# Why Nikon must kill the D7100



## goodguy

For a while I hear people say that Nikon is trying to push its users to FX bodies and from the large collection of FX cameras Nikon has (5 cameras) I agree with this asessment.
I think the D7100 is a too good camera for the price it sells for, I think it stops people from upgrading to FX because they just dont feel the need to, I think assuming Nikon indeed wants people to move to FX will not replace the D7100 and will just run this horse and in a year or two phase it out leaving the 3xxx and 5xxx and from there users will need to jump up to full frame.
I told myself I will upgrade from my D7100 to the replacement of the D610 and then came the D750.
True the D750 isnt a D610 replacement, its a better camera and I was reading about it, saw reviews and really got excited but at the end of the day except low light performance it really will not give me more then my D7100, I will not upgrade to it.

I am probably biased because I own this camera and love it but then I had the D7000 and I never clicked with it, we never worked well together so I dont think its a simple fact that I own the D7100 that I respect it so much, it really is a fantastic camera for the price and I think it stops many users from going FX because the D7100 is simply too good (and even more then that).

BTW I hope I am wrong, I really do!!!


----------



## West -

So, Nikon's new business plan is to drive all DX users (about 75% of their income) to Canon and the 7D II.
Brilliant strategy


----------



## astroNikon

If Nikon had no competition in the marketplace, and consumer's had an abundance of surplus income then killing off the d7100 makes sense.  Also the lower cameras too.

But I think the d7100 has a direct competitor with Canon as do their lower line.

As you mentioned low light performance between crop and FF is large.  I can't believe the difference myself as I still have a d7000 and the d600.  

I think Nikon will discontinue manufacturing the d7100 when they release the d7200.  But will probably still offer it for sale as they'll have stockpiles of them in some warehouse.


----------



## Braineack

Nikon will continue selling the D7100 even after their response to the new 7dmII.

If the D7100 is preventing people from going FX because it's such an amazing camera, the D750 is pretty much the full frame equivalent of it.

When/if the D7200 ever comes out, you'll just be in the same boat.


----------



## hamlet

I feel like this is a arms race of crop bodies. Perhaps this arms race will lead to a 3 grand d4 crop body. The 7D MKII is priced at $1,799, that is already cutting into the full frame market.


----------



## goodguy

I hope both you guys are right!

I think once you make the jump to FX then there is no turning back but for those who own a DX body the D7100 really is a hell of a tool and more then few like me will take their time to move up to FX or stay with DX body.
I will move to FX, my next camera will be FX, for me no matter how good the D7200 will be when it will come out I will move to FX body but not in the short while, for now I just feel this camera (except in very low light) doesnt limit me in any way.


----------



## goodguy

hamlet said:


> I feel like this is a arms race of crop bodies. Perhaps this arms race will lead to a 3 grand d4 crop body. The 7D MKII is priced at $1,799, that is already cutting into the full frame market.


 
Yes the 7D II is a specialised camera, it is a crop sensor but it is very unique and I think anyone that will buy it for general use will be wasting their money, I think for Canon users the 70D is good enough for general use and the 65AF points and 10 FPS is just an over, over kill for normal users.
But this is a whole different debate


----------



## astroNikon

goodguy said:


> I hope both you guys are right!
> 
> I think once you make the jump to FX then there is no turning back but for those who own a DX body the D7100 really is a hell of a tool and more then few like me will take their time to move up to FX or stay with DX body.
> I will move to FX, my next camera will be FX, for me no matter how good the D7200 will be when it will come out I will move to FX body but not in the short while, for now I just feel this camera (except in very low light) doesnt limit me in any way.



Why?

I have both and I still us the d7000 alot - used it to shoot my kids soccer game the other day.  There's no reason one can't not only turn back, but use both a crop and a FF.
The lenses work on both.  I only have one DX lens which was the kit lens.  All others are FF lenses.


----------



## astroNikon

FYI, Nikon has yet to"kill off" the d7000.  or more likely sell off the remaining inventory.
So I think the d7100 will be around for a long time.


----------



## Braineack

I own a FX and would_* love *_a backup DX for telelphoto stuffs.
or a 150-600mm, whichever comes first.


----------



## goodguy

One camera for me is all I need, if I had an FX I wouldnt touch a DX anymore, just my character.
Maybe I am wrong, probably I am wrong but still there is some logic in my opening post


----------



## West -

goodguy said:


> One camera for me is all I need, if I had an FX I wouldnt touch a DX anymore, just my character.
> Maybe I am wrong, probably I am wrong but still there is some logic in my opening post



They are different beasts.  DX is preferred for sports and birding, FX for most other things. 
If you shoot everything and can afford both, it's the way to go.


----------



## Derrel

I think the D7100 is a good seller for Nikon. It has sort of become "the enthusiasts' favorite DX body". It's the new D100...it's the new D70...it's the new D90...it is the high-end consumer camera that photo enthusiasts love a lot. I think it has a huge place in the Nikon lineup. Remove it, and Nikon's current consumer lineup falls flat on its face.


----------



## goodguy

Derrel said:


> I think the D7100 is a good seller for Nikon. It has sort of become "the enthusiasts' favorite DX body". It's the new D100...it's the new D70...it's the new D90...it is the high-end consumer camera that photo enthusiasts love a lot. I think it has a huge place in the Nikon lineup. Remove it, and Nikon's current consumer lineup falls flat on its face.


 
Agreed, maybe its just me imagining things LOL
Still the D7100 keeps a lot of potential Nikon customer away from FX bodies.


----------



## dannylightning

personally if i could afford it  i would get the D800    but the price on that is what keeps me from going FX and if i were going FX i would want to get the D800

i went with the D5300 because it cost even less than the D7100,    but the price of the D800  cost more than i paid for my D5300, a few lenses and the big zoom lens i want to buy.

even the D750 is allot more expensive,   people buy they best they can afford,  i think that is the only reason allot of people are not going to FX bodys


----------



## astroNikon

You have to carefully calculate your jump to FX.
When I was thinking of upgrading my d7000 to d7100 the used/refub'd d600 was only a couple hundred more.
Plus all my lenses except 1 were FX, and I really wanted the low light advantage.  So I took the jump and haven't regretted it at all.

Yes it would be nice to have a larger buffer, more focus points, etc etc etc of either the d750 or d800 etc  but I bought what I could afford at the time.  And it's a great camera especially for the money.


----------



## Derrel

goodguy said:
			
		

> Still the D7100 keeps a lot of potential Nikon customer away from FX bodies.



I'm not so sure about that...the $2200 and $3200 price tags are what keeps people away from the FX Nikons...

It's not that the D7100 exists...it is that the FX Nikons cost another thousand or two thousand dollars MORE than whatever high-end consumer DX body Nikon happens to offer. The distinction I am making might seem facile, but I really mean it. A LOT of people cannot see their way clear to buy a $2,000-plus or $3,000-plus dollar camera body. It's not the D7100 keeping people away from FX Nikons--it's economics and family budgets and the down economy.

If Nikon offered a crappier FX body at the $1199 price point, that would not drive people to cameras they cannot afford...people would just shoot lower-performing cameras, so killing off the D7100 would be a lose-lose situation for both consumers, and for Nikon.


----------



## astroNikon

how much does an FX sensor cost again ?  
I thought that was a large part of the total cost because of its size.


----------



## TheLost

First...  I'd be the first to jump onto the Canon 7DmkII love boat...  but keep this in mind...

The current Canon 7D ranks in at 127th place in the DxOMark Sensor Score.  From all the (pre)reviews I've seen so far, the 7DmkII doesn't raise the bar much higher.

DxOMark Scores..
Canon 7D = 66 
Nikon D7100 = 83

Second.. Nikon never drops/kills a camera... they just fade into overstock..


----------



## shadowlands

Is Nikon going to answer the 7D Mark II?


----------



## ruifo

With the 7DII launch, I don't doubt the D7200 (or something similar) will much probably be the next Nikon release, by the 1st quarter of 2015, if not earlier.


----------



## KmH

goodguy said:


> Still the D7100 keeps a lot of potential Nikon customer away from FX bodies.


I don't think so.

I think Nikon sells more enthusiast DX than enthusiast FX because of the higher cost of FX.


----------



## goodguy

shadowlands said:


> Is Nikon going to answer the 7D Mark II?


 We are not going to dream about the D400 again are we ? LOL


----------



## Braineack

shadowlands said:


> Is Nikon going to answer the 7D Mark II?


They'd be stupid not to.  But I have a feeling they just put the exspeed 4 in it and call it a day.


----------



## goodguy

ruifo said:


> With the 7DII launch, I don't doubt the D7200 (or something similar) will much probably be the next Nikon release, by the 1st quarter of 2015, if not earlier.


 Dont think the D7100 or D7200 (or waht ever its name will be if and when it will come out) are the cameras to compete with the 7D II, the D7100 is more at same level as the 70D and I think aiming at same customers. Only a replacement for the D300s will be a direct competitor with the 7D II


----------



## sandollars

hamlet said:


> Perhaps this arms race will lead to a 3 grand d4 crop body.




HUH??  You go wash your mouth out with soap right now!!!! LOL!


----------



## Derrel

TheLost said:


> First...  I'd be the first to jump onto the Canon 7DmkII love boat...  but keep this in mind...
> 
> The current Canon 7D ranks in at 127th place in the DxOMark Sensor Score.  From all the (pre)reviews I've seen so far, the 7DmkII doesn't raise the bar much higher.
> 
> DxOMark Scores..
> Canon 7D = 66
> Nikon D7100 = 83
> 
> Second.. Nikon never drops/kills a camera... they just fade into overstock..



Well, the EOS 70D ranks 109th overall, so it's a good bet that the new 7D Mark II ought to be better. Say maybe 105th place???


----------



## JacaRanda

I am one of those gadget freaks and understand wanting the best of the best within $ range.  However, with this camera crazy dslr world discovered in only the last few years........................

That D7100 seems to me, to be a freakin amazing image maker (in the right hands).  Based on your OP, sounds like you agree.  Is any amount of bokeh worth an extra $1k?  Exactly what else would you want from it?  It seems the buffer issue is absolutely the only issue (that I can tell) and unless you really are shooting burst all or most of the time, even that should not be much of an issue.

What does a full frame do that the D7100 does not (in terms of image quality) and how well can you tell the difference viewing online or printed?

As much as we like to talk about dynamic range and sensors etc. (I'm addicted to reading about it  ), it just matters less to me especially when I see photos of people using older equipment.  Some members in this forum using classic 5d's for portraits and still being nominated for POTM, for what it's worth.  

I understand getting sucked in, but every once in a while someone will say 'it's the photographer, not the camera' or 'it's all about the quality of light and how to use it' etc., that knocks me back into reality.  That and viewing daily pictures taken with relatively older sensored cameras - d-this or that-d.


----------



## JacaRanda

Derrel said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> 
> First...  I'd be the first to jump onto the Canon 7DmkII love boat...  but keep this in mind...
> 
> The current Canon 7D ranks in at 127th place in the DxOMark Sensor Score.  From all the (pre)reviews I've seen so far, the 7DmkII doesn't raise the bar much higher.
> 
> DxOMark Scores..
> Canon 7D = 66
> Nikon D7100 = 83
> 
> Second.. Nikon never drops/kills a camera... they just fade into overstock..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the EOS 70D ranks 109th overall, so it's a good bet that the new 7D Mark II ought to be better. Say maybe 105th place???
Click to expand...


Yup, I snorted on this on D!


----------



## hamlet

KmH said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still the D7100 keeps a lot of potential Nikon customer away from FX bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> I think Nikon sells more enthusiast DX than enthusiast FX because of the higher cost of FX.
Click to expand...

I'm with goodguy on this. The d7100 to me for example is a big attraction for people on the fence of going full frame. I'd have already gone to full frame if there was no d7100. I have no real tight budget constraints and i could afford the d750. The d7100 allows me to have all i want so i can spend the rest on glass. But i might be a bad example for this, because i'm a guy that loves his glass.


----------



## StandingBear1983

I bought the D610 over the D7100 mainly because of the viewfinder, the viewfinder on the D610 is better even then the D810's when it comes to eye relief if your waring glasses (also if your not), 17mm on the D810 vs 21mm on the D610...and the fact that its FX and has less noise on higher ISO. - so if there is a difference between the two its the bigger viewfinder...which for me is a big deal (have a few manual nikkor lenses).


----------



## jaomul

In my opinion the d7100 isn't to good for its price as OP stated. It's nikons top crop at the moment and is not small money.

Compare similar priced Sony/Canon/Pentax cameras. The Nikon (Toshiba) Sensor may be a great imager, but the cameras specs aren't better than competitors. They are all similar in there relevant class. The d7100 has a craps buffer though


----------



## sashbar

goodguy said:


> Still the D7100 keeps a lot of potential Nikon customer away from FX bodies.


 
I would disagree with that. It is like saying a god hatchback prevents people from buying a large family car. These are just different formats. If you need a family car you do not care if hatchbacks are good or bad. You just need more space. Same with FX v DX.  If you need a FF for your photography?, then a DX range is quite irrelevant. If you do not need FF, then having a good DX lineup is great. If you do not know what you need and try to buy as expensive a camera as you can afford, then.. well..


----------



## TheFantasticG

I wouldn't doubt within five years Nikon killing off the DX line and making the CX line the companion to the FX line. Just guessing really but it wouldn't surprise me if they did. I mean, they do make a lot more money off of FX.


Sent from my iPhone using Telekenisisisisis


----------



## hamlet

If they want to give folks more megapixels, then they will be compelled by physics to offer bigger sensors. The denser that sensor becomes, the faster diffraction is going to start taking place. I personally wouldn't buy a crop sensor beyond 24mp. The little 18-55 nikon kit lens cant even perform at its best, because of diffraction. Nikon needs to get their ducks in a row.


----------



## Solarflare

Haha funny thread ! 


If anyone here actually would plan to go FX - please remember that its not just the body. Its also good lenses. I spent ~5k€ on my D600, 28mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8, 70-200mm f4 VR, 16-35mm f4 VR. Thats the kind of number you might look at ! Makes the price for the body look less relevant, doesnt it ?


We are currently in an economic crisis. People in general have less money. That means shrinking markets. Thus its a consumer market - the producers have to tempt us with better and better products in order to still get sales.

Thats also why you might still be able to buy a new D3100, even if that model is quite old now (I havent recently checked if they are STILL around, but they might well be).






goodguy said:


> I think the D7100 is a too good camera for the price it sells for, I think it stops people from upgrading to FX because they just dont feel the need to,


 Why, yes, the D7100 is great !

But Nikon kills DX simply by avoiding giving DX users a good selection of DX lenses. 

And the D7100, while being close to, well, "perfect" in every other way, is sadly intentionally crippled by giving it a too small buffer. 



goodguy said:


> One camera for me is all I need, if I had an FX I wouldnt touch a DX anymore, just my character.


 I kept my D5100 as backup. And I indeed had need of it, once, so it was a good thing I did !

And once I have the D750, the D600 will be an even sweeter backup - same lenses, same memory cards, same batteries, same sensor size, same resolution ! And, most importantly, less lens changes, too.



WestCoast said:


> They are different beasts.  DX is preferred for sports and birding, FX for most other things.
> If you shoot everything and can afford both, it's the way to go.


 Birding certainly, yes, because you can never have enough reach for that. Sports in good light, but otherwise not so much. And in either case, with the D7100, you have the problem of the smallish buffer.



astroNikon said:


> how much does an FX sensor cost again ?


 Nobody knows for sure ... except people who work in that industry. But its probably around a couple hundred bucks. And once you spend this much on the sensor alone, of course you want the surroundings to be of compareable quality as well. Thats why "full frame" is so expensive.



shadowlands said:


> Is Nikon going to answer the 7D Mark II?


 Many people hope so. And it looks likely - doesnt it ? Though at this juncture they could just release a D7200 with
+ increased buffer, maybe also higher fps
+ WiFi (for which a full metal body is a problem, so that works out nicely), maybe also GPS
+ the new AF of the D750, with face detection and -3 EV. Maybe also a "focus on closest" option.
+ the new metering mode (highlight metering).
+ the flipscreen of the D750 (or even better a D5x00 style flipscreen, x in the range 1..3, the D5000 one sucked)
+ possibly a newer sensor (since the D5300 already has an upgrade over the D7100/D5200 - so its very likely), maybe even the 28 Megapixel one of the Samsung NX ? As this one seems to be uber.
+ AF-ON button (seems to be the main request by people used to bigger bodies)
+ couple more U<n> modes
+ Better one-hand-only ergonomics, like Canon has them


----------



## astroNikon

All good info.
But my transition to FX was not as expensive.
My first body was a d7000.  One reason was for AF-D lenses versus higher cost AF-S lenses.
Those purchases right there saved me more than the additional cost of the d7000 body versus the d5x00 body.
The 50mm 1.8 AF-D at $100 versus $200
24-85/2.8-4 at I think $230, 24mm AF-D under $200 vs $1400
80-200 vs 70-200 at $700 vs $1400
The list goes on and on and on.

So it also depends upon your selection of lenses.  With bodies with an inbody focus motor your options expand greatly and you can get much less costly AF-D lenses for AutoFocus.

So overall, the move to FF or upper end DX can be cheaper than lower end DX.


----------



## bribrius

I am with the economics crowd. Not only do many not have the funds to spend that much on gear, they don't really have the need. A lot of people have more camera than they actually need now. Non pros walking around with ten k in equipment or more.. 

you have to find someone with not just the money to drop, but also the will to do it. Most wont even put up the three or four k for a 7100 with lenses.  They don't really have the need or desire. Now... if you get to some of the yuppies they will drop ten k just to have nice photos on their facebook page.
All in how you see it.
The idea of pushing people to fx isn't very realistic, imo. As the bottom end cameras are usually enough to satisfy the majority of users. As stated the 7100 is for the "serious enthusiasts" (basically people with money to blow that love photography) and when you go up from there you are either in that top percent of serious users with money to blow or the pro section.
The average American at least, is probably still only spending three hundred or less on a camera, even if they have the money to go fx they don't have the inclination or care too. If I go fx, the main reason will be because I AM STUPID. And have nothing better to do than worry about low light photography in my barely paying non pro world.


----------



## JacaRanda

bribrius said:


> I am with the economics crowd. Not only do many not have the funds to spend that much on gear, they don't really have the need. A lot of people have more camera than they actually need now. Non pros walking around with ten k in equipment or more..
> 
> you have to find someone with not just the money to drop, but also the will to do it. Most wont even put up the three or four k for a 7100 with lenses.  They don't really have the need or desire. Now... if you get to some of the yuppies they will drop ten k just to have nice photos on their facebook page.
> All in how you see it.
> The idea of pushing people to fx isn't very realistic, imo. As the bottom end cameras are usually enough to satisfy the majority of users. As stated the 7100 is for the "serious enthusiasts" (basically people with money to blow that love photography) and when you go up from there you are either in that top percent of serious users with money to blow or the pro section.
> The average American at least, is probably still only spending three hundred or less on a camera, even if they have the money to go fx they don't have the inclination or care too. If I go fx, the main reason will be because I AM STUPID. And have nothing better to do than worry about low light photography in my barely paying non pro world.



AMEN!


----------



## TheLost

bribrius said:


> I am with the economics crowd. Not only do many not have the funds to spend that much on gear, they don't really have the need. A lot of people have more camera than they actually need now. Non pros walking around with ten k in equipment or more..
> 
> ou have to find someone with not just the money to drop, but also the will to do it. Most wont even put up the three or four k for a 7100 with lenses.  They don't really have the need or desire. Now... if you get to some of the yuppies they will drop ten k just to have nice photos on their facebook page.



This is not a 'modern' issue...

In 1972 the Nikon F2 sold for ~$390US (w/50mm prime).  That was a huge chunk of money back then yet lots of non-pro's plunked down their hard earned cash to buy one. (~$2,400 in todays money.. roughly the price of a D750 with 50mm).



bribrius said:


> All in how you see it.
> The idea of pushing people to fx isn't very realistic, imo. As the bottom end cameras are usually enough to satisfy the majority of users. As stated the 7100 is for the "serious enthusiasts" (basically people with money to blow that love photography) and when you go up from there you are either in that top percent of serious users with money to blow or the pro section.



Not true at all...  I know LOTS of people that have saved up and bought the D7100 because its the best DX body that meets their needs.  Fast Auto-Focus, Great in low light, Weather sealed...  

These people don't have 'money to blow'. 

They want a picture of their daughter playing water polo and their last camera died due to the vast humidity in most indoor pools.  Or a student who is taking pictures for the yearbook and needs a good low light camera.

There are people who see value in spending a little more to get the best... and the D7100 is currently the best Nikon DX body.



bribrius said:


> The average American at least, is probably still only spending three hundred or less on a camera, even if they have the money to go fx they don't have the inclination or care too. If I go fx, the main reason will be because I AM STUPID. And have nothing better to do than worry about low light photography in my barely paying non pro world.



The average American doesn't need a camera.  Most need nothing more then the $800+ camera they carry around in their pockets (AKA.. smart phone).

I don't need a sports car..  I don't even drive it to work most days.  But i WANT ONE because its fun.

I don't need a FX body..  I'm getting one because i find photography FUN and ENJOYABLE. Call me stupid if you want... but keep your Elio (Elio Motors: Ultra High Mileage Vehicle ) and D3x00 out of the fast lane so you don't slow down the rest of us


----------



## bribrius

lol. I am not rocket scientist but if sales are decreasing http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/dw-201407_e.pdf
year over year I would guess that the lower priced models would be pushed more as talking people into buying the higher priced models isn't working. And it still means the lower priced models have to be good enough (and compact enough) to make people want them over using their iPhone.  Perhaps they were bringing out the lower end fx bodies to kind of talk people into it. And it isn't working? I would expect at some point the fx line would return to the pro or nearly pro only and the lower end line become consumer only and the middle ground would be somewhat lost. They are still looking for the few hundred dollar mark to attract the average consumer and still make them worth buying over using their phone.


TheLost said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am with the economics crowd. Not only do many not have the funds to spend that much on gear, they don't really have the need. A lot of people have more camera than they actually need now. Non pros walking around with ten k in equipment or more..
> 
> ou have to find someone with not just the money to drop, but also the will to do it. Most wont even put up the three or four k for a 7100 with lenses.  They don't really have the need or desire. Now... if you get to some of the yuppies they will drop ten k just to have nice photos on their facebook page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a 'modern' issue...
> 
> In 1972 the Nikon F2 sold for ~$390US (w/50mm prime).  That was a huge chunk of money back then yet lots of non-pro's plunked down their hard earned cash to buy one. (~$2,400 in todays money.. roughly the price of a D750 with 50mm).
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> All in how you see it.
> The idea of pushing people to fx isn't very realistic, imo. As the bottom end cameras are usually enough to satisfy the majority of users. As stated the 7100 is for the "serious enthusiasts" (basically people with money to blow that love photography) and when you go up from there you are either in that top percent of serious users with money to blow or the pro section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true at all...  I know LOTS of people that have saved up and bought the D7100 because its the best DX body that meets their needs.  Fast Auto-Focus, Great in low light, Weather sealed...
> 
> These people don't have 'money to blow'.
> 
> They want a picture of their daughter playing water polo and their last camera died due to the vast humidity in most indoor pools.  Or a student who is taking pictures for the yearbook and needs a good low light camera.
> 
> There are people who see value in spending a little more to get the best... and the D7100 is currently the best Nikon DX body.
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> The average American at least, is probably still only spending three hundred or less on a camera, even if they have the money to go fx they don't have the inclination or care too. If I go fx, the main reason will be because I AM STUPID. And have nothing better to do than worry about low light photography in my barely paying non pro world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The average American doesn't need a camera.  Most need nothing more then the $800+ camera they carry around in their pockets (AKA.. smart phone).
> 
> I don't need a sports car..  I don't even drive it to work most days.  But i WANT ONE because its fun.
> 
> I don't need a FX body..  I'm getting one because i find photography FUN and ENJOYABLE. Call me stupid if you want... but keep your Elio (Elio Motors: Ultra High Mileage Vehicle ) and D3x00 out of the fast lane so you don't slow down the rest of us
Click to expand...

just admit it is primarily a product of consumerism. One puppet sees another puppet bought one and so it goes.....
course sales seem to be declining year after year. so maybe the puppets are copying different puppets now. I venture to bet a large amount of camera purchases are immediate gratification anyway, rather than need or much thought. But back to the topic line, they lowered body prices and came out with entry level fx for a reason. sales are still down. So much for pushing anyone into fx they are still trying to get them to buy the low and middle range cameras. you can see the market steadily shrinking (course photography for the last ten years or so has been more of a fad anyway)


----------



## sashbar

bribrius said:


> If I go fx, the main reason will be because I AM STUPID. And have nothing better to do than worry about low light photography in my barely paying non pro world.



This is THE TRUTH that most people simply do not want to hear.


----------



## JacaRanda

sashbar said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I go fx, the main reason will be because I AM STUPID. And have nothing better to do than worry about low light photography in my barely paying non pro world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is THE TRUTH that most people simply do not want to hear.
Click to expand...


Ouch!


----------



## sashbar

JacaRanda said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I go fx, the main reason will be because I AM STUPID. And have nothing better to do than worry about low light photography in my barely paying non pro world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is THE TRUTH that most people simply do not want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch!
Click to expand...



  Well, not being an English speaker I am allowed a little controversy   am I ?


----------



## JacaRanda

sashbar said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I go fx, the main reason will be because I AM STUPID. And have nothing better to do than worry about low light photography in my barely paying non pro world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is THE TRUTH that most people simply do not want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not being an English speaker I am allowed a little controversy   am I ?
Click to expand...


As long as you abide by forum rules JOIN THE PARTY


----------



## Canuckphotos

Keeping the nikon D7100 would be a smart move. Here's why I think. I purchased the D7100 based on good reviews and compared to canon for the money it can't be beat. Th camera has performed well beyond my expectations and I have only scratched the surface as to what this camera can do. It's user friendly, feels like quality and nikon will have my loyalty and money should this camera live up to its fame. 

As a happy, loyal and satisfied customer it only makes sense that I continue on with nikon as a camera option. From purchasing there lenses to remote shutters etc... They will get my money. In the future when I've exhausted my capabilities and grown into photography without a doubt I will stick with nikon And be a loyal customer. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PaulWog

I bought the D5200 and I want the D7100. I invested in DX glass.

Let's say they release a D7200 and it is awesome. Let's say the sensor is the same, but they throw in a brand new processor in there (a step up from the D750's), and they chug out a half stop (or full stop!?) of ISO performance compared to the D7100 better at the 1600/3200/6400 marks (where it matters). Let's say the focusing system is improved over the D7100, and there's a touchscreen. Wow, that would be amazing. Would I switch to full frame? Nope. I'd want that. Then they come out with a D7300, so on and so forth...

*BUT* Let's say I have $2500 to spend on a camera. Would I get that amazing D7200, or would I get the D750? I would seriously consider the D750.

What's wrong with your average guy dishing out $1000-$1400 on a new DX camera every 1-3 years? Or your average guy investing in a new $1000-$1400 DX camera as their first camera, as opposed to an FX camera?

The DSLR market is comprised of all kinds of people. I can't even pretend to know what the demographics and spread of revenue consists of. However, use some basic reasoning: You have your entry-level guy who bought a D3100, or D5200, or whatever. He never wants to upgrade again, but just wants a new lens. Nothing else matters to him. The D7100 doesn't hurt sales in that case, since he didn't want a new camera body anyways. Or, you have an entry-level guy who did the same thing, but wants to upgrade. He has a budget of $2000 and is aware that he needs a new lens as well. Does he upgrade to full frame? Maybe. The D610 might be what he gets, or he might look to the D7100. Does it hurt sales? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. If he gets the D7100, is he going to retire to that camera forever? Well, if he does, then it wouldn't have mattered whether he got the D610 or D7100, he likely wouldn't have made any more purchases thereafter. With *basic* reasoning, there's two types of buyers: Those who buy once and once only, and those who buy and will buy again. Those who will buy again will be back regardless.


----------



## JacaRanda

Helping the economy for sure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bribrius

I didn't say I wouldn't go fx. I just say I would be stupid.  And I never said I was smart. Think I would rather have something smaller than larger though carrying around gear isn't that fun..


----------



## sashbar

bribrius said:


> I didn't say I wouldn't go fx. I just say I would be stupid.  And I never said I was smart. Think I would rather have something smaller than larger though carrying around gear isn't that fun..



What I meant is that buying a FF camera is a foolish decision for most amateurs these days, but they just do not want to hear the truth.  Having said that I too would not say  I would never go FF. But just like you I know it would be quite stupid. Luckily one thing stops me - size and weight. Even a prosumer DX like D7100 feels ridiculously big and heavy in my hands, never mind FF.


----------



## astroNikon

sashbar said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I wouldn't go fx. I just say I would be stupid.  And I never said I was smart. Think I would rather have something smaller than larger though carrying around gear isn't that fun..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I meant is that buying a FF camera is a *foolish decision for most amateurs these days, but they just do not want to hear the truth*.  Having said that I too would not say  I would never go FF. But just like you I know it would be quite stupid. Luckily one thing stops me - size and weight. Even a prosumer DX like D7100 feels ridiculously big and heavy in my hands, never mind FF.
Click to expand...


What is the "truth" ?


----------



## JacaRanda

astroNikon said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I wouldn't go fx. I just say I would be stupid.  And I never said I was smart. Think I would rather have something smaller than larger though carrying around gear isn't that fun..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I meant is that buying a FF camera is a *foolish decision for most amateurs these days, but they just do not want to hear the truth*.  Having said that I too would not say  I would never go FF. But just like you I know it would be quite stupid. Luckily one thing stops me - size and weight. Even a prosumer DX like D7100 feels ridiculously big and heavy in my hands, never mind FF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the "truth" ?
Click to expand...


Wait for it, wait for it.......'You Can't Stand the Truth'!     Happy Monday folks.


----------



## West -

sashbar said:


> Luckily one thing stops me - size and weight. Even a prosumer DX like D7100 feels ridiculously big and heavy in my hands, never mind FF.



The D750 weighs LESS than the D7100


----------



## sashbar

WestCoast said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luckily one thing stops me - size and weight. Even a prosumer DX like D7100 feels ridiculously big and heavy in my hands, never mind FF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The D750 weighs LESS than the D7100
Click to expand...


Not by much. When you factor the lenses, especially good FF zooms, it is simply prohibitive for me.  I just see no sense in a camera that stays home six days a week. I prefer the one I can throw in my bag (not a camera bag, just any bag) and have it with me most of the time.


----------



## greybeard

The D7K series is a sweet spot for a lot of photographers, myself included.


----------



## bc_steve

I got my first SLR in 2006.  I used kit lenses until 2012 and never really knew anything else existed.  I'd heard vague references to full frame but never really knew what it was until around the same time.

At the time I was most like most DSLR consumers.  I did a little bit of internet research, found a camera in my price range, bought it and moved on with my life.  Most people are not as camera-knowledgeable as the average person here on TPF!


----------



## Solarflare

sashbar said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I go fx, the main reason will be because I AM STUPID. And have nothing better to do than worry about low light photography in my barely paying non pro world.
> 
> 
> 
> This is THE TRUTH that most people simply do not want to hear.
Click to expand...

 Well, the question what camera I get is really not based on economic efficiency. I'm an amateur, I dont ask people for money for my pictures. Thus how much money I spend on photography is ultimately based on which one I can afford, nothing else. My main economic concern is thus that my money was well spent, i.e. I try to get the best camera for my money that I can get.



PaulWog said:


> BUT* Let's say I have $2500 to spend on a camera. Would I get that amazing D7200, or would I get the D750? I would seriously consider the D750.


 Never forget that, for a FX camera, you also need FX glas.


----------



## bribrius

sashbar said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I wouldn't go fx. I just say I would be stupid.  And I never said I was smart. Think I would rather have something smaller than larger though carrying around gear isn't that fun..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I meant is that buying a FF camera is a foolish decision for most amateurs these days, but they just do not want to hear the truth.  Having said that I too would not say  I would never go FF. But just like you I know it would be quite stupid. Luckily one thing stops me - size and weight. Even a prosumer DX like D7100 feels ridiculously big and heavy in my hands, never mind FF.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I don't like carrying around my 7100 either which is why I usually don't. I like something to go WITH whatever activities I am doing not something I am lugging around Becoming the activity just in itself. I still usually use a bridge camera. I mean if the 7100 goes out it goes out with 3 lenses because I have been stuck before not having the right lens for the right thing so I drag three now with me. so I am carrying 3 lenses and the camera in the bag plus whatever else. it isn't like it is this great portable option to lug around. And often I leave it in the car somewhere and just take the camera and a lens. still not some great portable option. I still like my bridge camera. no lenses to carry, less than half the weight and if it is broken or stolen I am only out a few hundred not a few grand so less worries.


----------



## jaomul

Long thread considering the subject matter.

Lots of us have things we don't need, just want. Nobody needed smart phones a few years ago or internet before that. Guess what we still don't need them. They are very nice to have.

Maybe I read wring but somewhere someone on this thread said it be stupid to go fx. Definitely that's a matter of opinion and certainly some people can do very well with lower end gear in nearly all hobbies.

However if someone is pro or not and want fx, and it doesn't mean they can't get the things in life they do need, then why not. 

It's photography, an obsession for some,a hobby for most, a job for a few. Probably 95% of people wouldn't know a dslr has a bigger sensor than an iPhone or care. Most people like photos, some like cameras.


----------



## Braineack

I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.


----------



## astroNikon

bribrius said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I wouldn't go fx. I just say I would be stupid.  And I never said I was smart. Think I would rather have something smaller than larger though carrying around gear isn't that fun..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I meant is that buying a FF camera is a foolish decision for most amateurs these days, but they just do not want to hear the truth.  Having said that I too would not say  I would never go FF. But just like you I know it would be quite stupid. Luckily one thing stops me - size and weight. Even a prosumer DX like D7100 feels ridiculously big and heavy in my hands, never mind FF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear ya. I don't like carrying around my 7100 either which is why I usually don't. I like something to go WITH whatever activities I am doing not something I am lugging around Becoming the activity just in itself. I still usually use a bridge camera. I mean if the 7100 goes out it goes out with 3 lenses because I have been stuck before not having the right lens for the right thing so I drag three now with me. so I am carrying 3 lenses and the camera in the bag plus whatever else. it isn't like it is this great portable option to lug around. And often I leave it in the car somewhere and just take the camera and a lens. still not some great portable option. I still like my bridge camera. no lenses to carry, less than half the weight and if it is broken or stolen I am only out a few hundred not a few grand so less worries.
Click to expand...


I don't really understand this.
It's like all or nothing.

I take my d7000 to alot of places.  I take ONE kit lens (18-105) and I take off the Grip.
makes it smaller though not as small as a bridge camera, or mirrorless, but at least  I don't have to buy another camera.  

With my d600 .. when it goes places I do take other lenses to compensate for what ever I'm going to. Unless it's something specific like a soccer game.  Then I take ONE lens - like the 70-300 or 80-200.  If I've going out on a photo trip then I take my camera bag.

If I take neither , then I have my iPhone.

There's no reason one can't go light just to have a camera by your side.  It just depends what you think "light" is.

I also bought ONLY FX glass after the kit lens with my d7000.  Some ppl say when you switch over to FX you have to get rid of all your lenses .. that's only if you bought DX specific lenses to begin with.  

I have a large list of lenses that I've bought kept/sold over the last 2 years.  They were all FX lenses
The one advantage to going with a d90/d7000 or higher is the in body focus motor.  You can buy older AF-D screw focus lenses.  People seem to forget about that as that also keeps costs way lower and actually pays for the better body after just one or two lenses.


----------



## sashbar

Braineack said:


> I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.



Wow. I am still looking for my first image that I could call "amazing".


----------



## JacaRanda

sashbar said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. I am still looking for my first image that I could call "amazing".
Click to expand...


I was thinking the SAME thing and would love to see some.


----------



## astroNikon

sashbar said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. I am still looking for my first image that I could call "amazing".
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting for "the truth"


----------



## astroNikon

JacaRanda said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. I am still looking for my first image that I could call "amazing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was thinking the SAME thing and would love to see it.
Click to expand...


it's basically the low light advantage you get from a FF camera versus crop.
My FF is so much better in low light, it's not even close even with the same lens.


----------



## JacaRanda

astroNikon said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. I am still looking for my first image that I could call "amazing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was thinking the SAME thing and would love to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's basically the low light advantage you get from a FF camera versus crop.
> My FF is so much better in low light, it's not even close even with the same lens.
Click to expand...


For instance like a d7100 vs d610?


----------



## astroNikon

yup like my d7000 vs my d600  --> Question to those who moved from crop sensor to full frame camera-low light Perf | Photography Forum


----------



## Vince.1551

bribrius said:


> I am with the economics crowd. Not only do many not have the funds to spend that much on gear, they don't really have the need. A lot of people have more camera than they actually need now. Non pros walking around with ten k in equipment or more..
> 
> you have to find someone with not just the money to drop, but also the will to do it. Most wont even put up the three or four k for a 7100 with lenses.  They don't really have the need or desire. Now... if you get to some of the yuppies they will drop ten k just to have nice photos on their facebook page.
> All in how you see it.
> The idea of pushing people to fx isn't very realistic, imo. As the bottom end cameras are usually enough to satisfy the majority of users. As stated the 7100 is for the "serious enthusiasts" (basically people with money to blow that love photography) and when you go up from there you are either in that top percent of serious users with money to blow or the pro section.
> The average American at least, is probably still only spending three hundred or less on a camera, even if they have the money to go fx they don't have the inclination or care too. If I go fx, the main reason will be because I AM STUPID. And have nothing better to do than worry about low light photography in my barely paying non pro world.


I'm stupid  should have just stick to my phone camera ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon

Under nicely light conditions it really doesn't matter.
when it gets darker then you start seeing the differences.

I use my d7000 alot, except when it's dark.  Then the d600 comes out to play.

On the extremes ... and I mean the extremes, the d7000 simply cannot get a shot at all whereas the d600 can capture an image.

And as it gets darker without a flash (kids soccer games with no lights), the d600 would win too as it has a higher usable ISO than my d7000.

I have both and have been using both, with the same lenses.  So to me it's obvious.


----------



## astroNikon

4k .. 10k

also as an Economist I bought AF-D lenses.  Why buy the most modern, most expensive pro lenses available ?

one doesn't have to do that.
As an amateur the old sub $300 35-70/2.8 is a great lens.  No reason to buy the $1400+ 24-70/2.8 if you don't need it.  Just the price difference helps you nearly move up to a FF camera.
or 80-200/2.8 (various versions from a couple hundred to about $700) versus the 70-200/2.8 at $1500+ ??   

And using the money argument .. why buy a d7100 anyways ?  What's wrong with a d7000?

Using the financial argument you can drive down the total cost quite quickly depending upon your requirements.  

A d7000 with a 24-85/2.8-4 and 80-200/2.8 is about $1500 and gives you great focal range and some great glass.

It's all down to what someone can afford, what price points they want to afford, whether they want new or used equipment, and what they'll balance out to make their overall decision.

You don't need $4,000 or $10,000.


----------



## astroNikon

but price is still king

d3300 with 18-55 and 55-200 kit  is  $615
d5300 18-55 / 55-220 is $997
d7100  18-55 / 55-300 bundle thing $1,685
not similar bundle on BestBuy for a d610 ..

most people would opt for the low cost option


----------



## Vince.1551

I supposed everyone make their choices based on their own expectations and needs at that moment so technically there's no right or wrong, to each his own. Just enjoy shooting 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack

An amazing image doesn't have to be good.


----------



## JacaRanda

astroNikon said:


> yup like my d7000 vs my d600  --> Question to those who moved from crop sensor to full frame camera-low light Perf | Photography Forum



Sort of like that, but maybe more from the D7100 instead of the D7000.


----------



## astroNikon

JacaRanda said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> yup like my d7000 vs my d600  --> Question to those who moved from crop sensor to full frame camera-low light Perf | Photography Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like that, but maybe more from the D7100 instead of the D7000.
Click to expand...


Send me a d7100 and I'll run a test.
The price difference of a new d7100 vs used d600 wasn't much so i made the jump 

on snapsort.com
a lower noise at high ISO
has the d7000 at *1,167*
the d7100 at *1,256*
and d600/d610 at *2,980*

The d7000 is only 89 off the d7100 versus to the d610 of 1,724 higher
So I think it's still a valid comparison d7000 v d600


----------



## Derrel

Braineack said:


> I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.



Yeah...that does kind of suck...

Above we had a comment, "Never forget that, for a FX camera, you also need FX glass." Ummm, yeah, that is mostly true, but not entirely accurate, since ALL DX Nikkors will mount and shoot on all Nikon FX sensor cameras. Something like 90% of the current Nikon system, and 99.9% of the entire, historical Nikon lens system, is "FX" glass. And always remember, the MAJORITY of DX glass is cheap,slow,plastic, consumer-grade 18mm -XXXmm stuff...


----------



## astroNikon

But there's NO reason someone with a DX can't buy FX glass anyways.


----------



## Derrel

astroNikon said:


> But there's NO reason someone with a DX can't buy FX glass anyways.



EXACTLY!!! The majority of the best Nikkor lenses are lenses that people call "FX"...the highly-desired Nikkors are almost all lenses designed for FX coverage! And, in the faster zoom categories, and in the majority of primes, and the majority of wide-angles, and in ALL of the longer zooms, there are NO DX lenses! There is NO SUCH THING as a "DX" 300mm f/4, or a "DX" 70-200. The huge preponderance of the Nikkors that people would really love to own are....NOT DX lenses...


----------



## sashbar

astroNikon said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. I am still looking for my first image that I could call "amazing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for "the truth"
Click to expand...


OK. I will try to explain. There is, of course, an undisputed difference in IQ between a crop and FF.  This difference, though, is purely technical. Less noise at high ISO etc, we all know about it. But all these differences mean nothing, absolutely nothing unless they become meaningful for a particular image(s). If we fail here, what we will get, at best (see above), is an "awesome looking image that is not good".

It depends on a genre, of course. With astro photography, which is quite technical, these FF qualities, probably, do shine through, excuse my pun.  With many other genres it is not that obvious. One has to be quite advanced in his/her photography for these differences to become MEANINGFUL for their images. I often see images taken with a FF camera that would be exactly as good/bad/average as if taken with a crop.

Maybe it is just me, but I tend to look for an artistic intent/aesthetic side first and foremost, and if it is not there, I do not care about technical stuff like colour gradation or high ISO noise or any other advantages offered by FF. More than that, sometimes I see ( DISCLAIMER: NOT ON THIS FORUM ) a "test" photo by some new proud FF camera owner with words "Just tried my new full frame camera - WOW! I am so impressed!". I honestly try to be impressed as well, but for some reason fail. The image looks no better than if it was taken with a crop.  I guess a computer screen is not the best tool to evaluate an image quality? Or maybe there is another reason?

The way you work with the light, for example, is SO much more important for the quality on your image than the difference between FX and DX, you can not even compare it. If your work sucks here, the difference between FX and DX becomes negligible. It is like when you spill a can of tomato soup on your trousers, nobody really cares if your trousers are well creased or not.

Then there are photographers, who know what they are doing and their technique in many aspects is near flawless. In that case I would say, it would be ridiculous for them NOT to use an FF format.  But now we are talking about the minority.

The majority are cheerfully carrying around these huge FF bodies/lenses not being able to translate its advantages into their photography. That is the "truth".

PS Yes, I can see four cans of tomato soup flying in my direction...


----------



## astroNikon

I totally agree

But there are a few people ezaxmples 
D BJ comes to mind and a couple others who upgraded and went  "wow" but as you mentioned we see a small exported version of what they see.

For me, yup, pointing it up to the planets and stars was mighty impressive.  I was able to significantly crop a 300mm shot at  25600 ISO and see the planet Uranus.  Utterly "wow" .  It was noisy but the d7000 was a no go in that at least without getting significant object movement.


----------



## Braineack

I took an iq test and got an 80. I decide 80 was close enough to 120 that I laugh at all those people with larger iqs


----------



## JacaRanda

astroNikon said:


> Under nicely light conditions it really doesn't matter.
> when it gets darker then you start seeing the differences.
> 
> I use my d7000 alot, except when it's dark.  Then the d600 comes out to play.
> 
> On the extremes ... and I mean the extremes, the d7000 simply cannot get a shot at all whereas the d600 can capture an image.
> 
> And as it gets darker without a flash (kids soccer games with no lights), the d600 would win too as it has a higher usable ISO than my d7000.
> 
> I have both and have been using both, with the same lenses.  So to me it's obvious.



How much difference is there between the D7000 and the D7100.  I keep reading how great the D7100 is in low light, as if it's comparable to FF's in low light (not counting old crummy sensor ones).

Ooops, sorry Nikon.  I did not see your post up there ^.  Got a D7100 all packaged up for you


----------



## JacaRanda

sashbar said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. I am still looking for my first image that I could call "amazing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for "the truth"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. I will try to explain. There is, of course, an undisputed difference in IQ between a crop and FF.  This difference, though, is purely technical. Less noise at high ISO etc, we all know about it. But all these differences mean nothing, absolutely nothing unless they become meaningful for a particular image(s). If we fail here, what we will get, at best (see above), is an "awesome looking image that is not good".
> 
> It depends on a genre, of course. With astro photography, which is quite technical, these FF qualities, probably, do shine through, excuse my pun.  With many other genres it is not that obvious. One has to be quite advanced in his/her photography for these differences to become MEANINGFUL for their images. I often see images taken with a FF camera that would be exactly as good/bad/average as if taken with a crop.
> 
> Maybe it is just me, but I tend to look for an artistic intent/aesthetic side first and foremost, and if it is not there, I do not care about technical stuff like colour gradation or high ISO noise or any other advantages offered by FF. More than that, sometimes I see ( DISCLAIMER: NOT ON THIS FORUM ) a "test" photo by some new proud FF camera owner with words "Just tried my new full frame camera - WOW! I am so impressed!". I honestly try to be impressed as well, but for some reason fail. The image looks no better than if it was taken with a crop.  I guess a computer screen is not the best tool to evaluate an image quality? Or maybe there is another reason?
> 
> The way you work with the light, for example, is SO much more important for the quality on your image than the difference between FX and DX, you can not even compare it. If your work sucks here, the difference between FX and DX becomes negligible. It is like when you spill a can of tomato soup on your trousers, nobody really cares if your trousers are well creased or not.
> 
> Then there are photographers, who know what they are doing and their technique in many aspects is near flawless. In that case I would say, it would be ridiculous for them NOT to use an FF format.  But now we are talking about the minority.
> 
> The majority are cheerfully carrying around these huge FF bodies/lenses not being able to translate its advantages into their photography. That is the "truth".
> 
> PS Yes, I can see four cans of tomato soup flying in my direction...
Click to expand...


I could not have written or said this any better.  Thank you thank you thank you.
I super duper want to see the differences and totally believe much of what I read both from TPF members and on DxoMark when it comes to ratings etc.

I want to have that hallelujah moment that makes me get all poopie pants.    Side by side comparison I guess in real life, large up on a wall in a perfectly lit museum or something.


----------



## Nathan7.1k

astroNikon said:


> but price is still king
> 
> d3300 with 18-55 and 55-200 kit  is  $615
> d5300 18-55 / 55-220 is $997
> d7100  18-55 / 55-300 bundle thing $1,685
> not similar bundle on BestBuy for a d610 ..
> 
> most people would opt for the low cost option


You probably just mistyped, but if not I wanted to correct ya that the D7100 comes with an 18-140 (the newer 500/600usd lens) not the 18-55 when buying it with the 55-300.


----------



## astroNikon

DxoMark ISO tech specs:

with the 3 selected the D610 is a much better performer at 2925
then the d5300 at 1338
then the d7100 at 1256
==> Nikon D5300 versus Nikon D610 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark


----------



## astroNikon

DxoMark  ==> Nikon D3300 versus Nikon D7100 versus Nikon D7000 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

D3300 is top at  1385
D7100 at  1256
d7000 at 1167


Yes, the d3300 and d5300 had better ISO performance according to DxoMark than the d7100


----------



## astroNikon

and there's plenty of ppl comparing the d7100 and d610 out there for low light, such as this ==> D610 vs D7100?: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D4, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

My d7000 is no slouch. When it came out the astrophotography world hailed it as the best low cost (ie, non full frame) camera out there for low light photography.  And it is, for a crop sensor camera, of course being pushed back to newer iterations from Nikon.  Of course one of the big websites out there the website owner used a d7000, until he upgraded to a FF camera.


----------



## JacaRanda

astroNikon said:


> and there's plenty of ppl comparing the d7100 and d610 out there for low light, such as this ==> D610 vs D7100?: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D4, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
> 
> My d7000 is no slouch. When it came out the astrophotography world hailed it as the best low cost (ie, non full frame) camera out there for low light photography.  And it is, for a crop sensor camera, of course being pushed back to newer iterations from Nikon.  Of course one of the big websites out there the website owner used a d7000, until he upgraded to a FF camera.



I like the 3rd reply by anotherMike.


----------



## bribrius

Vince.1551 said:


> I supposed everyone make their choices based on their own expectations and needs at that moment so technically there's no right or wrong, to each his own. Just enjoy shooting
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I probably should have but I went with the random dart board methodology and kind of just said "okay I guess I am going to get one of them"

I do see the drawback with dx in low light, I will admit. Like when I am trying to take a photo of my dog running by around midnight with no lights I get really upset the camera just wont work for me. I should go fx so I can photography my dog running in the yard at night easier. And I hate tripods they are too hard to carry around. I know everyone says to use a tripod in low light but I have trouble carrying it around especially with the camera on it trying to keep up with fast moving subjects. wicked bounce and camera blur.


----------



## bribrius

JacaRanda said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under nicely light conditions it really doesn't matter.
> when it gets darker then you start seeing the differences.
> 
> I use my d7000 alot, except when it's dark.  Then the d600 comes out to play.
> 
> On the extremes ... and I mean the extremes, the d7000 simply cannot get a shot at all whereas the d600 can capture an image.
> 
> And as it gets darker without a flash (kids soccer games with no lights), the d600 would win too as it has a higher usable ISO than my d7000.
> 
> I have both and have been using both, with the same lenses.  So to me it's obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much difference is there between the D7000 and the D7100.  I keep reading how great the D7100 is in low light, as if it's comparable to FF's in low light (not counting old crummy sensor ones).
> 
> Ooops, sorry Nikon.  I did not see your post up there ^.  Got a D7100 all packaged up for you
Click to expand...

I really don't think my 7100 is that great I low light.
what is the difference if it isn't a moving shot anyway? you have to wait another five seconds on a long shutter?


----------



## astroNikon

I just look at it like this:

The d7100 is the best overall features in the DX category, including low light (well it is a couple years old now and the d5300 and d3300 are better but still).

When you compare it to FX ... FX & DX are just two different categories and there are various other differences too.  "focal length" of lenses, low light, etc.

I think they are two different categories after two different market segments. OF course now Nikon has their new category definitions to further blur it.

But looking at the dxoMark numbers for low light you actually see two different segments.  All the FX cameras D810 = 2853, Df = 3279, d700 = 2303, d4S = 3074, d4 = 2965, d3x = 1992 are simply in a different category numerically than the DXs.

I was pessimistic before I bought a d600.  But I immediately noticed the differences in low light.  My d7000 is closer to the d7100 than it is a d610 if you just look at the numbers.  It is what it is.

I think from another thread the d610 is about 1.5 stops faster than the d7000 in low light.  I think you gain even more once you add in the higher ISO capabilities.

But the best way to find out is to get one yourself and then compare.  I did that in the other thread with the same ISO, aperture and lens and the exposure time of the d7000 was twice that of the d600.  and the d7000 dxomark is very close to the d7100. Both the d7000 and d7100 are significantly farther away in the dxomark to the d610.

But it all comes to how you use it and what you can afford.


----------



## Vince.1551

bribrius said:


> Vince.1551 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I supposed everyone make their choices based on their own expectations and needs at that moment so technically there's no right or wrong, to each his own. Just enjoy shooting
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> I probably should have but I went with the random dart board methodology and kind of just said "okay I guess I am going to get one of them"
> 
> I do see the drawback with dx in low light, I will admit. Like when I am trying to take a photo of my dog running by around midnight with no lights I get really upset the camera just wont work for me. I should go fx so I can photography my dog running in the yard at night easier. And I hate tripods they are too hard to carry around. I know everyone says to use a tripod in low light but I have trouble carrying it around especially with the camera on it trying to keep up with fast moving subjects. wicked bounce and camera blur.
Click to expand...

You might be in a dream. Go back to sleep lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## goodguy

sashbar said:


> I would never go FF. But just like you I know it would be quite stupid. Luckily one thing stops me - size and weight. Even a prosumer DX like D7100 feels ridiculously big and heavy in my hands, never mind FF.


D750 is 10% bigger then the D7100 and 75gr heavier, pretty small difference, when I put my Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 on my D7100 (almost 1.5KG) an added 75gr will not change much LOL.
I dont think size or weight is why somebody should or shouldnt consider the D7100 over an FX body, well thats my logic anyways.


----------



## goodguy

sashbar said:


> Not by much. When you factor the lenses, especially good FF zooms, it is simply prohibitive for me.  I just see no sense in a camera that stays home six days a week. I prefer the one I can throw in my bag (not a camera bag, just any bag) and have it with me most of the time.


This reminds me a debate my buddy nd I have again and again, we both have the D7100 and he wants to get the Olympus micro 4/3 while I want to get bigger and bigger.
I am not enjoying schlepping around the big camera and big/heavy lenses but the results simply make it all worth while.
For me the weight doesnt make differance, I have a Canon G15 which is a lovely and capable little camera but after a day of use with it then moving to my D7100 and its lenses I know with the D7100 I am in my happy place.
I think its a very personal issue and there is no right or wrong, for me if size means better pictures then I will continue schlepping heavy equipment, I am fine with it


----------



## goodguy

Derrel said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I regret going FX. Especially in tricky situations where I can shoot at f/4 in non-existent light with high ISO and still get amazing images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that does kind of suck...
> 
> Above we had a comment, "Never forget that, for a FX camera, you also need FX glass." Ummm, yeah, that is mostly true, but not entirely accurate, since ALL DX Nikkors will mount and shoot on all Nikon FX sensor cameras. Something like 90% of the current Nikon system, and 99.9% of the entire, historical Nikon lens system, is "FX" glass. And always remember, the MAJORITY of DX glass is cheap,slow,plastic, consumer-grade 18mm -XXXmm stuff...
Click to expand...

 And thats why all my lenses are FX, well thats and the fact I really want to get an FX camera.....well someday


----------



## sashbar

goodguy said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not by much. When you factor the lenses, especially good FF zooms, it is simply prohibitive for me.  I just see no sense in a camera that stays home six days a week. I prefer the one I can throw in my bag (not a camera bag, just any bag) and have it with me most of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me a debate my buddy nd I have again and again, we both have the D7100 and he wants to get the Olympus micro 4/3 while I want to get bigger and bigger.
> I am not enjoying schlepping around the big camera and big/heavy lenses but the results simply make it all worth while.
> For me the weight doesnt make differance, I have a Canon G15 which is a lovely and capable little camera but after a day of use with it then moving to my D7100 and its lenses I know with the D7100 I am in my happy place.
> I think its a very personal issue and there is no right or wrong, for me if size means better pictures then I will continue schlepping heavy equipment, I am fine with it
Click to expand...


I am not that dedicated  today I saw a great scene when I was on a street for a lunch break. Grabbed my little Ricoh GR that is always in my bag or pocket, pointed, shot and read on the screen that there was no memory card inside.


----------



## astroNikon

sashbar said:


> I am not that dedicated  today I saw a great scene when I was on a street for a lunch break. Grabbed my little Ricoh GR that is always in my bag or pocket, pointed, shot and read on the screen that there was no memory card inside.


I just did that yesterday with my d7000 .. Luckily I was at home and only had to run back inside and grab the SD cards.


----------



## Derrel

astroNikon said:


> DxoMark ISO tech specs:
> 
> with the 3 selected the D610 is a much better performer at 2925
> then the d5300 at 1338
> then the d7100 at 1256
> ==> Nikon D5300 versus Nikon D610 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark



The dynamic range of the D610 is basically one full stop better than the D5300 at all ISO values, and it is also better than the D7100 at all ISO values. 

I think if Nikon made a D7100 follow-up with a faster write speed and a bigger on-board buffer, it would seriously hurt sales of higher-end cameras. Nikon has been down this road before, where the FE-2 hurt sales of the F3; where the N90s hurt sales of the F4; where the F100's amazing abilities hurt F5 sales tremendously.


----------



## Mach0

Derrel said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> DxoMark ISO tech specs:
> 
> with the 3 selected the D610 is a much better performer at 2925
> then the d5300 at 1338
> then the d7100 at 1256
> ==> Nikon D5300 versus Nikon D610 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dynamic range of the D610 is basically one full stop better than the D5300 at all ISO values, and it is also better than the D7100 at all ISO values.
> 
> I think if Nikon made a D7100 follow-up with a faster write speed and a bigger on-board buffer, it would seriously hurt sales of higher-end cameras. Nikon has been down this road before, where the FE-2 hurt sales of the F3; where the N90s hurt sales of the F4; where the F100's amazing abilities hurt F5 sales tremendously.
Click to expand...


And d700 hurt the d3 sales 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon

and the iPhone hurt dSLR sales ...  lol


----------



## goodguy

Derrel said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> DxoMark ISO tech specs:
> 
> with the 3 selected the D610 is a much better performer at 2925
> then the d5300 at 1338
> then the d7100 at 1256
> ==> Nikon D5300 versus Nikon D610 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dynamic range of the D610 is basically one full stop better than the D5300 at all ISO values, and it is also better than the D7100 at all ISO values.
> 
> I think if Nikon made a D7100 follow-up with a faster write speed and a bigger on-board buffer, it would seriously hurt sales of higher-end cameras. Nikon has been down this road before, where the FE-2 hurt sales of the F3; where the N90s hurt sales of the F4; where the F100's amazing abilities hurt F5 sales tremendously.
Click to expand...

Thats the point I was trying to make that the D7100 is such a good camera that for some it makes no sense to move to FX because its just so good.
I do agree of course the buffer on it is its weaker point, not a huge deal to me as I am not an avid sports shooter, if you had a bigger buffer on the D7100 it would be a better, more rounded camera with really no real big drawbacks.


----------



## Derrel

astroNikon said:


> how much does an FX sensor cost again ?
> I thought that was a large part of the total cost because of its size.



Sensors Are a Moving Target | byThom | Thom Hogan

"There’s no sign that the sensor progress is anywhere close to stopping. Plus all this talk that APS/DX sensor cameras will go away is nonsense. Look at that ten year gain and project it forward. Then remember that the larger full frame/FX sensor costs eight times as much to make, all else equal, and is the most expensive part in the DSLR-type cameras."  and also, a bit later: "The real issue for the APS/DX future is tradeoff. We’re trading off a few quality factors for price, basically. As long as the cost of an APS sensor stays in the US$20-50 range and the average price most people want to pay for a competent interchangeable lens camera is in the US$500-1000 range, the tradeoff works. "


----------



## TheLost

My Mythical Nikon Lineup.. (MMNL.. trademark TheLost 2014)

Mirrorless DX  D1x00 - $399 with 18-155 lens.
Mirrorless DX  D5x00 - $699 (better AF, twisty-tilty screen) with 18-105mm lens.
DSLR DX D7x00 - $900 (even better AF, basicly what we have now) with 18-105mm lens.
DSLR FX D6x00 - $1600 (what we have now) with 24-85mm lens.
DSLR FX D7x0 - $2200 (Pro AF, Pro Buffer, small body)
DSLR FX D8x0 - $3000 (High MP, Pro AF, small body)
DSLR FX Dx - $5000 (Pro AF, Pro Buffer, Pro Boddy)

2 low end mirrorless bodies.. 
2 DSLR DX bodies.
2 DSLR FX small bodies.
1 DSLR FX pro bodie.

It would solve the 'What camera should i get' question.


----------



## astroNikon

^^^ good idea

Except Nikon builds so much inventory that they are still selling d3100s alongside d3200 and d3300s.   5100/5200 & 5300 and the d7000, with the d7100s.  The 810 with the 800e/800.   So that screws everything up.

I see Nikon finally removed the 300s from their website.


----------



## sashbar

TheLost said:


> My Mythical Nikon Lineup.. (MMNL.. trademark TheLost 2014)
> 
> Mirrorless DX  D1x00 - $399 with 18-155 lens.
> Mirrorless DX  D5x00 - $699 (better AF, twisty-tilty screen) with 18-105mm lens.
> DSLR DX D7x00 - $900 (even better AF, basicly what we have now) with 18-105mm lens.
> DSLR FX D6x00 - $1600 (what we have now) with 24-85mm lens.
> DSLR FX D7x0 - $2200 (Pro AF, Pro Buffer, small body)
> DSLR FX D8x0 - $3000 (High MP, Pro AF, small body)
> DSLR FX Dx - $5000 (Pro AF, Pro Buffer, Pro Boddy)
> 
> 2 low end mirrorless bodies..
> 2 DSLR DX bodies.
> 2 DSLR FX small bodies.
> 1 DSLR FX pro bodie.
> 
> It would solve the 'What camera should i get' question.




This range has no camera for a street shooter.  Or, for that matter, any photographer who wants a prosumer/pro level camera he/she can carry around most of the time.


----------



## TheLost

sashbar said:


> This range has no camera for a street shooter.  Or, for that matter, any photographer who wants a prosumer/pro level camera he/she can carry around most of the time.



Sure it does... the smaller size mirror-less D5x000.

Most of the features that are in the D7100.. but in a NEX/Fuji/M43 size body.

What i left out was something like the Df.  That thing has no place in the world.


----------



## astroNikon

TheLost said:


> What i left out was something like the Df.  That thing has no place in the world.



Some people would TOTALLY disagree with you about the Df

But not me


----------



## sashbar

TheLost said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This range has no camera for a street shooter.  Or, for that matter, any photographer who wants a prosumer/pro level camera he/she can carry around most of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does... the smaller size mirror-less D5x000.
> 
> Most of the features that are in the D7100.. but in a NEX/Fuji/M43 size body.
Click to expand...


A prosumer/pro level, small size - and all for just $700 ?  Give me a break.  Realistically we are looking at $2000+.


----------



## TheLost

sashbar said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This range has no camera for a street shooter.  Or, for that matter, any photographer who wants a prosumer/pro level camera he/she can carry around most of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does... the smaller size mirror-less D5x000.
> 
> Most of the features that are in the D7100.. but in a NEX/Fuji/M43 size body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A prosumer/pro level, small size - and all for just $700 ?  Give me a break.  Realistically we are looking at $2000+.
Click to expand...


Why? A DX 24mp sensor costs ~$50. A mirrorless body has less moving parts and is easier to manufacture.  A DX Mirrorless 'high end' street shooter should cost NO MORE then $700. 

Do you think Nikon is loosing money selling a Nikon J1 w/lens for $200 on discount?  (nope..)

[*edit*]
Im not the only one that thinks so..  



> _Of course, it’s not at all certain that Canon and Nikon can immediately remove their mirrors and push the current (mostly) mirrorless-only players aside, but I think it’s pretty certain that they’ll try. Nikon has already tried once, with limited success once they started discounting. I suspect that just gave them more data on where they need to be with their next iteration (*basically US$500-700, DX DSLR-equivalent performance, still F-mount compatible*) and what it will cost them in marketing dollars to squeeze in. Canon was more tentative, as if they were really just scouting the territory._


Which Chart is Right? | Sans Mirror &mdash; mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan


----------



## sashbar

TheLost said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This range has no camera for a street shooter.  Or, for that matter, any photographer who wants a prosumer/pro level camera he/she can carry around most of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does... the smaller size mirror-less D5x000.
> 
> Most of the features that are in the D7100.. but in a NEX/Fuji/M43 size body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A prosumer/pro level, small size - and all for just $700 ?  Give me a break.  Realistically we are looking at $2000+.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? A DX 24mp sensor costs ~$50. A mirrorless body has less moving parts and is easier to manufacture.  A DX Mirrorless 'high end' street shooter should cost NO MORE then $700.
> 
> Do you think Nikon is loosing money selling a Nikon J1 w/lens for $200 on discount?  (nope..)
Click to expand...


Yeah, tell it to Leica


----------



## ConradM

I keep seeing this thread at the bottom of the page so it's hard for me not to look. Curious, you guys are basically saying this is the best APSC body currently available.. Why is that? 

On paper next to the a77 ii (you knew I was going there) it seems lacking aside from ISO performance. No tilt screen, only 6 fps, no IBIS, only 50 something AF points... am I missing something?


----------



## astroNikon

What I want is a Nikon mirrorless camera (DX or choice of FX sensor) that also accepts my existing Nikon dslr lenses, and AF on them too.


----------



## TheFantasticG

I would love that, astro. That would be great for me on my 2-6 hour macro walks. Easier to keep that steady with less weight fo sho


Sent from my iPhone using Telekenisisisisis


----------



## DaPOPO

JacaRanda said:


> That D7100 seems to me, to be a freakin amazing image maker (in the right hands).  Based on your OP, sounds like you agree.  Is any amount of bokeh worth an extra $1k?  Exactly what else would you want from it?  It seems the buffer issue is absolutely the only issue (that I can tell) and unless you really are shooting burst all or most of the time, even that should not be much of an issue.
> 
> What does a full frame do that the D7100 does not (in terms of image quality) and how well can you tell the difference viewing online or printed?



Let me say I use the D7100 and I get paid for doing portraits part time. I won't say I am the best, but I think attached image speaks volumes to how good the D7100 is with off camera flash and a good understanding of photography. I will use this camera for a few more years at least...


----------



## goodguy

DaPOPO said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> That D7100 seems to me, to be a freakin amazing image maker (in the right hands).  Based on your OP, sounds like you agree.  Is any amount of bokeh worth an extra $1k?  Exactly what else would you want from it?  It seems the buffer issue is absolutely the only issue (that I can tell) and unless you really are shooting burst all or most of the time, even that should not be much of an issue.
> 
> What does a full frame do that the D7100 does not (in terms of image quality) and how well can you tell the difference viewing online or printed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me say I use the D7100 and I get paid for doing portraits part time. I won't say I am the best, but I think attached image speaks volumes to how good the D7100 is with off camera flash and a good understanding of photography. I will use this camera for a few more years at least...
> 
> View attachment 89698
Click to expand...

Looks like you pretty much proven my point 
Nice portrait BTW!


----------



## JTPhotography

Interesting thread. I had a d7000 and now have a d7100. No comparison. The d7000 put out canon-sensor-ish images. The d7100 is awesome. BUT, since I also own a d800, the d7100 will be gone soon and I will be getting a second d800. I don't own any dx lenses. FF is the only way to go.


----------



## goodguy

JTPhotography said:


> Interesting thread. I had a d7000 and now have a d7100. No comparison. The d7000 put out canon-sensor-ish images. The d7100 is awesome. BUT, since I also own a d800, the d7100 will be gone soon and I will be getting a second d800. I don't own any dx lenses. FF is the only way to go.


Made that move already myself from my ex-beloved D7100, LOVE my new D750, its a beast!!!
For roughly same price I could have bought the D800, it was tempting but I decided to go with the D750, just don't need the huge files and the upgraded AF system is just wonderful. D800 is a bit more studio for me.
Maybe someday I will have enough to own the D810 and D750, I keep filling the lottery but so far with little success LOL


----------



## JTPhotography

goodguy said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thread. I had a d7000 and now have a d7100. No comparison. The d7000 put out canon-sensor-ish images. The d7100 is awesome. BUT, since I also own a d800, the d7100 will be gone soon and I will be getting a second d800. I don't own any dx lenses. FF is the only way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> Made that move already myself from my ex-beloved D7100, LOVE my new D750, its a beast!!!
> For roughly same price I could have bought the D800, it was tempting but I decided to go with the D750, just don't need the huge files and the upgraded AF system is just wonderful. D800 is a bit more studio for me.
> Maybe someday I will have enough to own the D810 and D750, I keep filling the lottery but so far with little success LOL
Click to expand...


Nice, that d750 is sweet. I'm still thinking about getting one or even a d610 since the deals are so great on them right now, but I know the d800 so well and since i'll be shooting wildlife with it, the extra crop power is nice.


----------



## Raj_55555

I always wonder, whether D3300 will produce the exact same image as D7100 provided everything else is a constant. In this portrait for example, would the image quality differ at all?
Personally I wouldn't get the D3300 due to the lack of the AF motor, but does image quality differ at all, especially when shooting raw, between these two cameras?


----------



## JTPhotography

Yes, 7100 lacks a low pass filter and is sharper.


----------



## Raj_55555

JTPhotography said:


> Yes, 7100 lacks a low pass filter and is sharper.


As does the D3300!


----------



## Paul Josaph

WestCoast said:


> So, Nikon's new business plan is to drive all DX users (about 75% of their income) to Canon and the 7D II.
> Brilliant strategy



Yup i also have the same feeling, its an awesome idea..


----------



## qleak

Raj_55555 said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 7100 lacks a low pass filter and is sharper.
> 
> 
> 
> As does the D3300!
Click to expand...


Source

Wow you're right! I didn't know that


----------



## JTPhotography

Same here, those should be removed from all bodies.


----------



## Raj_55555

JTPhotography said:


> Same here, those should be removed from all bodies.


Dude, don't be an extremist! 
(Just kidding )

My question still stands though, I have seen many real world photographs where the D7100 produces FF quality photographs, but can the D3300 do the same in terms of picture quality? They do share the same sensor after all (AFAIK)!
I have a feeling that most folks, who know what they are doing, switch to an upgraded model like the D7000 or a D7100, so we never really get to know what these little devils are capable of in real world scenarios! Let's say for example that you're strictly into landscapes and portraits, but can't afford to go FF right now, is the little difference in the DR or the colour depth worth the difference in the price? I guess we'll never know for sure!


----------



## astroNikon

Raj_55555 said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same here, those should be removed from all bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, don't be an extremist!
> (Just kidding )
> 
> My question still stands though, I have seen many real world photographs where the D7100 produces FF quality photographs, but can the D3300 do the same in terms of picture quality? They do share the same sensor after all (AFAIK)!
> I have a feeling that most folks, who know what they are doing, switch to a upgraded model like the D7000 or a D7100, so we never really get to know what these little devils are capable of in real world scenarios! Let's say for example that you're strictly into landscapes and portraits, but can't afford to go FF right now, is the little difference in the DR or the colour depth worth the difference in the price? I guess we'll never know for sure!
Click to expand...


With the same sensor, I think the differences really come in everything else around the sensor.

The d3300 has the Expeed 4 image processor where as the now older d7100 has the Expeed 3.
But the 3300 has 11 focus points, the d7100 has 51
the d7100 has a Commander mode and can handle remote flashes much better.  Dual control wheels, button menu versus a software based menu (some ppl like, some don't) and other better body designs.

One thing I've learned is the not only is the 11 focus points provide less focusing options than 51, but the software itself of focusing seems stripped down. Reading the manuals in the past the 3x00 series has a simplified focusing system which is more "general".  Whereas the d7x00 systems have a more high caliber focusing system.

I see so many photos from "pros" on FB that are done with the 3x00 and 5x00 bodies and I see so much OOF issues.  Reading the manuals I now understand those issues .. at least I think so.  I have never had a 3x00 or 5x00 body though.


----------



## astroNikon

Also any sensor can provide stunning results.
A FF camera provides other benefits.  One is low light ability.  Even though the d7100 was a Low light king, it is for a Crop sensor.  When you look at the numbers, it's not even close for current FF and current Crop ==> dxoMark Nikon ISO numbers | Photography Forum


----------



## Raj_55555

[QUOTE="astroNikon, post: 3379430, member: 154561]With the same sensor, I think the differences really come in everything else around the sensor. 
The d3300 has the Expeed 4 image processor where as the now older d7100 has the Expeed 3.[/QUOTE]
Yup, agree with everything you're saying. I'll try to strip down my question, lets say if we go all manual and don't use the external buttons in the D7100, and shoot RAW; will we notice any difference in the image quality?

I know the huge difference between the multicam 1000 and 3500 AF modules, one of the reasons I would prefer the D7100 over any other dx camera being a wildlife guy. But what I meant was purely in terms of picture quality, is there any difference. For example, going by my previous hypothetical example, does the AF system really matter that much if you're doing a portrait or landscape? 

In a FF, other than the low light abilities we usually get significant DR for landscape work and much better colour depth and shallow dof for portraits than any DX, those are major advantages just based on the sensor.

BTW I know the rendering of the jpegs will be different for different processors, but does the difference in processor really matter in terms of image quality, if we shoot RAW? 
Admittedly, I am clueless about flash and how it works, so I'd conveniently avoid that topic


----------



## astroNikon

Raj_55555 said:


> Yup, agree with everything you're saying. I'll try to strip down my question, lets say if we go all manual and don't use the external buttons in the D7100, and shoot RAW; will we notice any difference in the image quality?
> 
> I know the huge difference between the multicam 1000 and 3500 AF modules, one of the reasons I would prefer the D7100 over any other dx camera being a wildlife guy. But what I meant was purely in terms of picture quality, is there any difference. For example, going by my previous hypothetical example, does the AF system really matter that much if you're doing a portrait or landscape?
> 
> In a FF, other than the low light abilities we usually get significant DR for landscape work and much better colour depth and shallow dof for portraits than any DX, those are major advantages just based on the sensor.
> 
> BTW I know the rendering of the jpegs will be different for different processors, but does the difference in processor really matter in terms of image quality, if we shoot RAW?
> Admittedly, I am clueless about flash and how it works, so I'd conveniently avoid that topic


don't worry about being clueless about flash.  I'm clueless on most of it - just technical reading and seeing other people examples and fiddling with some cameras at various times.

The key in general studio portraiture is focusing on the nearest eye and getting the depth of field correct and getting the entire portrait in focus.  Any camera can do that, some maybe easier than others.

in focus landscapes. I don't see why any camera can't do this either.  The proper aperture/depth of field and you're all set.

I guess an added part of the equation is the Dynamic Range especially for varied Landscapes.
It all make a difference in small amounts.  It all depends upon how minute technically you want to get. That's why the better cameras are better - you add up all the extras.

The Dynamic Range of the d3300 is 12.8 whereas the d7100 is 13.7.  
It's only significant if it's needed and something is lost because of it.  But what exactly is the difference between 12.8 and 13.7 ?  I don't know.


----------



## Raj_55555

astroNikon said:


> It's only significant if it's needed and something is lost because of it.  But what exactly is the difference between 12.8 and 13.7 ?  I don't know.


Neither do I!


----------



## jaomul

I would very much doubt anyone could tell the difference between two similar shots with similar settings and similar lenses taken with a d7100 and d3300. Image quality will be very similar. 

This thread seems to suggest the d7100 is "to good". It is a great camera, but the opposition companies have similar or even higher spec cameras in same price range/ Pentax k3 is probably even better


----------



## Braineack

JTPhotography said:


> Yes, 7100 lacks a low pass filter and is sharper.



The D3300 does not have an optical low pass filter either.  The IQ will be completely on par with the D7100 in regards of sharpness.

The D7100 might have an advantage in RAW where it can capture more information than the D3300, but that's probably more of a firmware limitation.

The D3300 also has the EXPEED 4 where the D7100 only has the 3.  I'm not sure how much of a bearing that has on the final image.  But dxomark rates the any lens tested with the D3300 and D7100 the same sharpness rendering.  If you compare the D3200 with the D7100 the sharpness measurement drops.


----------



## goodguy

D3300 vs D7100

When looking purely at the sensor performance between these two cameras you can clearly see how good the D3300 sensor is considering the price differences between the two cameras.

Nikon D3300 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

D7100 has an advantage in DR but in low light the D3300 has about 5% advantage
Over all both very capable sensors and indeed I would say the true differences will be with processes, AF, Colour Matrix and extra dials/options.
In true everyday use I wouldn't expect any big differences between the 2 cameras.
BTW I saw an interesting review on the Canon 7D II and at the end they compared picture in high ISO compared to the cheapest DSLR in Nikon current range the D3300 and the D3300 was considerably better.


----------



## greybeard

DaPOPO said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> That D7100 seems to me, to be a freakin amazing image maker (in the right hands).  Based on your OP, sounds like you agree.  Is any amount of bokeh worth an extra $1k?  Exactly what else would you want from it?  It seems the buffer issue is absolutely the only issue (that I can tell) and unless you really are shooting burst all or most of the time, even that should not be much of an issue.
> 
> What does a full frame do that the D7100 does not (in terms of image quality) and how well can you tell the difference viewing online or printed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me say I use the D7100 and I get paid for doing portraits part time. I won't say I am the best, but I think attached image speaks volumes to how good the D7100 is with off camera flash and a good understanding of photography. I will use this camera for a few more years at least...
> 
> View attachment 89698
Click to expand...

I don't think that there is any debate on the image quality of the upper end DX product, the real debate is will Nikon continue to support it or try to move everyone to FX.  I personally still like my D7000 but when I upgrade it I'm sure I'll go FX.  Probably D750 when the reburbs get down to my price range.


----------



## goodguy

greybeard said:


> DaPOPO said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> That D7100 seems to me, to be a freakin amazing image maker (in the right hands).  Based on your OP, sounds like you agree.  Is any amount of bokeh worth an extra $1k?  Exactly what else would you want from it?  It seems the buffer issue is absolutely the only issue (that I can tell) and unless you really are shooting burst all or most of the time, even that should not be much of an issue.
> 
> What does a full frame do that the D7100 does not (in terms of image quality) and how well can you tell the difference viewing online or printed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me say I use the D7100 and I get paid for doing portraits part time. I won't say I am the best, but I think attached image speaks volumes to how good the D7100 is with off camera flash and a good understanding of photography. I will use this camera for a few more years at least...
> 
> View attachment 89698
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that there is any debate on the image quality of the upper end DX product, the real debate is will Nikon continue to support it or try to move everyone to FX.  I personally still like my D7000 but when I upgrade it I'm sure I'll go FX.  Probably D750 when the reburbs get down to my price range.
Click to expand...

Mirrorless is a big player here, if it will take more and more DX shooter to MFT then you will have less and less people interested in DX bodies.
Those who want FF cameras have very little competition compared to DX.
You have Nikon, Canon, Sony, if you got someone buying your FF body with FF glass this person is probably yours for a long time.
Will you have DX in few years from now is a good question, big question is when Nikon will move to mirrorless and what lens range will it offer to try and buy those it lost to MFT which is obviously inferior in low light due to its smaller size sensor.


----------



## cgw

_Mirrorless is a big player here,_

Show us the numbers?


----------



## sashbar

Raj_55555 said:


> My question still stands though, I have seen many real world photographs where the D7100 produces FF quality photographs, but can the D3300 do the same in terms of picture quality?



I am not sure about producing "FF quality", but D3300 can surely produce images as good as D7100.  

The only difference is - it is easier to consistently produce a perfectly exposed and composed shot with D7100 than D3300, because D7100 can be operated easier and faster, it has better viewfinder and more reliable AF. 

But if you nail it, a D3300 image will be every inch as good as D7100. We can discuss the DxO laboratory ratings of two latest Nikon DX models to death, but in real life our shooting technique differences (or shall I say deficiencies) override all those minuscule technical differences that can be hardly, if at all seen on an average computer screen anyway.


----------



## sashbar

OK, I will play a mirrorless advocate here. 

I think CaNikon will be soon in dire straits with their cropped DSLR ranges and huge legacy of DSLR cropped lenses.

If we look at the dynamics, mirror less are moving so much faster than the slow, incremental changes in DSLR world. Things that yesterday were a disadvantage of mirror less are rapidly becoming its advantages over DSLRs.

Just two years ago EVFs were clearly inferior to any OVF.  Now, I believe X-T1 has changed the game completely, it's huge, bright, fast OVF is superior to tiny, dark cropped DSLRs OVFs, and all of a sudden we see added benefits of an EVF - close ups, focus peaking, split focus, split frames, you can open the menu right in your finder, you can see the shot how it will look, you have virtual instant metering etc. ... It is just a better technology.

DSLR are trying to make advances in cont. shooting speed.  An added frame or even half a frame per second is a success. Because there is a bloody mirror that has to go up and down! With mirrorless, that is not hampered by a flapping mirror,  8, 10 frames per second is already nothing special. Expect 20 f/s soon. Now, what DSLR will have for an answer to that?

DSLR are still hanging on a better AF, but mirrorless are catching up with frightening speed.By the end of the day this is all about the brute force of a faster CPU, and CPUs,as we know, have strange tendency of getting faster every year or two. Plus added advantage of focusing straight on the sensor, without any focus mirror, need for calibration, back/forth focus issues etc.  So the writing is on the wall here as well.

Next - lenses. Nikon has decent DX lenses range. Good, solid glass, albeit nothing like WOW. Can it compete?  Well, mirrorless lenses have shorter flange distance, that means for the same APS-C sensor it is possible to produce slightly smaller, slightly lighter and slightly better quality lenses of the same manufacturing costs. We see excellent MTF glass and FUJI X-mount APS-C is another example. So economically mirrorless lenses FOR THE SAME SENSOR have a strategic edge. That means, sooner or later the huge advantage of CaNikon glass legacy will turn into a huge stone on their necks.  Unless they bite the bullet, ditch it mercilessly and start producing their own mirrorless DX glass for their own mirrorless DX bodies. Judging by their suspicious unwillingness to add new fast DX lenses, they are already thinking about it.

Batteries with mirrorless suck compared to DSLR.  Thanks to our Chinese friends we can have pockets full of el cheapo batteries these days.  Probably, when mirrorless seriously attack the pro market, they will start manufacturing larger bodies with ample space for added/larger batteries. And added grips, like X-T1 does already.

The mirrorless technology has not yet matured, but it is maturing VERY fast. Still it is not quite here yet. That is why we see all those funny little bodies andfancy designs    aimed at amateurs and tourists. Even those companies who marketed their cameras for pros, like top FUJI and full frame Sony, in reality do not aim at professionals at all. But as soon as technology is matured enough - and judging by the pace, it will happen soon, - mirrorless will attack the professional high end market mercilessly.

How exactly will it happen? Well, imagine a modern supersonic jet attacking a good, solid WW2 film era fighter equipped with two lovely propellers and a flapping mirror in between.

I predict: flat bodies with Huge screens, changeable grips and very large EVFs with all bells and whistles, 20-30 ("Do you want faster? Really? We have faster, Sir".) frames per second cont. mode and up to 1/30,000 sec electronic shutter speed, fast hybrid focus systems, probably even separate CPUs for display/EVF and focusing/shooting/processing, etc etc.

So as I said cropped DSLRs will soon get in serious trouble. The question is ladies and gentlemen, what is so special about Full Frame DSLRs that makes them feel any safer?


DISCLAIMER: This speech, ladies and gentlemen, was of course a bit tongue in cheek,  and by any measure was not a dig at current DSLR cameras, that are beautiful pieces of modern engineering. Whatever happens, it will still keep producing wonderful images, especially in the  hands of honourable members of TPF. 

DISCLAIMER TWO: As English is not my first language, I always hesitate to write long boring posts like this one, so if some phrases sound weird, give me some slack, will you?


----------



## goodguy

Looking at your post "sashbar" it is painfully obvious there is one question unasked and unanswered, Where are the big two when it comes to mirrorless ?
Why did they each produced there quite unimpressive mirrorless bodies while companies like Oly, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung make mostly mirrorless and indeed they are getting better and better in an ever faster progress while the big two stick to their guns and make the old yet still superior (but not for much longer) DSLR.

I really don't know but I can try to look at it in a hopeful logical manner.
Both Canon and Nikon make their cameras first to pro's and second to everyone else, they must produce the best current technology has to offer and as much as many will disagree or dislike DSLR while stretched to its near limits still is the better overall package.
I think in both Canon and Nikon they are working on a pro-body mirorless to replace their DSLR's but until they will not have a proven superior camera to DSLR they will keep making DSLR.
They simply cant afford to make less then top notch pro cameras.
If they will loose their pro's vote they can close shop and go home.
So I am positive both Nikon and Canon will come out with Mirrorless once it is proven and superior to what DSLR can do and I am sure this will not be much longer to wait for.

I for one have no problem with that, actually I am excited and will love to see mirrorless to make the complete change but.....................................

I have only one BIG concern and I think everybody with good glass has same concern

Will these new tech mirrorless work with their expensive glass ?
If I will be able to use my 24-70 2.8 and 70-200mm on these cameras I will be a happy camper, if not I am not sure I would be happy and stick with either Canon or Nikon!!!


----------



## sashbar

Good guy - you will need an adapter to use even the best CaNikon DSLR glass with their mirrorles. Unless for some reason they decide to keep the long flange distance, thus making their mirrorless as bulky as DSLRs. Otherwise the need for an adapter kind of defeats this glass awesomeness. And this is one of the reasons why CaNikon with their huge number of top DSLR glass do not hurry to embrace mirrorless, methinks.


----------



## astroNikon

From a business, engineering and marketing side I wonder if there actually is high demand for high end DX glass.

If you look at all the DX cameras sold (and I do not know the numbers) I would guess that alot of d3x00 and d5x00 are sold with kit lenses and then the buyer buys nothing else for years after that.  And some percentage probably end up in the closet, some get "some" use and fewer get heavy use.

Then there are the camera enthusiasts who move up the food chain to the d7x00 bodies and think FF and wonder when the DX line will go bye-bye.

I think until the DX sales collapse drastically you won't see the DX line disappear.  It's geared towards the christmas/bday presents and generalists.  There's also the bridge cameras (which I see alot of parents tote around, more than dslrs), and mirrorless and other P&S sized things.  Of course the phones too.

You have to analyze sales numbers in relation to profitability to determine if crop dslrs are dead.


----------



## qleak

astroNikon said:


> You have to analyze sales numbers in relation to profitability to determine if crop dslrs are dead.



I agree. Look at Ricoh's acquisition of the Pentax line of cameras. Clearly, Ricoh thinks there is enough of a market for crop dslrs that they even continued to design new crop sensor dslrs under the pentax name. Not only do they think they can make money, they can do it with a market share that is considerably smaller than canon and nikon.


----------



## astroNikon

qleak said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to analyze sales numbers in relation to profitability to determine if crop dslrs are dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Look at Ricoh's acquisition of the Pentax line of cameras. Clearly, Ricoh thinks there is enough of a market for crop dslrs that they even continued to design new crop sensor dslrs under the pentax name. Not only do they think they can make money, they can do it with a market share that is considerably smaller than canon and nikon.
Click to expand...

If Nikon shuttered the DX line, I'm sure most price sensitive existing and future buyers would go to Canon, Pentax or other systems.  I would think few would go up to a FF Nikon due to cost.  THEN future FF sales would suffer too as ppl would have Nikon/Pentax glass and would need a really good reason to switch brands.

Just think .. Canon/Pentax could capture all the crop sales. Less competition on the sales floor, more profitability, lower cost of manufacturing.

Most companies don't shutter a profitable "line". If anything they try to sell it, split if off into another organization or something.


----------



## jaomul

An awful lot of crystal balls in this thread


----------



## qleak

astroNikon said:


> If Nikon shuttered the DX line, I'm sure most price sensitive existing and future buyers would go to Canon, Pentax or other systems.  I would think few would go up to a FF Nikon due to cost.  THEN future FF sales would suffer too as ppl would have Nikon/Pentax glass and would need a really good reason to switch brands.
> 
> Just think .. Canon/Pentax could capture all the crop sales. Less competition on the sales floor, more profitability, lower cost of manufacturing.
> 
> Most companies don't shutter a profitable "line". If anything they try to sell it, split if off into another organization or something.



I don't see any reason why they would abandon a fairly popular market share unless they are losing money. I don't see any evidence that they're losing money on the D7100. Look at the nikon cameras in flickr 

https://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/ 

The D800 is the highest used FF camera and it is #7. Clearly there is a market for cropped sensors. Nikon will give the people what they want and adjust the quality to match the price. That's what most large multinational cooperations would do. 

Even nikon and canon are rated #2 and #3 for camera companies on flickr (after iphones)
https://www.flickr.com/cameras/
Flickr: Camera Finder

Will future crop sensor cameras be as good as the d7100? I don't know, I think mine is awesome and I'm fairly confident that they will at least continue to offer something for crop sensor in the next 10 years.

Full frame sensors are not some magical pony. They have no reason to push customers into the saddle as long as they are making good money on crop sensors. IMHO, it's in their best interest to build brand loyalty in the crop sensors so that people will buy nikon if they decide to go FF. That's a fairly good incentive to produce a decent quality crop dslr.


----------



## Braineack

They should kill the D7100 because it's about time to blow the 7Dmii out of the water with the D7200.


----------



## greybeard

I think it will all be replaced with mirrorless type cameras DX and FX.  Nikon will just have make their lenses compatible.


----------



## goodguy

sashbar said:


> Good guy - you will need an adapter to use even the best CaNikon DSLR glass with their mirrorles. Unless for some reason they decide to keep the long flange distance, thus making their mirrorless as bulky as DSLRs. Otherwise the need for an adapter kind of defeats this glass awesomeness. And this is one of the reasons why CaNikon with their huge number of top DSLR glass do not hurry to embrace mirrorless, methinks.



Its obvious an adapter will be needed for any kind of FF mirrorless Nikon will make, the question is other then the discomfort of adapter will these DSLR era lenses still work just as good on these bodies ?
AF as fast ?
Produce sharp and good IQ files ?

I mean (and that goes for both Canon and Nikon) if you can use your good glass just as efficiently on the new generation mirrorles this will give many people the time and breathing space to slowly in time sell or retire their older glass and move to the new generation glass.
This will also put less pressure on Nikon and Canon to design a whole new fast pro glass right at the time they will introduce mirrorless to replace their DSLR.


----------



## sashbar

greybeard said:


> I think it will all be replaced with mirrorless type cameras DX and FX.  Nikon will just have make their lenses compatible.



How do you think they will do it?


----------



## qleak

greybeard said:


> I think it will all be replaced with mirrorless type cameras DX and FX.  Nikon will just have make their lenses compatible.



I don't think they have to do anything. Look at canon did when they switched from the FD mount to the EF mount.

However most mirrorless systems will have a lower flange distance, so somebody will make an adaptor, there's just no guarantee an adaptor that preserves autofocus will ever exist.


----------



## sashbar

goodguy said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good guy - you will need an adapter to use even the best CaNikon DSLR glass with their mirrorles. Unless for some reason they decide to keep the long flange distance, thus making their mirrorless as bulky as DSLRs. Otherwise the need for an adapter kind of defeats this glass awesomeness. And this is one of the reasons why CaNikon with their huge number of top DSLR glass do not hurry to embrace mirrorless, methinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious an adapter will be needed for any kind of FF mirrorless Nikon will make, the question is other then the discomfort of adapter will these DSLR era lenses still work just as good on these bodies ?
> AF as fast ?
> Produce sharp and good IQ files ?
> 
> I mean (and that goes for both Canon and Nikon) if you can use your good glass just as efficiently on the new generation mirrorles this will give many people the time and breathing space to slowly in time sell or retire their older glass and move to the new generation glass.
> This will also put less pressure on Nikon and Canon to design a whole new fast pro glass right at the time they will introduce mirrorless to replace their DSLR.
Click to expand...


Will it work as good with an adapter? Good question. Probably depends on adapter. 
As for less pressure - maybe, in the very short term. But , as I mentioned above,  dedicated mirrorless lenses of the same quality and spec. are cheaper to manufacture, so  CaNikon will start losing ground to competiton, if they stubbornly keep manufacturing DSLR lenses for mirrorless cameras


----------



## goodguy

sashbar said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good guy - you will need an adapter to use even the best CaNikon DSLR glass with their mirrorles. Unless for some reason they decide to keep the long flange distance, thus making their mirrorless as bulky as DSLRs. Otherwise the need for an adapter kind of defeats this glass awesomeness. And this is one of the reasons why CaNikon with their huge number of top DSLR glass do not hurry to embrace mirrorless, methinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious an adapter will be needed for any kind of FF mirrorless Nikon will make, the question is other then the discomfort of adapter will these DSLR era lenses still work just as good on these bodies ?
> AF as fast ?
> Produce sharp and good IQ files ?
> 
> I mean (and that goes for both Canon and Nikon) if you can use your good glass just as efficiently on the new generation mirrorles this will give many people the time and breathing space to slowly in time sell or retire their older glass and move to the new generation glass.
> This will also put less pressure on Nikon and Canon to design a whole new fast pro glass right at the time they will introduce mirrorless to replace their DSLR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will it work as good with an adapter? Good question. Probably depends on adapter.
> As for less pressure - maybe, in the very short term. But , as I mentioned above,  dedicated mirrorless lenses of the same quality and spec. are cheaper to manufacture, so  CaNikon will start losing ground to competiton, if they stubbornly keep manufacturing DSLR lenses for mirrorless cameras
Click to expand...

Oh no I dont think either of them will produce DSLR lenses for mirrorless, thats stupid but for users like me if I will get a new mirrorless body and my lenses will work fine with an adapter this will be an amazing way to slowly move to the new standard instead to be forced to shell many thousants of dollars in one go on a whole new system.
If that will happened I will be mad enough to seriously consider to move away from Nikon.


----------



## gsgary

goodguy said:


> Looking at your post "sashbar" it is painfully obvious there is one question unasked and unanswered, Where are the big two when it comes to mirrorless ?
> Why did they each produced there quite unimpressive mirrorless bodies while companies like Oly, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung make mostly mirrorless and indeed they are getting better and better in an ever faster progress while the big two stick to their guns and make the old yet still superior (but not for much longer) DSLR.
> 
> I really don't know but I can try to look at it in a hopeful logical manner.
> Both Canon and Nikon make their cameras first to pro's and second to everyone else, they must produce the best current technology has to offer and as much as many will disagree or dislike DSLR while stretched to its near limits still is the better overall package.
> I think in both Canon and Nikon they are working on a pro-body mirorless to replace their DSLR's but until they will not have a proven superior camera to DSLR they will keep making DSLR.
> They simply cant afford to make less then top notch pro cameras.
> If they will loose their pro's vote they can close shop and go home.
> So I am positive both Nikon and Canon will come out with Mirrorless once it is proven and superior to what DSLR can do and I am sure this will not be much longer to wait for.
> 
> I for one have no problem with that, actually I am excited and will love to see mirrorless to make the complete change but.....................................
> 
> I have only one BIG concern and I think everybody with good glass has same concern
> 
> Will these new tech mirrorless work with their expensive glass ?
> If I will be able to use my 24-70 2.8 and 70-200mm on these cameras I will be a happy camper, if not I am not sure I would be happy and stick with either Canon or Nikon!!!


I can use virtually an lens made on my A7 so if they made one they would make sure all their lenses work


----------



## sashbar

gsgary said:


> I can use virtually an lens made on my A7 so if they made one they would make sure all their lenses work



I can use any Nikon or Canon glass with my FUJI right now.


----------



## gsgary

sashbar said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can use virtually an lens made on my A7 so if they made one they would make sure all their lenses work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can use any Nikon or Canon glass with my FUJI right now.
Click to expand...

I can but the adater for canon ef lenses to auto focus and adjust aperture is very expensive but I wouldn't use my ef lenses anyway, I only shoot it with a 28,35 and 50mm


----------



## sashbar

goodguy said:


> Oh no I dont think either of them will produce DSLR lenses for mirrorless, thats stupid but for users like me if I will get a new mirrorless body and my lenses will work fine with an adapter this will be an amazing way to slowly move to the new standard instead to be forced to shell many thousants of dollars in one go on a whole new system.
> If that will happened I will be mad enough to seriously consider to move away from Nikon.



C'mon goodguy, you just bought a brand spanking new, probably the best all-round Nikon camera currently available and you are already worrying about the future upgrade thinking of moving away from Nikon! 

Our discussion reminded me of an old anecdote.
A guy wanted to iron his shirt and found his iron broken.
So he goes to his neighbor who happens to be an attractive girl.
He rings the bell and starts thinking.
"OK, I will ask her to lend me an iron for half an hour. She will ask me why do I need it. I will have to explain that I am going to the party.  She will answer - OK grab one bottle for me!  And I will. And we will drink that bottle, and then we will have sex. And then we will start dating and eventually marry. And then we will have a kid. Maybe two. And what if she wants more... And I will spend my best years changing nappies. And then, when kids grow up, she will start cheating on me. Then she will find another man.  And I will be alone, old and poor, and nobody will ever invite me to a party any more". 
Here the girl opens the front door. 
The guy looks at her coldly and says: "You know what b..c, go and f..k yourself with your iron!".


----------



## Wings42

Derrel said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still the D7100 keeps a lot of potential Nikon customer away from FX bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure about that...the $2200 and $3200 price tags are what keeps people away from the FX Nikons...
> 
> It's not that the D7100 exists...it is that the FX Nikons cost another thousand or two thousand dollars MORE than whatever high-end consumer DX body Nikon happens to offer. The distinction I am making might seem facile, but I really mean it. A LOT of people cannot see their way clear to buy a $2,000-plus or $3,000-plus dollar camera body. It's not the D7100 keeping people away from FX Nikons--it's economics and family budgets and the down economy.
> 
> If Nikon offered a crappier FX body at the $1199 price point, that would not drive people to cameras they cannot afford...people would just shoot lower-performing cameras, so killing off the D7100 would be a lose-lose situation for both consumers, and for Nikon.
Click to expand...

Agree. And don't forget the cost of lenses, and the weight of camera/lens combinations. With a 300mm lens on my D7000, I get 450mm equivalent. Compared to my 70-300 or 18-300 lens, 450mm lenses for an FX body are very expensive and very heavy. 

I love my D7000 but have dreams of a D610 or D750. But the cost, weight, and my collection of DX glass will probably keep me in DX for at least a couple of more years.


----------



## goodguy

sashbar said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no I dont think either of them will produce DSLR lenses for mirrorless, thats stupid but for users like me if I will get a new mirrorless body and my lenses will work fine with an adapter this will be an amazing way to slowly move to the new standard instead to be forced to shell many thousants of dollars in one go on a whole new system.
> If that will happened I will be mad enough to seriously consider to move away from Nikon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon goodguy, you just bought a brand spanking new, probably the best all-round Nikon camera currently available and you are already worrying about the future upgrade thinking of moving away from Nikon!
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I did like the joke 

But keeping it serious for a sec, as we all know glass is the most expensive part of our system, in the last year I got my Nikon 24-70mm and Tamron 70-200mm thinking this will be my glass for a long time and I still hope so, I will not be happy to find it unusable or can be used limited with its capabilities in the future.
Of course I just bought the D750 and I doubt I will leave it in the near 2 years but if I will feel Nikon will not make its future bodies fully working with these lenses (with adaptor) I will not be happy, not at all.


----------



## astroNikon

goodguy said:


> But keeping it serious for a sec, *as we all know glass is the most expensive part of our system*, in the last year I got my Nikon 24-70mm and Tamron 70-200mm thinking this will be my glass for a long time and I still hope so, I will not be happy to find it unusable or can be used limited with its capabilities in the future.
> Of course I just bought the D750 and I doubt I will leave it in the near 2 years but if I will feel Nikon will not make its future bodies fully working with these lenses (with adaptor) I will not be happy, not at all.



For all 'ya guys with money buying current AF-S G lenses it is
I have mostly AF-D lenses.
My 3 lens "Trinity" is actually less than my refurb'd D600 body.

That's why I need a Mirrorless to have an AF adapter for my AF-D lenses.
Otherwise, the price to switch would be too great.  I'll be shooting on 2nd hand superlight d6x bodies at 20fps w/Carbon Fiber bodies until it dies.   ... oh wait ...


----------



## goodguy

astroNikon said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But keeping it serious for a sec, *as we all know glass is the most expensive part of our system*, in the last year I got my Nikon 24-70mm and Tamron 70-200mm thinking this will be my glass for a long time and I still hope so, I will not be happy to find it unusable or can be used limited with its capabilities in the future.
> Of course I just bought the D750 and I doubt I will leave it in the near 2 years but if I will feel Nikon will not make its future bodies fully working with these lenses (with adaptor) I will not be happy, not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all 'ya guys with money buying current AF-S G lenses it is
> I have mostly AF-D lenses.
> My 3 lens "Trinity" is actually less than my refurb'd D600 body.
> 
> That's why I need a Mirrorless to have an AF adapter for my AF-D lenses.
> Otherwise, the price to switch would be too great.  I'll be shooting on 2nd hand superlight d6x bodies at 20fps w/Carbon Fiber bodies until it dies.   ... oh wait ...
Click to expand...

If I had the money I would get the D810 and D5300 as second body


----------

