D7100 vs D7000

[pistnbroke]

You are quite right marcel you got it ......Its very difficult to get people who have held one opinion for years to change that opinion when it is pointed out to be in error...
some of you are confusing what is being said...read each statement 5 times
Stand at the same distance...ie 25 ft
to frame the same picture on DX needs a 50 mm lens on FX an 85mm lens.
the 50mm lens has more depth of field than a 85mm ....

We are talking about taking the same picture not a wider FX picture ..yes an 85 on FX or Dx has the same depth of field but its not the same picture .on FX its wider .....is that so hard to follow ???
Read it again and again till you got it .....

 

[Dave_W]

So maybe at zoom, only 6 posts are in acceptable focus at that level. The picture hasn't changed, the depth of field has not changed but our subjective opinion on what is in focus has changed as we zoomed in.

No, I don't think that's entirely correct. When you zoom in you have altered the focal length of the lens which will create a different DoF.

 

[nickt]

No, I don't think that's entirely correct. When you zoom in you have altered the focal length of the lens which will create a different DoF.

I meant zoom by cropping and resizing. Not zooming in for real. Same picture, just slightly enlarged, so what we see in the picture is maybe less sharp and the fence posts fall out of what we decide is good focus.

 

[Marcel]

Yes, I agree with you Marcel. If you base the comparison solely on the equal fields of view, not on FX vs. DX, then you will have two different DoF because you're standing closer or further away from the subject. However, my whole point is that a statement that you lose depth of field with an FX camera vs. a DX camera is simply false. Instead of moving closer, consider cropping the FX image to get the same field of view as a DX camera and you'll see the DoF's are the same.

I understand what you say Dave. But, if you do crop an FX image you get a DX image. If you want to fill the frame with the same view (FOV) with DX you have to move away or zoom out. And this will create a different DOF if you use the same aperture.

 

[Dave_W]

I agree 100% with you Marcel and even with you Pistnbroke. But you're forgetting why I chimed in. There was a statement that said the difference between an FX and a DX is that an FX has less depth of field. And that's what I responded to. I never meant it to mean that if you stand in 2 different places you'll have the same DoF. I was only addressing the statement that an FX has less DoF than a DX. And I fully agree that if you stand in 2 different places you'll have 2 different DoF. That is a certainty.

 

[§am]

Instead of moving closer, consider cropping the FX image to get the same field of view as a DX camera and you'll see the DoF's are the same.

OK, I see what you mean now

If you want to fill the frame with the same view (FOV) with DX you have to move away or zoom out. And this will create a different DOF if you use the same aperture.

This is what I was getting at, and isn't this what the DoF calculators do for you - they take all the variables into consideration for a FoV and the result is, the difference in DoF between DX & FX?

 

[Rick M]

For whatever reason, the smaller the sensor, the greater the DoF. That's why all the P&S's run between f1.8-5 and it's almost impossible to get the background out of focus.

As far as Fx and Dx IQ and prints, at 100% the Fx print is much larger and much less degraded than Dx. The Dx pixels are enlarged almost 2.5 times more to generate the same size print.

 

[Rick M]

Scroll down to Depth of Field requirements in this article:

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

This article also goes on to explain the effects of pixel size and diffraction.

 

[Geoffc]

I recently went FX with the 600 and 800. Taking similar FOV shots in my house of family the DOF is reduced so much I have to be more careful where I focus. This is because I'm using a longer focal length to get the same pics. I've actually found this annoying quite often, but then again I'm not creative.

With regards to FX /DX IQ, a good example is the D300 vs d700. Same number of pixels but the size of each pixel on the 700 is probably double the 300, not the same size spread out more. That's why the 700 had legendary low light performance and DR.

At 100% crop I reckon my 600 was better with noise than the 800, although the latter is good. I no longer have it to prove that point. However I can down sample the 800 image and lose lots of noise, whilst still having a decent size image.

I guess the bottom line is that DX and FX have pros and cons. Which is best depends on the job in hand assuming everything else is equal. I know if the D400 is ever released I'll want one even though I have the 800. Unfortunately my wife is next in line for a camera upgrade.

 

[Rick M]

I have been thinking about this same issue for the last couple of days as I am looking to upgrade to a better camera and I am thinking the D7100 could be an option for me.

Not the cheapest option, but sounds like the 17-55 f2.8 would be a nice choice.

There is also the 16-85, but from what I have read, it is not any better IQ wise, than the 18-105, maybe someone who has used both can tell us otherwise.

Another option would be the 24-120 f4, if you can live without the wider range up to 24mm, I am liking this option as it leaves the gate open for an upgrade to FX later on.

In my opinion the 16-85 vr is the best midrange Dx zoom made. Some consider it sharper than the 17-55 2.8. It is sharper than the 18-55 g from my use which is at least as sharp as the 18-105. It' range is fantastic and the widest of the Dx mid range zooms. The only downfall is bokeh, it is a better landscape lens than a people lens, so it really depends on what you shoot.

 

[AxeMan - Rick S.]

MARCEL, didn't we cover something like this before? I can't find the thread but someone took two photo's one with a DX and one with a FX, and we had to pick which one was which.

I was looking for that thread, it would be a great example which one has less of more DOF, etc

 

[Marcel]

MARCEL, didn't we cover something like this before? I can't find the thread but someone took two photo's one with a DX and one with a FX, and we had to pick which one was which.

I was looking for that thread, it would be a great example which one has less of more DOF, etc

Yes, it was me. But I was using different lenses for the same FOV. There was not enough difference for people to be able to pick which was which. The comparison was between D700 and 7000.

 

[Ironwood]

In my opinion the 16-85 vr is the best midrange Dx zoom made. Some consider it sharper than the 17-55 2.8. It is sharper than the 18-55 g from my use which is at least as sharp as the 18-105. It' range is fantastic and the widest of the Dx mid range zooms. The only downfall is bokeh, it is a better landscape lens than a people lens, so it really depends on what you shoot.

Thanks Rick. Food for thought.

 

[Alx]

Charging unit is the same, D7000 cf. D7100

 

[Alx]

Almost not fair to compare current price. As launched it was $100 different. I'm still thinking I need to write a letter to tell them my disgust at not using the same battery pack. Form is pretty darn close if not exact. I guess they need to make money where they can.

BATTERY PACK IS THE SAME .... I have both cameras, the batteries are the same.

 

[Tomicko]

Hi,

Previously I owned a D7000 now I have the D7100.

As I'm a "still image" and "long shurtter" fun I was using a lot the remote control on my D7000. Now, I find really annoying that there is no remote switch next to the S CL CH Q and self timer knob as on the D7000. So each time I need to go in the menu to switch on the remote mode.

Second, I miss the rear display protection cover. I use the camera a lot in the nature (even caves) and some extra protection would be welcome...


For the rest,...its OK!

 

[Patrick M]

I don't get you. You can use the ir remote. I do. And the LCD is toughened gorilla glass ... Much stronger than you get on D7000 and other DX Nikons. In fact, I did buy a stick on protector ... See my comment elsewhere...which is fantastic and looks like a factory build.

See this too

 

[Revet]

For those of you that have made the upgrade to the 7100, was it worth it?? I currently have the 3100 which has 16 AF points with one cross type. Sometimes I find it a pain moving around to the sensor I want. What's it like with 30's on the 7000, and 50's on the 7100? Do you see a difference in the resolution between the 7100 and the 7000 when you view a photograph on a computer, or let's say on a 8.5 by 11 photo?? Any other advice on which to buy would be great. I have read numerous reviews and comparisons, I wanted to get the skinny from people who have used both.
​

 

[ShootRaw]

Yes it was worth it..I went from d3100 to d7100..Yes there is a slight difference in pic quality between the 7000vs 7100..Even more so from the d3100

 

[Revet]

Thanks for the input, you can get a 7000 in the high 600's now and the 7100 for about 1000. I guess that is not a big difference for some of the added features in the 7100. I love my 3100 but it is time to move on to bigger and better things!!
​