# The D7100



## DCerezo (Feb 21, 2013)

So... It was just announced! What are everyone's thoughts? Only thing I'm a little bummed about is that she's got better AF than my brandy new D600... Other than that let down I'm still going to pick up the D7000 as a backup (I have a bunch of DX lenses). But... And that's a big BUT... If I happen to run into some extra cash, $1200 doesn't seem unreasonable for the D7100 body (I can't believe I'm even saying that).


----------



## nola.ron (Feb 21, 2013)

Eh... Just got my d7k in the mail tonight so just my luck.  Don't see myself returning it. Love it more than I thought I would... Besides I need a good tele and flash.  So that $400 I save is better spent on those items for me personally... I think!


----------



## Benco (Feb 21, 2013)

Looks good. Reckon I know what I'll be getting myself in a year or two (If I'm not seduced by full frame).


----------



## ScottMac (Feb 21, 2013)

Some great improvements, some disappointments. Clearly it is each to their own, but for me, the improvement in AF ability is huge, especially with the ability to autofocus at f8. This will allow for a 600mm f4 lens to retain its full functionality with a 2xTC attached, giving 1200mm reach. Taking the 1.5 crop factor into account, full autofocus is available at the equivalent crop factor of 1800mm with 24mp... this will be a HUGE benefit for wildlife photographers....


----------



## TommyB (Feb 21, 2013)

Ahh I'm excited! I really want to get this! The only thing holding me back is the price so I think I'll be waiting a bit before I can get my hands on one


----------



## Overread (Feb 21, 2013)

Well having watched the video if they aimed that camera to replace and steal the market from the Canon 7D - they've done well! Very well indeed with a launch price that fits it into that same price bracket very smoothly (and that's before any market depreciation or settling of prices - although with Nikon having stricter pricing policies at the moment that might be muted).


----------



## Mach0 (Feb 21, 2013)

I wonder what the buffer is like. Aside from the AF system and body, I think the best thing going for it is its new crop. That will be great for birding and wildlife.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 21, 2013)

DCerezo said:


> So... It was just announced! What are everyone's thoughts? Only thing I'm a little bummed about is that she's got better AF than my brandy new D600... Other than that let down I'm still going to pick up the D7000 as a backup (I have a bunch of DX lenses). But... And that's a big BUT... If I happen to run into some extra cash, $1200 doesn't seem unreasonable for the D7100 body (I can't believe I'm even saying that).



Personally I would sell the DX lenses, and use the money to upgrade what FX lenses you have. The FX lenses would be usable on both (and typically have better quality then the DX lenses).


----------



## greybeard (Feb 21, 2013)

It will be interesting to see how the new D7100 compares with the D600.


----------



## DCerezo (Feb 21, 2013)

On the subject of FX lenses... How useful is that 24mm 2.8 prime for portraits?


----------



## runnah (Feb 21, 2013)

Disappointed, I was hoping for a successor to the D300, not a compromise between it and the D7000.

I guess this is as good as it gets for DX.


----------



## Mach0 (Feb 21, 2013)

runnah said:


> Disappointed, I was hoping for a successor to the D300, not a compromise between it and the D7000.
> 
> I guess this is as good as it gets for DX.



That 1.3x crop is impressive!


----------



## cwcaesar (Feb 21, 2013)

DCerezo said:


> On the subject of FX lenses... How useful is that 24mm 2.8 prime for portraits?



That's a little short for a portrait lens, even on DX; 36mm equivalent.  You typically want 75mm or longer.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 21, 2013)

DCerezo said:


> On the subject of FX lenses... How useful is that 24mm 2.8 prime for portraits?



Using WA for portraiture can be a problem. You can  get perspective distortion very easily with WA lenses... if you get to close. And with WA's, you almost have to get close.. to fill the frame. Perspective Distortion Effects Planned or Accidental

and you still get 28mm type distortion, even on a crop body. 50mm is the minimum I would recommend.. and 70 up preferably


----------



## Mully (Feb 21, 2013)

That is a nice NEEKON


----------



## runnah (Feb 21, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Disappointed, I was hoping for a successor to the D300, not a compromise between it and the D7000.
> ...




Huh?


----------



## cwcaesar (Feb 21, 2013)

It is a 1.5 crop.


----------



## runnah (Feb 21, 2013)

cwcaesar said:


> It is a 1.5 crop.



Maybe I am just slow but I am missing the point. Where am I to be excited?


----------



## cwcaesar (Feb 21, 2013)

It is nothing revolutionary, just an upgrade to the D7000.  Full Magnesium body, 24MP CMOS APS-C sensor, Expeed 3 processor, and improved auto focus system.  An incrimental upgrade, but it is still an improvement.  I would love to have one as a back-up to the D600.  Maybe I will be able to get a used one in a year or so.


----------



## Mach0 (Feb 21, 2013)

runnah said:


> Huh?





cwcaesar said:


> It is a 1.5 crop.



Taken from dpreview


> The improvements aren't limited to still image capture - the D7100 also offers a nicely upgraded movie mode compared to the D7000. It gains 1080p30 shooting, rather than 24p, a built-in stereo microphones and an optional 1.3X crop mode, giving an effective focal length increase of 2X (making a 50mm lens behave like a 100mm). In this crop mode 50/60i movie recording is available, which suggests it comes from 50/60p, rather than being 25/30p capture which is then segmented, but Nikon is not clear on the distinction. Certainly the cropped mode allows faster frame-rates, since stills capture (now at 15MP) increases a touch, to 7fps.



http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d7100/


----------



## JaronRH (Feb 21, 2013)

cwcaesar said:


> It is nothing revolutionary, just an upgrade to the D7000.  Full Magnesium body, 24MP CMOS APS-C sensor, Expeed 3 processor, and improved auto focus system.  An incrimental upgrade, but it is still an improvement.  I would love to have one as a back-up to the D600.  Maybe I will be able to get a used one in a year or so.



I think it depends on where you're coming from.  The two things that excite me are:
1)  The new sensor.  The lack of an AA I believe will result in a huge jump in sharpness! (I could care less that its 24MP!)  If the High-ISO performance is good, this is a clear winner and huge upgrade from my perspective!
2)  The 51-point AF.  This was main reason I jumped from my D90 to the D700 was.  I use the 11-point for selection with 51-point for tracking and it makes a huge difference in the focusing accuracy for action shots with wide open prime lenses (where any focus issue can make or break a picture). 

Overall, this is huge for me personally as I may stay with a cheaper DX/FX line-up instead of going with two FX cameras..


----------



## cwcaesar (Feb 21, 2013)

Okay, I just saw the 1.3 crop mode. So that takes the 1.5 (original factor) and multilies it by the 1.3(in this mode)? That is freaking AWESOME! So I can get a 70-200 2.8, and effectively have a 140-400 2.8 @ 13.5MP! That is a super concept! Plus a boosted frame rate. That is wicked cool! I definitely have to put this on the Christmas list for next year.


----------



## Mach0 (Feb 21, 2013)

cwcaesar said:


> Okay, I just saw the 1.3 crop mode. So that takes the 1.5 (original factor) and multilies it by the 1.3(in this mode)? That is freaking AWESOME! So I can get a 70-200 2.8, and effectively have a 140-400 2.8 @ 13.5MP! That is a super concept! Plus a boosted frame rate. That is wicked cool! I definitely have to put this on the Christmas list for next year.



If this is the case,  wildlife and sports photography just got cheaper lol.


----------



## runnah (Feb 21, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Huh?
> ...




24fps for video is fine. Gives it the cinematic look. Every movie you've seen (with the exception of the hobbit) is shot in 24fps.


----------



## cwcaesar (Feb 21, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> cwcaesar said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I just saw the 1.3 crop mode. So that takes the 1.5 (original factor) and multilies it by the 1.3(in this mode)? That is freaking AWESOME! So I can get a 70-200 2.8, and effectively have a 140-400 2.8 @ 13.5MP! That is a super concept! Plus a boosted frame rate. That is wicked cool! I definitely have to put this on the Christmas list for next year.
> ...



Exactly what I was thinking!


----------



## Overread (Feb 21, 2013)

I wonder if the new crop mode will simply be akin to cropping and then adjusting in photoshop - if that being the case it might not be much if any better than using software to get to the same end result.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 21, 2013)

I think the new crop mode is going to be useful mostly for video people, and for people shooting at high frame rates. It does seem to turn the camera into a 15MP 1/3x crop camera, which you can do with photoshop just as well or better. Doing it in-camera allows a higher frame rate for burst, and allows an effectively longer focal length for video (since they're downsampling anyways for video).


----------



## Overread (Feb 21, 2013)

Video is what I suspected its for, Canon has a similar feature in the 60D though I think its limited to video only (I'm not sure). One can shoot stills and crop without much trouble, but I suspect its a lot harder to shoot a video and move the view around whilst trying to compose to crop later - cropping in the camera has all the gains for them


----------



## cwcaesar (Feb 21, 2013)

True, it is probably better for use in Video mode, but it is cool to think that you can get to 400mm @ 2.8 with this camera ($1200) and a 70-200 2.8 ($2400) for $3600.  Far less than the 400mm 2.8 lens alone at $9000.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 21, 2013)

Great camera and if I was in the market for a new camera I would get it but I dont see a reason to sell my D7000 for it, this camera is a natural upgrade from the D7000 but there is nothing revolutionary here that will make me run to it.
I think I will keep my D7000 and when the time will come to replace it I will either go FF or go with the replacement of the D7100.


----------



## TheLost (Feb 21, 2013)

As the target demographic of the Nikon D7100... I feel Nikon has let me down.

I'm a dad... not a pro photographer.
I need a camera that can take some abuse...
I need a camera that can handle field sports (american football & rugby in my case)...
I need a camera that can handle fast indoor sports (basketball and swimming)...
I need a camera that works in the rain and snow..
I need a camera that works in high humidity (like indoor swimming venues)..
I need a camera that doesn't require $$$ lenses to get the 'reach' i need...
I need a camera that i can afford... ($2k)

The D7100 still has a low buffer that i run into all the time on my D7000, still isn't fully weather sealed, still isn't as rugged as the D300, still doesn't offer an AF-ON button (and from what I've just read... you cant even use the AE-L/AF-L button as AF-ON!!!!).  

Take a look at the (rumored) specks of the Canon 7D mark II...  The D7100 falls short.


----------



## cwcaesar (Feb 21, 2013)

TheLost said:


> As the target demographic of the Nikon D7100... I feel Nikon has let me down.
> 
> I'm a dad... not a pro photographer.
> I need a camera that can take some abuse...
> ...



You can have a camera built for a pro
You can have a lens built for a pro
You can have money left in your pocket

Pick any two.


----------



## coastalconn (Feb 21, 2013)

@ Overread, The only advantage of the 1.3 crop factor is smaller file size giving you 7 FPS and a 12 shot buffer.  In normal mode it only has a 7 shot buffer.  

@TheLost, if AE-lock is programable to AF-ON that is a major deal killer.  The buffer is a major let down, but the D7100 looks like it fills most of the things on your list.  Nikon claims the weather sealing to be as good as the D300s...  

Looks like I'm sticking to my D300 for a while longer..  Once your used to the body it would be hard to step down.  Time will tell I guess.


----------



## runnah (Feb 21, 2013)

coastalconn said:


> Looks like I'm sticking to my D300 for a while longer..  Once your used to the body it would be hard to step down.  Time will tell I guess.



Just sad that 5 years later the d300 is still the best DX camera they have.


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 21, 2013)

For the recod, I'm really annoyed that neither the D600 nor the D7100 got a flip screen.

THAT was the one feature I was hoping for.

Otherwise, the D7100 is a nice upgrade from the D7000, which already was a near perfect camera.




TheLost said:


> [...] Take a look at the (rumored) specks of the Canon 7D mark II...  The D7100 falls short.


 Um, what ?

The 7D2 is 2200&#8364;, the D7100 is 1200&#8364;, body only.

Why would you compare them as equals ?


----------



## cwcaesar (Feb 21, 2013)

Solarflare said:


> For the recod, I'm really annoyed that neither the D600 nor the D7100 got a flip screen.



I am glad that they DON'T have the flip screen.  It just seems gimicky to me and the biggest reason that I got rid of the D5100 after less than a week of ownership.


----------



## PropilotBW (Feb 21, 2013)

I am definitely intrigued. I would love to upgrade my D5100.   Now to convince my wife why I need this is a different story...


----------



## goodguy (Feb 21, 2013)

For me the most important thing in considering a camera is its low light performace not higher Mega Pixels.
The D7100 didnt improve this important issue so it is a let down for me but I did expect this as I saw the D5200 already.

Again great camera for those who are in the market for a DX camera but for those with a D7000 I think best keep the D7000 and either wait for the next camera or invest in lens.


----------



## shadowlands (Feb 21, 2013)

I'll stay put with my D300. No worries!
But I'm glad to see this camera coming. Looks good, all in all.
But with the $800.00 price gap between the D7100 and D600, we still have room for a D400.
And it's looking like Canon may unleash a 7D Mark II, so you never know....


----------



## ghache (Feb 21, 2013)

Weather sealled? ive shot my d7000s in poring light rain with not camera bag or cover (was wiping it once in a while with a dry cloth i had in my pocket) for about an hour and it was fine.....i shot it in -25 -30 for about 2 hours, left it in my car in +40 degree and also -40 for a week and guess what, its still working fine, ive dropped in sand! and its still working like new. get over it people.

the d7100 is going to be a nice camera, and i have no doubt its iso performance is going to be cleaner than the d7000....its a new processor. Everytime there is a new camera, you bitches always cry and speculate all kind of ****. its GOING TO BE BETTER its new and shiny.


----------



## TheLost (Feb 21, 2013)

Solarflare said:


> Um, what ?
> 
> The 7D2 is 2200&#8364;, the D7100 is 1200&#8364;, body only.
> 
> Why would you compare them as equals ?



Because from the Nikon Website... apparently the D7100 is:


> The new flagship of Nikon's DX-format HD-SLR lineup.



Flagship = top-o-the-line = bye-bye D400.

So im comparing the Flagship Nikon with the rumored flagship Canon.


----------



## Patrice (Feb 21, 2013)

This is an interesting mix of technology in a smaller DX body. If I was in the market for a new camera in this format I'd buy it. the $1200 introductory price seems reasonable. Who says enthusiast DX is dead? Not for a while anyway.


----------



## TheLost (Feb 21, 2013)

coastalconn said:


> @TheLost, if AE-lock is programable to AF-ON that is a major deal killer.  The buffer is a major let down, but the D7100 looks like it fills most of the things on your list.  Nikon claims the weather sealing to be as good as the D300s...



Don't get me wrong... i've already pre-ordered it...  but i can still ***** about it


----------



## greybeard (Feb 21, 2013)

This would be a great upgrade for a D3100/D5100.  Not so sure about D7000 or even the D90.


----------



## jrizal (Feb 21, 2013)

The pricing of the D7100 is at $1,199.95. I wonder how much the D7000 will drop in price.

Nikon D7100 - Digital cameras - CNET Reviews


----------



## TheLost (Feb 21, 2013)

jrizal said:


> The pricing of the D7100 is at $1,199.95. I wonder how much the D7000 will drop in price.
> 
> Nikon D7100 - Digital cameras - CNET Reviews



The D7000 body only is $1350 right now on Nikon's site... SWEET!! its gone up in price since i bought it!!!  Time to get mine listed in the classifieds for a discounted price of $1k


----------



## gerardo2068 (Feb 21, 2013)

What about the AF??? 51 points and D600 has 39. 15 cross points on the D7100 vs 9 on D600? It's a let down. They should line the cameras accordingly to price. Not have a entry DX and Flagship DX then a entry FX and a flagship FX. Should go up in steps.


----------



## jrizal (Feb 21, 2013)

TheLost said:


> jrizal said:
> 
> 
> > The pricing of the D7100 is at $1,199.95. I wonder how much the D7000 will drop in price.
> ...



Me thinks that the D7000 is becoming a collector's item hence the increase in price! Haha! 

Seriously, the price quoted is that of the body only version. For those wanting to upgrade, it's best to wait a few more months. And I'm anxious to see actual reviews of the product and and not just paper comparisons.

PS Personally, I still see no reason to upgrade from my D3100. It still works. And I still seriously need to upgrade my skills more than I need a new body. But i'm just having gear envy.


----------



## TheLost (Feb 21, 2013)

gerardo2068 said:


> What about the AF??? 51 points and D600 has 39. 15 cross points on the D7100 vs 9 on D600? It's a let down. They should line the cameras accordingly to price. Not have a entry DX and Flagship DX then a entry FX and a flagship FX. Should go up in steps.



Not sure what your talking about... but the D600 is an ENTRY LEVEL CAMERA (FX sensors just costs more).  If you want a better AF system on a FX body get the D800 or D4.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 21, 2013)

What I am very eager to see is the new Canon 7DII or what ever will be the name of it.
If the price of it will be indeed 2200 Pounds then either its going to be an AMAZING camera leaving the D7200 in the dust or it will be just an overpriced DX camera and the D7200 will be the logical camera to get.
In this price range I would go for the D600 after all Full Frame IS Full Frame!!!


----------



## TheLost (Feb 21, 2013)

goodguy said:


> In this price range I would go for the D600 after all Full Frame IS Full Frame!!!



I'd shoot on m4/3 if there was a camera that meet my needs.   Sensor size isn't always the answer.  

Take a D600 and try to shoot a swimming meet.   Most of the time you have a dimly lit indoor pool with 300% humidity (give or take 200%).   The camera has to ignore all the distractions (reflections and splashing water) and focus on your target swimmer. AF speed, AF accuracy and FPS are the only things that help when you have split seconds to get the ideal shot.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 21, 2013)

TheLost said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > In this price range I would go for the D600 after all Full Frame IS Full Frame!!!
> ...



True, I guess in my case FF is the winner but not in all cases.
I love night photography and landscape so for me FF is a dream, any kind of sports of fast moving stuff bores me unless its cars and I am the driver LOL.

In any case with my skills and curent knowladge anything more then a cell phone camera is waist anyways but I do get 4+ for trying 

PS-ok I might not be cell phone camera material but I still do have A LOT to learn!!!


----------



## Usul (Feb 22, 2013)

It seems D7100 won't be a replace for D300s. Yes it has new AF system and sensor but it's still not so usefull for professional reportage, sport ans wildlife photographers becouse of small image buffer and low fps. And if Canon 7DMk2 will as half as good as rumoured Nikon have no exit must present D400 as a rival.
I don't think Nicon let Canon take it piece of cake.


----------



## Benco (Feb 22, 2013)

cwcaesar said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > For the recod, I'm really annoyed that neither the D600 nor the D7100 got a flip screen.
> ...



That's the biggest reason? why? if it's a convenience feature like a flip screen and you don't like it then you don't have to use it. It's just handy should you need it.


----------



## Usul (Feb 22, 2013)

Benco said:


> cwcaesar said:
> 
> 
> > Solarflare said:
> ...



I think the most of people who 'don't like' flip screen just are not sure it's durable.
And I doubt in its durability, too.


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 22, 2013)

Durable in what respect ? If you dont flip it, its obviously just as "durable" as an ordinary screen. Which means - not very durable. I heard even the monitor of the Leica M9-P, which is protected by sapphire glass, is phrone to breaking.

In fact in case of a D5100/D5200 style flipscreen, you can flip it backward and then its potentially *more* durable than an ordinary screen, because now the screen is protected. If the whole thing would have been made from metal, like my old Canon Powershot G11, it would actually be protected pretty well.

I dont really get the whole durability debate anyway. These are cameras. Throw them to the ground and the glas breaks. Even if its a Leica. So: durability ? Um, sorry, nope.

Whats more, these are digital cameras. Wait 10 years and you'll probably have a hard time getting replacement batteries. Wait 20 years and trying to run one of them will be a science project, with no matching compatible memorycards, batteries etc available anymore.

So yeah, I rather have more control over shooting from unusual angles, than whatever durability people think these cameras are supposed to have. The flipscreen on my D5100 is super practical and gets used all the time.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 22, 2013)

The old D7000 wasn't meant to replace the D300 either. I don't know why you all just don't get the D600/D800 and quit all this fussing about wanting a consumer grade BestBuy camera for a couple of dollars to perform.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 22, 2013)

Usul said:


> Benco said:
> 
> 
> > cwcaesar said:
> ...



I agree! If it was such a great feature, you would find it on the PRO bodies.. which are loaded with every feature that is useful. As it is, you find it on Point 'n' Shoots and Entry level bodies.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 22, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> I agree! If it was such a great feature, you would find it on the PRO bodies.. which are loaded with every feature that is useful. As it is, you find it on Point 'n' Shoots and Entry level bodies.



This argues only that a feature isn't useful to pros. Professionals tend to use cameras in different ways than amateurs.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree! If it was such a great feature, you would find it on the PRO bodies.. which are loaded with every feature that is useful. As it is, you find it on Point 'n' Shoots and Entry level bodies.
> ...



YES.. they do!   That was sort of my point... which group typically gets better images, and needs true reliability?


----------



## bigal1000 (Feb 22, 2013)

I pre-ordered one today at B@H sold all my Canon gear only the 60D to go.


----------



## KmH (Feb 22, 2013)

cwcaesar said:


> Full Magnesium body, 24MP CMOS APS-C sensor, Expeed 3 processor, and improved auto focus system.


See the photos on Nikon's web site. D7100 Nikon Digital Camera| Digital SLR Camera from Nikon

The D7100, just like the D7000, only has magnesium top and back plates.

I find it interesting that like the D800, the D7100 does not use a low-pass filter in front of the image sensor. D7100 owners will need to brush up on how to fix moiré post process.

Nikon now has 3 grades of full frame FX cameras, the entry-level D600, prosumer D800/D800E, and pro grade D4.
Nikon has 2 grades of entry-level crop sensor DX cameras: the compacts that don't have an auto focus-screw drive system D3100/D3200/D5100/D5200, and the full size that have the auto focus-screw drive system D90/D7000/D7100.

It may well be that the D90's days are numbered, and that Nikon no longer see's sufficient market demand for a prosumer grade DX camera body.


----------



## TheLost (Feb 22, 2013)

KmH said:


> It may well be that the D90's days are numbered, and that Nikon no longer see's sufficient market demand for a prosumer grade DX camera body.



The D90 died the day the D7000 came out... 

Nikon has also said the D7100 isn't the replacement for the D7000... and that the D7000 will stay in its current lineup.  Its marketing... Its selling back stock... It's the same reason apple kept the iPhone 3gs around so long and now the iPhone 4. Don't drink the kool aid and believe the D90 hasn't been replaced.


----------



## Benco (Feb 22, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Usul said:
> 
> 
> > Benco said:
> ...



Sure, but many would find it useful on their enthusiasts camera. It has a pop up flash too which pro bodies also lack, not because they don't need a flash but because they use a far better but more expensive, complex and bulky alternative. 
IMO at this level there's nothing wrong with such features in a camera. I personally don't miss having a flip screen on mine but I wouldn't find it a deal breaker if it did have one.


----------



## Mach0 (Feb 22, 2013)

Benco said:


> Sure, but many would find it useful on their enthusiasts camera. It has a pop up flash too which pro bodies also lack, not because they don't need a flash but because they use a far better but more expensive, complex and bulky alternative.
> IMO at this level there's nothing wrong with such features in a camera. I personally don't miss having a flip screen on mine but I wouldn't find it a deal breaker if it did have one.




I actually like the built in flash for a commander.


----------



## JaronRH (Feb 22, 2013)

TheLost said:


> The D90 died the day the D7000 came out...



I guess mine didn't get the memo


----------



## Onbird (Feb 22, 2013)

Solarflare said:


> Durable in what respect ? If you dont flip it, its obviously just as "durable" as an ordinary screen. Which means - not very durable. I heard even the monitor of the Leica M9-P, which is protected by sapphire glass, is phrone to breaking.
> 
> In fact in case of a D5100/D5200 style flipscreen, you can flip it backward and then its potentially *more* durable than an ordinary screen, because now the screen is protected. If the whole thing would have been made from metal, like my old Canon Powershot G11, it would actually be protected pretty well.
> 
> ...



I think it depends on the user. Personally I would not have one because I do not believe it would stand up to the abuse in the field with the heavy use my cameras gets. Get down on your belly if you want low angle shots, been doing it for years. Just one more thing to go wrong??


----------



## coastalconn (Feb 22, 2013)

I'm with you Onbird!  The "durability debate" as solar flare comes down to birders like myself.  I crawl on rocks, shoot in rain and snow, trip over roots.  My D300 went down hard twice when I fell and nothing happened to it.  I always have my 200-500 on and fully extended so there is a lot of torque when it hits the ground.  My friend fell with his brand new 5dM3 this past summer and it doesn't have full body mag. body.  The mount snapped and caused $900 worth of damage to the camera.  That is what the durability debate is about.  I don't baby my equipment and I need the toughest camera possible, so to me the flip screen would not work well for what I do...  I don't mind crawling on my belly on a snowy, broken glass strewn beach...


----------



## LungFish (Feb 22, 2013)

I don't hear about flipscreens breaking so they might be stronger than they look, but i don't find much use for the flip screen i have so the benefit-risk ratio doesn't seem worth it. I won' t miss it when i buy a D7100.


----------

