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

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Looking at some of his photos he does have shots taken with a D7000, so not all his cameras are FF.

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for the comments on the gallery, Mark. I DO NOT shoot exclusively FX. I do shoot exclusively Nikon (for practical reasons). I currently have two FX, one DX, and one CX (aka Nikon 1) bodies. The vast majority of the shots in the gallery in question were shot with DX bodies. The only real technical advantage to FX is high ISO performance which may or may not matter to you depending on what you shoot and/or how you intend to use the images. IMO the D7100 is the overall best value for the money that Nikon sells while the D810 is their best all around camera.

[mfields]

I own both FF and DX bodies. I only went FF because Nikon never updated the D300 and shooting wildlife I wanted things only found in FF in the current Nikon line. I do have and shoot a D7100 and love it. With good light it produces better IQ than any other Nikon body. Without any further information than what you've described I'd say go with the 7100 and don't look back. The only caveat is if you shoot wildlife/birds or sports and need a larger buffer for shooting rapid fire. That is one drawback to the 7100. Whatever you decide to do, enjoy

Thanks... your work truly looks great. This is what I would like to strive for. Heading up North pretty soon, and my guess is will be adding cameras as my expertise improves. But, for now, think I will start with the D7100... which comes with a couple of nice lens as well.

[NorthernFocus]

The older one gets the more ergonomics comes into play, Dan.
Old(er) hands don't necessarily allow for uncomfortable equipment to be used, no matter how interested in using it.

I'm no spring chicken myself.

My comment was based on a recent personal experience that caused me to contemplate the topic. I'm fortunate enough to have a fairly well stocked inventory of camera gear. But for practical reasons in the past few months we've taken a couple of vacations on which I only brought along a little Nikon V1 kit. Back in May we spent two weeks in Europe. Beginning from the first day I shot literally hundreds of frames per day and was fairly content with the gear. Of course there were times I'd have rather had my full kit but it never deterred me from what I wanted to shoot.

On the other hand, just recently we spent a week on the US east coast with the same camera kit as the Europe trip. I was so frustrated with the poor ergonimics of the gear that I didn't enjoy shooting. Consequently for the entire trip I only shot a couple dozen frames. What was the difference? The only thing I can come up with is subject matter. When I was inspired by the subject matter, the equipment didn't make any difference.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I wholeheartedly agree Dan. The subject matter does have a lot to do with it. Can't tell you how many times I've gone to an event all prepared to shoot like there's no tomorrow and not been inspired enough to take any pictures at all.

[AB26]

Mark,

I have not read all the posts in this thread. You will get many replies with many different opinions. Each of us do have our own preferences.

In my opinion the D7100 is an excellent camera for the more advanced amateur wishing to do most general tipe of shooting. The image quality is very good and it is a camera packed with features that will take you a long way on the Photographic journey. For a7/10, yes it will suit your purposes very well.

If you have no intention of ever venturing into action photography the D7100 will do most of what you will need to do with it. The buffer on the D7100 is a little shallow for action shots requiring longer bursts. The D7100 buffer will fill in one second (shooting RAW) and then the burst rate will drop to around 2 frames per second.
At the moment the Canon 7D Mk2 is a better proposition than the D7100. Again it comes at a price, around $ 500 more than the D7100.

You can wait for the D7200, it will most probably be Nikon’s answer to the 7D MK2.

If budget is not a problem I would recommend going FF with a Nikon D750. FF cameras do have an edge on CF cameras when it comes to image quality, low light photography, larger printing, that nice background bokeh and DOF.

Again, if you do not wish to move beyond a 7/10, no need to go FF.

[Nicks Pics]

Just to throw in another idea, and I hope it's technically sound : I have heard that part of why crop frame cameras are often used for wildlife is that they have a higher pixel density. With a crop frame you get more reach, or I will say a narrower field of view, ( to avoid any technical objections to that way of putting it) with the same lens length. A 400 mm lens on a 1.5 x crop sensor (FX) camera, should give you the equivalent field of view/apparent magnification as a 600 mm lens on a full frame. So you can just crop closer on a full frame and get the same results, right? Well, if you had a 36 mp full frame and did a 1.5x crop in post to make the subject look closer you would get the same results, but if you had a 24 mp full frame and did a 1.5x crop in post, you would have a 16 mp image, whereas the crop frame camera's image would be 24 mp. Full frame cameras could have even less mp than 24. It depends on which one you get.

However, for a lot of purposes you don't need 24 mega pixels, and if the speed shooting is more of a problem it might not affect your decision. I think the d7100 shoots faster if you record jpeg, whether or not you'd want to.

[ajohnw]

Just to throw in another idea, and I hope it's technically sound : I have heard that part of why crop frame cameras are often used for wildlife is that they have a higher pixel density. With a crop frame you get more reach, or I will say a narrower field of view, ( to avoid any technical objections to that way of putting it) with the same lens length. A 400 mm lens on a 1.5 x crop sensor (FX) camera, should give you the equivalent field of view/apparent magnification as a 600 mm lens on a full frame. So you can just crop closer on a full frame and get the same results, right? Well, if you had a 36 mp full frame and did a 1.5x crop in post to make the subject look closer you would get the same results, but if you had a 24 mp full frame and did a 1.5x crop in post, you would have a 16 mp image, whereas the crop frame camera's image would be 24 mp. Full frame cameras could have even less mp than 24. It depends on which one you get.

However, for a lot of purposes you don't need 24 mega pixels, and if the speed shooting is more of a problem it might not affect your decision. I think the d7100 shoots faster if you record jpeg, whether or not you'd want to.

The catch with crop reach Nick is that in many ways especially resolution the manufacturers design for full frame cameras which generally have larger pixels. It's fairly correct to say that a crop view can be cropped out of a full frame image so the extra reach isn't as effective as people might think. The other aspect say 200mm on crop and a real 300 on FF is that the FF set up currently will always have much higher resolution if the lenses are generally similar performance wise as the FF sensor is bigger.. This is all worsened really by the fact that when people have crop cameras they lust after FF lenses and in many cases do get better performance - so there is no point in the manufacturers doing anything about it. There are exceptions in the crop range but often they are produced at cost. I have the impression that Canon are better in this area but could easily be wrong. Lenses vary. I'm tempted to chuck my D7000 at times and go back to Canon.

Extra reach does make some sense - the subject might not fill a FF sensor so not capturing the surrounding by using a crop camera instead makes sense. A much better way of looking at the true situation maybe.

Olympus and perhaps to a lesser extent Panasonic are trying to buck the smaller sensor problems but the cost of lenses rocket because of the precision needed. The fact that they are smaller helps in that respect. A fact about optics. It's not possible to simply scale up a lens as the errors scale up as well. Another example of the gains from being small are some of the Nikon 1 lenses. Nikon even test them more stringently - pity about the cameras. But as Dpreview point out while other Nikon lenses can be used on them via an adapter it's rather doubtful if they will make full use of the pixel density on the smaller sensor.

John
-

[Brev00]

What lenses do you own? If you go full frame, you have to consider the expense not just of the camera but of the glass you will want to best take advantage of the sensor. A dx kit of the 16-85 and 10-24 will not work. If you can afford the 750/24-120 kit, that is certainly a good start. I am exactly in your shoes considering either the D7100 or the D610, maybe the D750. I hope to rent at least one of the cameras so I can get not just a hands on feel but also give the camera a work out. I like the autofocus system of the D7100 with so many focal points covering the viewfinder but I like the dynamic range and high iso quality of the full frame offerings. I also have this notion that I would like to get some more full frame glass (I have enough to get started) like the Sigma 35 1.4 and the only way to fully enjoy it would be on a full frame camera. Good luck with your decision. It is not an easy one. I do think at the D7100's current price point, it is certainly a great value. You can always get one and buy a full frame camera down the road.

[NorthernFocus]

...if you had a 36 mp full frame and did a 1.5x crop in post to make the subject look closer you would get the same results, but if you had a 24 mp full frame and did a 1.5x crop in post, you would have a 16 mp image...

An equivalent DX crop out of 36MP FF yields a 16MP image. Similarly a DX crop from 24MP FF yields a little less than 11MP. The crop factor typically refered to is a linear multiplier whereas MP size is a function of area. So the crop effect is exponential when comparing pixel count. So to figure how many pixels in an equivalent DX crop out of an FX image the equation is DX=FX/2.25.

Back to the topic of the qualities of the D7100, while it's fun to argue the theoretical, I'll repeat in this thread what I've posted in others. I currently shoot D4, D810, and D7100. Given adequate light and comparing equivalent full frame field of view, the D810 produces the best IQ followed by the D7100 and the D4 last. Comparing equivalent crops shot from a fixed position, the D7100 is best followed by the D810 then D4. Pixel count matters. People can quote all the theory they want about diffraction limited lenses, etc. Shooting targets in a lab may produce different results. But in the field this has been my experience.

The practical downside to the 7100 is the 6frame buffer when shooting RAW. Its 6fps burst rate matches any of the current Nikon line other than the D4/D4s. But if you shoot in that mode in RAW, the buffer is a killer. It's very frustrating to have that limitation on a body that produces such awesome wildlife images

[DanK]

I don't know anything about Nikons, but I do shoot both crop and FF and spent an inordinate amount of time agonizing over it before I bought a FF, so I may be able to say something useful.

Which is better depends on what you do.

As rule (there are exceptions), crops have smaller pixels and higher pixel densities. As a result of this:

-- All other things being equal, FF will be somewhat better in low light. The difference is no longer huge, but it is noticeable.
-- a crop gives you more reach, as Nick explained. With any given focal length at any given distance, you will have more pixels on the subject with a crop.
--FF will resolve more detail, but unless you print large or crop severely, you are not likely to notice the difference.

Also, FF is more expensive. It is also larger and, particularly when you consider the larger lenses for a given level of reach, considerably heavier. that matters more to me every year. I have large hands and like the large size of the FF, but the weight is a nuisance, frankly, and the size can be as well if you have a lot to carry.

With both sitting on my shelf, I generally take the FF for general purpose and landscape work, but I take the crop when I want reach or do macro work in the field (more pixels on the subject at minimum working distance).

All that said, for most people much of the time, it simply doesn't make much difference in terms of the quality of output, IMHO.

[NorthernFocus]

--FF will resolve more detail...

Detail is a function of pixel density. For a given field of view, more pixels = more detail(assuming proper exposure). If you're saying that for the same number of pixels, FF is better, then absolutely yes.

...All that said, for most people much of the time, it simply doesn't make much difference in terms of the quality of output, IMHO.

Simply stated and that really is the bottom line. From a practical standpoint, other factors/features between bodies really make more difference than the sensor for most people.

[Nicks Pics]

Quote Originally Posted by Nicks Pics View Post
...if you had a 36 mp full frame and did a 1.5x crop in post to make the subject look closer you would get the same results, but if you had a 24 mp full frame and did a 1.5x crop in post, you would have a 16 mp image...
An equivalent DX crop out of 36MP FF yields a 16MP image. Similarly a DX crop from 24MP FF yields a little less than 11MP. The crop factor typically refered to is a linear multiplier whereas MP size is a function of area. So the crop effect is exponential when comparing pixel count. So to figure how many pixels in an equivalent DX crop out of an FX image the equation is DX=FX/2.25.

Did I do some equations wrong? I don't know, still not sure I get it, but that's not not essential to this thread. I think the general point I was making seems to be in line with what Dan was saying about it.

There seems to be some good advice above. Some good technical advice (besides maybe mine-sorry ) and some good practical advise.

[DanK]

Detail is a function of pixel density.

If the lens you are using can outresolve the crop sensor.

[NorthernFocus]

If the lens you are using can outresolve the crop sensor.

Sensors "outresolving" lenses is one of the most misunderstood/misapplied concepts out there. Inferior lenses may prevent a sensor from producing optimum resolution that it is capable of, but for a given lens, more pixels = more detail. Passes both the eye test and software analysis on every lens that I've tested. Higher rez may not be better(aka sharper) proportional to the increase in pixel count, but it will be better. Based on my limited experience. The case may be different for those lesser lenses which aren't black...

[DanK]

Sensors "outresolving" lenses is one of the most misunderstood/misapplied concepts out there. Inferior lenses may prevent a sensor from producing optimum resolution that it is capable of, but for a given lens, more pixels = more detail. Passes both the eye test and software analysis on every lens that I've tested. Higher rez may not be better(aka sharper) proportional to the increase in pixel count, but it will be better. Based on my limited experience. The case may be different for those lesser lenses which aren't black...

different question. I am not talking about a difference in pixel count. I am talking about a difference in pixel density. At least in the Canon world, that is the main difference between crop and FF. In the Nikon world, it is a different matter with the 800, etc.

[ajohnw]

Sensors "outresolving" lenses is one of the most misunderstood/misapplied concepts out there. Inferior lenses may prevent a sensor from producing optimum resolution that it is capable of, but for a given lens, more pixels = more detail. Passes both the eye test and software analysis on every lens that I've tested. Higher rez may not be better(aka sharper) proportional to the increase in pixel count, but it will be better. Based on my limited experience. The case may be different for those lesser lenses which aren't black...

The post I made isn't absolute Dan - I used the word more or less or something like that. There is some sense in what I said but it's not absolute like most things. The whole area is a bit strange. Most technical tests use the same method as the equipment is relatively cheap, computerised and simple to use. Trouble is these results also improve with pixel counts and in real terms if they were truly accurate they wouldn't within wide limits. This probably because they are based on diffraction theory and camera lenses aren't. They are just a guide really and if the pixel count of the camera used is broadly similar on another camera results are likely to be very similar. Look at a few and compare with your own shots and it is possible to see what they are likely to mean in practice.

One other aspect is digital aliasing. I'm currently using a camera whose pixel density is so great the lens looks after that so there is no need for a separate filter. Another is contrast versus resolution which is really odd as the 2 inter relate. There is absolutely no argument about that as it's rock solid physics. I decided to ditch my Pansonic xx-200mm lens as while it had better contrast at 150mm my Olympus xx-150mm definitely had better resolution. I can fix contrast not resolution so which is the better option?

The other point of course is how the image on the sensor is actually handled - averaging and software that has been messed about with constructively for years to produce good sharp results. Smaller denser pixels probably help that within limits but it has nothing at all to do with lens resolution. It will just make what ever that is look better. There must come a point were it wont make a significant difference at all.

200mm on crop and an equal quality 300mm on full frame? You may have lenses that allow you to test it yourself. It's an interesting thing to do and it looks like the technical tests are correct. Framing the same of course.

John
-

[jcuknz]

I have never been into a shop and 'felt' a camera but on the other hand with movie cameras, limited range of options there of course, I maintained that I only had to shoot one reel of film though it and it would be part of me ... so I agree with Dan in #9
Mind you digital cameras have so much in them ... two years down the track and my latest camera is still strange to me becuase I only use the features I need .... so I don't see how feeling a camera would help in any material way. Go for the features you want ... I wanted knobs rather than menus so I bought the camera that has knobs bristling all over it

[djg05478]

What a timely forum discussion. I haven't been around for a bit, but I have been chompin' at the bit to upgrade my D90 to the D7100. I still had a few questions running through my head so I dropped in today to search the forum for answers and stumbled across this lively discussion. So thanks to this thread and B&H for currently offering the D7100 at less than $1000 it arrives on Wednesday

[JR1]

I have been movinbg home so have just come back

WHY do people assume that a FF camera is a step up.

I shoot both, do you step up from a 2 seater sports car to a 4 seater BMW, do you step up from a 125cc motocross bike to a 125cc road bike

It is horses for courses.

ask WHY you need crop or FF