I just picked up my new Nikon D7100

Zerodog

Woohoo!
Initial impressions:

1. Sort of plasticy
2. Controls and dials easy to figure out.
3. Very nice screen
4. Not too small. About the size of my 300s. Tiny compared to D3s
5. 1.3x crop mode is cool!

That is all for now. I have not used yet except a demo at camera shop. I am shooting an anti bully class tonight at the boys and girls club. Planning on testing ISO up to 6400. Will post a couple pics!

ZBlack

I'm really considering one of these to upgrade from my D7000 as I don't need the benefits of full frame. Looking forward to seeing your more in depth review with pictures as well!

Zerodog

Just finished my shoot. First observation in use.
The buffer is really small. I had to really pace shooting. We shall see IQ. I used ISO 6400 and H1 so 8000?

Zerodog

Ahh, a side effect I did not think of. LR will not read RAW files from this sucker..... Gonna need to break down and use Nikon software I guess. This will have to wait till tomorrow I suppose.

ian408

Isn't there an LR upgrade yet?

ZBlack

I believe the most recent release candidate has support for it. But not the full release yet.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Zerodog

Nope. It does not. I just looked. I downloaded NX2. It sucks, or most likely, I suck at it. I should have shot JPEG!! Didn't think of it until I got home tonight. So I am not sure on the quality yet. Stuff not looking incredibly sharp at least in my conditions tested. But this is most likely the case of me not driving the software correctly as well. Hopefully Adobe comes up with a solution soon.

ian408

I should hope they come up with something in the next few days. Does the Nikon stuff let you convert to DNG? That's one way to get the raw stuff into LR.

ziggy53

Zerodog wrote: »

... I should have shot JPEG!! ...

I don't find a user manual for the Nikon D7100 in PDF, so I can't confirm this, but it looks like the Nikon D7000 can convert (in-camera) from NEF to JPG.

Does the D7100 have a similar capability?

In the D7000 it's under:

Menu Button - Retouch menu - NEF (RAW) Processing

Zerodog

I have found NX2 to be really hard to use. So I installed View NX2. I am asuming this is the software packaged with the camera. I left my box at work...... So no disk.
Anyway NX2 opens stuff fast and views well. The only really useful feature it seems to have is checking your focus point. Anyway I am able to convert to JPG here.

Ziggy that is a great idea to convert in camera. I bet yes it has it in there somewhere.

Looking at files:
Auto WB was awesome. It might be the best I have seen yet.
Seemed to maybe backfocus with this particular lens that seems very accurate on my other bodies. I wonder if it has the ability to fine tune focus. I will have to find out.

Matthew Saville

Zerodog wrote: »

Just finished my shoot. First observation in use.
The buffer is really small. I had to really pace shooting. We shall see IQ. I used ISO 6400 and H1 so 8000?

Swallow your RAW pride, and shoot in 12-bit compressed RAW. There's zero difference in image quality unless you're going all Annie Leibovitz in your post-production, and you'll get a WAY larger buffer.

BTW, regarding the NX thing:

Capture NX is a dog, but View NX is great for batching your photos to JPG for use in Lightroom. Whenever I'm testing a new camera and I need to process the files, there is no need to shoot RAW+JPG if it is a Nikon because of this reason, View NX2. Just batch everything to "Neutral" Picture Control in View NX2, export as JPG at the highest quality, and play with those bad boys in LR.

If you want more dynamic range, shoot with your camera in Neutral Picture Control, turn the in-camera sharpening down, and turn the Active D-Lighting way up, then again convert to JPG in View NX2 but this time don't perform any changes before the conversion. Nikon's Active D-Lighting has been AWESOME for years. :-)

Looking forward to my test model soon!
=Matt=

Zerodog

I was shooting in 12 bit. And the buffer is the deal killer for me. With my workflow I like just importing RAW files straight to LR. And I turn off Active D because that just leads to fake outs for me. I have found while Active D is good for some things, mostly it just underexposes images. And for me, underexposure at high ISO leads to noise. I like to see a few blinking highlights on my screen so I know I have it right.

Yes NX was a total dog. View was much better.

Sam

Why not convert the RAW files to dng?

Sam

Zerodog

View NX does not do this option or else I would have

Zerodog

After flipping and flopping files. I finally have a sample. Unfortunately these were 12bit RAW files converted to JPG in View NX then imported to Lightroom for editing. So some detail lost in translation of course. Hopefully Adobe gets on it and gets the 7100 added to LR. Even with all the converting this shows a little of what this camera is capable of under some pretty extreme conditions. On one hand it is very impressive for a DX camera. On the other it is not as good as I hoped for.

These are photos from anti bully talk put on by my friends from Absolute MMA at our local Boys and Girls Club. This is one of many talks they have given here for kids of all ages. This was an older group. It was a talk about bullies and fights. And if it does happen, how it is possible to avoid being hurt and subdue your attacker without throwing punches or really hurting anyone using Jiu Jitsu. It was pretty funny to see some of the loud mouth kids get to try their hand at attacking a 2nd degree blackbelt in Brazillian Jiu Jitsu. As you can see, they didn't get too far. After a few tried more kids lined up. It was a cool experience for the kids to see there are more options than a fist fight and violence.

For these pics I used my brand spanking new 24-120 f4 the VR on. All images were tuned up a little in LR. I bumped up the exposure a tad and slightly adjusted the WB. Noise reduction and sharpening also pumped up slightly. No other settings have been changed at all.

#1 ISO 8000?? H1 Does not show in the metadata in LR 1/320 f4


2. This one I am not terribly impressed with the focus tracking. Focus point was on the face of the guy in the Gi. Not that this is a great example because shutter speed was low. But, not tons of speed here and no point I can really pick that is in focus.
ISO 6400 1/320 F4


3. ISO 6400 1/320 f4



4 ISO 6400 1/320 f4 Again with the tracking. But maybe good with the knee patch.



5. Here is a still image. Looks pretty nice for ISO6400 with $1100 DX camera IMO. But I still can't figure out what was the focus point? I know it was right on the boy's face. But? Is the girl as in focus? If not more so?







I am going to try some more shots in daylight this weekend. It should be interesting using it under some normal conditions.

Zerodog

Video on the other hand I think was impressive. Not that I know a lot about video at all. What was nice was the ablity to half push the shutter and focus again. It would pump the focus in and out once and lock onto the subject. Not as nice as a smooth pull, but it is sure easier to do. I think video could be a strong point of this camera body.

babowc

I feel like there's so much chromanoise in these shots..
Maybe the D7100 wasn't meant for extreme ISO?..

Everything looks very very very soft, probably due to the excess noise?

NikonsandVstroms

H1 would be ISO 12,800, it stands for 1 stop above the highest ISO (6400), does the D7100 offer H .3 & .7 as well? Though I find that I don't use those much and when the light is low just jump to H 1 or 2 in really dim conditions.

NikonsandVstroms

babowc wrote: »

I feel like there's so much chromanoise in these shots..
Maybe the D7100 wasn't meant for extreme ISO?..

Everything looks very very very soft, probably due to the excess noise?

I'm guessing slow shutter speeds, the ISO 12,800 shot looks sharper than the following 2 @ 6400. On #1 there is grain but it's pretty fine.

5 is totally acceptable for my work especially since it's in B&W, I'd like to see more H1/H2 shots, Zero would you mind taking some?

perroneford

babowc wrote: »

I feel like there's so much chromanoise in these shots..
Maybe the D7100 wasn't meant for extreme ISO?..

Everything looks very very very soft, probably due to the excess noise?

Geez...

No one will EVER be happy. The more I see posted on these forums, the more I believe this.

The last professional level Nikon DX camera was the D2X. It sold for $4500. The images at ISO 800, looked like this D7100 at ISO 8000. The D2x was the world professional standard and literally brought pros off film into the digital age. It was hailed as a breakthrough with it's 12MP sensor, 5.5 frames per second, 11 AF points, and 15 frame buffer. It covered the Olympics, World Cup, World Series, Superbowl, Gulf War, and news from all over the world.

And now, here we are with a camera that does tons more than what that old D2x did, shoots with twice the megapixels, has literally 1/10 the noise at high ISO, has more than twice the dynamic range, shoots more FPS, and costs 1/4 the price.

What is enough?

ziggy53

I do believe that the Nikon D7100 ISO h1 (Hi-1) is 12,800. ISO 6400 is the highest "calibrated" ISO for this body.

ISO 12,800 is really not too bad and probably plenty good for newspaper work. I'm on a smaller laptop just now, but grain looks acceptable for ISO 12,800 and 6400. Once you gain a little more experience with the software and once ACR is fully released those ISOs should be excellent indeed.

I'm an old film shooter and, compared to Tri-X (ISO 400), this is just splendid as is.

babowc

perroneford wrote: »

Geez...

No one will EVER be happy. The more I see posted on these forums, the more I believe this.

The last professional level Nikon DX camera was the D2X. It sold for $4500. The images at ISO 800, looked like this D7100 at ISO 8000. The D2x was the world professional standard and literally brought pros off film into the digital age. It was hailed as a breakthrough with it's 12MP sensor, 5.5 frames per second, 11 AF points, and 15 frame buffer. It covered the Olympics, World Cup, World Series, Superbowl, Gulf War, and news from all over the world.

And now, here we are with a camera that does tons more than what that old D2x did, shoots with twice the megapixels, has literally 1/10 the noise at high ISO, has more than twice the dynamic range, shoots more FPS, and costs 1/4 the price.

What is enough?

Well, I'm just stating what I think, but thoughts like that will impede any sort of growth.
It's natural that as technology improves, consumers will want better and better. If you stay stuck in comparing a nearly 2 decade old technology to modern technology, I have no other words for you.

I'm sure D7100 is a fine camera, but I may be being too critical of the shots.
The high ISO does not do a single thing for me. In fact, those would be my tossers.

OP, I'm not judging your photographs, just the ISO performance of the camera.

Granted, I'm not a pro photographer. Also, I'm sure you guys have a different aspect on the performance. But I'm entitled to my opinion too;)

Zerodog

Oops. The photos I listed as H1 were indeed H.3. So 8000.

Yes these do have lots of noise and they are soft probably due to the noise. Still impressive for a $1100 body. But I still believe the d700 looks much better at 6400. Both from a noise and sharpness standpoint. Today I'm testing in daylight. I bet it will have very good IQ.

Zerodog

babowc, no offense taken. Im just showing what is possible with this body at high iso. Yes I would have usually tossed these if shot with my D3s. But this was the cream of the crop with this body.

ZBlack

Would the better photos at 6400 on the D700 simply be the FX vs DX/size of the sensor? (still fairly new with that sort of thing). I shoot a lot of landscapes, occasionally do some portrait work, but with my landscapes comes star shooting. With my D7000, at 6400 there is A LOT of noise. Of course there are other techniques I can work on with lower iso settings and such too. I can reduce it enough to make things great for the web, but not really for prints larger than say an 8x10. I don't shoot a lot of star shots at this point, but if the 7100 has better performance, even if a small amount than that's another check in the box for me to get this.

Thanks for the example pictures!

Zerodog

Not sure if it is FX /DX or 12 vs 24 mp. Or just focus accuracy. Or a little of everything together.

NikonsandVstroms

Zerodog wrote: »

babowc, no offense taken. Im just showing what is possible with this body at high iso. Yes I would have usually tossed these if shot with my D3s. But this was the cream of the crop with this body.

Favor to ask since you have that D3s....could you do some side by side tests? And do it with the ISO 1 stop higher on the D3s? Specifically 6400, 12,800 and 25,600? I'm just trying to approximate how it compares to my D700 for concert work where I'm usually @ H1 or H2.

Matthew Saville

Yep, that's what I'd like to know. How does 3200 look compared to the likes of the D700 and the D3s? That's really all I care about, as a wedding photographer...

=Matt=

perroneford

Statements like that impede growth of what? Technology? Hardly. On the contrary, never being satisfied with where your tools are offers a convenient excuse to shoot poor work.

Yes, it is natural that technology improves. And we will ALL want better and better. The question I am asking is if you NEED better? Is it the camera holding you back, or is it something else? When do we say that what we hold in our hands is good enough to do the job before us.

Yes, the High ISO of the D7100 (in this case talking about ISO above 6400) leave much to be desired. It's also obvious that the shots were misfocused, and perhaps had some motion blur in them as well. So it wasn't just the ISO issues that got presented. Is it reasonable to expect a DX camera in 2013 to provide a clean ISO 8000? I suggest not, considering it's predecessor, the D7000 had a LOT of trouble even at ISO 3200. I rarely used mine above ISO 1600 because the noise wasn't very good.

Maybe one day, we'll have a camera that shoots at ISO 128,000 with no visible grain. I wonder what we'll complain about then.

babowc wrote: »

Well, I'm just stating what I think, but thoughts like that will impede any sort of growth.

It's natural that as technology improves, consumers will want better and better. If you stay stuck in comparing a nearly 2 decade old technology to modern technology, I have no other words for you.

I'm sure D7100 is a fine camera, but I may be being too critical of the shots.
The high ISO does not do a single thing for me. In fact, those would be my tossers.

OP, I'm not judging your photographs, just the ISO performance of the camera.

Granted, I'm not a pro photographer. Also, I'm sure you guys have a different aspect on the performance. But I'm entitled to my opinion too;)

Zerodog

Misfocused? A huge portion of what I shoot is MMA. I doubt I missed anything here. The focus was due to camera lens combo, auto focus ability and ISO capability.

perroneford

Zerodog wrote: »

I doubt I missed anything here. The focus was due to camera lens combo, auto focus ability and ISO capability.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, and that was how you presented.