# Nikon D7100 night performance, how good? (Stars, milky way etc)



## GertjanGoetynck

Hey all!

I am in the market for my first dSLR camera and I am heavily considering the Nikon D7100.

One thing that bothers me though is the night performance I find when looking for pictures online. The nighttime pictures simply do not impress me at all, an example is David Kingham Photography | Nikon D7100 - Cropped Sensor for Night Photography? . While still of a pretty good quality, it just seems like it isn't even remotely in the ballpark of the newer Canon 70D Camera (Lions Island at Night. Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 + Canon 70d | Flickr - Photo Sharing! , Freak Storm | Flickr - Photo Sharing! and Milky Way. Canon 70d + Sigma 18-35 1.8 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! are a few examples).

I cannot find alot of atro pictures made with the D7100 so it's hard to make a comparison, but is it really that much worse than the Canon 70D or are it simpy less well made pictures I have been finding online?

Does anyone have some nighttime pictures made with the D7100 that are in the ballpark of the Canon 70D pictures I posted? I really love everything the D7100 offers, but when I compare it's nighttime performance to the canon counterpart (as far as I've seen) I can't help but doubt if the Nikon really is what I want..

Can anyone help me out?


----------



## Juga

You already posted this in another section. Doing this won't get you more or less answers. Either camera is very capable. Rent each one and then make your own educated decision.


----------



## astroNikon

The Nikon d7000 was a hit in the astrophotography field when it came out.
The entire Meade ETX community loved the Nikon
Cassiopeia Observatory - Report

I don't know what else to say other than the d7100 replaces the d7000
But just search the internet on astrophotography and nikon d7000 d7100 and canon 70d
And make your own decision.


----------



## astroNikon

I should also mention, do you only plan on using camera lenses?
18mm, 24m, 200mm, 300mm, 400 - 500 - 600 ?  1000mm?
or using telescope(s)

Because how you use it on a telescope also affects it's quality, and what kind of telescope.
and of course when, where, etc you take a photo.

Truthfully, the camera is the least of my worries in astrophotography.


----------



## GertjanGoetynck

astroNikon said:


> I should also mention, do you only plan on using camera lenses?
> 18mm, 24m, 200mm, 300mm, 400 - 500 - 600 ?  1000mm?
> or using telescope(s)
> 
> Because how you use it on a telescope also affects it's quality, and what kind of telescope.
> and of course when, where, etc you take a photo.
> 
> Truthfully, the camera is the least of my worries in astrophotography.


I won't be using a telescope at all (for now, I see it as a huge possibility later on though).

I will mostly take pictures of the landscape at night when out in nature, with a heavy focus on the night sky and a lesser focus on the landscape below


----------



## Tailgunner

What is your current camera set up?


----------



## astroNikon

I forgot to mention but weather sealing was very important to me due to dew and light rain.  I do not know if the canon offers that but the nikon does.


----------



## GertjanGoetynck

Tailgunner said:


> What is your current camera set up?


At the moment I only own an Olympus Tough TG 1, it's a high end point and shoot but a point and shoot none the less. I know going for a dSLR in this pricerange as my first may be overkill to some, but I know I will make good use of it, and I don't see the use of buying a cheaper one just to end up upgrading it in the future. This is also part of the reason I got nothing tieing me to either brand for now, I got no lenses yet making me "stuck" to a brand.



astroNikon said:


> I forgot to mention but weather sealing was very important to me due to dew and light rain.  I do not know if the canon offers that but the nikon does.


Apparently the Canon has weather sealing too. For some reason Canon doesn't mention it at all though, but they do mention it is sealed the same way a previous model was. And that model appeared to be weather sealed very well (despite it not being listed in it's official specs either).


----------



## astroNikon

Also, since you mentioned it, look into lenses FIRST

With astrophotography, and I know with Nikon, you can buy some awefully cheap high quality lenses that were made years ago.
For instance, my coffee can 500mm Reflex lens (my telescope training lens) is fully manual with a fixed aperture (just like telescopes).  And it is dirt cheap compared to a "modern" designed AF VR/IS 500mm

I do not know about Canon, but you have a large assortment of older lenses that are Nikon or even Vivitar branded wide angle lenses (to get a wide swath of the sky) that are dirt cheap but extremely sharp and good in low light.

When I have to focus on things super far away (planets), Manual is the only way to do it.  So AutoFocus (AF) lenses really only carry extra weight and extra cost.  Also make sure you have a nice and bright viewfinder - research it. I know the Nikon d7000 is really nice.  When I bought the d7000 the equivalent Canon was $400 more. But that was then, I have no idea on the Canon offerings today.


----------



## GertjanGoetynck

I am really edging mostly towards the Nikon D7100, the only thing holding me back is the amount of night sky pictures taken with it I seem to be finding, and the few I do find are of (to me) questionable quality :/ An example of a Nikon D7100 picture I did found but do not really like is

 
 Something about it just turns me off, I think it seems like the stars got fuzzy edges which may be what annoys me.

On the other hand, I found pictures like 
 




In my opinion the last batch of pictures is simply of superior quality, they just look more pleasing. 

I know some of them are made with way more high end cameras, but even the picture made with the D5100 looks more pleasing than the D7100 example I found.

So my question is, how close can the D7100 get to the second batch of pictures, those I actually like, when using a lens of a good enough quality? Is that example of the D7100 in this situation I found just a bad example? And does anyone have some star / milkyway pictures made with the D7100 that may ease my mind a bit?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## robbins.photo

GertjanGoetynck said:


> I am really edging mostly towards the Nikon D7100, the only thing holding me back is the amount of night sky pictures taken with it I seem to be finding, and the few I do find are of (to me) questionable quality :/ An example of a Nikon D7100 picture I did found but do not really like is
> View attachment 60032
> Something about it just turns me off, I think it seems like the stars got fuzzy edges which may be what annoys me.
> 
> On the other hand, I found pictures like
> View attachment 60033
> View attachment 60034
> View attachment 60038
> View attachment 60039
> 
> In my opinion the last batch of pictures is simply of superior quality, they just look more pleasing.
> 
> I know some of them are made with way more high end cameras, but even the picture made with the D5100 looks more pleasing than the D7100 example I found.
> 
> So my question is, how close can the D7100 get to the second batch of pictures, those I actually like, when using a lens of a good enough quality? Is that example of the D7100 in this situation I found just a bad example? And does anyone have some star / milkyway pictures made with the D7100 that may ease my mind a bit?
> 
> Thanks in advance!



Without knowing how any of these were shot any comparison is completely meaningless.  If they were shot under exactly the same conditions using exactly the same methodology then maybe you'd have something to compare, as it is we have no idea how long the shutter was open, what if any sort of tripod was used, what sorts of lenses were involved, what sort of focusing technique is used, ISO settings, etc, etc, etc...

I think you'll find that all of these completely missing details will have far more impact on the final image than whether or not the body used was a Canon, or a Nikon, or a Sony, or a Pentax, etc.


----------



## astroNikon

As mentioned, there are so many variables that affect astrophotography, that the camera is usually the last of my worries.

This website is all about the Nikon d7000, and I would assume the d7100 would be even better
Cassiopeia Observatory - Photo Albums

But alot of the pictures are taken with telescope equipment, not just general point the camera to the sky in your backyard. But he does piggyback telescope with his d7000 and a general size lens.  Light pollution is very evident in my backyard with general 24mm astrphotography.  But then there's a lightpole 50 feet away.  Atmostphere conditions, etc. all affect the quality of the photo.

But in general the d7100 or the Canon one (which I'm not familiar with) would both probably be great choices.

After you buy a camera then the journey begins of how to improve your photographic skills.
The picture quality will follow as you improve.


----------



## raventepes

Realistically, It all comes down to the lenses. The D7100 can handle nearly anything you throw at it, provided you have the glass to support what you're after. 

To put it another way, If I brought my D7100 out into the field for some night sky photography, I'd probably be bringing my (3rd party) trinity of zooms. I use a Tokina 11-16, and (both) Sigma 17-50 and 50-150, all three being f/2.8. But honestly, you're not going to want to be shooting wide open. I usually stick to about f/8 for maximum sharpness. I'd bring them because even wide open, they're incredibly sharp. Stopping them down just increases sharpness, ever so slightly. Optically, they compare to Nikon's 24-70 and 70-200, respectively. Aside from that though, a medium to heavy tripod (to minimise camera shake) and a remote shutter release are essential. 

Tripods are important. They need to be able to lock down your camera to the point to where you can tap the end of the lens and it doesn't move...at all. That brings me up to the remote release. There's no sense in locking down your camera to the point needed and press your shutter button on the actual camera. The whole point is to minimise camera shake, and putting your hands on the camera after you focus can, if even slightly, alter your framing and focus. 

For that kind of critical work, I'd recommend a tripod without a center column to further minimise shake. I'll say this now though, that they don't come cheap. With tripods, you more or less get exactly what you pay for. Personally, I wouldn't think of buying a tripod (new) under the $500 mark. There are a quite few good ones out there in the $500-700 range (regardless of having a center column, actually). Realistically, my tripods of choice are Really Right Stuff (or RSS, to shorten it). Personally, I like their TVC-24L legs and BH-40LR heads, though the tripod heads are a bit interchangeable, depending on what I need. I've been wanting an Arca-Swiss Cube, to be honest, and RRS' new Fluid Head interests me a lot. Combine all that with RRS's camera specific L plates and/or lens specific foot replacement packages, and you're in business. 

But all in all though, yeah. Lenses and support are things to concentrate on, rather than body.


----------



## Tailgunner

robbins.photo said:


> GertjanGoetynck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am really edging mostly towards the Nikon D7100, the only thing holding me back is the amount of night sky pictures taken with it I seem to be finding, and the few I do find are of (to me) questionable quality :/ An example of a Nikon D7100 picture I did found but do not really like is
> View attachment 60032
> Something about it just turns me off, I think it seems like the stars got fuzzy edges which may be what annoys me.
> 
> On the other hand, I found pictures like
> View attachment 60033
> View attachment 60034
> View attachment 60038
> View attachment 60039
> 
> In my opinion the last batch of pictures is simply of superior quality, they just look more pleasing.
> 
> I know some of them are made with way more high end cameras, but even the picture made with the D5100 looks more pleasing than the D7100 example I found.
> 
> So my question is, how close can the D7100 get to the second batch of pictures, those I actually like, when using a lens of a good enough quality? Is that example of the D7100 in this situation I found just a bad example? And does anyone have some star / milkyway pictures made with the D7100 that may ease my mind a bit?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without knowing how any of these were shot any comparison is completely meaningless.  If they were shot under exactly the same conditions using exactly the same methodology then maybe you'd have something to compare, as it is we have no idea how long the shutter was open, what if any sort of tripod was used, what sorts of lenses were involved, what sort of focusing technique is used, ISO settings, etc, etc, etc...
> 
> I think you'll find that all of these completely missing details will have far more impact on the final image than whether or not the body used was a Canon, or a Nikon, or a Sony, or a Pentax, etc.
Click to expand...


All the above photos was taken from David Kingham's site. This is against the forum rules if I recall. 

David Kingham Photography | Nikon D7100 - Cropped Sensor for Night Photography?

Anyhow, I don't have a lot of examples of star photography using my D7100 since I generally shoot cityscapes or landscapes. So here is a night shot of downtown Dallas TX.


----------



## bc_steve

Here are a couple of shots I took practicing to shoot the milky way with my D7000.  In both cases the lens is my Tokina 11-16m f/2.8.  I took the first one in the front yard.  There is a lot of light pollution from town but the bottom right shows the darker part of the sky.


----------



## Tailgunner

bc_steve said:


> Here are a couple of shots I took practicing to shoot the milky way with my D7000.  In both cases the lens is my Tokina 11-16m f/2.8.  I took the first one in the front yard.  There is a lot of light pollution from town but the bottom right shows the darker part of the sky.
> 
> View attachment 60059View attachment 60058



Nice, 

So what kinda settings are we looking at when shooting the Heavens?


----------



## bc_steve

first one:
11mm
f/2.8
30 seconds
ISO 2000

second one:
11mm
f/2.8
30 seconds
ISO 4000

Both were edited a bit, curves mostly.  And noise reduction.  I also used the in-camera long exposure noise reduction.


----------



## Tailgunner

bc_steve said:


> first one:
> 11mm
> f/2.8
> 30 seconds
> ISO 2000
> 
> second one:
> 11mm
> f/2.8
> 30 seconds
> ISO 4000
> 
> Both were edited a bit, curves mostly.  And noise reduction.  I also used the in-camera long exposure noise reduction.



Thanks, 

I was trying some astrophotography out last night on a boys scout camp out but the only decent lens I brought was my nifty fifty. It did pretty good but nothing as good as the above photos. The shots are sharp but I don't have any of the cosmic dust etc. They look more like a snap shot. I think the highest I had my ISO was 800 and the shutter around 15-20 sec. So I'm going to try these settings out next time.


----------



## bc_steve

with your 50mm you might not be able to get away with a shutter speed as long as 30s.  a longer lens will show the stars streaking in a shorter exposure than a wide lens.

at least you will have the ability to go down to 1.8 though


----------

