If the buffer were better I'd be in. I shoot raw and there's no way 6 FPS for 1.3 seconds is going to work for wildlife. You just miss too much if there's a long sequence of action going on. I'll keep hoping for a D400 as my go to for DX.
It may be a good DX value but certainly not a DX Flagship in features or construction. We all know Nikon can do better the question is when and how much.
SoundHound wrote:
It may be a good DX value but certainly not a DX Flagship in features or construction. We all know Nikon can do better the question is when and how much.
I'm very impressed with the specs on the d7100 and I think it would likely be a very nice upgrade to my d7k. I'm especially intrigued by the lack of an AA filter. But, I don't need another camera that won't really replace the d300, so I'll wait and see if they offer up a d400 later on.
Even so, I think this will be a big seller for Nikon, assuming of course, that it doesn't have any issues that mess things up. Maybe if my d7k dies, I'll buy one.
So I did some reading on the d7100. It's a bit confusing. At normal crop it does 6fps with a burst-depth of 7 RAW.
Then if you reduce it to 12-bit (yeah very 2005 era) you get a bit more depth. 9RAW or something.
So reduce it further to 1.3x out of 1.5x which is now essentially a m4/3 camera you get 7fps and 12 RAW?
How about adding a grip? Will it be faster?
My head hurts just thinking about this. Imagine out in the wild trying to use it.
"Hmm... now lets see if I turn to 1.3x mode and use 12-bit that I can take that picture of the peacock hopping at me." Now wait. I like more colours. So I should be using 14-bit. Drats! Where is that peacock?!
Im on board with this statement. D700 s/ x /e whatever they want to call it 16-24 mp dual card slots, would be ideal. leave all the other specs the same. done
