Focuses faster is kinda weird.......
They use the same bloody AF module. Sounds like placebo to me.
Handling and ergonomics is believable. The D300 is a bigger sturdier more pro body.

You guys either have some serious quality control issues with your D7100 or your simply talking outta your asses. I do not have a D300 but I often help a good friend of mine with his for some product shooting. It's a great body and all but its clearly older technology, focus, Noise, low light performance and for good sakes, IQ!!! We used my D7100 back to back with his D300. Let's just say, he bugs my ass to bring in my D7100 when he wants us to shot some of his bigger ticket items. Slower focus??? What the H!!?

@Cankon.

Yeah, these D300 guys are deluded bores.

Hi Tactic.
Of course, I'm only speaking in IQ, the other benefits are amazing with D7100, In my case the D5100 is only for family, vacations and basic enthusiast use, no more.

@OseasMillan
I've got the D5100 and I have to agree on the IQ. I take shots with this camera and I'm constantly saying . . . "That's insane." Like these shots . . .

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/7196369006/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/7148331137/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/6543290555/in/set-72157631300869284

But me personally, I'm kinda insane about cameras, so I'm starting to look at the wireless external flash, focus adjust, and stuff like that. Of course, it's all a moot point until I actually purchase a Nikon external flash. <grin>

Very nice Shots, the Madelyn picture is amazing. After 2 years with my D5100 I know all the weakness body like extra controls, but the IQ is excellent, I have 3 lenses, I have the kit less 18-55mm, The sigma 18-200mm II, and the nikon 35mm f1.8, and let me tell you, the 95% of the time I use the 35mm, It´s the better cheap lens with an outstanding IQ. Congratulations for your pictures. Im searching an external flash too, right now I have the SB-400 and I like the portable size.

If the Nikon D5100 camera were a car, I'd call it a Pocket Rocket! <grin>

I've been eyeing that 35mm f1.8. I've been thinking of getting it so I can try to get some available light shots around the campfire this summer. That would be cool! But I might get a flash unit first.

Cheers!

Well . . . I just got that Nikon external flash unit. I'm one step closer to getting that 35mm f1.8. LOL Although I'll probably use that flash more with my D90.

Give me 5 mins to share some 35mm f1.8 pictures with you.

Please check the picture at 100% (Large View) and please verify the detail in the face. The 35mm lens offer a very nice detail.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oseasmillan/8577597099/in/photostream

Another pic.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oseasmillan/8721038878/in/photostream

Precisely.

There would be a wide spread of requirements on buffer size taking a picture burst. It would depend on your personal situation and desired outcome.

Apparently gymnastics photography places different demands on the photographer than photographing white water rafters.

It was worse when my daughter was trying out Cheerleading for a season and I offered to put together a video / slideshow for the team for the end of the season. In a 2.5 minute routine, I was trying to get nice pictures of the 10 teammates. But as fast and insane a situation as that was, that D5100 kept up, even using all the autofocus points. I'd walk away with 20-25 keepers each competition. That is another situation I've been in where I've put a lot of demand on the buffer. If a camera can't do this, I can't really use it. :(

It's NOT spray and pray when you have waterfowl in focus and the subject is looking straight at you and does the wing flap while sitting on the water, you need as many frames as you can get to capture the moment. Wildlife don't stop and pose.

After using my D800E's for awhile and then picking up my K-5 I almost have a heart attack when it reals off a few shots in continuous mode. One would expect a top notch APS-C camera to have a processor capable of handling a decent buffer size so maybe the actual chip in this camera can't take advantage of a large/fast buffer at those MP's so they just did it this way to keep costs down. ?

(I'm thinking of giving up punctuation.. what do you think?)

What annoys me are people that accuse others of spraying & praying. What gives you the right to tell me whether or not the buffer is adequate? Do you know exactly what I'm shooting and how I use the camera? If it's big enough for you, congratulations. For others, this buffer size is horribly insufficient.

those who wear eyeglasses don't have a clear vision,thats why the terrible set of images...why not buy a hasselblad?

Tried a very quick test with 45 mb/s class 10 sandisk cards. Took a burst of 5 so thats about a second. Took 6 more images holding the button down in 9 seconds. A better test is warranted but thats a rough cut.

User tests are always a good thing to do and to share with readers, but keep in mind that we do cover this exact thing on the Performance pages of our reviews.

Who the hell shoots dozens of birds in flight at 6fps in RAW?!?!?!? Oh paleeeeeeze... like your gonna print billboard sized images of that stuff... LOL! Dude... switch your D7100 over to hi-res JPEG and shoot 1000s of shots without missin a beat. You'll still have huge files to edit.

GarysInSoCal - everyone serious?

I tend to do a lot of cropping when I shoot birds because the longest lens I have currently is the AF-S 300 F4 and a TC-14EII. To keep the aperture at optimum for sharpness and the shutter speed right to freeze movement I usually work in manual mode and with auto ISO on for exposure and use EV compensation to fine tune it. This usually ends up with pretty high ISO settings, depending on the available light. I'd be interested to see/hear how the D7100 goes in a similar usage scenario because those extra pixels would come in very handy as long as the extra noise wasn't great enough to lower the actual resolution.

I didn't mean "stop dead" literally -- they don't give you enough space here at DPReview to write precisely. But when you're holding the button down and nothing happens for a second or more when you trying to fire off a burst, it seems like the camera has stopped dead.

I'm using a class 10 95mbs card.

I always shoot RAW, not because I'm going to make large prints but so that I can have all the flexibility possible in post-processing.

My Pentax K-5 will fire off a burst of 25-30 shots at 7fps in RAW before it slows down. That is what I'm used to and it is occasionally very useful when catching birds in flight. I understand the the file sizes are larger for the D7100 but the burst performance is, for me, suprisingly bad. Nikon should do what it can in software to improve this function, in my view.

The moral of the story is if you are looking to buy a used D7100 with low shutter actuations, make sure the seller is not a birder.

My Pentax K5II makes photo continuously during 4.5 seconds, at 7 frames/s rate, in Jpg (31 images) until the buffer is full. Or during 3.5 seconds at 7 frames/s rate in Raw+Jpg (24 images). With the full buffer, continues to shoot continuously at 3.3 pictures per second up to exhaust the memory card. This is enough? For me Yes.
Is a very balanced product in all aspects of its construction, since the overall quality, ergonomics, excellent image quality, everything very carefully and thought to eliminate the weaknesses, which very few have.
Always wished a Nikon, I ended up buying this Pentax, but I can't regret that, on the contrary, these news are demonstrating that I made a good decision.
This Nikon D7100 makes five or six images only? What, during a second or less, and has the buffer full !? in a rate lower than my Pentax !? What can I say?

It really depends on what your needs are. If you are interested in nature/wildlife photography, the ability to crop 24 mp files is quite useful.

Similarly if you have any interest in HDSLR video shooting, the D7100, like the D5200, is quite a big improvement in video quality.

And auction sites like Fleebay have made it so easy to sell gear, often without much loss, I'm not sure it makes sense to skip a generation if upgrading is going to improve your images or give you some feature you don't have.
That said, the D7000 is a wonderful camera with absolutely excellent IQ.

This digital zoom will offer exactly the same IQ as taking a full res image and cropping it ! There is nothing to be gained in using the digital crop other than getting more photos before the buffer is full.

But yes there is little the D400 would be able to add to the D7100 except maybe a faster burst rate of say 8-9 fps with a bigger buffer but yes there is precious little the D400 would be able to add other than maybe a new sensor ? Or a newer AF system with even more AF points ?

Just speculation on my part of course. No idea if a D400 is even being considered by Nikon.

"rolled in broken glass and dipped in vinegar". Kind of extreme, don't you think?

Nikon never has had an 18mp camera, nor does any of Nikon's sensor suppliers make an 18 mp sensor.

But if you have the need to spray and pray maybe a different camera is more appropriate. I'm certain the majority of users are happy that the D7100 is in their lineup as it produces spectacular IQ and is far more versatile than a D300s because of the extra resolution. But AFAIK, Nikon never marketed this camera as a sports or action speed demon, and most experienced users know how to read specs and interpret marketing speak.

@VFunct
From the conclusion: Pros - "Fast, accurate AF system (inherited from Nikon D4)".

Flagship DX, priced and labelled accordingly as a prosumer camera.

"rolled in broken glass and dipped in vinegar"
that's modern violence, blame and shame on you.
Stick to the god ol' tar and feathers. :-)

Thanks FranciscoJG for the "mini review" .
The needle is even more falling towards the K

Seehund-
I agree. A folding, tilting screen is a real asset. It's great for macro work and a multitude of other shooting situations. For me, it's such a desirable feature that it seems the manufacturers would only make it available on their more expensive cameras.

Instead, it's just the opposite. You can only get this useful feature on less expensive models. It has never made any sense to me. As you have pointed out, the fragility of the screen is only a myth.

All, a tilting/folding screen is extremely difficult to implement and have full weather sealing. Hence the reason for the cheaper, entry level cameras having this feature. You'll see all enthusiast and pro cameras do not have this feature.

@ Philo123 - What rubbish, Sony A77 and A99 have fully articulatin screens which are both weather sealed and plenty strong.

@ everyone else, this is the primary reason WHY Sony went to the SLT design, actively useful live view. It is NOT because Sony thinks EVFs are better, before the SLTs Sony had possibly the best OVF on the market. Having the EVF is more a nessersary evil of having such consistent use between rear screen live view and viewfinder live view.

@abortabort: I'd never trade a good OVF for a good articulated LCD screen on a camera used for photography. Video is another story, but then there are plenty of good choices, from both Nikon (D5200) and many other makers.

@rhlpetrus

You shouldn't have to trade a good OVF for an articulated screen, it's just that CANIKON for no good reason seem to have made up their minds that their most expensive cameras (with the best OVFs) should have the least useful, i.e. fixed, screens.

In his second paragraph, abortabort was discussing OVF vs EVF, and live-view behaviour.

@abortabort

"Sony A77 and A99 have fully articulatin screens which are both weather sealed and plenty strong. "

Exactly, not to mention the Canon 60D.

A tilt-swivel screen is probably one of the least difficult things to seal on a modern camera. A bunch of axial joints - big deal! Put some quite uncomplicated O-rings in there, done! Compare that to the complexity of sealing e.g. the combined shooting/drive mode dial or the combined power switch/shutter release on the 7100.

Are we to believe that the manufacturers can only afford to do weather sealed T/S-screens on their cheaper cameras?

You`r not the first to ask. The strange thing is, olympus released the first professional dslr with an articulated screen, the E3. For some reason Nikon and Canon, saw this as an amateur feature and have kept it for the lower range models. The only excuse i`ve come across is, the cost of weather sealing, how much do a few rubber seals cost. Whats wrong with a good OVF and articulated screen. The most perplexing INSANE aspect of DSLR manufacturer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The strange thing is, olympus released the first professional dslr with an articulated screen, the E3. For some reason Nikon and Canon, saw this as an amateur feature and have kept it for the lower range models. "

It's a lot less strange when you know those articulated screens were leaky. Olympus have a great reputation when it comes to weather sealing, with both water-proof compacts and extensively weather-sealed system cameras. Despite this it took another iteration of the model for them to get it right.

I'm thinking the other manufacturers looked at the price tag of the less-than-perfectly sealed E-3 and decided they'll do something easier.

Even a D300 type body would be unbalanced when mounted with a70-300 f2.8 lens, if ever there's one.

I can't remember any time when I was wishing that I was I was carrying something bigger and heavier

Perhpas when you're not only carrying, but taking some shots !!!
:)

I just looked at the studio comparison and the NEX-7 doesn't clearly beat the D7100 at any ISO in RAW. I'm not saying the D7100 is better, just that it is focused a little forward of where the NEX-7 is focused. If you look at the watch face, the D7100 has a clear advantage. However, if you look at the writing and logo on the bottle in the upper left corner, then the NEX-7 is much better. My point is that if you are looking at things like sharpness, the studio comparison tool is not the best too. for the job. Lens variation and different focus planes will have much more influence on things like sharpness.

If you were talking about some other image quality, my apologies.

-Kelly

Something tells me that if this camera fell short of a "gold" award the review would be less awesome. Still, it's a nice camera.

Awesome replies.

It'd be nice to reserve the word 'awesome' for events like a local star going supernova and outshining the sun - but I suppose we could always fall back on 'pretty neat'.

Just awesome.

Pentax K5II looks very clean, albeit with lower resolution.

Yeah. The Pentax is up there. According to the DxOMark sensor / Sports chart, this Nikon D7100 just beats it out. I just looked up the actuations on my D5100 and see I'm at 44K+ so starting to think about . . . what's next? D7100, D600 or something else?

Luck is not part of my plan. Never was. Cheers! :)

That's nice to know. Pretty much irrelevant in response to a review of the D7100. I'm sure many would like to see a proper followup to the 7D, but at this point Canon is just treading water until they get a new sensor (a proper modern one.) I expect we'll see that by the end of the year, and then the competition can begin anew. I don't have great respect for Canon's product strategy, but they still sell just fine even without great products. For now, the D7100 is a highly attractive camera Canon can't match.

Churning 24MP files vs churning 16MP files is not the same. If Pentax comes out with a 24MP camera, they will face same problem, so a new imaging engine / buffer are due too.
But not being Nikon has one advantage though — Pentax does not need to cripple one model to allow other 7 models to have their place based on slightly different specs.
Thus with Nikon, you do get a choice, apparently, but when you look at all things you need, you end up buying a more expensive model than Pentax asks for their own — which has it all, because of the no-nonsense lineup.