Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon posts sample images from new D7100

By dpreview staff on Feb 21, 2013 at 19:56 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $1,146.9515 deals

Nikon has just posted a small six-image sample gallery from the new D7100. The D7100 is a 24MP, APS-C DSLR that does not feature an optical low-pass filter on its sensor. Theoretically, this should increase detail resolution. As well as an unconventional sensor, the D7100 offers a 51-point AF system and a 1.3X crop mode in stills and video capture. The images that Nikon has posted were taken in .NEF Raw mode with the D7100 fitted with the AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR and AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR.

Although there are only six images in Nikon's D7100 gallery, image quality seems very impressive. Interestingly though, the biggest question about the D7100's image quality - whether the lack of OLPF makes its sensor more prone to moiré - remains unanswered. These samples do not contain the sort of high-frequency, inorganic detail that typically induce the problem. They certainly provide an encouraging look at the new camera's potential though, and we're looking forward to putting the D7100 through our usual gamut of studio and real-world testing as soon as possible. Until then, check out our hands-on preview

Nikon D7100, ISO 200, 1/1000sec @ F8, .NEF (12-bit), AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR (in 1.3X crop)
Photo: Koji Nakano 
Nikon D7100, ISO 100, 1/180sec @ F8, .NEF (14-bit), AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR
Photo: Koji Nakano
Nikon D7100, ISO 100, 1/250sec @ F8, .NEF (14-bit), AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR
Photo: Koji Nakano
949
I own it
283
I want it
75
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 95
Joe Bowers
By Joe Bowers (Mar 15, 2013)

These photos look terrible. Blurry and lacking contrast. I hope this isn't an example of what this new camera can do.

0 upvotes
Wyatt Cooper
By Wyatt Cooper (Mar 17, 2013)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonphotostream/8550404293/in/set-72157632822762830

Yeah...NO contrast.

0 upvotes
dennishancock
By dennishancock (Mar 3, 2013)

Any oil spots a la the D600 and the D7000?

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 23, 2013)

There are more of these samples here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonphotostream/sets/72157632822762830/with/8497621442/

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

Thanks for the Link. We need more information and photos for this new Nikon SLR and see if the Moiré effect doesn´t appear.

1 upvote
Pierre Bellefeuille
By Pierre Bellefeuille (Feb 23, 2013)

Good link! Thank you! From these shots we can evaluate much more the quality of the Nikon D7100.

Portrait and color rendition are excellent :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonphotostream/8493981651/in/set-72157632822762830/

0 upvotes
azinheira
By azinheira (Feb 23, 2013)

Are you people ok, i don't see any detail on the trees.
nice photos but nothing that sharp when you check the image on a big screen HD.

5 upvotes
Ak pinxit
By Ak pinxit (Feb 22, 2013)

Very promising , off cause it is too early to say with such limited set of samples , never the less .

0 upvotes
alan e jones
By alan e jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Hi Canon 6D and 650D user here
These images along with the D800E satisfy me
they are crisp with great detail..i think Nikon users should be happy because if canon produced a camera like this i'd buy it in a flash..sure the full review is not here yet but as an indication its looking great ..i applaud Nikon and hope canons next sensors are as good as the sony ones !

1 upvote
MSTR Photography
By MSTR Photography (Feb 22, 2013)

It appears to me that all of these images are very well done. However, none of them show the benefit of not having a low pass filter. When images are shot of lines or patterns which tend to produce moire, then we will know the true purpose of this camera. I cannot imagine that a camera without a low pass filter would be of use to a wedding or an architectural photographer who does not wish waste time removing the moire in photoshop to the detriment of image quality. However, in landscape or action shots of sports or wildlife this would appear to be a boon!

0 upvotes
Dyun27
By Dyun27 (Feb 22, 2013)

I think this camera will be most beneficial to people shooting wildlife and sports. More reach/resolution + better detail in feathers/fur, etc. So far I'm most worried about the buffer size. This is still no D400 at 6FPS and small buffer, but everything else seems pretty nice.

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Feb 22, 2013)

The moire topic is totally overrated. It occurs even on the D800E quite rarely if at all. On high density DX sensors chances are negligible that this effect will ever occur.
Even the infamous wedding dress doesn't debunk filter-less cameras. On high end $30k cameras the low pass filter has long been abandoned deliberately.
The D7100 delivers staggering IQ for a low price. It's a no-brainer if one doesn't need certain body features.

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Feb 26, 2013)

The sensor is same as the NEX-7, and that camera is also without AA filtering. Now, I have a series of shots where I can show you how much moire there is visible. In every 45 degrees line on the pictures, there are plcs where you find stairs. The same is seen on RX-1 shots. So, I doubt that you will be free of those pattern on this new Nikon body. For sure, you need to look close and with that fine pixels, it is less visible than with larger pixels, but, there is some moire and that is not avoidable. 98% of all shots one takes will not have any visible moire, it will also be less pronounced than the one a Canon 5d Mk2 produces in many cases. So, let's see the good in this camera, like always, we need a better bunch of shots to judge this.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Feb 26, 2013)

One site that is a reference in Nikon testing is Andreas site on pbase.
http://www.pbase.com/andrease/test
He is a Nikon photographer and you can see almost all Nikon cameras in field tests there. It will just be a question of days before he will have the 7100 shots posted. His site also allows you to compare the different Nikon cameras on the same night shot from an oil refinery taken with the different bodies, from d7oo, d3, d3x, D4, d600, d800. So, get a look in there occasionally.

0 upvotes
GregF
By GregF (Feb 22, 2013)

Speculating is nice, and fun, but how about just renting the camera for a few days and do your own type of shooting? I have successfully avoided unnecessary purchases this way..
As someone mentioned, all the cameras are so good now. Lots of choices, be happy.

1 upvote
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 22, 2013)

I really like the snowy trees one, has some nice subtlety to it.

Would rather see one taken with a DX lens at a wedding of a bride with a veil, that will be the acid test for me.

I remember in olden days of digital when 6mp was a big thing you couldn't shoot weddings at all, the moire and false colour were appalling. Jokes like that were one of the reasons I got to the digital party late, if this Nikon cuts it I will buy one because I love the look of the handling improvements. All that new tech seems like a bargain.

1 upvote
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Feb 22, 2013)

4 images of airplanes! How challenging! Carefully selected images to avoid introduction of moire. The same for the other two, with a bit more "interesting" subject. But I cannot see the crispness or pixel sharpness usually associated with lack of OLPF and RAW. Either there's something going on in the firmware to avoid moire that has an impact on sharpness (kind of software OLPF? guessing..) or a complete failure of Nikon to deliver on their statement.

1 upvote
gl2k
By gl2k (Feb 22, 2013)

I guess you have not the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
That's why Nikon also has some nice $199 P&S in its portfolio. Each to their own. *LOL*

2 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Feb 22, 2013)

I won't be as aggressive as you. I suppose you meant to comment more politely but missed it. Anyway, you find the images of the airplanes satisfactory to showcase the effect of the OLPF removal? You commented also that this compares favorably to the D800E. You believe that seriously? If yes, I have nothing more to say.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 22, 2013)

moire is a really issue because it introduces noises and destroys details that cannot be saved in the post.

however, anyone can avoid moire by simply using low resolution lenses or high f-numbers (small apertures).

0 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (Feb 22, 2013)

Would not the detail in the trees photos and branches on snowy scene in the landscape photos show how well the crisp detail capture of the new camera is, and you can add sharpness in post to suit your taste (does not need much anyway). I downloaded the images at full size (if you had not, maybe) and was impressed for a new high end DX camera, as I also have D700 FX.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2013)

If these 6 sample images don't meet your standards, and if you are the type of person who needs to be convinced about the IQ of a modern Nikon DSLRs, then you'll have to wait for more images or rent the camera when it becomes available or simply buy something more suitable for you.

It is doubtful, however, that anyone here is seeking the Gully Foyle stamp of approval. Most people here already have enough confidence in Nikon gear that they don't need to be convinced with ever new update.

But the fact is there are already several highly regarded cameras without OPLF on the market. Instead ranting about how Nikon is trying to avoid moire or has failed something or other, perhaps you should rent one of the other cameras like the D800E, X-Pro1, K-5 IIS or M9, and see what they can do.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Feb 22, 2013)

Thanks marike6 for your reply.

It's funny how you and your kind respond to a simple observation by making personal attacks on a co-forumer. So, instead of showing-off your ability in insulting, take a look at the center (i.e. as sharp as it can get) of the snow-covered forest image (#6) and tell me if you like what you see. I, and I'm talking for MYSELF, don't. Someone could laugh at your efforts to compare this camera to the D800E (or even the D800; the resolution advantage alone is enough to kill the D7100).

BTW, I didn't know I needed *your* stamp of approval to criticize "modern Nikon DSLRs" for their IQ. At this day and age of digital evolution, it's the faintest of details that makes a difference in modern gear. If you allow me, I'd say that the "the other cameras" are faring better and Nikon has a notorious record in moire, dating back to the D40.

So either read what others have to say and reply on topic or direct your Nikon-fanboy-ism and personal attacks elsewhere, please.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 23, 2013)

@Gully Foyle

No offense, but where do you read any personal attacks?
Nikon has a whole series of 45 images from this photo shoot. Not what it is you think Nikon has failed at after six images, nor why you're not seeing the detail in the tree branches in image_05, but it is what it is.

But considering your attack mode statement about "Nikon's complete failure to deliver on their claims", it's odd that you are suddenly so sensitive. Especially when I didn't make a single personal attack in my reply.

Was just trying to be helpful.

These are the other samples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonphotostream/sets/72157632822762830/with/8497621442/

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
falconeyes
By falconeyes (Feb 22, 2013)

FYI
If you look at image dimensions closely, you'll find that this extra 1.3x crop mode actually is a 1.25x crop mode.

The image quality is very good. But I think this showcases the potential of the 500/4 and 70-200/4 (watch the APSC corners!) more than anything else.

Reassuring to know that the 500/4 will be a performer with a 60MP D810E ;)

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Feb 22, 2013)

Why are such galleries almost always such a joke? I think it is because the providers are far too lazy to do the job properly. Unfortunately, that also includes DP Review.

The pictures in the Nikon 6-image sample gallery have to be the worst selection I have ever seen. Usually the selection DP Review provides is pretty poor too but this is a new low, so much so I have not even bothered to download the full size images to take a closer look.

One needs a good amount of detail and colour to judge sharpness, distortion and chromatic aberrations right into the corners and at a typical distance one might use for taking real pictures.

DP Review uses a standard indoors setup but but why, oh why show a closeup of a coin in which the colours are limited and the sharpness of the minted coin original so inadequate to judge by?

Their out of doors shots from one review to another are never the same, so making a judgement about the results is always a case of comparing apples and oranges.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 22, 2013)

You're discussing two different things. Real-world sample images are meant to give an impression of what you can do with the camera. Surely you can form an impression of the IQ of a camera without comparing the images with ones taken with another camera? If you like what you see, does it really matter what the image would have looked like, had it been taken by another camera?

Images with a studio setup, on the other hand, are meant to allow direct comparison between cameras. I agree that it would be interesting to have outdoors comparison images too, but it's of course much harder to control the lighting and weather conditions, not to mention seasonal variations, so it would still be apples and oranges.

By the way, you do know that you don't have to look at that coin if you don't want to, don't you? You're free to look closer at whatever part of the image you like.

1 upvote
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 22, 2013)

The images don't impress because all cameras are virtually the same, isn't it obvious by now? I bet if DPR put a "random" button on their sample image pages camera sales would halve overnight.

Nikon have just grabbed the headlines with the missing LOPF, if it didn't have that gimmick we would have forgotten about this camera by now.

Great bit of advertising.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2013)

I don't think these samples are a joke at all, nor do I think that they show any laziness on the part of Nikon at all. They are extremely well done images, far above the typical snapshot that show the capabilities of this class of camera quite well.

If people don't bother to download them and really look at them, it's not Nikon who is lazy. It's a fair criticism to have wished for more variety, but all I can say is if these seven images don't impress, I don't know which will.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Suntan
By Suntan (Feb 22, 2013)

But in all fairness marike6, there was not one sample picture of a cat sitting on the back of a couch, nor a piece of text laden paper taped to a wall.

As such, the samples posted are not "real world" to most DP posters...

-Suntan

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Feb 22, 2013)

These are Nikon images, linked to a Nikon page, Dpreview has not shot with it. That seems pretty obvious. And for first images, they are fine, and show case the detail and sharpness nicely, which is what they were trying to do. There will be plenty more, and soon.Nikon hasn't had a camera with crappy IQ in years, pretty sure this one won't.

1 upvote
keepreal
By keepreal (Feb 22, 2013)

Interesting replies already:

Revenant, you are perfectly correct - only I would choose real-world sample images like that part in sunlight of one of mine at http://www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/8360729475/in/set-72157632473974640/

(Click on it to see it larger.)

With that kind of image you'd really be able to make a significant judgement - not with the even toned wing of a plane and no detail on it apart from the edges. And on your point about different conditions for different reviews I'd agree if you said different kinds of apple!

In the close-ups, they could have chosen something better than the coin to start you off with in the first place so you could just view as is!

IMO Hugo808 is spot on - prosumer cameras are all so good it is splitting hairs from a practical point of view. Clever point about the missing LOPF. So much for what marike6 thinks – Nikon can do no wrong!

Comment edited 7 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 22, 2013)

Keepreal - nice pics, it's always good to look at some work from the commenters on here. Reminds us of what photgraphy is really all about.

0 upvotes
rhodianblue
By rhodianblue (Feb 22, 2013)

A few questions. Why is there such a time gap between sale availability for a camera, and a full review from dpreview on it? Is it a game thing? Nikon had the d5200 for sale in Europe, and the camera wasn't even on the nikonusa site. Are they market/field testing cameras after production has started? In contrast, this time they flashed the D7100 on the official site, available almost instantly (March 2013). More directly: How long after the D7100 becomes readily available, will we be able to find a full review on DPreview?

0 upvotes
Pixnat2
By Pixnat2 (Feb 22, 2013)

Nice samples. But honestly, all DSLR and mirrorless cameras have stunning IQ nowadays. The IQ gap between cameras is narrowing to the point of being irrelevant. That's great for us photographers, because it should cancel this nasty "jump ship" feeling that could come to our mind sometimes ;-)

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Feb 22, 2013)

The IQ of this camera is absolutely impressive. At base ISO it can easily stand up against the D800E !!! Not bad for a prosumer model at 1/3 the price.

Look at the details in this shot.
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/img/sample/img_01_l.jpg

Amazing !! I'm blown. What a pity that Nikon puts such a marvelous sensor in a consumer body. Makes me cry.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2013)

Pity? So you're saying that a sensor this good should be reserved for super duper high-grade professional bodies with built in portrait grips, and that enthusiasts who spend thousands of dollars a year on gear should be given any old mediocre sensor that is on hand?

Cameras at this tier are so good that the delineation of "consumer" and "professional" body have been blurred as photographers of all types, pro and hobbyist, use bodies such as these for a variety of reasons, i.e. backup, weight, low-cost, etc.

4 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Feb 22, 2013)

Not bad....

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Marksphoto
By Marksphoto (Feb 22, 2013)

I can do the same quality with my old Nikon D50. The new sensor may impress at low ISO shots but daylight shots look all the same.

Where are the high ISO samples? and why hasn't the quality changed much since 10 years ago. Looks good on paper but we need real dynamic range improvements now, stop waisting our time on pixel count and insignificant improvements Nikon and Canon.

I guess speed and ruggedness makes up for image quality improvements but for the real photographers D7000 is still the king.

1 upvote
JakeB
By JakeB (Feb 22, 2013)

No, I'm afraid you can't.

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Feb 22, 2013)

Where to start? So many misstatements. Ehhh, never mind, just not worth it.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Feb 22, 2013)

First impressions this camera seems to be a APS-C winer. Great details, nice camera for who want APS_C format sensor on DSLR.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 22, 2013)

good lenses,
but it's very unefficient shooting APS-C with full-frame lenses,
but it's more difficult to make same good lenses for APS-C DSLRs
at the same quality and cost, that APS-C DSLRs deserve to die.

btw, 24.00MP DX translates to 56.56MP FX, that we know there should be no problem we go double D800, and maybe quad D800 resolutions.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2013)

Inefficient how? You mean using FF lenses designed for a larger image circle on the smaller APS-C sensor so you have no soft border or corners? That's inefficient?

Difficult to make? DX lenses are likely easier, and are definitely cheaper to manufacture than FF lenses.

If you have no use for APS-C DSLRs, maybe you ought to buy a cute little mirrorless or write your local representative to ask what can be done about the scourge of DX DSLRs. :-)

But seriously, FF lenses work wonderfully on DX DSLRs unless you need an UWA and there are tons and tons of great DX lenses from all the vendors. And they cost much less than their FF counterparts.

All the best.

6 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Feb 22, 2013)

Always bought FF lenses, I have no DX lens at all, and it was the best way I could take, so I use FF or DX bodies without duplicating investment on lens. Shooting with FF lenses have always advantages, even on DX bodies. IMO.

2 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Feb 22, 2013)

DX is the cleverer system. FX only exists because of egos like you who think bigger = better. Had Nikon and Canon not wasted their efforts on catering to those egos, we would have had f/2 DX zooms and a ton of small, excellent DX primes.

FX gets you antiquated, oversized lenses, soft corners, and ridiculously overpriced bodies. Nikon had intended DX to be the digital future, had Canon not released its 5D which attracted all the crowd that likes to throw away lots of money because bigger & more expensive must be better. Nikon lost a lot of money because of this, and was forced to develop FX digital cameras.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Feb 22, 2013)

>write your local representative

A propos of nothing, my representative is a record-setting bung.

0 upvotes
Studor13
By Studor13 (Feb 22, 2013)

@Mike99999,

You are wrong. I have the D300 and D800. Image quality as well as DR on the D800 is better at every ISO from 100 to 6400.

Unless you actually have an FX camera you are not in a position to be making statements that you can't back up.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 22, 2013)

@marike6, you should go back to school.

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Feb 22, 2013)

I totally agree with Digitall, just above. When I moved from film to digital, I was glad to have some good FX lenses and kept them all.

The only DX I have is the Nikkor 18-55mm VR along with a D5000 body which I sometimes use instead of my D300 and three FX lenses as collectively the latter are very heavy.

Most APSC or smaller provide noticeable distortion. In many DX, distortion is downright ridiculous. If not for that I would have bought a 4/3 as a second camera but instead got the D5000. Other than cutting off the edges, maybe that's no worry if you use jpeg or a RAW developer that uses the Nikon profiles, but I do not, as others out there give superior tonal mapping.

In Digital, the DX format has its advantages for those who realise that the resolution already is more than good enough even for large blow-ups. That also gives the advantage that FX lenses on DX bodies only use the centre of their coverage, delivering good edge sharpness and next to no vignetting either.

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

@Studor13 ehm, not to really argue with the fact that FF IQ will always be better than APS, but the D300 is a 2007 camera, the d800 is from 2012 ...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Studor13
By Studor13 (Feb 22, 2013)

@mngsmt,

Yes, good point.

However, I doubt that 99999 owns an FX camera and yet somehow he/she feels that they are in a position to know that DX is a "better" system.

0 upvotes
RyanBoston
By RyanBoston (Feb 22, 2013)

There's more pics at flickr.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2013)

Link?

0 upvotes
RyanBoston
By RyanBoston (Feb 22, 2013)

They must have removed them. They were from the same person who took these photos from Nikon. They were up early this morning. I wonder why they removed them from flickr?

0 upvotes
Jikester
By Jikester (Feb 22, 2013)

Impressed with the quality--although I've been impressed with the quality from my D7000. I did an engagement shoot last weekend using the D7000 and D800E. Except for shots where I used really shallow depth of field from the full size sensor, the quality of the D7000 was still impressive considering the 20MP difference. The D7000 was also faster (not having to move so many pixels has some advantage).

0 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Feb 22, 2013)

The difference for somebody like yourself would be that a 16-by print from the D7100 would stand the same sort of scrutiny as a 13-by print from the D7000, and there's usually a pretty sizable (and profitable) price jump at the 16-by print size. Of course, you already have the D800E for the "set shots" (and you'd know how rarely moiré is really a problem that can't be solved with a half-millimetre zoom tweak or a single small step), but being able to charge showcase prices for second-body grab shots when they turn out to be winners (you know, you just happened to have the right lens mounted when something wonderful happens) ought to make a significant difference to the ol' bottom line. It'd probably pay for itself pretty quickly.

1 upvote
Hulamike
By Hulamike (Feb 22, 2013)

But no fleshtone or high DR shots. Once again Nikon shows its engineering roots, not its photographic.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Feb 22, 2013)

Does the camera body makes any difference in IQ these days?

0 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Feb 22, 2013)

yes

0 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (Feb 22, 2013)

No difference whatsoever -- you'll do fine with a shoebox and coke bottle.

1 upvote
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Feb 22, 2013)

Wow. I'm actually kind of impressed. It looks like APS-C is capable of resolving 24mp at even f8. So much for diffraction destroying everything at pixel densities like this. I would love to see pentax use this sensor for the k-3.....who makes this sensor?

1 upvote
jhowe001
By jhowe001 (Feb 22, 2013)

I don't think the crop factor is 1.3x... APS-C for Nikon is 1.5x, and this camera should be the same.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2013)

Yes, this camera is the standard Nikon 1.5X crop DX body, but it also has an addition user selectable crop mode that is 1.3X.

1 upvote
jhowe001
By jhowe001 (Feb 22, 2013)

But it's a bit misleading here, because the 1.3x is a multipler increasing the focal range; meaning it's 1.5 x 1.3 = 1.95. It's in addition too... I was totally confused about this at first. The article made me think it was one step closer to full-frame.

1 upvote
Devendra
By Devendra (Feb 22, 2013)

nice details

0 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (Feb 22, 2013)

The quirky Sigma DP1 & 2 Merrills outresolve these for sure. Seems as if Nikon took off the low-pass filter but ... so what?

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2013)

How would you know that the 15 mp DP2 Merrill image outresolves this unreleased D7100?

The DP2 is a nice camera, but to me, these images look much more natural, less crunchy and brittle than some of the DP2 Merrill images I've seen. And the D7100 for sure doesn't top out at ISO 200.

8 upvotes
Donald Duck
By Donald Duck (Feb 22, 2013)

It does not, it only produces terribly aliased images. The Nikon images look but they are all stopped down to mask possible aliasing problems.

1 upvote
KTSFotos
By KTSFotos (Feb 22, 2013)

Nice photos!

1 upvote
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Feb 21, 2013)

It's a very odd selection. Four taken with a 500mm lens, of brightly painted airplanes in bright sunlight, and two more taken with the 70-200 zoom tele of winter landscapes.

No skin tones, indoor lighting, or low contrast textures...

2 upvotes
tommy leong
By tommy leong (Feb 22, 2013)

yes i agree with you
For the discerning, what you don't see
is more pronounced that what you see :)

0 upvotes
misspiggy01
By misspiggy01 (Feb 22, 2013)

the hill with trees and snow actually has low and high contrast detail in one image. and probably also squirrel skin tone somewhere

0 upvotes
Bruce ShrewsburyMA
By Bruce ShrewsburyMA (Feb 21, 2013)

All the photos were released by Nikon and all are at ISO 100 or 200. We need photos at ISO 800, 1600 and 3200, under different/tougher lighting conditions to really understand how it performs.

0 upvotes
rjx
By rjx (Feb 21, 2013)

This is always the case when samples of a new camera are first released. Wait until the blogs get their hands on pre-production units and we'll see some very good tests.

2 upvotes
Gary Leland
By Gary Leland (Feb 21, 2013)

Yes that would have been nice. But we have seen how fast the lens can gather light at 1/1000 with a fast moving target. That should speak volumes on how it will behave at higher ISOs yes?
addendum: is not that upper wing edge amazing?
Regards

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Feb 21, 2013)

The first photo is using the new 1.3x crop mode? (it's 15 MP) Interesting if true! I didn't expect to get a taste this early. The optics still look pretty good despite a total 2x crop, if true.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 21, 2013)

The optics don't change, if anything they improve as the camera uses a center crop of the full sensor image so there are no corner issues as with standard images. I use the 1.5 crop mode all the time on my FF camera and it's extremely useful at times.

2 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (Feb 22, 2013)

Why dont you just use a DX camera?

0 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Feb 22, 2013)

@ash: because a FF might be better in some situations and DX mode cropping might be useful for getting some more reach and not having to crop in post...just shoot and be done. furthermore the high pixel density of these cameras allows a fairly usable crop. in this case 15mp is nothing to sneer at considering its one mp less than this camera's predecessor. furthermore you are taking more from the center of the lens so resolving power should be able to keep up there at least.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 21, 2013)

Looking at the forested hillside, I don't know that I am seeing amazing amounts of detail compared to any other APS-C sensor out there. Will be interesting to see some controlled tests regarding the AA filter situation.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 22, 2013)

I doubt anyone will notice a difference between this and their own camera as they are all much of a muchness, Nikon have just grabbed the headlines with the LOPF gimmick, if it didn't have that we would have forgotten about this camera by now.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 21, 2013)

These are some of the nicest release day samples in recent memory. The colors look saturated without being cartoonish, notably the reds are wonderful (I've had problems with blowing out the red channel on some Sony sensor cameras in the past, so this is great news).

Detail is stunning, although I will say that a 500 f4 VR is not a lens most of enthusiasts will have in their bags. The 70-200 f4, yes. And the detail in the tree branches in No. 5 is stunning.

I would have like to see one portrait, but really these is nothing at all to complain about with these as I'm confident high ISO will be similar to the D5200 and D7000 (quite possibly better).

Thanks DPR for the heads up.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Feb 21, 2013)

Yup, I didn't believe in the 24 MP on DX, but now I'm a believer. I'm looking at the finest details in the branches there, and I'll be damned if it's not actually there. This is impressive coming from DX.

4 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 22, 2013)

I have checked the channels in RAWs from D5200, it seems to have slightly less sensitivity to Reds compared to Sony sensored Nikons. Coul dbe that the R filter in the Bayer array is stronger, a good thing.

0 upvotes
Zamac
By Zamac (Feb 22, 2013)

Sony CCD sensors were very prone to blow out on saturated reds, but were more accurate than my Canon camera sensors. Seems to be a balancing act. Probably same applies to CMOS. Can't evaluate colour accuracy from the current examples - I look forward to the dpr tests.

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Feb 21, 2013)

I don't need 24 megapixels. However, this doesn't seem to deteriorate the quality at all so why not?

6 upvotes
jwalker019
By jwalker019 (Feb 21, 2013)

That second / middle shot is stunning - be sure to check it out full-sized.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Feb 21, 2013)

Not a single high-ISO sample, highest at ISO 200. For D7000 they at least braved ISO 320. :)

1 upvote
AshMills
By AshMills (Feb 21, 2013)

Look good to me. Will be interested to hear about video on this device too, since if I got one I could bin the Canon kit I use only for video.

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 21, 2013)

First image of plane is very small. Others are large.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Feb 21, 2013)

fixed now, sorry - my mistake.

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Feb 21, 2013)

I don't know how small it was before but it's still 'only' 16MP now, because apparently it was taken at the 1.3x crop mode. Notice that the EXIF actually says Focal Length 500mm and 35mm Equivalent 1000mm. :)

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 21, 2013)

Don't know about earlier, but the first image is correct now. as M Jesper said, it's a smaller file size because it was shot using the crop mode with an equivalent of 1000mm f4 VR. Not a bad little lens. :-)

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Feb 22, 2013)

Interesting, I'd like to try the full AF with this mode, it fills the frame.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 95