Cameralabs D7100 review up: verdict...

Started Apr 19, 2013 | Discussions
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,368
Re: Not a constructive post.

coudet wrote:

Shunda77 wrote:

coudet wrote:

Jared Huntr wrote:

IMO, the argument that more resolution offers more cropping is weak.

Yet, it is correct.

It is not correct, there are very good reasons why telephoto lenses are always preferable to cropping if at all possible.

We're weren't talking about lenses here. Your comment has no relevance at all to what I said.

Cropping instead of the correct glass is never better. Very relevant comment.

Why not invest in some better telephoto lenses if you are that serious about IQ?

Actually, if you're serious about IQ, you'll need both higher resolution sensor and better telephoto lens.

And a Ferrari.

Again, no relevance at all.

Interesting you mention "better telephoto lens", I thought we weren't talking about lenses? And I guess you miss the relevance of you comment that a better sensors AND better glass requires $$$$ being spent? And again referencing #1, that was his point, spend the money on correct glass rather than crop, you seem to agree one paragraph later that better glass is also needed.

I still maintain that if you downsample images from a 12MP, 16MP or 24MP to even a large JPG for web presentation that the differences will be negligible to non-existent.

Sure, if you downsample all to 320x240 pixel thumbnails, there will be no difference.

Oh good grief.

And again, you're 3 for 3. No relevance to anything I wrote in my post.

Yes it does, you post some absurd example that no one was talking about. I agree "Good grief".

Please read more carefully next time and try to stick to the topic we're discussing.

NC

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7 +16 more
OP mosswings Veteran Member • Posts: 8,079
Re: Not a constructive post.

Stacey_K wrote:

coudet wrote:

I still maintain that if you downsample images from a 12MP, 16MP or 24MP to even a large JPG for web presentation that the differences will be negligible to non-existent.

Sure, if you downsample all to 320x240 pixel thumbnails, there will be no difference.

Here we go, "Lets throw out a ridiculous extreme example"...

What they and I are talking about is a normal output where people can view the -whole- image. You know where you can take in the whole image? For example an 8X10 or even 11X14 print standing at a reasonable viewing distance. I have a couple of prints made from a 5MP E1 shot at 100iso and I can't really see anything different in an 8X10 print from a D7000 image. What the D7000 brings to the table is less noise and more DR.

I honestly don't care what 100% crops look like. I look at something because it's a compelling image, not because the detail in the corner of the image of some grass blades are extra sharp, zoomed in to what standing a few inches from a 40X60inch print would be like.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

I guess if we were all as wise as we should be, professional photographers who teach would be richer than Croesus and the equipment companies would be losing their shirts.

So far, only the latter is true.

 mosswings's gear list:mosswings's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Olympus Stylus 1 Nikon D90 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +5 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,368
Re: The take home message here..
1

Shunda77 wrote:

FujicaST605 wrote:

Shunda77 wrote:

....is that the best DX camera at the moment is probably the D5200. If the balance of features to cost is what it is all about, then this camera offers quite a lot for the money.

Not true.  Depends on what you need.

Items on the D7100 that I need that my D5000 and your D5200 don't have:

Ability to act as a flash commander.

1/250 flash sync speed for outdoor fill flash.

1/8000s ss for large aperture outdoor portraits

AF adjust for my fast primes.

Better AF and frame rate for shooting sports.

I'm not trying to say no one should buy the D7100, I agree that there are some great features.

But if you don't have a consistent need or use for some of those features, there are 3 other DX bodies that will effectively give you identical image quality.....

Or no reason to replace one you already own. Spend that money of glass, a better flash or maybe a trip to actually use them on?

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7 +16 more
larrywilson
larrywilson Veteran Member • Posts: 5,741
Re: The take home message here..
3

I repeat better af and better viewfinder makes for me the upgrade from d7000 to d7100 worth while, especially the better af.

Larry

 larrywilson's gear list:larrywilson's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G Nikon 24mm F1.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II +6 more
JimCee Regular Member • Posts: 257
Re: Cameralabs D7100 review up: verdict...
1

Thanks for your characterization of this feature as one that makes it make "idiot proof".  Unlike your characterization, I've been a Nikon photographer since 1965 when I purchased my first Nikon, the justly famous "F".  I'm sure my experience would qualify me as someone who isn't prone to "idiot" mistakes.

The simple fact is that it's quite easy to inadvertently change the mode dial on this camera when selecting a different setting on the release mode dial.

You might wish to consider using a less pejorative term in your responses in the future.

Jim

coudet Veteran Member • Posts: 3,943
Re: Not a constructive post.
2

Stacey_K wrote:

What they and I are talking about is a normal output where people can view the -whole- image.

What you're talking about is that when you downsize there's little to no difference. In other words, when you throw away the resolution advantage (of the higher mp camera), there's no difference.

And when you don't throw it away? Difference is quite obvious.

What the D7000 brings (over E1) to the table is less noise and more DR.

And more resolution.

You say don't need that resolution and that is ok, but you should not assume that applies to everyone.

rhlpetrus Forum Pro • Posts: 24,722
Diff D5100/D5200 and D7000/D7100 is not IQ
2

Shunda77 wrote:

Jared Huntr wrote:


IMO, the argument that more resolution offers more cropping is weak. Why not invest in some better telephoto lenses if you are that serious about IQ? Or why not learn to compose better in-camera so you don't have crop afterwards?

I still maintain that if you downsample images from a 12MP, 16MP or 24MP to even a large JPG for web presentation that the differences will be negligible to non-existent. If they are noticed, then maybe you need to consider why the viewer would be pixel peeping rather than focusing on the subject matter.

Well said Jared.

I just did some research on what one could buy with the cost of the 7100 +18-105 with an emphasis primarily on image quality, not so much the other features.

Prices all in NZ dollars from established 'brick and mortar' stores, (if you go to on line stores or parallel importers, the cost is much less for the D5100).

D7100 + 18-105 = $2175.00

D5100 + 18-105, + 55-300vr, + 35/f1.8 = $2152.00

Alternatively you could get the D5100 with the 18-105 and the 70-300vr for $2119.00

Not much relevance to someone with a stack of Nikon gear, but for someone starting with a Nikon kit, the D5100 option will give them a kit that would stomp all over a new D7100 with equivalent image quality.

The creative potential of the first kit is huge.

It's body features.

-- hide signature --

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

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,639
Re: Not a constructive post.
2

coudet wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

What they and I are talking about is a normal output where people can view the -whole- image.

What you're talking about is that when you downsize there's little to no difference. In other words, when you throw away the resolution advantage (of the higher mp camera), there's no difference.

And when you don't throw it away? Difference is quite obvious.

You know where you can take in the whole image? For example an 8X10 or even 11X14 print standing at a reasonable viewing distance. I have a couple of prints made from a 5MP E1 shot at 100iso and I can't really see anything different in an 8X10 print from a D7000 image. What the D7000 brings to the table is less noise and more DR.

And more resolution.

You say don't need that resolution and that is ok, but you should not assume that applies to everyone.

But she says that it's better to spend the money on several things that she has no way of knowing are needed such as a flash (I already have an SB-800 and SB-900) or better glass (I already have a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm VR). Maybe she's speaking/writing to someone that only has 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses, but I'm not about to go the better glass route because then I'd have to endure the size, weight and multi-thousand dollar expense of a 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8 lens, and that just ain't gonna happen. But if I did buy one of them, then when their photos were downsized or displayed at the sizes she assumes are the norm, they probably wouldn't look much better than what an inexpensive 55-300mm lens would produce. There may be many here that are completely satisfied by the resolution of a D90, but that one size doesn't fit all.

Adrian Van Contributing Member • Posts: 684
Re: What many aren't honest enough to themselves to admit....
2

Jared Huntr wrote:

Shunda77 wrote:

The simple truth is that unless you have a regular use for the resolution and powerful focus point system, the D7000 and D5100 effectively offer equivalent image quality to the new cameras for a bargain basement price.

It would seem that the prior generation is still very much in the game, and this is nothing but good for enthusiast photographers.

If you base decision making primarily on image quality, then it's hard to justify the extra cost of the new camera bodies compared to the extra glass you could buy along with an older body.

+1

...is that after all the pixel peeping and academic comparisons of IQ, in the actual image sizes that the owners publish and print their personal pictures for consumption, the incremental IQ offered by the D7100 is virtually non-existent and unecessary.

For those on a budget, or getting a first or second camera mainly for personal use, the D5200 and D7000 offer very good to excellent image quality with the right lenses however.....

When focus speed and AF accuracy for close to 95 to 100 per cent of the time is important and indeed desired, the best choice is the D7100 with its far superior AF system. Older D7000 had some focus issues reported on first release by many (I know that some were first time users to DX), and requires lots of AF tuning, and does not always lock on well in dim light, as some had reported in these posts (also some D600 users, reported sometimes inconsistent AF focus performance in very dim light as well as it has lower spec AF system). It makes the newer AF system of D7100 (like the higher end FF cameras - D700, D800, D4) worth the extra price. Note though: to those that really want it! Casual users may not care (savings are more important) and other models are sufficient.

In good light or moderate light and perhaps dim light, one can get by with D5200 or D7000, with great results, just not as consistently (especially in dim low light) as with the newer D7100 and better AF system.

It would however, be nice to have a fully rotating screen in a D400 or high end model of the future (nice feature on D5200 for video).

 Adrian Van's gear list:Adrian Van's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon D300S Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Sony a77 II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G
demarren 123 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,616
Re: Cameralabs D7100 review up: verdict...

mosswings wrote:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D7100/

In day to day shooting, the D7100 and D7000 and D5200 perform basically the same.  Noise is very similiar, the D7000 might have a bit of advantage at 100% at higher ISOs. Resolution wise, the AA filter appears to make no difference, echoing what DPR has said.  In tightly controlled studio shots we have seen differences, but that is not how people usually shoot. For the typical use case, one could argue that the removal of the AA filter is essentially a marketing feature.

Again, the old rule holds: skip a generation.  D80 shooters will definitely see an improvement; D90 shooters, less so but still; D7000 shooters, not so much.  The buy decision needs to be made on more subtle IQ metrics and operational features like AF, viewfinder, ergonomy.

Weighed against this must be the acquisition cost of memory cards and increased post processing time for maximal quality.

I have read all post in this thread,and I must say.I see almost no difference between D3200

D5100 D7000 D7100 picture wise.

Coursers If I had the money I buy the D7100 not because it will take better pictures.

but for there ergonomic differences.

As usual higher pixel counts give more flaws not only in SLR camera,s but also in compacts.

The difference in sharpness make simple no difference at all.

you can sharpen in camera or with software.

So  basic what count is the camera performance and the extra buttons you have.

A better camera is better but won,t take any pictures by it self.

And to be honest I did not see many pictures here that proof otherwise.

Most of the people here are raving about the D7100 super fast focus,but where are the pictures.

( Seeing is believing) end quote

I have D70s D90 D3200 the cameras are not all that difference.

And it is a good thing.

-- hide signature --

My English is poor.Try to Understand
Nikon D70s,Nikon D90,Nikon D3200 Samsung NX100 Fuji X10
Sony Nex3 Sony nex5n Sony hx100V
_______________________________________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/73737307@N00/sets/
_______________________________________________
Claus M
______

 demarren 123's gear list:demarren 123's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX100V Olympus E-10 Panasonic LX100 +10 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,368
Re: Not a constructive post.
2

coudet wrote:

You say don't need that resolution and that is ok, but you should not assume that applies to everyone.

I would say it applies to most users. Very few people make prints larger than 11X14. At that size from a D7000 file you are still at 300 pixels/inch. At a normal viewing distance any resolution over that is simply not visible and I'm not sure with a loupe it would be visible.The difference between 240 pixels/inch and 300 is almost impossible to see on any printing I have had done.

What I see people doing here is looking at 100% crops on a low resolution monitor which would = viewing a 2X3 foot plus image from inches away and proclaiming "OMG it's amazing the difference!". You made the comment "In a 240X320 thumbnail image you wouldn't see it" which was an absurd statement. What this article and I both agree on in "real world use", most people will never see the difference is this increased resolution on the final product, which for most people is a viewable size whole image.

Obviously if you have issues with AF etc, the D7100 would be something to look at. Maybe if your goal was to make wall size prints, it might be a choice to consider but honestly if that was my goal, I would spend the extra bucks and go full frame/D800. For most users buying better glass, some improved software or a better flash system etc would make much more of an improvement over upgrading from a D7000 to a D7100.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7 +16 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,368
Re: The take home message here..

larrywilson wrote:

I repeat better af and better viewfinder makes for me the upgrade from d7000 to d7100 worth while, especially the better af.

Larry

I 100% agree, if you had issues with the D7000 AF and require a better AF system, that is a great reason to upgrade. I don't see the "increased resolution" as a reason for most users to do it.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7 +16 more
gear1box Senior Member • Posts: 1,495
Re: Cameralabs D7100 review up: verdict...

Roger that Bryce.

-- hide signature --

gary ray

--
Semi-professional in early 1970s; just a putzer since then. interests: historical sites, virginia, motorcycle racing. A nikon user more by habit than choice; still, nikon seems to work well for me.

 gear1box's gear list:gear1box's gear list
Nikon D810 Olympus E-PL7 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G +9 more
JimPearce
JimPearce Veteran Member • Posts: 9,134
Well Stacey, none of this applies to wildlife photography...
4

Big prints: check (12" x 18" is routine for me). Need to crop: check. Autofocus is critical: check. Don't want less speed, reach and less viewfinder magnification with D800: check..but that depends. Which helps to explain why the D7100 is a hit with experienced wildlife photographers many of whom own a D800 and few of whom are "coming from" a D7000. I can't speak for photographers with different interests, but it seems to me that you're projecting your own needs and opinions well beyond their reach here.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D500
kewlguy
kewlguy Senior Member • Posts: 1,920
Re: Cameralabs D7100 review up: verdict...

There should be a noticeable difference between D5200 and AA-less D7100 in term of resolution. If there wasn't, the only explanation is that the lens used is not capable of utilizing the smaller pixels of both 24MP sensors...

The clarity difference between Pentax K5 II and IIs is visible, for example. For comparison, please check out Imaging Resource's lab shots, where D7100 is showing more textures and micro contrast than D5200 (download the raw files).

I bet Cameralabs must have used the kit 18-105

 kewlguy's gear list:kewlguy's gear list
Nikon 1 J5 Canon EOS 5DS R Pentax K-1 Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM +85 more
Richard Veteran Member • Posts: 4,858
Re: Cameralabs D7100 review up: verdict...

larrywilson wrote:

Better auto focus and viewfinder, enough to upgrade, especially for the better af.

Larry

Maybe for you. As I see it I have been waiting since the original 5d to upgrade to a FF. I still have not bought a FF and am going to wait until the next generation. What I have works for me.

So there is such a minor difference there is no way I would upgrade from the d7000 to the 7100

Richard Veteran Member • Posts: 4,858
Re: Cameralabs D7100 review up: verdict...

mosswings wrote:

The only other option for you is to hope the D300 is upgraded to more pro features but if you don't need those feature (or the improvements on the D7100 that have nothing to do with sensor IQ) I would agree, the D7000 is a very capable camera and for most people, you really don't need much more than that and there is no reason to upgrade. I would suggest to people, spend your money on better lenses at that point

mosswings wrote:

Remember, I'm reporting what other reviewers are saying here as a springboard for discussion.  I'm fairly sold on the D7100, but that's because I'm coming from a D90,

Well I have been waiting for a FF since the original 5d and have not purchased one. The price and the upgrades have not been enough for me to buy one yet over my current crop sensor cameras. I don't think there is that much of an upgrade from the D90. D800 or the upgrade to the D300 might be enough, it would depend on what you shoot. It would not be a big enough of a jump for me D90 to D7100.

not a D7000; have no intention of going full frame for reasons of weight and bulk;

If you want to go telephoto with better AF, faster glass you are going to increase weight. Same with FF, IMHO they are both worth it.

and for reasons of ergonomy and field-maintainability don't consider the D5200 an option.  However, if when buy time comes the funds just aren't there to upgrade, I still know how well the D90 performs in day-to-day shooting - very well indeed.  In fact, a lot of photogs are shelling out big bucks for OMD EM5s to obtain the performance we D90 owners have been enjoying since 2008.

Another reason not to upgrade. Upgrade when they update the D300. I have to believe the D7100 came out first and the upgrade to the D300 will come out second. Good marketing strategy.

OP mosswings Veteran Member • Posts: 8,079
Re: Cameralabs D7100 review up: verdict...

Richard wrote:

mosswings wrote:

The only other option for you is to hope the D300 is upgraded to more pro features but if you don't need those feature (or the improvements on the D7100 that have nothing to do with sensor IQ) I would agree, the D7000 is a very capable camera and for most people, you really don't need much more than that and there is no reason to upgrade. I would suggest to people, spend your money on better lenses at that point

mosswings wrote:

Remember, I'm reporting what other reviewers are saying here as a springboard for discussion.  I'm fairly sold on the D7100, but that's because I'm coming from a D90,

Well I have been waiting for a FF since the original 5d and have not purchased one. The price and the upgrades have not been enough for me to buy one yet over my current crop sensor cameras. I don't think there is that much of an upgrade from the D90. D800 or the upgrade to the D300 might be enough, it would depend on what you shoot. It would not be a big enough of a jump for me D90 to D7100.

The differences lie in the smoothness of the final image and a fairly clear 1 to 1.3 stop advantage in the 400-3200 ISO range.  I don't shoot at ISO 100, where there's essentially no advantage; At ISO 800 and above, the fine grain noise structure of the D7100 (and the D7000) actually do confer an IQ advantage, although in no way as effortless as FF would.  I consider the D7100 an better 12MP camera than the D90 is - the extra resolution provides more post processing options and reduced noise levels.

not a D7000; have no intention of going full frame for reasons of weight and bulk;

If you want to go telephoto with better AF, faster glass you are going to increase weight. Same with FF, IMHO they are both worth it.

Yes, and no.  In the midrange where I mostly work, there's a clear size and weight advantage between a 17-50 or 17-70 (not the 17-55 nikkor, bloated thing that it is) and a 24-70 f2.8 FF.  All I usually use is an f4-5.6 70-300 for tele.  Travel photogs don't often venture beyond 85mm.

and for reasons of ergonomy and field-maintainability don't consider the D5200 an option.  However, if when buy time comes the funds just aren't there to upgrade, I still know how well the D90 performs in day-to-day shooting - very well indeed.  In fact, a lot of photogs are shelling out big bucks for OMD EM5s to obtain the performance we D90 owners have been enjoying since 2008.

Another reason not to upgrade. Upgrade when they update the D300. I have to believe the D7100 came out first and the upgrade to the D300 will come out second. Good marketing strategy.

The D400 will come out, but I see no real reason for it as it will be a pro body camera which is a total pain to carry about all day.  What I'm really hoping for is a mirrorless APS-C from Nikon that I can use my legacy lenses on and shrink the kit down when I want to go light.  It'll be here in a generation or two.

 mosswings's gear list:mosswings's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Olympus Stylus 1 Nikon D90 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +5 more
Richard Veteran Member • Posts: 4,858
Re: Cameralabs D7100 review up: verdict...

mosswings wrote:

Richard wrote:

Well I have been waiting for a FF since the original 5d and have not purchased one. The price and the upgrades have not been enough for me to buy one yet over my current crop sensor cameras. I don't think there is that much of an upgrade from the D90. D800 or the upgrade to the D300 might be enough, it would depend on what you shoot. It would not be a big enough of a jump for me D90 to D7100.

The differences lie in the smoothness of the final image and a fairly clear 1 to 1.3 stop advantage in the 400-3200 ISO range.  I don't shoot at ISO 100, where there's essentially no advantage; At ISO 800 and above, the fine grain noise structure of the D7100 (and the D7000) actually do confer an IQ advantage, although in no way as effortless as FF would.

Unless you are a professional and print big, you will never notice this noise difference in print. Unless you have customers that scrutinize at the pixel level on a monitor, it won't make any difference.

I consider the D7100 an better 12MP camera than the D90 is - the extra resolution provides more post processing options and reduced noise levels.

I would say a tiny amount of noise difference and what other processing options? Cropping, maybe but again I would say people would probably see a bigger differences in the camera if you were upgrading from a D7100 or a D90 to a D300 upgrade camera say the D400. D90 to 7100 is baby steps.

not a D7000; have no intention of going full frame for reasons of weight and bulk;

If you want to go telephoto with better AF, faster glass you are going to increase weight. Same with FF, IMHO they are both worth it.

Yes, and no.  In the midrange where I mostly work, there's a clear size and weight advantage between a 17-50 or 17-70 (not the 17-55 nikkor, bloated thing that it is) and a 24-70 f2.8 FF.  All I usually use is an f4-5.6 70-300 for tele.  Travel photogs don't often venture beyond 85mm.

Travel photogs probably need no more than 12 mp or a d90, unless you are a traveling pro photojournalist. Who are you going to be selling your photogs to? Or are you going to post them on the web

and for reasons of ergonomy and field-maintainability don't consider the D5200 an option.  However, if when buy time comes the funds just aren't there to upgrade, I still know how well the D90 performs in day-to-day shooting - very well indeed.  In fact, a lot of photogs are shelling out big bucks for OMD EM5s to obtain the performance we D90 owners have been enjoying since 2008.

Another reason not to upgrade. Upgrade when they update the D300. I have to believe the D7100 came out first and the upgrade to the D300 will come out second. Good marketing strategy.

The D400 will come out, but I see no real reason for it as it will be a pro body camera which is a total pain to carry about all day.  What I'm really hoping for is a mirrorless APS-C from Nikon that I can use my legacy lenses on and shrink the kit down when I want to go light.  It'll be here in a generation or two.

If that is what you are looking for, smaller size in the camera body, that may be something worthy of upgrade but if all your lenses work with it. Lens size is not going to reduce thus you are probably better off at looking at another brand or another system. But your D90 will do everything a d7100 or a 4/3rds system.

Looking at your gallery, those images are re-sized down. so any fine grain noise is reduced, any resolution is reduced to a web sized image, I don't see any advantages for a new camera there. You may even argue that FF would not help you since you are not doing bokey or wide angle stuff.

But that is my opinion. I see a lot of people with gear way past their needs, requirements or what they use it for. Now if you said, I want it because I want it and just want a new camera and I can afford it. You can't argue with that.

Shunda77
Shunda77 Senior Member • Posts: 2,131
Re: Not a constructive post.

Stacey_K wrote:

coudet wrote:

You say don't need that resolution and that is ok, but you should not assume that applies to everyone.

I would say it applies to most users. Very few people make prints larger than 11X14. At that size from a D7000 file you are still at 300 pixels/inch. At a normal viewing distance any resolution over that is simply not visible and I'm not sure with a loupe it would be visible.The difference between 240 pixels/inch and 300 is almost impossible to see on any printing I have had done.

What I see people doing here is looking at 100% crops on a low resolution monitor which would = viewing a 2X3 foot plus image from inches away and proclaiming "OMG it's amazing the difference!". You made the comment "In a 240X320 thumbnail image you wouldn't see it" which was an absurd statement. What this article and I both agree on in "real world use", most people will never see the difference is this increased resolution on the final product, which for most people is a viewable size whole image.

Obviously if you have issues with AF etc, the D7100 would be something to look at. Maybe if your goal was to make wall size prints, it might be a choice to consider but honestly if that was my goal, I would spend the extra bucks and go full frame/D800. For most users buying better glass, some improved software or a better flash system etc would make much more of an improvement over upgrading from a D7000 to a D7100.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

Very well said.

It's great to get an actual 'photographer' perspective on these gear assessment threads.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads