I got to thinking, I've never put up a useless poll before. Here's my big chance! There's a lot of people here who've been totally neglected by Nikon for the past couple of years. They've been patiently waiting for a decent, affordable camera. Looks like the D7100 is pretty much that. It just might be Nikon's best camera for wildlife at the moment. So, you buying one, thinking about it, or going to pass?
I would be interested if I didn't have all the gear I can dream of to select the proper camera for each usage (D4, D800, D7000). And I currently REALLY don't need more pixels
It looks to be a great camera and a winner for Nikon, but it's not for me. I'm with the rest of the sports and wildlife shooters that are still hoping for the mythical D400. If that doesn't appear by the end of the year, I'll re-evaluate and either switch to FX or see what Canon has to offer.
I am just a hobby sports shooter and do some wildlife as well. I really like my D7000 but the AF really bugs me, especially in lower light. I had thought about the D600 but since it has the same AF system as the D7000 I didn't think it would help my situation so I was resigning myself to get a D800 even though I was dreading the file sizes and such. When I read the specs on the D7100 I got really excited as it seems to address my AF issues as well as offering other features I am interested in (video, the additional crop mode, etc) and it looks like it will have better low light performance as well.
I had been hoping the mythical D400 would appear to solve my concerns, but at the price point of the D7100 I am happy to use it for a while until another DX body comes along. The 7D MK II sounds interesting, but I don't see making the switch and having to get all new glass as yet.
The weather sealing, 24mp for cropping, the extra 1.3 crop mode, omitting the filter for sharper images and the higher dynamic range - plus everything that I already love from the D7000 you can count me in!!!
I would like to know what the eye relief is on the D7100 is compared to the 7000.
The 7000's eyepiece is just a bit cramped for me.
I'll take a hard look at a 7100 but after Nikon's QC problems with their cameras released this past year wait and see sounds more appropriate.
A D400 with 10 fps, no AA, a large buffer, smaller MP count, full magnesium alloy body, heavy weather sealing, D300/D200 form factor with a D700-style grip, body integrated wi-fi and long eye relief would be more appealing.
bikemore wrote:
A D400 with 10 fps, no AA, a large buffer, smaller MP count, full magnesium alloy body, heavy weather sealing, D300/D200 form factor with a D700-style grip, body integrated wi-fi and long eye relief would be more appealing.
And then someone will complain that it costs $2000. And that it has less MP (which, actually, would be fine by me).
MDoc9523 wrote:
The weather sealing, 24mp for cropping, the extra 1.3 crop mode, omitting the filter for sharper images and the higher dynamic range - plus everything that I already love from the D7000 you can count me in!!!
For the most part the specs look good with the exception of the buffer shooting RAW. I've owned the D300 since it was released in 08 about 5 years ago so...I can wait a few more months to see if Nikon does release a true flagship crop sensor DSLR. If not, I will give this baby a go.
after giving it a good looking over originally I said yes. unfortunately I think my daughter will have to wait for the D7k as i'm putting the 7100 on the back burner.
sjms wrote:
after giving it a good looking over originally I said yes. unfortunately I think my daughter will have to wait for the D7k as i'm putting the 7100 on the back burner.
