Nikon D7100 announced (24mp, no AA, 51pt AF)

[Andy90]

Actually the Nikon is probably the sharper of the 2, especially over the central frame area:
http://www.lenstip.com/358.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24-70_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/298.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24-70_mm_f_2.8G_ED_Image_resolution.html

Canon center wide open is at the 35-39LPMM level, Nikon is at the 39-47LPMM level

FF edge, Canon is at 25-28LPMM, Nikon is at 27-28LPMM at 24 &45mm, but 23LPMM at 70mm, stopping down to f4/0 the canon is at 38-43LPMM, the Nikon at 39-43LPM.

So both almost identical at frame edge, the Nikon is sharper in the center, quite significantly so wide open at all focal lengths.

I suppose we can keep quoting tests over and over...

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pu...-2.8L-II-USM-A-Peerless-Performer/Comparisons (look at the bottom).

The fact is real world, there probably isn't much in either lens.

That said the 800D sensor does knock anything that Canon presently has into a cocked hat. This new Camera should do the same.

Canon really really really need to step up to the plate with their sensors - they're rapidly falling behind.

 

[Nexus]

The Nikon 24-70 2.8G is sharper on the D800 than the 24-70 2.8L MKII on a 5D3.

This was even a Nikon thread and you couldn't resist having a pop at Canon!

 

[edgedemon]

Looks like a great bit of kit at a very attractive price point.
As a Pentax user, Im hoping that the K5 replacement will come in at a similar price point and similar specs.
Will be interesting to see the full reviews to see how the increase in sensor MP looks with decent glass - well done Nikon, great effort

 

[Brabbinho]

Looks like a really good upgrade in the range

 

[londonbairn]

from http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-spec-list-cr2/

More pro orientated, but an eye watering $2200.


Does look like Nikon will make a D400, faster FPS and bigger buffer D7100, hopefully in a full pro body like the D4. Can sit somewhere in the $2000 range.

How is that eye watering? That spec for 2200 USD, if true, would be impressive if you ask me personally. I would have no problems buying one.

 

[An Exception]

Looks to be almost double the price of a D7100, so relatively speaking it seems expensive for whats on offer imo.

 

[D.P.]

How is that eye watering? That spec for 2200 USD, if true, would be impressive if you ask me personally. I would have no problems buying one.

Double the price for faster FPS and a larger buffer, doesn't look impressive at all. That price if correct is also $500 more than the 7DMKI and really out of line.

 

[londonbairn]

Double the price for faster FPS and a larger buffer, doesn't look impressive at all. That price if correct is also $500 more than the 7DMKI and really out of line.

I speak relative to Canon but 500 usd over a 7d for 10fps 61 pt af and a sensor near 5d mk iii? Thats worth a lot more than 500 usd

 

[Rojin]

The D7100 will be up against the 70D or whatever it gets called. The 7D2 (of which we have no facts about at all really) looks to be targeted at the sports action segment and would be up against the D400 if it ever appears. The 7D buried the D300s, and the D300s users are still waiting for a replacment\update as the D7000 wasn't it. Both Nikon and Canon have been slow to update in this market segment.

This D7100 looks to be an awesome camera for the money. 6 shot buffer for RAW might be a bit low for some, and I assume that it probably drops to 12bit for the faster speed? At this price point though, those aren't dealbreakers as you're still getting a lot of camera for your money.

 

[An Exception]

Yeh buffer seems a bit weak for sports, and less so with nature. If you were shooting sports, jpg would likely be a must.

Personally DP rather than going for D7100 & a D600, I would just get a D800/E.

Better for landscape work and portraiture, and a respectable 5 FPS in 1.2x crop and 6fps with a grip. Buffer depth of the D800 is much better, I can ring off 17 frames with a 45mb/s card, and when buffer is full, it shoot's at about 1.5FPS, so you don't have to wait too long for buffer to clear again.
Less crop factor will allow for looser compositions so you have more freedom in terms of composition when cropping in post. If you shoot with looser compositions your less likely to chop an ear or leg off if the animal moves quickly, which to me would be more useful than a few extra pixels on a moose.
And when the animal or lens allows, you'l get better quality with the full-frame if you can fill the frame.

For people on a budget who can't afford either a D800E or D7100 & D600, then the D7100 looks to be an amazing bang for buck.

 

[londonbairn]

I agree with Rojin, I don't see this on the same parallel as a 7d Mark II, but Canon clearly have to deliver with the 70D. The gulf of 6fps vs 10fps is very significant for a sports photographer.

 

[DanF]

Yeah it looks like there's still room for a pro dx body with big buffer and fast fps. For everyone else though it's a pretty tough choice between the d600/7100. Both are kicking out excellent images so I guess it's more a question of reach preference now, do you want a free 1.5 TC always attached

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/sample.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/sample.htm

http://www.bythom.com/
He has some good thoughts on what's currently happening in Nikon land, the lack of DX lenses does seem pretty crazy.

 

[An Exception]

I agree with Rojin, I don't see this on the same parallel as a 7d Mark II, but Canon clearly have to deliver with the 70D. The gulf of 6fps vs 10fps is very significant for a sports photographer.

Not really, the D7000 was a better cam in most ways compared to the 7D. The only thing in the 7D's favour was 2FPS and much better buffer.

 

[Ksanti]

Not really, the D7000 was a better cam in most ways compared to the 7D. The only thing in the 7D's favour was 2FPS and much better buffer.

And size... And build... And video... And AF... And lens selection (at expected price points so the advantages of the various 70-200L lenses, the 100-400 etc. being a fair bit cheaper than the Nikon equivalents).

 

[An Exception]

AF wasn't better. Build wasn't better, it had more magnesium alloy but wasn't very 'weather sealed'. Video? wouldn't know tbh as I never used video enough to compare them. My RX100 is likely better than the pair of them for video.

 

[Ksanti]

We get it, your RX100 is brilliant, we don't need to hear it in every damn gear discussion...

 

[londonbairn]

Not really, the D7000 was a better cam in most ways compared to the 7D. The only thing in the 7D's favour was 2FPS and much better buffer.

I don't have anything else to add on top of ksanti's post

If the specs of the 7d Mark II are near or true to that link, I do not see how the D7000/7100 is a competitor to it in anyway. You may think a few fps or small buffer is irrelevant, but not for a sports photographer. Having shot my first footie game on Saturday with a 1Dx and a 5D mark III side by side (12fps vs 6fps), it's a world of a difference in terms of buffer/speed.

 

[An Exception]

We get it, your RX100 is brilliant, we don't need to hear it in every damn gear discussion...

Start with the rude boy in the mirror.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18484934

I found your responses to Rizzee to be hostile and a little curt tbh.. and for someone who appears to be intent on improving things on the forum, being a little more friendly would be a quality that would go a long way to doing that..

 

[Ksanti]

Start with the rude boy in the mirror.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18484934

We've spoken enough for you to know I'm only teasing, though you /do/ shoehorn your RX100 into an awful lot of discussions.

 

[An Exception]

If the specs of the 7d Mark II are near or true to that link, I do not see how the D7000/7100 is a competitor to it in anyway. You may think a few fps or small buffer is irrelevant, but not for a sports photographer. Having shot my first footie game on Saturday with a 1Dx and a 5D mark III side by side (12fps vs 6fps), it's a world of a difference in terms of buffer/speed.

I'm not a machine gunner. Probably why I find sport photography a little boring. There often doesn't seem to be much art involved, just a bunch of guy's sat on the sideline firing away with a long lens.

Darren Heath's work is an exception as I really like his work, but maybe he has more opportunity to be creative than guy's shooting a football game?