Nikon 7100 vs full frame nikon - user level 6-7

[William W]

i am now ready to upgrade from my nikon d60 to better - later model nikon. I am having many conflicted thoughts regarding buying the nikon 7100 (a lot of features) or stepping up to a full framed nikon for more money... While not as many features or ranges. . .

what lenses do you own?

+1

why do people assume that a ff camera is a step up. I shoot both. It is horses for courses. Ask why you need crop or ff

+1


ww

[JR1]

what lenses, true

I never fell for the must have cs lenses for crop sensors ALWAYS buying FF lenses, but many learnt the hard way buying twice

[William W]

^
The question "What Lenses?" is applicable even if the OP has bought all (as you put it) "FF Lenses”: because if one moves from an APS-C Camera to a 135 Format Camera (aka "Full Frame") the lens cache's Focal Lengths are relevant, simply of themselves.

For clarity - I didn't second the question, simply because of the APS-C Lens // FF Camera compatibility and suitability considerations.

WW

[Brev00]

Yes, it is a good question (well, I asked it first though it is hardly original) and hopefully the op will be back to answer it. I know exactly what you mean, Bill, in terms of the relevance of lenses even if they are full frame. I am considering the move and have several full frame lenses to support it. However, my macro, the Sigma 70 2.8 macro, will no longer serve me the same way on full frame. Even though it is definitely full frame, I would want to look into getting a 105 2.8 to replace it. Or, maybe it is a good time to go even longer. So, buying a full frame camera will cause me to completely reevaluate my entire lens lineup and that is one thing that makes me pause. Not a deal killer, though. Change happens.

[JR1]

Not in the context I was commenting in buying twice

[William W]

. . . buying a full frame camera will cause me to completely reevaluate my entire lens lineup and that is one thing that makes me pause. . .

I use Canon DSLR’s and I have always (since converting to Digital) had a Dual Format Kit (APS-C and 135 Format). What I have found, Larry, is that a 50mm and 100mm Macro lens combination works for me. I define myself as a “Macro Generalist”. I am not besotted by that genre and I am not expert at it – not in the sense of Dan (for one example) and others here – I don’t much contribute to the Macro forum, although I read it . . . so, FWIW, and if you KEEP your APS-C body (and that’s another choice but I would advise that in mostly all circumstances the value in keeping outweighs the cash value of selling a DSLR Body) - I think that a pair of 70mm and 105mm Macro Lenses would be peachy for a Nikon Dual format kit. But I think that my kit would still have a slight advantage for a generalist Macro/Close Up Photographer and one particular area is the use of the 50 F/2.5 with a 135 Format camera – its absolute bliss for copying artworks and the like – the 70mm on a 135 Body means a tad longer Shooting Distance and that can be a disadvantage sometimes.

Moving the “Dual Format” conversation forward: Mark’s commentary implies that he maybe will not keep (or maybe has not considered using) his D60 in concert with his new Camera. I suggest he does think on that point. The reality is a D60 is still as good a Camera now, as it was then, and all the quality images that it could make then, it still can now. Also, having a Camera that “owes me nothing” allows for greater risk taking in one’s Photography: for example I picked up a very early model Canon DSLR and a kit lens from a pawn shop for less than three figures and it has served me marvellously whilst stilling on the gunwale of a yacht – set the zoom wide; camera to Program; centre point AF – fantastic portraits of the crew whilst travelling at 9 knots in good wind; wipe off the salt spray with a damp cloth at the end of the afternoon – five years on it still works OK – mostly I use it on a copy stand now . . . all for less than $100.00.

Yes, Larry, moving from an APS-C Format Camera to 135 Format Camera does require scrutiny of the Lens Cache – but even more so it requires a re-think of the Whole Lens Kit if one chooses to keep (and use) the APS-C body – which I do really think is a good idea:

There are lots of lightweight and minimalist Lens Combinations using two cameras which leverage the FL ‘crop factor’ (a most horrible compound noun) – two that I often use are:

TWO ZOOMS – 16 to 35/2.8 and 70 to 200/2.8 (equiv.#: 16 to 56 and 70 to 320 all at F/2.8)
TWO PRIMES – 35/1.4 and 85/1.8 (equiv.#: 35/1.4; 56/1.4; 85/1.8 and 136/1.8)

In fact it was about 9 years after I bought into Canon DSLR that I bought a 24 to 70/2.8 Zoom, as with my Dual Format kit that particular lens was superfluous to my needs.

WW


FOOTNOTE:
# It is understood that "equivalent" Aperture does not extend to DoF and related matters.

[Brev00]

Thanks, Bill, for that nicely detailed response that is also right on point. I do not shoot copy art or watches or such so have never wanted a wider macro except as a general walk around lens. Using my 70 on full frame would accomplish that to some extent, but, I would definitely want to follow another bit of your advice and get a 35 prime. Being able to use a 35mm 1.4 lens in the full frame format is a major pro in the full frame column. Something I have wanted to do and plan to rent as a combo maybe even today (wish the weather were warmer). At this point, I would not be so interested in adding big, heavy zooms but would prefer to go more prime-oriented (already have a 70-300). Until I decide to become a bif aficionado, of course.

[BCrose]

A bit late to the party but my experience mirrors Dan's almost exactly. I use an FX (D4) body for any wildlife I can get reasonably close to and the DX (D7100) body for the 'reach' factor. In my experience shooting birds, especially small ones is that you need to do too much cropping on a full frame unless you are very close with a super telephoto lens. Many professionals use the 600mm f/4 on a D4 for example but you are talking big dollars here. My alternative to that is using Nikon's 200-400 f/4 on the D7100 giving me equivalent field of view but at 24MP. I have found the files from the D7100 to be sharper than the D4...oddly. I think this may have a lot to do with the absence of the anti aliasing filter but I am not certain on this. I just see it in my images.

The big thing for me is the fact I get a 24MP image on the D7100 and many times I must crop down the D4 to less than 10MP. I print my own large format prints on an Epson 7880 and this matters. Like Dan mentioned the buffer on the D7100 is frustrating to say the least after using the D4, you need to change your shooting style somewhat and expect less frames when shooting action.

It's not just the fact that the D4 can shoot 11 frames per second, which I rarely do, it is the fact that it can do it all day long and not fill the buffer (exaggerating a bit here) but when you are shooting action and firing off bursts of 4 or 5 frames every couple of seconds the D4 will virtually never slow down. The D7100 will slow to a crawl (2fps) after just a handful of shots. In a real world example of this I was in my kayak waiting for a Bald eagle to visit one of it's favorite spots on a small lake, When I seen it approaching I starting tracking it with the D4 and when it got close I began shooting, firing off more than 40 frames as the bird swooped down and caught a fish only a few meters in front of me.

On the other hand if you are shooting landscapes and people pics...go with the FX body. Once you see an image shot in FX format with a ultra wide angle lens you will never go back.

[JR1]

A bit late to the party but my experience mirrors Dan's almost exactly. I use an FX (D4) body for any wildlife I can get reasonably close to and the DX (D7100) body for the 'reach' factor. In my experience shooting birds, especially small ones is that you need to do too much cropping on a full frame unless you are very close with a super telephoto lens. Many professionals use the 600mm f/4 on a D4 for example but you are talking big dollars here. My alternative to that is using Nikon's 200-400 f/4 on the D7100 giving me equivalent field of view but at 24MP. I have found the files from the D7100 to be sharper than the D4...oddly. I think this may have a lot to do with the absence of the anti aliasing filter but I am not certain on this. I just see it in my images.

The big thing for me is the fact I get a 24MP image on the D7100 and many times I must crop down the D4 to less than 10MP. I print my own large format prints on an Epson 7880 and this matters. Like Dan mentioned the buffer on the D7100 is frustrating to say the least after using the D4, you need to change your shooting style somewhat and expect less frames when shooting action.

It's not just the fact that the D4 can shoot 11 frames per second, which I rarely do, it is the fact that it can do it all day long and not fill the buffer (exaggerating a bit here) but when you are shooting action and firing off bursts of 4 or 5 frames every couple of seconds the D4 will virtually never slow down. The D7100 will slow to a crawl (2fps) after just a handful of shots. In a real world example of this I was in my kayak waiting for a Bald eagle to visit one of it's favorite spots on a small lake, When I seen it approaching I starting tracking it with the D4 and when it got close I began shooting, firing off more than 40 frames as the bird swooped down and caught a fish only a few meters in front of me.

On the other hand if you are shooting landscapes and people pics...go with the FX body. Once you see an image shot in FX format with a ultra wide angle lens you will never go back.

The Siggy 150-500 is good at only about £1,600 ish

Rubbish, I have a d7100 and when you use a decent card such as a Sandisk Extreme pro in JPEG it rarely fills, what are you quoting RAW, even then it will never fill after just a few shots

Too many people complain about buffers and use rubbish cards.

In my D4s I only use the XQD 64GB http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._card_180.html and the Sandisk Extreme Pro at 160MB/s, remember also the D4s and D4 are limited to 200 shots continuous.

[Polar01]

Jeremy the card that you use in the D4s is a compact flash card with/or XQD type of card for those that do not know. Both of these cards have blinding speed compared to the speed of the card found in a D7100. The best speed you will get is 90mb/s more like 75mb/s from the card found in the D7100, now you XQD type of card is 180mb/s which I see at B&H is discontinued cost $249.99 used from them the replacement is $359.99 with a read speed of 400mb/s and a write of 350mb/s. Now not everyone is able to purchase $300.00+ dollar cards to use in our cameras to help get the speed we want Oh wait I can't use that type of card in my camera as it will not take one. Yes jpegs are faster as per the file size, but not all of use want to shoot jpegs.

Cheers: Allan

[BCrose]

The Siggy 150-500 is good at only about £1,600 ish

Rubbish, I have a d7100 and when you use a decent card such as a Sandisk Extreme pro in JPEG it rarely fills, what are you quoting RAW, even then it will never fill after just a few shots

Too many people complain about buffers and use rubbish cards.

In my D4s I only use the XQD 64GB http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._card_180.html and the Sandisk Extreme Pro at 160MB/s, remember also the D4s and D4 are limited to 200 shots continuous.

Funny you should mention the Sigma 150-500. I had purchased that lens a while back and to be honest it just does not compare. I have read good things about the Tamron 150-600 but would want to test one before I ever purchased a third party lens again. That has been my experience anyway, yours may differ.

I must totally disagree with you on the D7100 buffer. I am not looking for an argument but I know this as fact from experience. The buffer is frustrating to say the least. You do not need to believe me, just Google and find many articles regarding this issue. It is not the cards fault, I use dual Lexar Professional rated at 90MB/s. And yes I shoot RAW.

It has always been the hope that Nikon would release a successor to it's pro line of DX bodies D300/D300s with a D400 that has faster frame rates, larger buffer and 24MP but they chosen to go with the D7100. The long awaited D400 does not seem to be in the immediate future but it still gets asked for over and over again so I do have hope. The D300 is still one of my favorite cameras but it is getting old.

[NorthernFocus]

D7100 buffer capacity is 100 or so shooting jpeg but only 6 frames shootIng RAW. Card speed makes a big difference shooting jpeg but zero difference with RAW. At 6fps shooting RAW there simply isn't any time to write to the card before the buffer fills. I've tested various cards with no meaningful difference.

[JR1]

Funny you should mention the Sigma 150-500. I had purchased that lens a while back and to be honest it just does not compare. I have read good things about the Tamron 150-600 but would want to test one before I ever purchased a third party lens again. That has been my experience anyway, yours may differ.

I must totally disagree with you on the D7100 buffer. I am not looking for an argument but I know this as fact from experience. The buffer is frustrating to say the least. You do not need to believe me, just Google and find many articles regarding this issue. It is not the cards fault, I use dual Lexar Professional rated at 90MB/s. And yes I shoot RAW.

It has always been the hope that Nikon would release a successor to it's pro line of DX bodies D300/D300s with a D400 that has faster frame rates, larger buffer and 24MP but they chosen to go with the D7100. The long awaited D400 does not seem to be in the immediate future but it still gets asked for over and over again so I do have hope. The D300 is still one of my favorite cameras but it is getting old.

Sorry IT should have read 150-600 not 500

[JR1]

Funny you should mention the Sigma 150-500. I had purchased that lens a while back and to be honest it just does not compare. I have read good things about the Tamron 150-600 but would want to test one before I ever purchased a third party lens again. That has been my experience anyway, yours may differ.

I must totally disagree with you on the D7100 buffer. I am not looking for an argument but I know this as fact from experience. The buffer is frustrating to say the least. You do not need to believe me, just Google and find many articles regarding this issue. It is not the cards fault, I use dual Lexar Professional rated at 90MB/s. And yes I shoot RAW.

It has always been the hope that Nikon would release a successor to it's pro line of DX bodies D300/D300s with a D400 that has faster frame rates, larger buffer and 24MP but they chosen to go with the D7100. The long awaited D400 does not seem to be in the immediate future but it still gets asked for over and over again so I do have hope. The D300 is still one of my favorite cameras but it is getting old.

HERE is a test I did with a fast sandisk card



and a "normal" card



The results speak for themselves, a very simple test just shot until the buffer filled

NOT scientific but who shoots this many continuous anyway

[JR1]

D7100 buffer capacity is 100 or so shooting jpeg but only 6 frames shootIng RAW. Card speed makes a big difference shooting jpeg but zero difference with RAW. At 6fps shooting RAW there simply isn't any time to write to the card before the buffer fills. I've tested various cards with no meaningful difference.

As I said I shoot mainly, 99.999999999% JPEG and the D7100 is perfect with a fast card

[JR1]

Jeremy the card that you use in the D4s is a compact flash card with/or XQD type of card for those that do not know. Both of these cards have blinding speed compared to the speed of the card found in a D7100. The best speed you will get is 90mb/s more like 75mb/s from the card found in the D7100, now you XQD type of card is 180mb/s which I see at B&H is discontinued cost $249.99 used from them the replacement is $359.99 with a read speed of 400mb/s and a write of 350mb/s. Now not everyone is able to purchase $300.00+ dollar cards to use in our cameras to help get the speed we want Oh wait I can't use that type of card in my camera as it will not take one. Yes jpegs are faster as per the file size, but not all of use want to shoot jpegs.

Cheers: Allan

see reply below and a simple comparison i did

[mrinmoyvk]

Shooting RAW surely makes a difference with buffer size and that is where huge buffer and high I/O speed between buffer and card comes into picture. That is when I cry about not buying D7100.

But I guess almost all entry level DSLRs are capable of capturing 10-15 JPEGs in a normal buffer size. If you are using about 90MBPS write speed card (Sandisk Extreme Pro) emptying buffer also should not be an issue with a 2 sec gap after every 15 shots. I am able to do that on my Nikon D5200 atleast (10-12 JPEGs in a row at 4-5 FPS which is max speed 5200 offers and then it slows down to 2-3 and continues. If I wait when it slows down, 2 sec are more than enough to bring it back to 4-5 FPS)

"Without any offence" I think if one needs more than 15-20 rapid shots to capture a moment (unless all those are in 1 sec), then he/she needs to re-visit what he/she actually needs.

[Manfred M]

"Without any offence" I think if one needs more than 15-20 rapid shots to capture a moment (unless all those are in 1 sec), then he/she needs to re-visit what he/she actually needs.

Sorry to disagree, but both birders (birds in flight / taking off / landing) and sports photographers might not agree with you. Try shooting an erupting geyser sometime to get the "best" shot.

[JR1]

Sorry to disagree, but both birders (birds in flight / taking off / landing) and sports photographers might not agree with you. Try shooting an erupting geyser sometime to get the "best" shot.

Oh bugger, you see I tend to aggree, to a point

When I am shooting sports I know where I am shooting, the angle, what I am looking for, as an example when shooting jet ski racing you can see from the water where approximately the best shots are obtained, perhaps most of the skis leave the water in a particular place, or boats, meaning there is a wave effect at that spot, so I concentrate on that area if it is good, and whilst I could shoot 200 at 11fps, you don't, you "use" the speed of the camera, but only forf say 3/4 frames.

It isn't the fact that you can rattle off 30 shots in three seconds, it is the fact that you can take 4-5 shots of "just"what you want that a 7fps camera cant do as the gap between the ski could be an extra 20', soor for the poor explanation

[Manfred M]

Jeremy - in motor sports; the vehicles move so darn quickly (which means they move a great distance in a fraction of a second), you have a totally different shooting scenario.

One example that comes to mind for me is ice hockey. If you want to catch an event that has limited movement; a faceoff or a shot from the blue line, you can anticipate what the referee or player is going to do. Often there can be a hesitation of a few seconds.

Once you have pressed the shutter release, you are commited to holding it until the play unfolds and that can be a few seconds.

In a perfect world short bursts are often fine; but we don't live in a perfect world where we can anticipate what a person or animal is going to do next...