1400 bucks...

5 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Apr 26, 2013)

You don't get a true Nikon experience without that anvil feel though. Big cameras, big lenses. The heavier the gear, the better the photographer, and the camera company!

7 upvotes
Stanchung
By Stanchung (Apr 27, 2013)

I think the Siggy's good up to the corners, something the Nikkor needs stopping down to catch up but the price of the Nikkor is well worth it.
I feel the world has turned upside down though.

2 upvotes
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Apr 26, 2013)

Live View image recording time is outrageous, and for this one issue, how in the word does this camera, which I use everyday, merit a Gold Award?

1 upvote
LJ - Eljot
By LJ - Eljot (Apr 26, 2013)

Live View seems to be irrelvant to the testers. That bahavior in Live View makes this camera unusable in this mode.

5 upvotes
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Apr 26, 2013)

What is really 'Telling' about the reviews and the reviewers here lately is which posts they decide to comment on and which they stay away from.

So far, no one can dispute my comment about Live View recording times.
They can't agree with me because they gave their Gold Award to the camera.
This just goes to show the capabilities of the reviewers more than the cameras, in my humble opinion.

1 upvote
Ralf Ronander
By Ralf Ronander (Apr 26, 2013)

I don´t understand how DPR can neglect to comment on the fact that Nikon has disabled TRAP FOCUS on the new generation bodies.

I really would like (more like demand) to know what is Nikon´s reasoning behind this. DPR should make Nikon explain.

0 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Apr 26, 2013)

You can set the AE/AFL button as AF-ON in the custom menu.

7 upvotes
Stanchung
By Stanchung (Apr 27, 2013)

IME the AE lock button is slightly too out of the way to press when holding with one hand.
Very annoying.
Need a pro model. >.<

0 upvotes
SRT3lkt
By SRT3lkt (Apr 26, 2013)

In a few years' time, top score will exceed 100%.

2 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (Apr 26, 2013)

The scores have always reflected quality compared to its peers at the time being. So probably not :)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Apr 26, 2013)

Oh, but yes, as Canon is so "weak", there will be Nikon vs Nikon only, so the score might exceed 100%... Cheers! :)

1 upvote
Bram de Mooij
By Bram de Mooij (Apr 26, 2013)

I wonder if the 51 point AF system is any better or equivalent to the system in my D300. I still wonder if it is worth 'upgrading' my D300 to D7100.

I bought a D5200 recently because of the swivel LCD and low weight compared to the D300, but I am in doubt of buying a D600 or D7100.
(Also own OM-D plus prime lenses).
Build in GPS and proper wifi remote options would mean a lot to me, but that seems a bit besides the point, since D5200, D600 and D7100 are all the same in this respect.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 26, 2013)

I'm kind of with you. I don't own a Nikon DSLR, and I'm toying with the idea of getting one. An older model, higher-performing, might be best for me. I even like the idea of a D70, for the high flash sync. The IQ of a D300 would be more than enough for what I do.

1 upvote
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Apr 26, 2013)

Well not just AF system. I used to own d300 and shot EVERYThing with it from weddings to vacations and thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. About 6 month ago I had an opportunity to pick up a used d300 and it was a revelation: the noise in low light is so high comparing to modern bodies! I could not believe it. What was amazing in 2007 is not as good in 2013. I sold off that body very quickly. Even d7000 has much better sensor And obviously d7100

2 upvotes
skyrunr
By skyrunr (Apr 26, 2013)

FYI: The D300S focuses much better than the D300. Enough for me to upgrade to the D300S at the time. The D600 did not focus as fast as my D300S with a prime lens in low light. Keep in mind the D7100 and D600 have an entirely different button layout than the D200/D300/D800. The user modes on the top dial is nice, but I MUCH prefer the ISO/WB/QUAL/BKT buttons on the top. I also think that all new DSLR's should have articulating LCD screens!

And the option to assign center focusing a function button for when 3D/Matrix locks onto the wrong subject.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 27, 2013)

Nikon says it uses D4's algorithms and lately there was an update for both D4 and D800's systems, likely included already in the D7100 (that's for tracking). Lensrental Cicala has tested the D4 and D800 and the AF accuracy and they both perforemd bette than the earlier generation 51pt systems.

1 upvote
Bram de Mooij
By Bram de Mooij (Apr 27, 2013)

I skipped this D7100 and decided to go for a D600 to complement the D5200 (and D300).
I admit, too much gear :-)

Thanks for the comments btw

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
driftnomore
By driftnomore (Apr 26, 2013)

look at the high ISOs, it does not fall short off the competition, DPR. you just publish the images in the gallery...look again at those high ISO images... time to upgrade my venerable
D90.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

DPR might want to consider working with DxOMark to analyze certain aspects of IQ like high ISO and DR. Drawing conclusions based on 100% view, pixel level noise in comparisons of 16 mp and 24 mp resolution cameras will lead incorrect conclusions. This is precisely why sites like DxOMark downsample RAW images to 8 mp in their Low-Light (Sports) ISO tests.

For video, they should continue to collaborate with EOSHD.

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 26, 2013)

@marike6

If you test all cameras at the same resolution, then there is no benefit to extra resolution, which is one of the main selling points of the camera.

If a 24 megapixel camera is noisier at pixel level than an 8 megapixel camera (which will be true even at ISO 100, and especially at high ISOs), and you have to downsize a 24 megapixel image to make it equivalent to an 8 megapixel image in noise characteristics, then you have to accept one of two facts, A) the 24-megapixel camera is noisier than the 8-megapixel camera, or B) the 24-megapixel camera does not have the resolution advantage that you claim, because you have to downsize images to get equivalent noise characteristics.

Again, you give indications of someone who is not used to working with numbers, although you apparently love to cite them.

I hope this helps.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Apr 26, 2013)

That is incorrect because your 24mp camera is not noisy at pixel level at base ISo and close to it and u can easily print large and sharp photos and u can pixel peep all u want. Ur 8mp camera won't be able to do it. It is at high isos only that ur argument about down sampling may make sense. Do u always shoot in low light only ? U don't shoot outside or with a flash? Then I suggest u need a full frame body

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 26, 2013)

Absolutic,

Did you even read this thread? Marike6 claims that downsizing images to 8 Mp is the correct way to evaluate noise. I was responding to that.

Two cameras, same sensor size
A) 1800 * 1200 = 2.16 Mp
B) 2400*1800 = 4.32 Mp, B is noisier @ pixel level, but down-rezzes to 1800 * 1200 w/ same noise as A

@ 300ppi
A prints 6" * 4"
B prints 8" * 6", but each square inch of print has more noise

Two choices:

1) Accept that B is noisier than A, despite resolution advantage
2) Down-rez B to same size and noise as A, and accept that B has no resolution advantage

Now, I realize the DxOMark has a website, and if I didn't understand numbers well like marike6 that might give them a certain cachet, but A) either their methodology is flawed, or B) (my preference) They understand like most normal people (myself included) that 8 Mp is sufficient for most everything, and have standardized to 8 Mp for that reason.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mosswings
By mosswings (Apr 26, 2013)

The Noise page comments have been changed to reflect the data. The D7100 is actually no worse than its lower resolution competition, and in fact the only camera in the comparison that is better is the FF D600. It is also no worse than the D7000 and in fact slightly better at the highest ISOs.

2 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 26, 2013)

mosswings

I just reread the noise page.

Yes, the D7100 has good noise performance.

Still, dpreview talks about noise at the "whole image level" and this makes no sense without a standard print size. Presumably, a larger resolution allows for printing at a larger maximum size, and if the camera is noisier at pixel-level, it will be noisier per square inch when printed at equal ppi as a camera with less pixel-level noise. If you are talking about downsizing this camera's images to get "whole image level" noise, then you have to mention that in the resolution page. Otherwise, you are cherry-picking a small print size when you want to extol the virtues of "whole image level" noise, then turning around and talking about fantastic resolution and detail that allow larger prints than other cameras, when you don't want to consider noise.

Which is it?

The people boosting this camera want to have their cake, and eat it too.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 26, 2013)

One more thing...

It might make sense to standardize to 8 Mp, to get away from guys like marike6 trying to convince people that cameras like this offer a significant resolution advantage in the real world over lower resolution cameras. Maybe in exceptional, controlled circumstances, but most of the time not.

If manufacturers concentrated on features, for example, think of what we'd get. If this camera were 8 megapixels, you could write pictures three times as fast to the card, even with the same lousy buffer it has now. Me, I'd pay for something like that. I'm not interested, though, in hearing gobbledygook about how much more this camera resolves than other cameras. Please...

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mosswings
By mosswings (Apr 26, 2013)

bob, this may sound like gobbledygook, but increased resolution pays benefits when rendering. Noise in the D7100 is quite well controlled at the pixel level. When you have lots of reasonably clean data to work with in post, you can use it to minimize noise while preserving edge detail. When you render - which for most people means downsizing - you've got more information available to better compute the proper tones to use for the rendered image. If your subject holds reasonably still, you can tripod-mount and fire off a burst of images and then average them together in post to lower noise levels even more while preserving detail. I naturally tend to revert to my film era ways and think in terms of single-shot, low resolution capture capability. With today's digital cameras, I have to consider the added dimension of higher resolution and postprocessing capabilities we could only have dreamed of before Y2K.
It's not exactly either/or in the modern era. It's more either/and.

2 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 26, 2013)

mosswings,

You make some good points.

But what about the idea of getting much faster read/write speeds with a smaller camera? If this camera were 8 Mp, you'd have three times the read/write speed. What if on top of that, there were more emphasis on buffers/processors, to make the camera even faster?

I suggest you go take a look at D70 shots, full size. They're all over the web. Are you seriously going to tell me that D70 images don't have the IQ anymore for an A3, A2, whatever size print you want in this oh-so-advanced modern era 8 years down the road from the D70's release? C'mon. You and I both know that isn't true.

So it is definitely not "both-and". You lose camera performance at least with more Mp.

You also gain noise. The argument of APS-C and FF against smaller sensor's telephoto capabilities is, "We crop". You can't downsize noise out of a cropped picture. You can't downsize it either, out of the larger print you "thought" you could make noise-free with a 24 Mp sensor.

0 upvotes
mosswings
By mosswings (Apr 26, 2013)

If speed is the reason that you want a new camera, then the D7100 is not the D400 that you are looking for. It is primarily for the single-shot photographer, though a lot of birders are doing very well with its limited buffering and burst capablities.

I will say this about D70 shots: you can tell the difference between it and a D90/D7000/D7100. The colors don't block up
as much, the consequence of having over 2 stops better DR. I shot with a D80 and a D90. I like the D90's look better. Some like the very punchy D40/D70 look. Notice I didn't say a thing about resolution. Today's sensor are better at capturing fine tonal detail, not just spatial detail. Whether or not anyone using these things for posting to the web cares is another matter, and I'm not buying a camera like this for just posting to the web.

I'm therefore not sure that I agree with you that one inevitably loses in all respects with higher MP. But comparing cameras from different eras confuses the issue.

2 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 26, 2013)

Well, mosswings, again you make some good points.

My reasoning works like this: I prefer small and inexpensive if possible. Therefore I tend towards cameras like m43, or the Canon 100D recently introduced.

IF I'm going to pay big $$$ for a DSLR, then I expect performance. I'm not speaking for everybody, I realize that.

The IQ of m43 is enough IMHO, no matter how big anyone prints, unless people are peering at nose-length at a big print, but that doesn't count as viewing (literally--they can't see the print!). I've seen nice billboards out of 5 Mp point and shoots. I knew the photographer. What mirrorless lacks is that instant response of DSLRs, and I figure that I would be paying the money for that in a premium-quality DSLR.

Your points are well taken, tone counts, but you have to really be able to see the difference (easily) for it to count. Can we agree on that? This is a good camera, for some people it will be a great camera. To me, it's priorities are slightly misplaced.

0 upvotes
mosswings
By mosswings (Apr 26, 2013)

We agree more than my statements might imply. For most folks, and that would include myself in many situations, a more convenient to use and carry camera that takes good IQ pictures without a lot of fussing afterwards is the ticket. I have another smaller sensored camera for just that purpose. Certainly the new EPL5 is going to be the camera IQ wise that the Series 1 wasn't. The decision to go DSLR vs. mirrorless is one based on personal needs and in a couple of generations everything will have gone the mirrorless route anyway, and I look forward to that day. DSLRs have long ago reached a plateau in bulk performance by conventional measures. The advances are now more subtle, and more backend or operationally oriented. It's up to us to decide whether they constitute advances with regards to how we photograph. Shoot well, and thanks for the interesting discussion.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 27, 2013)

mosswings,

Thank you. Great shooting, with whatever camera you choose. Thanks for the discussion!

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 27, 2013)

@bob: if you downsize the D7100 to 16MP it beats the D7000 in both noise and detail. Using th eextra detail you can remove some of the noise and still get better detail and less noise, both at 16 and at 24 MP, than the D7000. You just need to download the RAWs and do it yourself, it has been posted in the Nikon forum, check my posts.

0 upvotes
Rick DeBari
By Rick DeBari (Apr 29, 2013)

The D7100 sounds very, very nice! Really it does. However, I am going to wait a few months for the D400/D9000 semi-pro version to (hopefully) be announced. I prefer the all-metal Nikon bodies, dedicated ISO & QUAL buttons, higher fps and bigger buffer. What I would really like to see is a fully pro DX Nikon, an updated version of my D2x. Something like a D4 with a 24MP DX sensor optimized for sports and wildlife photographers who need the extra reach of DX. But, sadly, that will probably never happen.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Neal Hood
By Neal Hood (Apr 26, 2013)

Yes, I also meant to compliment the reviewer. Very well written and communicated.

7 upvotes
dougster1979
By dougster1979 (Apr 26, 2013)

All in all a great camera, an improvement on the already good D7000. Improved resolution, focusing, and at a great price. The only thing that i would like is an articulated screen, currently available on most lower grade dslr`s? I can`t afford, but to be honest i`m still got a long way to go with the D7000 before i consider an upgrade. But it`s good to see continued progress in DX.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mino21
By mino21 (Apr 26, 2013)

"Maximum magnifications in image playback show pixelated output" is a negative? I think it is positive. For example, see the results from Panasonic cameras, where image playback is very badly interpolated. There is no way how to see whether the image is blurred or not.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 26, 2013)

They mean that when fully zoomed in it still only shows a low resolution image blown up, which is a negative compared to cameras which can show a full 1:1 zoom.

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 27, 2013)

Fully zoomed is 200% in Nikons, thus pixelated.

0 upvotes
Alexhou
By Alexhou (Apr 26, 2013)

I just saw a comparison between D7100 & NEX3N, including 100% view and high ISO noise, seems NEX3N is better....

3 upvotes
Alexhou
By Alexhou (Apr 26, 2013)

I saw them in a Chinese BBS, the author are doubting D7100 is the best camera in APS-C

2 upvotes
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (Apr 26, 2013)

Congratulations to both.

0 upvotes
Davidfstop
By Davidfstop (Apr 26, 2013)

There's a definite favouritism towards the big two.
There are lots of other camera's that we have been hungrily waiting for reviews on (Pentax Olympus etc).
Nikon walks in and the others get a back heel!
When the 7200 comes out next month, will that get a full review too? ;-0
The Nikon on paper seem nearly as good as the K5 though.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Apr 26, 2013)

That's a completely unfair criticism which is not based in actual facts. There may be many things to criticise about DPR's reviews of serious cameras - one being the delay, which compares unfavourably to mobile phones' reviews on Connect -, but actually DPR's reviews are not biased at all. Pentax and Olympus get great reviews when they make great cameras, and so do Sony and Panasonic.

16 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Apr 26, 2013)

Yes, this review did come out in a remarkably short period of time...the RX1 took 5 months. And I can see how you might come to the conclusion that they review some of the more commercially viable cameras much faster than those that cost say $2800. That said; I'm a glass half full kinda guy so maybe, just maybe, the speed with which this review was completed and posted doesn't have anything to do with a sales and marketing agenda, but rather a "New Years Resolution" commitment to produce much faster reviews in 2013 :) We'll see...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 26, 2013)

Manuel,

I don't understand your response. I think the point OP is making is precisely about the delay, with regard to certain brands (not Canon and Nikon).

I understand dpreview's position, which I think is to review the cameras with most consumer interest first (or at least not super late) and put the others aside for a while. It's a defensible position.

2 upvotes
tonywong
By tonywong (Apr 26, 2013)

I'm not certain on how the reviews are done, but I do think the system is set up to favour the bigger and more exciting entrants.

I'd love to see a behind the scenes look at how reviews are done, but I'm guessing part of the problem is that DPR only uses loaner cameras from the manufacturer, so if there is negative issues (like the 1D3's AF issues), Canon can play rope-a-dope with DPR to delay their review, or give them a very early review camera to test.

Smaller players may not have the ability to pass out as many loaner units/pre production units and then the lag time becomes pretty huge in comparison. I don't see why DPR doesn't use some huge distributor (like AMAZON?) to get a production unit off the line (no cherry picked units/ringers), and then sell it on DPR's own buy/sell board when they are done.

The second part is self selecting. Given Nikon and Canon's huge market share, reviewers will likely be more familiar with their cameras and be able to bang off a review faster.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Apr 26, 2013)

Bobbarber: what the commenter was implying was that Canon and Nikon equipment get some sort of precedence over all other manufacturers. It's just not true. I'm tired of conspiracy theories, hence my reply.
On the other hand, it is clear that the staff at DPR are so excited about Connect that they tend to leave real photographic equipment behind, but that does not allow anyone the conclusion of «bias» towards one or another brand.

0 upvotes
Davidfstop
By Davidfstop (Apr 26, 2013)

Hi Manuel

I conclude no conspiracy theory at all..! bobbarder is bang on the mark with his comment.
My last two comments were slightly tongue in cheek , Nikon and Canon do seem to upgrade for upgrades sake, and anyway, I am am biased towards Pentax. Like I said , nice to see Nikon catching up with Pentax ;-)

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 26, 2013)

I think it's just that Canon and Nikon (and especially Nikon) have mastered product placement to a point where they are a part of our lives (like Mac laptops in movies). So, people assume the cameras will be great (especially Nikon) and when a review confirms what the reader has already decided, that's a great review. Of course, this builds on itself and that's why Canon & Nikon have the bulk of what's left of the camera business.

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 27, 2013)

C'mon Sony/Pentax/Oly users. Sony got high marks here in all the tests, Oly and Pentax also gets good marks. That DPR knows that there are more people interested in C/N models than in those other makers'models is just a market truism, this is a commercial site. They have been relatively fair in my opinion (but the final score is not very credible), give or take some (IMO) weird emphasis and some laxity with some models' poor AF.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bossa
By bossa (Apr 26, 2013)

I'd like to see a test of the D7100 up against the D800E in 1.5x crop mode because I'm wondering if I could squeeze some more resolution out of my 300/4 & TC-14E II combo with any real quality. I end up using my D800E's in 1.5x crop mode for birds and then end up cropping some more - without a 600mm lens there's only so much cropping you can do.

PS: It'd be nice if DPR finished the K-5IIs review before the K-3 comes out ;-)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
gsum
By gsum (Apr 26, 2013)

I have the same setup and the same problem. Cropping to 9mp gives 600mm equiv with the 300mm lens. An alternative to the D7100 would be to use a Nikon 1 V1 with the 300mm lens which would give 810mm equiv at f4 and a 10mp image. The problem is the high cost of the FT1 mount adapter so I don't know whether it's worth it. Rob Galbraith is a big fan - http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11668-12212

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
1 upvote
bossa
By bossa (Apr 26, 2013)

Cheers, I never worked out the actual MP's but there's all that chroma noise of the D7100 at higher ISO's that would perhaps counteract the advantage of the 24MP sensor so we really do need a test for telephoto usage and not just 'kit lenses'. I probably should just save like hell for a 600mm F4 I suppose. At least that way you get all 36MP's to play with.

0 upvotes
gabriel foto
By gabriel foto (Apr 26, 2013)

Actually, chroma noise seems very low for the D7100 compared to other DX cameras, so I find this remark difficult to understand?
Remember also that the noise graphs are not normalised for print size, but are given on a per-pixel level so my feeling is that the D7100 is about as good a DX camera as we have ever seen, regarding chroma noise.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
bossa
By bossa (Apr 26, 2013)

I take your point, it's probably not as bad as I first thought. I was comparing the still life scene to my Pentax cameras and it does break up sooner (ISO 6400). http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100/22

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Apr 27, 2013)

I can certainly understand how the Manchurian program worked so well...

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 27, 2013)

@bossa: I have tested the high ISO raws from DPR with CNX2 and they clean very well, especially the chroma noise. I guess you can do even better with some specialty NR soft. The fact that it has more resolution and no AA system helps, you can apply NR and still get very detailed images. In my exp, it gets relatively close to the D600 at ISO3200/6400 if you do that, about 1/2 stop worse, only.

0 upvotes
DELETED88781
By DELETED88781 (Apr 26, 2013)

Amadou,This is an amazing review from a real world user.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Karl Summers
By Karl Summers (Apr 26, 2013)

I believe most reviews use real words.

0 upvotes
bossa
By bossa (Apr 26, 2013)

A fictitious character was not available for this test unfortunately.

15 upvotes
wootpile
By wootpile (Apr 26, 2013)

My next Nikon!

Now PLEASE dpreview, get to work on the Oly epl5 review. pleeaase =/

5 upvotes
Alexhou
By Alexhou (Apr 26, 2013)

yes yes, i expect Oly EP5 looks...

0 upvotes
Neal Hood
By Neal Hood (Apr 26, 2013)

No camera is perfect but this one seems to put the compromises in the best places thus yielding a versatile and user friendly DSLR (functionality, size, menu structure, etc) that can make an image competitive with the best out there. For the average type user (like me), its the ticket.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Apr 26, 2013)

Buffer is too small, otherwise a great camera and a nice review. Still, the D7100 has fast enough processing power to shoot 2.7 fps buffer full. That's quick. So is 3.5 fps in 1.3 crop mode. My type of shooting would not be handicapped by the buffer I think. After seeing some images being shown on the forum, I think this is a great camera for birders and wildlife shooters, especially with the improved Af module.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
GPW
By GPW (Apr 26, 2013)

I want to apologize to DPR and anyone that I may have offended with an earlier comment (profanity), it was inappropriate and non professional. Please forgive, don't stone.

2 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (Apr 26, 2013)

Impressive camera for the most part, but the D5200's raw images look less massaged and for anyone who owned a D300, the D7000/D7100 body is not really that good feeling.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Apr 26, 2013)

Less massaged? Is that shiatsu or Swedish? Some of you just aren't getting the fact that Nikon has handed you the keys to the DX picture quality kingdom for a very reasonable price. A whole bunch of shooters using other brands are casting longing looks in the D7100's direction, you'd better believe it. Wise up! And get used to a normal sized camera while you're at it, the big barges aren't coming back, ever.

5 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Apr 26, 2013)

'massaged' is just a nicely expressed way of saying over manipulated. So are you saying that you disagree with that analysis? It seems to me to be a good point.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (Apr 27, 2013)

I'm just wondering if this thing (I had the D7000 for a couple weeks) is going to avoid the focus issues like it had? No mention on the review sites, either they've fixed it, or as usual, the users will find it out, not the reviewers. Personally, I like the raw output from the Pentax K5IIs better.

0 upvotes
GPW
By GPW (Apr 26, 2013)

Scott Kelby hails the D7100 as the low noise champ by a long shot, yet DPR said it falls short of the competition. Who do you believe?

5 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Apr 26, 2013)

DPR might have been looking at the pixel level, while the others at a reduced size comparison.

0 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (Apr 26, 2013)

Has Kelby made a full disclosure of his Nikon affiliation?

8 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 27, 2013)

There is one point that DPR didn't make: given some extra detail available (both due to higher res and no AA), the high ISO files are more manageable in terms of NR, w/o losing details. That's why I think this is the best high ISO APS-C out there (I own a D7000). Given it has pretty good low ISO performance, maybe just a tad shorter of the D7000's and the other cameras using the 16Mp Sony sensor, thi smay well be the best balanced of the bunch. It also uses the very impressive AF system of the top Nikon, D4, including algorithms and recently updated firmware for tracking performance. Looks lik ethe APS-C camera to have at this point, possibly except for video (even thoiugh the Canon/GH oriented EOSHD site had high marks for the similar D5200 video).

0 upvotes
zakaria
By zakaria (Apr 27, 2013)

Iwish nikon put the 2 years old sony sensor on D300 body and sell it at 1200$!

0 upvotes
jimrpdx
By jimrpdx (Apr 26, 2013)

Hey, someone finally outpointed the 2½-year-old K-5 on the DPR scale for APS-c dSLR! It was bound to happen one of these years...

16 upvotes
mosswings
By mosswings (Apr 26, 2013)

Amandou, to follow up on your assertions about the D7100's noise:

Your graphs tell exactly the opposite story, if I understand the noise graphs.

The RAW grey and black noise of the D7100, D7000, and 7D are essesntially identical up to ISO 6400. The chrominance noise of the D7100 is essentially identical to the D7000, and it is the lowest of the APS-C sensors; The A77 is decidedly noisier in all respects.

Unless pattern noise in the D7100 is quite high, how can you square your comments with your own assertions? It appears that you read the graphs backward...or I did.

2 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Apr 26, 2013)

Our apologies. That was an earlier version. Page is now updated.

1 upvote
_sem_
By _sem_ (Apr 26, 2013)

I think the banding/streaking issue should be mentioned. This will not affect most people because it tends to show up only with extreme lifting (starts at 5-7 stops) or HDR-like processing; affected samples have been spotted in the wild on DPR forums. The D7000/D5100 sensor was better in this regard and some people got spoiled by it; AFAIK the D800/D600 sensors are free from this too.

0 upvotes
mosswings
By mosswings (Apr 26, 2013)

Amadou, thank you for correcting your comments. They now fairly reflect the samples and graph data, and show the D7100 remaining amongst if not at the top of its class. As _sem_ notes, there are still issues of sensor robustness that you've touched on in your comments about shadow pattern noise, but they are very low. Streaking, however is a different and new phenomenon to D7000 owners, also quite low in effect, but geometry dependent. That you felt it not worth commenting on is a good indicator for the "real-world" photographer.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 26, 2013)

To me, the most interesting part of the review was the handling section. I use m43 mostly, but I love DSLRs for the ease of use and quick response.

I'm a little concerned about the small buffer size. Personally I would buy a camera like this in large part just so that it wouldn't choke up on me. Otherwise, I would stick to something more modest, like the new Canon S100D, or the previous Nikon D5100.

The image quality is great, and the D7100 looks like a good rig. But the IQ argument holds less and less weight these days. All modern DSLRs have great IQ. Once it's good enough, it's good enough.

I think that Nikon themselves must rate these cameras more in terms of features than IQ as far as price point goes. That's why you get the awesome IQ of this camera at a reasonable price. Because performance is what is really worth paying for.

12 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Apr 26, 2013)

Great camera, and great review indeed. Congrats.

But one thing I have to say, comparing the price vs sensor quality, the 5200 is an e x c e l l e n t camera to buy.

2 upvotes
Arsen
By Arsen (Apr 26, 2013)

I have been waiting for this review and had a feeling that it would do real well.. I needed a second body to compliment my D800E and only wanted a camera without the OLPF because once you use a camera without one, I can't imagine using one with it. This is a nice camera to take with a small lens and get excellent results when I want to leave the big brother home.

5 upvotes
Donald Chin
By Donald Chin (Apr 26, 2013)

Really? I bought 3 cameras last year and D800E is the least I use. The other 2 is a D4 & a RX1 which both have AA filter. :-)

2 upvotes
Arsen
By Arsen (Apr 26, 2013)

The RX1 is a killer camera for the size. The D4 is great for sports. But for pure resolution , dynamic range and IQ quality, for me the D800E is amazing. My point with OLPF was that so many people are worried about moiré, but the truth is that I have not seen it in any of my images over 15,000 shots. We spend top dollars on tack sharp lens and without OLPF gives us that extra sharpness and no pp sharpening needed.

1 upvote
mosswings
By mosswings (Apr 26, 2013)

Amadou, this on the noise page is interesting:

"The D7100 displays noise levels that place it near the bottom of its APS-C competition."

This appears to mean the competing Canon and Sony, but then there's the D600, which is only one of the possible Nikon competitors. A big question in the minds of many D7000 upgraders is, "is it worse than the D7000?". Using the comparator, I can't really tell much difference between the D7000 and D7100 once resolution differences are taken into account.

Does your statement above imply that, in light of the comparometer results, the D7000 would ALSO place near the bottom of its APS-C competition?

I have a hard time believing that. The Toshiba sensor does exhibit higher pattern noise than the Sony EXMORs sensors that make up most of Nikon's pro line, but the pictures don't quite match DPR's words.

7 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

DxOMark has the D5200 as the top performing APS-C DSLR for low-noise with a score of 1284 ISO, and the D7100 is second with a Low-Light score of 1256 ISO so DPR's conclusion appears to be just plain wrong.

1 upvote
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Apr 26, 2013)

@marike 1284 vs 1256 are measurement error. It must be at least 1/3 stop to see the different.

9 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

@vodanh1982

Just reporting the numbers from DxOMark Sensor Ratings.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jared Huntr
By Jared Huntr (Apr 26, 2013)

@marike
Not understandinng the implications of measurement error is a dangerous thing. You make the same mistake below.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

@Jared Huntr

Oh won't you please enlighten us on the finer points of measurebating. Or not.

You seem to be missing the main point (see mosswings's parent comment). We're talking about why DXOMark and DPR have very different conclusions.

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 26, 2013)

One thing to keep in mind when comparing DPR and DxO, is that DPR look at out-of-camera JPEGs as well as JPEGs converted from raw in ACR (always with default settings), whereas DxO analyze the raw numbers without looking at images.
DxO don't demosaic (convert) the raw files, because they are testing the hardware capability, whereas DPR are interested in the quality of the final output (using a specific raw converter at default settings).

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 26, 2013)

@marike6

Seriously, not trying to flame or anything, but do you have any experience conducting scientific tests? I have an advanced degree (not related to physics or photography), and the first thing I wonder when I see published numbers is how accurately they reflect reality. I know for certain that they DON'T reflect reality, I just want to know how close they are. I think that most people (everybody?) who has worked extensively with numbers feels the same way.

It's like looking at a poll of potential voters that are 49% one way, and 51% the other way. That does NOT mean that more people are planning to vote for the politician with 51%. It may very well be the other way around, and by quite a bit. The same principal holds with all scientific tests, because there are random errors in all procedures, without exception.

IMHO, somebody who harps on numbers like DXO numbers as if they were truth, is somebody with little experience evaluating evidence.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 26, 2013)

Thanks for another good review. It's fun to dream... so many great cameras to drool over now. As far as equipment goes, has there ever been a better time to take up photography?

2 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Apr 26, 2013)

Review said the low light AF crown is 6D (-3 EV). How about the K5II(s)? It is out for months.

3 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Apr 26, 2013)

Our mistake. It was corrected to include the Pentax models.

7 upvotes
Ayoh
By Ayoh (Apr 26, 2013)

Also 6D only has -3EV sensitivity at the central AF point. Pentax has over 9 of the 11 points.

2 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Apr 26, 2013)

@Amadou: You are missing a correction on Autofocus area / Page 12

0 upvotes
kitsios_spyros
By kitsios_spyros (Apr 26, 2013)

Dear Amadou/ pdreview team,
thanks for the review.
However, as vodanh1982 mentions, you are still mentioning that
"The Canon EOS 6D still wears the low-light AF crown with its -3 EV sensitivity rating", which certainly needs correction. As the K5II/K5IIs reviews have been delayed, prepare for some complaints about Pentax being left out from the comparison, mine included.
D7100 is a great camera but it does not need any support, intentional or not. If anything, Pentax company with less funds than Nikon, that first incorporated specs in its category like -3EV AF sensor, no AA-filter (or 100%OVF), should not be left out in the first place. I would rather hope for the opossite as they are pushing the big two to offer more.
Thanks for the effort and the detailed reviews, but please weight issues like this as they affect your readers trust.
Kind Regards,
Spyros

0 upvotes
A Ginorio
By A Ginorio (Apr 25, 2013)

Lets hope this one don't include Nano Oil Dust coating like my D600.
A. Ginorio Photography

16 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 25, 2013)

Good job, but I can't understand the conclusion about the OLPF considering that in the RAW Studio scene the D7100 image shows better sharpness, most obvious in the Lira note, the purple and green fabric, for example.

The D7100 image also shows superior micro-contrast than D5200 images.

Still it's good that the D7100 received the Gold Award that the D7000 should have gotten a couple of years ago.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Apr 26, 2013)

Pixel peeing in a highly controlled studio test scene can tell you many things about camera performance. But out in the real world, photographing subjects that we'd shoot as photographers, even with excellent glass at the optimum aperture for center sharpness, you're hard-pressed to see any meaningful differences. And this isn't so much a knock on the D7100 as it is a strong testament ot the performance of the D5200. Clearly, it's OLPF is a very 'light' one.

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
11 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

But testing two cameras, locked down on tripods in a controlled environment and then studying the results is the way to understand differences so you can know how a given camera will perform in the field. It's been proven that the D800E is the highest resolving DSLR in the world. And that was done in a lab, not out in the field shooting trees with a D800 and D800E.

Your reliance on the term "real-world" as some sort of meaningful benchmark, or as an indication of the way "most" photographers use cameras is puzzling. Why have your studio test if your "real-world" caveat negates everything you learn from the RAW Studio scene?

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 26, 2013)

The studio tests allow us to see the maximum available difference but, if this difference essentially only exists in idealised conditions, then any benefit should be weighted accordingly.

10 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 26, 2013)

@marike6

The bottom line in all technology is real-world use. No airplane manufacturer would rate one airplane better than another based on wind-tunnel tests. You have to fly the planes first, then draw the conclusion.

Also, there is error in all tests. Even the most rigorous scientific testing, under the most controlled laboratory conditions, carries a standard error. Once results are close enough, they're a tie. You don't know if a tiny difference is due to random differences in the test or a real difference in what's being tested.

Dpreview would do a disservice to average consumers by portraying the D7100 as having a huge difference in IQ compared to cameras like the D7000. It doesn't have a huge difference, it has a tiny difference, if any, no matter how much you and others wave your arms in the air and say that other cameras aren't "close", etc.

Amadou, thanks for the review. It seems balanced, and I'm sure you realize that nothing you could say would please some people.

9 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Apr 26, 2013)

The differences in the studio shots were noticeable, but still fairly modest. You'll also note that they only found those clear differences in very specific circumstances, and not in many others. I certainly expected more noticeable difference, but Nikon has reputedly been using light AA filters for a while, and this bears that out.

If you only shoot with the very best lenses, at their sharpest apertures, in great light, then the differences would be apparent, and nice to have. That sounds like studio conditions to me. In more compromised circumstances I'd not find this an important difference. It seems more of an marketing advantage than a technical advance.

2 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (Apr 26, 2013)

"Real world usage" simply means that once you get outside a studio and the number of uncontrolled variables increases, the chance you'll notice the difference becomes slimmer.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

@R Butler

Scientific, controlled tests are done to remove as many variables as possible. You seem to be arguing that any differences are less noticeable outdoors with poor technique, handheld, or with kit lenses.

When DPR first presented the D7100 Official Samples, there were "real world" images like the snowy scene with trees made with the 70-200 f4 VR (see sample image 11 at link below).

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

So Sample Image 11 is a perfect example of a "real world" image in poor conditions. Yet a D7000 image of the same scene would likely not resolve fine detail in the trees as well.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

@bobbarber Nobody is waving anything and nobody ever said the other Nikon's aren't great.

I'm just happy you've come up for air, and that you are done kissing up to the reviewers at the expense of everyone else.

2 upvotes
PLShutterbug
By PLShutterbug (Apr 27, 2013)

@Amadou

"Pixel peeing?"

What's that? :)

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 25, 2013)

Great camera, DPreview should rate nikon cameras in the US by 5% points less due to terrible service centers.

Kidding aside, a good idea for DPreview is to team up with borrow lenses and lens rentals (for repair data) and rate manufactures for price, turn around time, quality...and so on. This is a very important part of the ownership experience and as a nikon owner myself, I have been very disappointed by the nikon service centers in the US. (Overseas seems to be a different story) Canon on the other hand, have great service (I have used canon service centers also).

9 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (Apr 25, 2013)

Really an excellent cam, well rounded and well deserved. People that are fans of other brands sometimes say it is just marketing that keeps Nikon going strong. That is true, but it is also coming up with camera's that are well rounded and deliver topnotch performance certainly when we look at the price. 85% score...well done!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 25, 2013)

would like to learn the theory that O-LPF-O delivers higher resolution.
my understanding is that it only delivers more noise (artificials).

0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Apr 26, 2013)

I wish I understood this comment. An OLPF intentionally slightly blurs the image, in a controlled way, to minimize moiré. That slight blurring always reduces detail, so removing the filter increases resolution.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 26, 2013)

> slightly blurs the image

it doesn't (* a little bit complex). the idea is not to blur the image but to block noise (high frequency fold down) from harming the image, while O-LPF-O removes this guard to save cost, hoping the down grade of the image is not easily visible (it is not).

it's a trade-off of cost and quality.

the problem is many users think the low quality images look better. then the makers are happy to sell low cost, low quality cameras at higher price.

*: O-LPF-O may get slightly better resolution from the green channel but the noise may do more harm.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 26, 2013)

actually the best image should be slightly blur looking and the sharp ones are all fakes.

0 upvotes
108
By 108 (Apr 26, 2013)

absolutely

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Apr 25, 2013)

DPR still can't see the difference between the D5200 and the D7100, which is puzzling and unfortunate. It's not subtle. All you have to do is look at DPR's own test scene.

5 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Apr 25, 2013)

Our current test scene is good for direct camera comparisons but is not always indicative of real world results. Which is why we also take cameras and point them at subjects that our readers might. Do that, even with the best lenses and you'll not see meaningful differences between the two.

15 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 25, 2013)

@Amadou Diallo

But if a direct comparison shows a difference, as your test scene does, it's profoundly puzzling as to why you would conclude there is no difference.

Because with some handheld "real world" snapshots, it's more difficult to see?

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Apr 26, 2013)

I've looked at a lot of D7100 pics from many different sources, and there isn't a D5200 shot which can hold a candle for detail and contrast, handheld or studio scene. It's a much milder and softer output by comparison. The D7100 is closer to the D800e than it is to the 5200.

5 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 26, 2013)

To extract as much detail from this type of sensor, a lens that performs well at max aperture is essential (f4 or less) due to diffraction. If you compare the 5200 vs 7100 at f8 (even if its a good lens) it will be difficult to notice the lack of a AA filter. This is also true for the D800 but the sweet spot is f5.6 or less.

3 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Apr 26, 2013)

@marike6
Regarding the specific comparisons on page 18 of the review, if you're willing to shoot a lens like the 50/1.4 at F3.5, then yes, you'll see a difference. I doubt, however, you'd look at the D520 image on its own and think, 'Wow, that's really lacking.' And stop down to F8, and diffraction has already wiped away even this difference. Hope that helps.
And you're correct. Shoot handheld and you've wiped out all the benefits.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 26, 2013)

I agree with Diallo. It will be hard to find a lens that out resolves the sensor before diffraction becomes a issue (around f5.6 +) Pair it up with a Zeiss 100 or 135mm and you will get better results. Only select owners will notice. On the plus side, AA filter does not seem to help much..so leaving it out is a good idea.

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 26, 2013)

Studio tests tend to exaggerate differences that are barely noticeable under real-world conditions. To say that there is no meaningful or significant difference in real-world use is not the same thing as denying that there is a difference.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

@Amadou Diallo

It's not a stretch for the owner of such a camera to own a 50 1.4, in fact I don't know one Nikon or Canon shooter who doesn't own either the 50 1.4 or 50 1.8. So I found it odd that your conclusion states that you'd need "top-level glass to see the difference". Nikon makes tons of top level Nikkors, and people don't buy a camera like this to use a kit lens as D3100 owners might.

One reason that vendors like Leica, Fujifilm, Pentax and Nikon are removing the OLPF is that there are tangible benefits to doing so. And with these four it's not a stretch that users would own good glass, in fact it's a given. So to have a caveat that "you need top-level glass" is kind of like saying you need racing tires on a race car.

Still I appreciate your comments and your hard work.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 26, 2013)

@marike6 Hard to say cause nikon does not print MTF charts with the lens stopped down but the 50mm F1.4G will require around f8 to achieve peak performance. This is diffraction territory for a 24MP APS sensor. Try a Zeiss 2/50 Makro.

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

@Mssimo
The peak performance of the 50 1.4G is, f4-f5.6 which is pretty much the peak performance of every fast 50 ever made (see Lenstip or Photozone Imatest plots).

And no you do not need a Zeiss 50 Makro-Planar in this situation as lots of lenses - Nikon's own 60 2.8 G, 50 1.8G, 70-200 2.8 VR II, Tamron 90 2.8 VC, Sigma 35 1.4, et al resolve the same 46 lp/mm (or more) in the center as the Zeiss Planar does (again see Lenstip Imatest MTF tests if you need proof).

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 26, 2013)

@marike6 The Nikon 50mm f1.4G or f1.8G is unable to out resolve a sensor with this many pixels. No hope for any zooms to do so also. If this sensor was full frame, it would be 56MP. Its still a good camera, but you will need good glass to show it off. And all those lenses you listed are sub par when it comes to such a nice sensor. Images will still look great, so don't worry.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

@Mssimo Lenstip tested all of the lenses I listed on the D3X, the exact same camera they used to test the 50 f2 Makro-Planar. and peak performance was exactly the same 46 lp/mm in the center, and in the case of the Sigma 35 1.4 it was higher.

I use the 28-50-85 1.8G and 70-200 f4 VR on my D800 and they do more than fine. The increased pixel density of the D7100 sensor vs the D800 may make diffraction occur a bit earlier, but it will not obsolete some of the best Nikkors like the ones I've listed and people most certainly won't need to run out an buy $2000 Cosina Zeiss Makro Planars.

By the way, you do realize that above you suggested the 50 f2 Makro Planar, and ALL of the lenses I listed have the same resolving power as the Makro Planar. And the Sigma 35 1.4 out resolves the Makro Planar, so subpar they are not.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 26, 2013)

By the way Marike..I love my new Cosina 2/135 APO Sonnar I got this week. I'll post some images up on the forums with my friends D7100 just for you. Also, read up on diffraction.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

@Mssimo
Maybe you should read up on being condescending.

Post whatever you want. I'm sure someone will look at them.

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 26, 2013)

and pointing out that a zeiss lens is built by cosina is not condescending. I dont care its made by Cosina..its awesome. By the way, learn the limits of your equipment...it will make you a better photographer.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 26, 2013)

@Mssimo

To sure what your problem is but find someone to impart your pearls of wisdom on.

Thanks.

1 upvote
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Apr 25, 2013)

thanks to the dpreview team for another excellent review! Looks like a killer APSC shooter, too bad about the terrible raw buffer (:
I will patiently wait for the D900E with this sensor, ~54mp, rip medium format

5 upvotes
wildbild
By wildbild (Apr 26, 2013)

Funny idea — a 54mp FFcamera would have defraction starting at f6.3. That would make all your f16 Landscapes look as soft as 70ies softp°rn. Even with the big proud capital E.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Apr 26, 2013)

They would still be sharper than with anything else before. Diffraction is there always, it just limits the maximum available sharpness. 54MPix photo taken at f/16 is sharper than a 24 MPix photo taken at f/16, diffraction or not.

2 upvotes
Richard Smals
By Richard Smals (Apr 25, 2013)

Not only the Canon 6D has a AF down to -3 EV also the Pentax K-5II/IIs.
Maybe others also, who knows?
So in the conclusion this is false information.

Thanks for the review, always a pleasure to read.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 25, 2013)

That's a good point - we've corrected the error.

1 upvote
ilysaml
By ilysaml (Apr 25, 2013)

Nice, I've been waiting for this long time.

0 upvotes
Mirko123
By Mirko123 (Apr 26, 2013)

People who use the D5200 have been waiting a LOT longer!

0 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Apr 26, 2013)

The cam has only been available for about 2.5 months, hardly a "long time" for a camera that will probably go at least 2 more years before being replaced. If you want a brief hands on review soon after a camera can be bought, visit another website that does such brief eviews.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Mirko123
By Mirko123 (Apr 25, 2013)

Err, where is the review for the D5200??

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 25, 2013)

Slow butter, not optically good view finder. One SD card slot. Not high quality build.

9 upvotes
WellyNZ
By WellyNZ (Apr 25, 2013)

@HowaboutRAW,

Slow butter? Is it tasty, at least?

8 upvotes
Mirko123
By Mirko123 (Apr 25, 2013)

Yeah, thanks....
But i find it disrespectful to D5200 users who have been waiting a long time and have received nothing!
Or does our lower economic bracket deem us as being non-relevant?

A little common courtesy and respect would be appreciated

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 25, 2013)

+1. In addition to having class leading IQ, the D5200 also has some of the best video quality you can find from any camera including the GH3 and the Canon T4i.

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 26, 2013)

A D5200 review would certainly be nice. What I don't get is, if you're already a D5200 user, why are you waiting for the review? Do you need confirmation that you made the right choice?

Not trying to be confrontational here. I'm just curious, because I have never bothered reading a review of a product that I already bought and were able to evaluate myself.

15 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Apr 26, 2013)

Due to scheduling, we had to decide between getting on with the D5200 or prioritizing the D7100. The D7100 won. The D5200 is up next on our plate, though.

2 upvotes
Mirko123
By Mirko123 (Apr 26, 2013)

@ Revenant,
Yes, i have a D5200, and yes i am very happy with it.
No, i dont need confirmation or justification about my choice.

I dont really understand your point.
I am curious and it would simply be nice to read a detailed review, considering the D5200 came out MONTHS before the D7100.

0 upvotes
Mirko123
By Mirko123 (Apr 26, 2013)

@ Amadou Diallo

Thank you for the explanation.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 26, 2013)

To expand on what Amadou has already said - when a reviewer became available to start this review, both the D5200 and D7100 were available. At which point we had to choose one over the other (in whichever order). There had been more interest in the D7100, so that won the day.

4 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 26, 2013)

@Mirko123

My point is that for me a review is something that I read when doing research before making a purchase decision. If I have already made that decision, I no longer need the review. I assumed most people read reviews for the same reason, but obviously that's not the case.

2 upvotes
Mirko123
By Mirko123 (Apr 26, 2013)

@Revenant

You dont read reviews out of curiosity & interest?
There are many things on this site that i read that are not directly related to me or the products that i use.

2 upvotes
Mirko123
By Mirko123 (Apr 26, 2013)

@R Butler

Thank you

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 26, 2013)

Yes, I read reviews and articles out of interest, to learn about products I might want to buy some day. But if I have already bought the product, no way, life's too short for that. But YMMV, of course. :-)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 26, 2013)

WellyNZ:

No the slow buffer is not tasty, but the Guinness was.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 394
12