Found some serious D7100 comparisons........

[fotolopithecus]

;-) Over at imaging resource in the image comparisons section. My initial impression is that the D7100 does indeed have superior resolution to the D7000, but slightly more noise as well. The D7000 also seems to reproduce reds better. Anyway, give a look at the various isos, and report back if you agree, or disagree with what I think I see.

 

[ebsilon]

That's what I see from the IR sample images as well. Seems that D7100 gives a clear resolution advantage at low ISO's, but does not reallly move the bar much at higher ISO's. But even more interesting is to compare with Fuji x100s samples. To my eyes, the Fuji clearly pulls ahead at higher ISO's even when accounting for the resolution difference.

 

[Whalligeo]

Your about there with it.

At ISO6400 I was able to get a cleaner image by not De-noising in CNX2 but playing with the settings in Define. A touch of unsharp mask to finish off with. I think its pretty good, though expensive compared to D7000 or D5200. I didn't look at higher ISOs, I never go there. If the light is that bad, its my bedtime.

 

[rhlpetrus]

They are jpegs, not very useful for serious comparisons, since settings re NR and other vary from camera to camera, even if nominally the setting is same. Re noise, you need to resize to have a better idea of results, again, with careful RAW conversions. The D5200, from some tests I did, was slightly better than the D7000's, re noise and colors as ISO went up.

 

[fotolopithecus]

Yeah, what I'm seeing at all isos is a bit more noise on the D7100, and surprisingly a total disintegration of the detail in the red fabric at very high isos compared to the D7000. It really does appear to be a trade off of generally higher resolution for other things. So far I haven't noticed the banding thing, but I'll check for that when I go back. Overall I'd say which of the two cameras is better, the old, or the new is a matter of personal preference. There is no "this one blows that one out of the water," either way that theses old eyes see. So, whatever you have there's something to crow about.

 

[fotolopithecus]

rhlpetrus wrote:

They are jpegs, not very useful for serious comparisons, since settings re NR and other vary from camera to camera, even if nominally the setting is same. Re noise, you need to resize to have a better idea of results, again, with careful RAW conversions. The D5200, from some tests I did, was slightly better than the D7000's, re noise and colors as ISO went up.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

rhlpetrus, check out the dark red fabric at 6400, and above, it completely falls apart on the D7100, not that it looks wonderful on the D7000, but at least you can make out the print pattern.

 

[Danel]

fotolopithecus wrote:

Yeah, what I'm seeing at all isos is a bit more noise on the D7100, and surprisingly a total disintegration of the detail in the red fabric at very high isos compared to the D7000. It really does appear to be a trade off of generally higher resolution for other things. So far I haven't noticed the banding thing, but I'll check for that when I go back. Overall I'd say which of the two cameras is better, the old, or the new is a matter of personal preference. There is no "this one blows that one out of the water," either way that theses old eyes see. So, whatever you have there's something to crow about.

I think this is pretty well said. I noticed right away that the D5200 pretty much gave back Nikon's former advantage over other makers when it comes to resolving the red fabric over on IR, and the D7100 follows suit. The D7100 is noticeably sharper than the D5200 at low ISO though, likely because of removal of the filter, though it could be a difference in the processing. Nikon has, in the past, shown a somewhat softer image than competitors over on IR due to in camera default sharpening being lower. For someone like myself, who shoots mainly low ISO, I would probably appreciate the extra resolution of the D7100 versus my D7000. If the D7100 shows any additional noise versus the D7000 at low ISO I don't see it showing up at normal viewing sizes and I think it is mostly the function of the larger 24mp image versus the smaller 16mp image when pixel peeping at 100%.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Don't you just love how Nikon Message Center update nag pops up above your system tray and then tells you the server can't be found?

 

[JimPearce]

It beats the D5200 by 1 dB at ISO 6400. This situation is reversed, with the D5200 having a .7 dB advantage on resizing. That's a difference of over half of a stop, at a point where any DX image will be on the threshold of "falling apart".

 

[Whalligeo]

Danel wrote:

fotolopithecus wrote:

Yeah, what I'm seeing at all isos is a bit more noise on the D7100, and surprisingly a total disintegration of the detail in the red fabric at very high isos compared to the D7000. It really does appear to be a trade off of generally higher resolution for other things. So far I haven't noticed the banding thing, but I'll check for that when I go back. Overall I'd say which of the two cameras is better, the old, or the new is a matter of personal preference. There is no "this one blows that one out of the water," either way that theses old eyes see. So, whatever you have there's something to crow about.

I think this is pretty well said. I noticed right away that the D5200 pretty much gave back Nikon's former advantage over other makers when it comes to resolving the red fabric over on IR, and the D7100 follows suit. The D7100 is noticeably sharper than the D5200 at low ISO though, likely because of removal of the filter, though it could be a difference in the processing. Nikon has, in the past, shown a somewhat softer image than competitors over on IR due to in camera default sharpening being lower. For someone like myself, who shoots mainly low ISO, I would probably appreciate the extra resolution of the D7100 versus my D7000. If the D7100 shows any additional noise versus the D7000 at low ISO I don't see it showing up at normal viewing sizes and I think it is mostly the function of the larger 24mp image versus the smaller 16mp image when pixel peeping at 100%.

Just had my last look at this. When I compared the D7100 to D5200, D7000, D600, D800e, D700, I reckon the D5200 is a bargain and the one to go for. None of the other cameras offer anything that most people would benefit from. For a 'real' upgrade, save up your pennies and get the D800e. That's the one for me.

Now is it the D800 that has the oil spots or is that another model and it has the left focus thingy broken fault. Can never remember.

 

[fotolopithecus]

JimPearce wrote:

It beats the D5200 by 1 dB at ISO 6400. This situation is reversed, with the D5200 having a .7 dB advantage on resizing. That's a difference of over half of a stop, at a point where any DX image will be on the threshold of "falling apart".

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Using Jason Odell's CNX2 recipe for the D800e:

http://www.luminescentphoto.com/blog/2012/06/29/get-sharp-with-the-nikon-d800/#more-2399

(which is way too strong for that camera) the D7100 is almost ubelievably sharp, with detail which leaves any previous DX camera in the dust. It looks like Nikon actually did some work getting the conversion right this time. Noise is not a factor at ISO 100:


D7000




D7100

The in-camera sharpening should never be used per Mr. Odell and me. It's not good.

 

[Elixir]

I guess I'm one who likes to make comparisons in situations where you actually NEED the high ISO. Even the D300 is competitive with the newer cameras in good light.

 

[Novens2]

I tend to think from these examples that there is little real advantage of the d7100 over the d7000 other then an improved focus system but when you compare the 7000's to the fuji x-e1 the fuji comes out clearly superior. The d7100 was for me a last ditch effort to keep with nikon I am still interested how it handles colors and tones looks nicer on that front. Too bad it feels even less solid then the d7000 but the weather sealing is a nice feature.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

D7000


D7100



D7100 all NR and sharpening turned off in CNX2 to tiff, import to LR4, color noise 40 in LR, open Topaz Denoise:


Topaz Denoise Settings

LR sharpening: 50 .05 25 0

 

[rockjano]

The D7100 at ISO 100 seems to be sharper than D600 which is amaizing.

Only the D800 better than that, at least in this JPG-s. It would be interesting to compare RAW-s.

High ISO is a different story of course FF is better there about 1-1,5 stops (not more)

Fantastic cam and fantastic sensor.

Thanks

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Fuji




D7100

 

[fotolopithecus]

rockjano wrote:

The D7100 at ISO 100 seems to be sharper than D600 which is amaizing.

Only the D800 better than that, at least in this JPG-s. It would be interesting to compare RAW-s.

High ISO is a different story of course FF is better there about 1-1,5 stops (not more)

Fantastic cam and fantastic sensor.

Thanks

Not so amazing, more pixels squeezed into a smaller area gives you greater pixel density, and better resolution of fine detail, regardless of side effects.

 

[rockjano]

D7100 - D600 1stop difference in high ISO not more.

Sharpness is AMAZING, there is no other word for it.

The 7100 is the champ of DX no question about it. And a serious competition to FX.

Only the D800 is a clear winner over it, nothing else...

 

[ebsilon]

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Using Jason Odell's CNX2 recipe for the D800e:

http://www.luminescentphoto.com/blog/2012/06/29/get-sharp-with-the-nikon-d800/#more-2399

(which is way too strong for that camera) the D7100 is almost ubelievably sharp, with detail which leaves any previous DX camera in the dust. It looks like Nikon actually did some work getting the conversion right this time. Noise is not a factor at ISO 1007100

The in-camera sharpening should never be used per Mr. Odell and me. It's not good.

Now that's an impressive difference - clearly shows how the effect of the camera JPEG engine masks the qaulity of the RAW data.