# Nikon D7100 IQ



## CaptainNapalm (Feb 25, 2013)

With the recent announcement of the D7100 hitting the stores, we all are well aware of the various benefits it has over its predecessor the d7000.  However, strictly speaking from an IQ standpoint, do you guys think it will be much of an improvement over the D7000? Reading reviews some people are raving about how they look forward to the better images but I'm thinking they'll be disappointed.  Just curious what you all think.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 25, 2013)

It depends on what one is doing with their D7000.  If most of what they shoot is heavily cropped then the extra 8 megapixels and not having an anti-alias filter will certainly help with the level of detail in the cropped area.  If most of what they shoot has low levels of fine detail to start with then probably not.


----------



## nmoody (Feb 25, 2013)

I guess it depends on what they are upgrading from if they will see decent IQ improvements. I will be coming from a D3100 so I may get some IQ gains but that's not the reason for the upgrade. 

If you are coming from a D5100 or D7000 its hard to say how much of an improvement in IQ it will be. Personally if I had a D7000 I wouldn't even consider an "upgrade" to the D7100.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 25, 2013)

Cant answer your question and I already said I will not even concider upgrading my D7000, this camera is too good to run and upgrade to the D7100 but I will say this........I think for those who own the D7000 and are really hungry for a better picture quality then the right way to go is the D600.
Refurbished bodies I saw are going for 1600$ which is 400$ more then the D7100 which for me makes more sense then to get the D7100.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 25, 2013)

goodguy said:


> Cant answer your question and I already said I will not even concider upgrading my D7000, this camera is too good to run and upgrade to the D7100 but I will say this........I think for those who own the D7000 and arew really hungry for a better picture quality then the rioght way to go is the D600.
> Refurbished bodies I saw are going for 1600$ which is 400$ more then the D7100 which for me makes more sense then to get the D7100.



I disagree in part.  The D600 is a full-frame camera whereas the D7000/7100 is an APS-C camera.  There are those of us who have little or no interest in a full-frame camera, so the D600 would not be an upgrade to us.  For many others, I agree, but not for everybody.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Feb 25, 2013)

goodguy said:


> Cant answer your question and I already said I will not even concider upgrading my D7000, this camera is too good to run and upgrade to the D7100 but I will say this........I think for those who own the D7000 and arew really hungry for a better picture quality then the rioght way to go is the D600.
> Refurbished bodies I saw are going for 1600$ which is 400$ more then the D7100 which for me makes more sense then to get the D7100.



Your logic of only paying $400 extra for the D600 upgrade as a good choice is rather off.  You're forgetting that one's collection of DX lenses would have to be replaced for FX lenses, which is actually where the real cost is.  Otherwise, your D600 with a mediocre DX lens is as useful as your D3100 with a DX lens.  So for most people who don't upgrade to full frame, I don't think it's because of the cost of the body upgrade but the thousands of dollars which need to be spent on lenses.  But yeah, the d600 is a sweet camera from what i see.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 25, 2013)

In my opinion, the d7100 will be an incremental improvement over the d7000.  A few more pixels, a few more bells and whistles.  I think it would be a great upgrade coming from a D3000-D5100, etc.  But from the D7000, not so much.  I'm am looking forward though, to seeing how it does head to head with the old d7000 and d600.


----------



## cgw (Feb 28, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> With the recent announcement of the D7100 hitting the stores, we all are well aware of the various benefits it has over its predecessor the d7000.  However, strictly speaking from an IQ standpoint, do you guys think it will be much of an improvement over the D7000? Reading reviews some people are raving about how they look forward to the better images but I'm thinking they'll be disappointed.  Just curious what you all think.



None of the "benefits" have actually been proven since all the D7100 "reports" and "reviews" were derived from a brief fondling a pre-production model and Nikon's press packs. Probably the most impressive feature so far is the price--the same as the D7000's on roll-out in fall 2010. We'll just have to wait till next month when production models hit the market.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 28, 2013)

SCraig said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > Cant answer your question and I already said I will not even concider upgrading my D7000, this camera is too good to run and upgrade to the D7100 but I will say this........I think for those who own the D7000 and arew really hungry for a better picture quality then the rioght way to go is the D600.
> ...



Good point and I agree that my comment was not for everybody.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 28, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > Cant answer your question and I already said I will not even concider upgrading my D7000, this camera is too good to run and upgrade to the D7100 but I will say this........I think for those who own the D7000 and arew really hungry for a better picture quality then the rioght way to go is the D600.
> ...



I agree with you too, I never thought about the lenses, thats why all the lenses I will buy will be for FX body so as long as I have a DX camera I will enjoy them and if I decide to move to an FX camera I will have lenses ready for that body without the need to sell lenses and buy new ones.


----------



## Benco (Feb 28, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > Cant answer your question and I already said I will not even concider upgrading my D7000, this camera is too good to run and upgrade to the D7100 but I will say this........I think for those who own the D7000 and arew really hungry for a better picture quality then the rioght way to go is the D600.
> ...




Not neccessarily. I've only recently got my D7000 so at the mo I have only a DX 18-200 jack of all trades and an FX 50mm 1.8D. I for one will not be buying any more DX glass, the way I see it when I want more theres no disadvantage to buying good FX lenses, they work perfectly on a DX body, there's more choice and best of all if I do decide to go Full Frame I'll already have the glass for it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of crop body owners do the same thing.


----------



## Dillard (Feb 28, 2013)

The only reason I'm excited about the D7100 is being able to pick up a second D7000 for cheap. Yea there are some advantages, but not enough of a reason for me to drop my D7k or the cash


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 28, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > Cant answer your question and I already said I will not even concider upgrading my D7000, this camera is too good to run and upgrade to the D7100 but I will say this........I think for those who own the D7000 and arew really hungry for a better picture quality then the rioght way to go is the D600.
> ...



This is one of the reasons most of us recommend buying FX lenses from the start... you get better quality lenses, and you don't have to worry about upgrades.


----------



## cgw (Feb 28, 2013)

Nikon sells way more DX than FX bodies--Thom Hogan guesses FX bodies are around 10% of Nikon's DSLR sales. The question is how long Nikon intends to delay introduction of better quality DX lenses in focal lengths its customers want?


----------



## TheLost (Feb 28, 2013)

I can tell the difference between images taken with the D800 and D800E.  I would assume you'll be able to see the difference in the D7100 and the D5200 (Not a fair comparison because they are different sensors.. but still...)

However, Its probably not enough to make people upgrade from a D7000 alone.  IMHO, the 51 point AF + higher mp + no low-pass filter + full weather sealing combined make it a good option IF those features are important to you.

Everybody gets all defensive when a new camera comes out   .. if you don't want to upgrade... you don't have to.


----------



## KmH (Feb 28, 2013)

Nikon wants you to upgrade, regardless any improvement in IQ.

Many seem to miss that IQ is mostly determined by photographer knowledge and skill, not the gear used.
So the best way to improve IQ is to upgrade the photographer's knowledge and skill.


----------



## Benco (Feb 28, 2013)

cgw said:


> Nikon sells way more DX than FX bodies--Thom Hogan guesses FX bodies are around 10% of Nikon's DSLR sales. The question is how long Nikon intends to delay introduction of better quality DX lenses in focal lengths its customers want?



Just buy FX lenses instead, why increse R&D cost when there's no need.


----------



## cgw (Feb 28, 2013)

Benco said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon sells way more DX than FX bodies--Thom Hogan guesses FX bodies are around 10% of Nikon's DSLR sales. The question is how long Nikon intends to delay introduction of better quality DX lenses in focal lengths its customers want?
> ...



Sure. Just hand over revenue to off-brand lens makers who give DX owners what they want. Brilliant.


----------



## Benco (Feb 28, 2013)

cgw said:


> Benco said:
> 
> 
> > cgw said:
> ...



Sorry, I'm a bit confused by that, what exactly is wrong with full frame lenses?


----------



## cgw (Feb 28, 2013)

Benco said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > Benco said:
> ...



It's matter of preference for DX owners. I don't think Nikon can afford to scrimp on supplying DX lenses for the majority of the DSLRs they make and sell. It's a poor business decision.


----------



## ScottMac (Feb 28, 2013)

Nothing wrong with full frame lenses. They are simply bigger, heavier, and generally more expensive to manufacture than an equivalent DX lens and thus only a few high-quality DX lenses available, relative to FX. Not everybody has the desire to "upgrade" to FX, and some DX shooters would rather not have to carry the extra weight or pay the extra price when simple physics would allow for top quality glass to be manufactured that is lighter, cheaper and at a decent enough price to sell heap-loads more than the FX equilavent.....


----------



## Benco (Feb 28, 2013)

cgw said:


> Benco said:
> 
> 
> > cgw said:
> ...



It appears that Nikon think that they can. Maybe I'm in a minority but I'm cool with that, I still don't see the downside of full frame lenses, as long as they work on my camera...great. 
Let me put my previous question another way: What's the advantage of DX lenses over FX?

Edit: I see that ScottMac has answered that. I guess it does come down to whether you're sure you're going to be using DX forever or want to keep your options open for going over to FX. I can see that if you're of the former mindset then Nikon's FX lens bias would be frustrating.


----------



## cgw (Feb 28, 2013)

Benco said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > Benco said:
> ...



Nikon's moving in strange ways these days. Take a look at Thom Hogan's recent comments sometime.


----------



## Benco (Feb 28, 2013)

Aye I will, I've seen him mentioned a few times on here and been meaning to have a look at his site.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 28, 2013)

KmH said:


> Nikon wants you to upgrade, regardless any improvement in IQ.
> 
> Many seem to miss that IQ is mostly determined by photographer knowledge and skill, not the gear used.
> So the best way to improve IQ is to upgrade the photographer's knowledge and skill.


There is no question that Nikon would love for EVERYBODY to run out and buy a new body.  They are in business to sell cameras, among other things, and it wouldn't be much of a business if they manufactured a million bodies and nobody bought them.  But they continually add new features, and those features ARE important to some people.  They may not be important to me or you but they are important to some.

Hypothetical situation: Let's say that you (so there is no question of the photographer's knowledge or skill) are out shooting birds with the finest body made and the sharpest lens that money can buy, mounted on the most solid tripod and head available.  The best of the best of the best in every respect.  You see a bird you want to photograph but it's at a significant distance and there is no possible way to get closer (let's say you are on the shore and the bird is sitting on a buoy).  You shoot a dead-perfect shot of the bird but it's still going to take a lot of cropping, and when you do crop it you see it's highly pixelated.  What could have improved that shot?  How about 50% more pixels in the cropped area and a sensor with no anti-alias filter?

I don't have the best of everything, but this IS the kind of situation I find myself in frequently.  I shoot birds a lot and regularly have to do a lot of cropping because the circumstances just plain will not allow me to get any closer.  Having 50% more pixels in the cropped area, assuming that noise doesn't get worse, would make a HUGE difference to me.  Probably not to you or many others but it would to me.


----------



## Benco (Feb 28, 2013)

SCraig said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon wants you to upgrade, regardless any improvement in IQ.
> ...



Boat? 

:mrgreen:


----------



## SCraig (Feb 28, 2013)

Benco said:


> Boat?
> 
> :mrgreen:


Acidic water filled with boat-eating sharks.


----------



## Benco (Feb 28, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Benco said:
> 
> 
> > Boat?
> ...



Damn.


----------



## haha101 (Feb 28, 2013)

i skipped the d7100 and went stright to a d600 froma d5100


----------



## gwhiz (Feb 28, 2013)

I just recently had my T3i stolen along with all of my lenses and figured it would be a perfect time to jump over to Nikon.  I'm a hobbyist but still want nice pictures for when I do save the dates, senior portraits, etc.  I'm having a tough time debating between the D5200 and the D7100.  I know the sensors are very similar but don't think I'm knowledgable enough to take advantage of all of the bells and whistles of the D7100 and would probably find that my images would be very similar with either.  Does anyone think there's enough reason to fork over the extra $400ish for the D7100?  Will I be just as happy with less to confuse me or are the advanced features of the D7100 worth learning about and growing into?  

Either way, I'm excited about both options.


----------



## cgw (Feb 28, 2013)

gwhiz said:


> I just recently had my T3i stolen along with all of my lenses and figured it would be a perfect time to jump over to Nikon.  I'm a hobbyist but still want nice pictures for when I do save the dates, senior portraits, etc.  I'm having a tough time debating between the D5200 and the D7100.  I know the sensors are very similar but don't think I'm knowledgable enough to take advantage of all of the bells and whistles of the D7100 and would probably find that my images would be very similar with either.  Does anyone think there's enough reason to fork over the extra $400ish for the D7100?  Will I be just as happy with less to confuse me or are the advanced features of the D7100 worth learning about and growing into?
> 
> Either way, I'm excited about both options.



Ever think about the D7000? No one really has any clue yet whether the D7100 amounts to an incremental or staggering improvement over the D7000. Given current prices, the D7100 will likely sell for about 50% more than the D7000--about the same price when it launched in fall 2010.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 28, 2013)

gwhiz said:


> I just recently had my T3i stolen along with all of my lenses and figured it would be a perfect time to jump over to Nikon.  I'm a hobbyist but still want nice pictures for when I do save the dates, senior portraits, etc.  I'm having a tough time debating between the D5200 and the D7100.  I know the sensors are very similar but don't think I'm knowledgable enough to take advantage of all of the bells and whistles of the D7100 and would probably find that my images would be very similar with either.  Does anyone think there's enough reason to fork over the extra $400ish for the D7100?  Will I be just as happy with less to confuse me or are the advanced features of the D7100 worth learning about and growing into?
> 
> Either way, I'm excited about both options.



If your photography skills are close to mine then you will probably not be able to see the difference between the 5200 and 7100 but there is also a question of working with the camera and potential to grow into it and with it.
I think the 7100 will be the right camera, I would get it if I didnt have already the D7000. I think its worth the extra 400$


----------



## ghache (Mar 1, 2013)

who buy DX only lens anyway? i have never buy but FX capable lens using dx body so i didn't had to worry about it when i would upgrade to an FX body.


----------



## scaryloud (Mar 3, 2013)

I do see where people are coming from when choosing to not upgrade their D7000.  I currently have my D7000 as my primary and a D3200 as my secondary.  I've chosen to make my D7000 my secondary and the new D7100 the primary.

As for lenses go, I only own 1 DX lens, the 18-55 kit lens that came with the D3200.  All others are FX lenses.  That being said, there are a few very nice DX lenses that are available that are FAR cheaper.  The 17-55 DX lens is essentially the DX equivalent of the 24-70, but for several hundred dollars less.  The 10-24 DX lens may be inferior than the coveted 14-24, but its a solid 1500-1000 dollars cheaper.  It's all about ones budget.

Bottom line, if composition is off or the photographer is inexperienced, no hardware will compensate for that.


----------



## Patrice (Mar 3, 2013)

gwhiz said:


> I just recently had my T3i stolen along with all of my lenses and figured it would be a perfect time to jump over to Nikon.  I'm a hobbyist but still want nice pictures for when I do save the dates, senior portraits, etc.  I'm having a tough time debating between the D5200 and the D7100.  I know the sensors are very similar but don't think I'm knowledgable enough to take advantage of all of the bells and whistles of the D7100 and would probably find that my images would be very similar with either.  Does anyone think there's enough reason to fork over the extra $400ish for the D7100?  Will I be just as happy with less to confuse me or are the advanced features of the D7100 worth learning about and growing into?
> 
> Either way, I'm excited about both options.




To me the d7100 is the better option. You are jumping in to Nikon for the first time and you are not a stranger to DSLR's so you might as well get the latest DX, since that is what you are looking at, and for a pretty attractive price as well.


----------

