Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Started Feb 4, 2014 | Discussions
mistermejia Veteran Member • Posts: 3,340
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Bajerunner wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

fishywisht wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

The undercurrent in Thom's article that bothers me the most (and is reflected in a number of

What I'm secretly hoping is that the shift to mirrorless (Fuji, Sony, Olympus, Pentax, etc...) opens the lanes for the competitors to get back in the game in a meaningful way because if that happens, then neither Canon or Nikon will be able to get away with these crippling games any more. They will have to produce the most competitive camera possible at a given price point (no intentional crippling) or they'll simply get beat by the competition, particularly in the $500-$1500 market where people may be less locked into a lens lineup or brand familiarity than the pros are. That's what I'm hoping for. The Pentax K-3, Sony A7r and Fuji XT-1 are some of the first shots across the bow. Nikon probably hoped to be taking a shot with the Nikon 1 line, but they messed that up in a zillion ways (sensor too small, mismatches feature set, price and intended audience).

Well said. And yes, the 'first shots across the bow' may actually have taken off a bit of the wood, if not a chunk, chippings.

The thing is, their AF is looking somewhat close and that was the hold up all along, so no longer a limitation and the floodgates will open.

Am I wrong?

Who's AF do you mean by the AF is "looking" close?

 mistermejia's gear list:mistermejia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,909
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
1

jfriend00 wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

Here's the thing though, except for fps (again, when using the MB-D10 and appropriate batteries) you can get more out of the D800 than the D700 using the D800 in exactly the same way as the D700 (more DR, more resolution, better high ISO performance, more viewfinder coverage, dual memory card slots, etc.). As for the larger file sizes, well that's just a fact of life now, even the D600, D7000, and D7100 have larger file sizes than the D700 -- nobody is going back to 12 MP.

When you say "except for fps", do you realize you're saying "except when you want to shoot serious action". The D800 is, plain and simple, not a great camera for shooting serious action.

I used to do quite well with the D200.

And, that is the main audience that is still shooting with a D700 and clamoring for an actual D700 upgrade. In FX, Nikon has NOTHING that is even 6fps with the good AF for less than $6000, much less the 8fps of the D700+grip. That's a set of action shooters that are going to go elsewhere over time. Right now, a lot of them are either still shooting with the D700 or buying used D3 or D3s bodies, but that won't last forever (I'm probably going to buy a D3s myself).

Feels like I'm in the wrong forum here. Anyway, reading your post here what I get is that Nikon has time to keep those getting all worked up over a couple of fps. The D3 now costs less than a new D700 cost when it came out, so that's an upgrade right there, the D3s will not be too far behind. The 5DIII costs $3400 (USD), so you are paying $600 more for it than for the D800 to get 1 fps (D800 1.2x crop mode compared to 5DIII full frame).

Devendra
Devendra Veteran Member • Posts: 3,584
now if nikon can provide sraw

Well Nikon can provide sraw along with higher fps with D800/E to meet your needs. I am not sure if they will. As far as its af is concerned it is top notch.
So instead of asking Nikon for another body, people can start demanding a 'paid' firmware upgrade to give higher fps n smaller images, even tho free will be better!
Which would you rather chose?

 Devendra's gear list:Devendra's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha NEX-3N
JimPearce
OP JimPearce Veteran Member • Posts: 9,188
I think not John...

There are serious optical issues with adapters. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters Under no circumstances would I stay with Nikon if they did this with their high end DX cameras.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D500
jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,396
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Tony Beach wrote:

Feels like I'm in the wrong forum here. Anyway, reading your post here what I get is that Nikon has time to keep those getting all worked up over a couple of fps. The D3 now costs less than a new D700 cost when it came out, so that's an upgrade right there, the D3s will not be too far behind. The 5DIII costs $3400 (USD), so you are paying $500 more for it than for the D800 to get 1 fps (D800 1.2x crop mode compared to 5DIII full frame).

Thom's article was about the whole Nikon product line, not just DX products so I'm discussing Nikon's efforts in that larger context.  That's why I'm mentioning some FX issues in addition to DX issues.

I don't think Nikon has a lot of time before some bleeding of customers accelerates.  I don't really "want" a 12MP sensor, even in a camera as good as the D3s.  I'd rather have 16-24MP. But, right now, the D700/D3/D3s are the only Nikon FX options available for shooting fast that aren't $6k.  And, me buying a used D3s may keep me from defecting for another year, but it doesn't bring any revenue into Nikon.  I've frozen all Nikon lens purchases because Nikon doesn't appear to be supporting the kind of shooting I'm doing long term so the last thing I want to do is throw more money down the Nikon hole if I have to switch brands in the next few years.  If I buy a new lens in the next year, it would either be a Sigma with a changeable mount or a used lens that I don't think would depreciate much if I had to sell it.

A good D3s that doesn't have a zillion clicks on it seems to be going for around $3500 now.  The D3 is meaningfully less since the D3s sensor is so much better and the D3s has a larger buffer.

-- hide signature --
n057 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,821
Re: now if nikon can provide sraw

Devendra wrote:

Well Nikon can provide sraw along with higher fps with D800/E to meet your needs. I am not sure if they will. As far as its af is concerned it is top notch.
So instead of asking Nikon for another body, people can start demanding a 'paid' firmware upgrade to give higher fps n smaller images, even tho free will be better!
Which would you rather chose?

Haha!

Nothing against you Devendra, it is more against the drift of the conversation ...

I would choose none of the above, none of those options are DX

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +7 more
jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,396
Re: I think not John...

JimPearce wrote:

There are serious optical issues with adapters. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters Under no circumstances would I stay with Nikon if they did this with their high end DX cameras.

That article seems to mention issues with adapters that aren't done right.  Are you sure that it's impossible to do it right?

From a mechanical alignment point of view, an adapter should be less complicated to get right than a TC and people shoot with TCs all the time.  I think there are a lot of 3rd party, relatively cheap adapters out there (that generally don't support AF either) - I'm thinking of a Nikon made adapter that really attempts to do this correctly.

If Nikon sticks with the F-mount for their DX line forever, they will just never be competitive in size and weight with those who have gone to a shorter mount.  Look at the size of the Coolpix A, for example or any of the Fuji X-series cameras that have APS-C sensors.  Are you arguing that Nikon should never use a shorter mount in the DX line?  Or just not with the top end of their DX line.

-- hide signature --
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,624
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

mistermejia wrote:

Bajerunner wrote:

John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

Well said. And yes, the 'first shots across the bow' may actually have taken off a bit of the wood, if not a chunk, chippings.

The thing is, their AF is looking somewhat close and that was the hold up all along, so no longer a limitation and the floodgates will open.

Am I wrong?

Who's AF do you mean by the AF is "looking" close?

I mean the K-3 AF seems quite capable, a number of posters on the Pentax have images with the K-3, bird in flight, low light. Seems to work capably. Albeit one poster here has qualified that in his short trial with the camera.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,624
Re: now if nikon can provide sraw... assumption...

Devendra wrote:

Well Nikon can provide sraw along with higher fps with D800/E to meet your needs. I am not sure if they will. As far as its af is concerned it is top notch.
So instead of asking Nikon for another body, people can start demanding a 'paid' firmware upgrade to give higher fps n smaller images, even tho free will be better!
Which would you rather chose?

That assumes that all of us 'need' or 'want' to spend USD 3,000 on a FF body.

The high pixel density of the APS-C sensor I prefer, initially I preferred it for cropping, but now I see something in the K-3 and D7100 24MP sensor, so it is more than that.

I have no need or want to spend over 1,800 to get a high fps, excellent AF, high MP and well built camera.

And to repeat ad nauseum as we all have said, all the D7100 needs is a better buffer and fps and AF-On button and we are there.

Fairly straightforward.

And if Nikon or Canon think that such is now out of their scope, that is fine too, they have a right to choose their strategy.

As buyers have a right to choose theirs.

And the point is that NOW, there are finally options for those who shoot action.

And we will know Nikon and Canon's APS-C future by September, nothing in more advanced APS-C by then will stamp the reality strongly.

From there, people can make their decisions.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,909
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
1

jfriend00 wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

Feels like I'm in the wrong forum here. Anyway, reading your post here what I get is that Nikon has time to keep those getting all worked up over a couple of fps. The D3 now costs less than a new D700 cost when it came out, so that's an upgrade right there, the D3s will not be too far behind. The 5DIII costs $3400 (USD), so you are paying $500 more for it than for the D800 to get 1 fps (D800 1.2x crop mode compared to 5DIII full frame).

Thom's article was about the whole Nikon product line, not just DX products so I'm discussing Nikon's efforts in that larger context. That's why I'm mentioning some FX issues in addition to DX issues.

I don't think Nikon has a lot of time before some bleeding of customers accelerates. I don't really "want" a 12MP sensor, even in a camera as good as the D3s. I'd rather have 16-24MP.

What is the difference between 12 MP and 16 MP?  How often do you get everything a 12 MP sensor has to offer?

If I buy a new lens in the next year, it would either be a Sigma with a changeable mount

I only see one such telephoto lens, the 120-300/2.8, and it's a little bit underwhelming.

or a used lens that I don't think would depreciate much if I had to sell it.

Not sure how much it would cost to have the mount changed, but I would just go for a good used Nikkor right now.

JimPearce
OP JimPearce Veteran Member • Posts: 9,188
What's left to improve Devendra?
2

A decent buffer and 7-8 frames per second are crucial. since Nikon found room for an AF-On button on the Df I'm sure they could find room on a D7200. Add the carbon fiber reinforcement and smoothed out sensor from the D5300, and what more could you want? After six years of shooting the D300 and D300s if anything I find the ergonomics of the D7100 superior. Most of the caterwauling about the body here is coming from people who at most have shot a D7100 in the store.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D500
jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,396
Re: now if nikon can provide sraw
1

Devendra wrote:

Well Nikon can provide sraw along with higher fps with D800/E to meet your needs. I am not sure if they will. As far as its af is concerned it is top notch.
So instead of asking Nikon for another body, people can start demanding a 'paid' firmware upgrade to give higher fps n smaller images, even tho free will be better!
Which would you rather chose?

One answer to the D800 vs. D700 speed upgrade issue would be to come out with a D800s or D810 that could do 6fps at 36MP and 8fps in an 18-24MP sRAW-like format (still using the full sensor capture though, not a crop mode). Then you could kind of have your cake and eat it too. I don't think this can be done with a firmware upgrade to the D800 though because I doubt the D800 mirror can go 8fps and I don't think the EXPEED 3 knows how to do an sRAW-like format (which probably requires hardware support to achieve 8fps).

I have long believed that we're reached the point with the D800 where it's simply more resolution than is desired for some uses and the best way for Nikon to deal with that is to continue to advance the resolution, but to offer RAW-like reduced resolution captures from the full sensor (sRAW-like done right).  Then, you could truly have your cake and eat it too with a camera that does ultra high resolution for landscape, but can also go fast at a lower resolution for the action photographer who's workflow and fps is negatively impacted by very high resolution captures. Offering this capability could allow a single camera to serve a wider variety of needs.

I'd probably buy a D810 that could produce 16-24MP at 8fps (full sensor capture, RAW-like capture, not crop mode, not JPEG) and could also do 36MP (or higher) at 4-6 fps.  That would be a killer camera.

-- hide signature --
mistermejia Veteran Member • Posts: 3,340
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
2

Bajerunner wrote:

mistermejia wrote:

Bajerunner wrote:

John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

Well said. And yes, the 'first shots across the bow' may actually have taken off a bit of the wood, if not a chunk, chippings.

The thing is, their AF is looking somewhat close and that was the hold up all along, so no longer a limitation and the floodgates will open.

Am I wrong?

Who's AF do you mean by the AF is "looking" close?

I mean the K-3 AF seems quite capable, a number of posters on the Pentax have images with the K-3, bird in flight, low light. Seems to work capably. Albeit one poster here has qualified that in his short trial with the camera.

I think there is even a new firmware coming out for the K3, which is supposed to improve the camera, including AF.

The bottom line is that the K3 is and will be a kick ass camera, in a already D300 type of body, IMO, and again, it really gets on my nerves that people here keep saying that they would be "satisfied" with a D300 replacement in a plastic D7200 type of body. I just wouldn't tolerate it if nikon just keeps giving their customer's ridiculous D5300 type of bodies and nothing else compared to what everyone else is making now days.

Anything less than the best would be a felony!

I am personally VERY curious what the D7200 is going to have, but based on the last four DX bodies that nikon has come up with, I am NOT excited at all, just curious.

-

 mistermejia's gear list:mistermejia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,396
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
1

Tony Beach wrote:

What is the difference between 12 MP and 16 MP? How often do you get everything a 12 MP sensor has to offer?

If you end up cropping a significant amount (which I sometimes do in action photos either because I was reach starved or because I just decide after the fact that I want to isolate the subject in the shot more than when I captured it), having more than 12MP can be pretty useful either to support printing a cropped image larger or retaining detail after cropping. I'd actually like 24MP as it seems a good spot to be that isn't so large that it bothers the workflow a lot, but is enough of a bump that it helps sometimes.  I offered a range of 16-24 to be more flexible.  You picked on the low of the range.

If I buy a new lens in the next year, it would either be a Sigma with a changeable mount

I only see one such telephoto lens, the 120-300/2.8, and it's a little bit underwhelming.

I already own the telephotos I need.  I'd be buying something shorter if I bought anything.  For DX, Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8 is getting stellar reviews and I think they're onto something with high quality lenses with changeable mounts.  If they keep going with this, I think they're going to capture a meaningful share of the enthusiast lens market (not pro, but more discriminating buyer) both because of offering very good quality at lower prices and because of the mount flexibility so you aren't as locked in as previously.

or a used lens that I don't think would depreciate much if I had to sell it.

Not sure how much it would cost to have the mount changed, but I would just go for a good used Nikkor right now.

Used lens shopping is hard and not for the faint of heart. Unless you can shoot with it locally before buying or pay a little more to buy from an outfit like KEH that rates them and lets you return anything, it's really hard to know what you're getting and feel like you're making a "safe" purchase.  I'm not saying you can't find good deals, but it's not a simple process and you can get burned.

-- hide signature --
JimPearce
OP JimPearce Veteran Member • Posts: 9,188
Perhaps there's another solution...

Thom alludes to an "ingenious solution" that he has seen. I don't think an adapter would be described as "ingenious". Anyway - I repeat - I will not be shooting my lenses through an adapter. TCs are a different issue as the loss lensrentals is talking about is not in center sharpness.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D500
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,624
Re: Perhaps there's another solution...

JimPearce wrote:

Thom alludes to an "ingenious solution" that he has seen. I don't think an adapter would be described as "ingenious". Anyway - I repeat - I will not be shooting my lenses through an adapter. TCs are a different issue as the loss lensrentals is talking about is not in center sharpness.

Could it be an optical element actually built into the camera, to address the register distance issue?

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 1,747
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

JimPearce wrote:

Will there be a D700 successor? No.

Well, in my book D700 may remain its own successor for the foreseeable future. Unless you need lots of pixels and extreme DR for low ISO landscape shooting, D700 still does it all. Still the most versatile of cameras, that you have to pay multiples of the current used prices to get ever so slight improvement over.

It's a discussion for another forum really, but Thom actually called the D800 the D700 successor and told Nikon users to "get over it," so I see a bit of a contradiction from Thom about this in his latest article.

Yes, he's been all over the place with this issue. This D800 confused a lot of people because it didn't fit into the established pattern.

There is no "established pattern." When something happens once, that's not a pattern.

It really is the closest thing to a D3x update,

I do think there's a pattern here, and it has to do with being competitive. The D700 came out to compete with the 5D/5DII because the D3 was too expensive for many who would then choose the Canon option. The same reasoning is behind the D800 which competes against the 5DIII and A99; there is no more need for a D700 successor in Nikon's lineup because it is bracketed by the D610 and D800.

not so much D700, but I'm okay with whoever may disagree on this issue. The reason I don't see D800 as the D700 update is that it encourages a different approach to photography to get the most out of it technically, plus a host of more practical file processing and management issues.

Here's the thing though, except for fps (again, when using the MB-D10 and appropriate batteries) you can get more out of the D800 than the D700 using the D800 in exactly the same way as the D700 (more DR, more resolution, better high ISO performance, more viewfinder coverage, dual memory card slots, etc.). As for the larger file sizes, well that's just a fact of life now, even the D600, D7000, and D7100 have larger file sizes than the D700 -- nobody is going back to 12 MP.

Well, you may also ask yourself why Nikon flagship is fine with 16MP. What 16MP looks like relative to 12MP I know very well (have a D7000 lying around), and as hard as I look I don't see much of a practical difference. I know that a good sharp 12MP picture could be painlessly enlarged to a bigger print size than the vast majority ever cares to print. My benchmark size is 12x18, I don't print larger except in very rare cases, so what use are those additional pixels? If you say that gazillion MP is nice to have to crop or for that rare case when you do want to print wall size, I won't disagree with that. But nice to have comes at a price, longer upload times, longer store times, longer edit times, longer backup times, and more and more storage for all those backups. So, there is clearly a trade-off here between the nice to have pixels and all this overhead which (for me) is mostly pure aggravation. I might be the last holdout on this forum, but I generally don't suffer from "only" 12MP. In addition, for anything that doesn't fall into the domain of sports shooting in the dark, I'm mostly interested in how different cameras render colors and tones rather than pure resolution, and on this count I have seen no progress at all in years and years, and that being charitable.

As for D700, when I don't feel the need for DX "reach", it gives me everything I need 99 times out of 100. It has an excellent AF, great acuity, plenty of DR at base ISO, and very good high ISO, and it renders beautifully. For me, it is just about perfect ergonomically, and when I need the grip I use it, and when I don't -- I have a camera of reasonable size and weight. Maybe D800 is just too much of a good thing for me, while D700 is just right.

Anyway, I know that I won't convince you and you won't convince me, so we may just agree to disagree.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,624
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
1

yray wrote:

Well, you may also ask yourself why Nikon flagship is fine with 16MP. What 16MP looks like relative to 12MP I know very well (have a D7000 lying around), and as hard as I look I don't see much of a practical difference. I know that a good sharp 12MP picture could be painlessly enlarged to a bigger print size than the vast majority ever cares to print. My benchmark size is 12x18, I don't print larger except in very rare cases, so what use are those additional pixels? If you say that gazillion MP is nice to have to crop or for that rare case when you do want to print wall size, I won't disagree with that. But nice to have comes at a price, longer upload times, longer store times, longer edit times, longer backup times, and more and more storage for all those backups. So, there is clearly a trade-off here between the nice to have pixels and all this overhead which (for me) is mostly pure aggravation. I might be the last holdout on this forum, but I generally don't suffer from "only" 12MP. In addition, for anything that doesn't fall into the domain of sports shooting in the dark, I'm mostly interested in how different cameras render colors and tones rather than pure resolution, and on this count I have seen no progress at all in years and years, and that being charitable....

If I may humbly interject and *suggest* something. I fulyl agree that I see some lovely work with the D700. Was looking at a beauty of a lake image, in low light, on flickr earlier.

That said, have another look at some K-3 or D7100 images, maybe it is JUST ME, but I am seeing strong colors and tonal depth unlike any other APS-C thus far. Great rendition from this sensor.

So, I think there has been change. And I 'believe' that this improvement in rendition is directly related to the number of pixels i.e. the greater number of pixels are enabling the capture of a greater range of tonal variations, thus impacting the image rendition.

I am sold on this sensor, not at first, took me a while.

But, as you mentioned to Tony, we may agree to disagree, but have a look.

It may just be me.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,909
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

jfriend00 wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

What is the difference between 12 MP and 16 MP? How often do you get everything a 12 MP sensor has to offer?

If you end up cropping a significant amount (which I sometimes do in action photos either because I was reach starved or because I just decide after the fact that I want to isolate the subject in the shot more than when I captured it), having more than 12MP can be pretty useful either to support printing a cropped image larger or retaining detail after cropping.

That comes down to per pixel sharpness though. If the pixels are sharp, it doesn't take very many of them; if the pixels aren't sharp then no matter how many you have it won't help.

I'd actually like 24MP as it seems a good spot to be that isn't so large that it bothers the workflow a lot, but is enough of a bump that it helps sometimes. I offered a range of 16-24 to be more flexible. You picked on the low of the range.

I picked the D4 number. Why is 16 MP adequate to a lot of pros? One reason is that it's actually not easy to get more than 12 MP of resolution, you have to get very accurate focus, and you need to use very fast shutter speeds or use a tripod and MLU. In Thom Hogan's D3x review he went into this quite a bit showing how hard it was to meaningfully resolve more than he was getting from the D3.

If I buy a new lens in the next year, it would either be a Sigma with a changeable mount

I only see one such telephoto lens, the 120-300/2.8, and it's a little bit underwhelming.

I already own the telephotos I need. I'd be buying something shorter if I bought anything. For DX, Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8 is getting stellar reviews and I think they're onto something with high quality lenses with changeable mounts.

That lens is on the list of interchangeable mounts.

If they keep going with this, I think they're going to capture a meaningful share of the enthusiast lens market (not pro, but more discriminating buyer) both because of offering very good quality at lower prices and because of the mount flexibility so you aren't as locked in as previously.

I still would like to know the price though. Keep in mind that Nikon and Canon are large markets, so it's relatively easy to buy and sell lenses within those mounts, Pentax on the other hand is probably quite a bit harder.

or a used lens that I don't think would depreciate much if I had to sell it.

Not sure how much it would cost to have the mount changed, but I would just go for a good used Nikkor right now.

Used lens shopping is hard and not for the faint of heart. Unless you can shoot with it locally before buying or pay a little more to buy from an outfit like KEH that rates them and lets you return anything, it's really hard to know what you're getting and feel like you're making a "safe" purchase. I'm not saying you can't find good deals, but it's not a simple process and you can get burned.

Selling is easy, buying should be done with caution.  Yes, KEH is a good choice here, as is Adorama.

Holmes375
Holmes375 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,798
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Bajerunner wrote:

....That said, have another look at some K-3 or D7100 images, maybe it is JUST ME, but I am seeing strong colors and tonal depth unlike any other APS-C thus far. Great rendition from this sensor.

So, I think there has been change. And I 'believe' that this improvement in rendition is directly related to the number of pixels i.e. the greater number of pixels are enabling the capture of a greater range of tonal variations, thus impacting the image rendition.

I am sold on this sensor, not at first, took me a while....

Have to agree.  And this is why I am still trying to master the D7100 and letting the D300 have a rest.

-- hide signature --
 Holmes375's gear list:Holmes375's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads