| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/01/2013 01:36:50 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Ann:
I'm pretty sure I've never seen such strong agreement in the forums here before. It has me thinking I should go buy a D7000 myself. |
Originally posted by Ja-9:
I'm telling you it's amazing... |
I have to think that sporting a D800, she's being a little tongue-in-cheek. I don't think I've touched my D7000 since getting my D600.
Although I have to agree with Neil about the weight of these FF cameras......I think this darn 28-300 I have on my D600 weighs more than my D7000, 18-200, & battery pack combined! LOL!!! |
I'm not at all being tongue in cheek. It's a very good camera, and it's clearly the right answer to op's question. I'm considering getting a d7100 myself for when I need more reach than I can get with the d800. I was just stunned that everyone else was in agreement to. Other than the obvious troll, of course. |
|
|
|
03/01/2013 02:16:13 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Ann:
I'm pretty sure I've never seen such strong agreement in the forums here before. It has me thinking I should go buy a D7000 myself. |
Originally posted by Ja-9:
I'm telling you it's amazing... |
I have to think that sporting a D800, she's being a little tongue-in-cheek. I don't think I've touched my D7000 since getting my D600.
Although I have to agree with Neil about the weight of these FF cameras......I think this darn 28-300 I have on my D600 weighs more than my D7000, 18-200, & battery pack combined! LOL!!! |
I'm not at all being tongue in cheek. It's a very good camera, and it's clearly the right answer to op's question. I'm considering getting a d7100 myself for when I need more reach than I can get with the d800. I was just stunned that everyone else was in agreement to. Other than the obvious troll, of course. |
I'm always confused by the crop factors here...is a 16mp (I think that's what it is) picture on a 24mp 1.5x camera, add a 1.3x crop (which somehow means 2x total), more pixels than you get in crop mode for a DX lens on your D800?
If you were to crop a D800 image manually, to the 16mp resolution, what would the effective crop be? Seems like it should be 2x (in each direction--though I forget if the D800 is 36mp or 32mp).
I think the only REAL magic for a crop sensor occurs in a EVF type camera (like the G5 I just bought). Then you can actually see the 2x zoom in magnification with the same lens. (Which doesn't make a difference to the picture but it's better than that inner viewfinder frame on the D600).
(Adding: the G5 is no match for the D7000, but it's half the weight. And for less than 16oz, I have a 100-300mm lens which behaves like a 200-600mm lens in all respects. A bit smaller than the Nikon 28-300 VR, and the G5 and lens together weigh less than just this lens. I figured I could carry the G5 + 200-600mm lens already mounted, as a quick grab for distant wildlife. I already got a pretty nice pic of a heron on my first day out with it.
Message edited by author 2013-03-01 14:20:12. |
|
|
|
03/01/2013 02:26:49 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Neil:
I'm always confused by the crop factors here...is a 16mp (I think that's what it is) picture on a 24mp 1.5x camera, add a 1.3x crop (which somehow means 2x total), more pixels than you get in crop mode for a DX lens on your D800?
If you were to crop a D800 image manually, to the 16mp resolution, what would the effective crop be? Seems like it should be 2x (in each direction--though I forget if the D800 is 36mp or 32mp).
|
I was surprised with the fact that D7100 has higher pixel per inch count than D800.
Message edited by author 2013-03-01 14:31:30. |
|
|
|
03/01/2013 03:12:55 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Neil:
If you were to crop a D800 image manually, to the 16mp resolution, what would the effective crop be? Seems like it should be 2x (in each direction--though I forget if the D800 is 36mp or 32mp). |
The way to imagine this is to:
- First imagine the FX frame, which for the D800 contains about 36Mpx.
- Now imagine drawing a selection that includes the entire sensor.
- Finally, imagine shrinkintg the selection from the bottom-right corner, maintaining the aspect ratio. Stop when you get to the center of the image.
Now, what you have selected is the upper-left quarter of the image. Intuitively, the selected pixel count will be 25% of the total, or about 9 Mpx. Yet half the frame is selected, both horizontally and vertically. The "crop factor" is 2.0.
The lesson here is that the pixel reduction scales with the square of the crop factor. To calculate the remaining pixels, the formula is:
Pf = Po/CF^2
where Pf is the pixels in the final pixel count, Po is the original pixel count, and CF is, well, the crop factor of course. Now, we can rearrange this formulaa thus:
SQRT(Po/Pf) = CF
so to (finally) answer your question, for the D800, Po = 36Mpx and Pf = 16Mpx so:
sqrt(36/16) = 1.5 = CF
Oddly, this result is exact. So a "standard Nikon DX frame" taken out of a D800 frame, will be 16Mpx. Actually a bit over, bceause Po is actually 36.3, not 36.
Message edited by author 2013-03-01 15:14:14. |
|
|
|
03/01/2013 03:30:08 PM · #30 |
| FWIW, I'll chime in as yet another user who would suggest the D7000 for you. The 7100 does have the improved AF I love in my D300, but it will come at a significant price difference, and the D7000 should already have quite an AF edge on your existing body, so I'm not sure it's worth the expense for you. It's a good camera and is the direct successor to your current cam. |
|
|
|
03/01/2013 03:35:58 PM · #31 |
| I upgraded from a D80 to the D7000 last year. I LOVE it!! :) |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 07:54:00 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
FWIW, I'll chime in as yet another user who would suggest the D7000 for you. The 7100 does have the improved AF I love in my D300, but it will come at a significant price difference, and the D7000 should already have quite an AF edge on your existing body, so I'm not sure it's worth the expense for you. It's a good camera and is the direct successor to your current cam. |
You'd think, but check out these pages on Nikon's site!
Nikon D7000 $1350.00
Nikon D7100 $1199.95
Oh, yeah........PLEASE can I spend more for the D7000 than the D7100!
What the........?
|
|
|
|
03/02/2013 11:12:35 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
FWIW, I'll chime in as yet another user who would suggest the D7000 for you. The 7100 does have the improved AF I love in my D300, but it will come at a significant price difference, and the D7000 should already have quite an AF edge on your existing body, so I'm not sure it's worth the expense for you. It's a good camera and is the direct successor to your current cam. |
You'd think, but check out these pages on Nikon's site!
Nikon D7000 $1350.00
Nikon D7100 $1199.95
Oh, yeah........PLEASE can I spend more for the D7000 than the D7100!
What the........? |
Edit....B&H has the D7000 with a free bag and memory card for $896 now.
Message edited by author 2013-03-02 11:14:16. |
|
|
|
03/03/2013 02:48:33 PM · #34 |
I'm pretty sure I'm getting a D7100...if so, I'll definitely be selling the D7000...question is whether I'll also get rid of my new D600 and new lenses (duh, just bought the 16-35).
Might be a fire sale here soon.
Fritz, thanks for the formula and explanation! |
|
|
|
03/03/2013 03:15:20 PM · #35 |
I've had my D7000 for 2 months now and bought it 2nd hand boxed with only about 100 shots on the clock. In this case it was a big improvement over the 12MP of my other bodies. I get a lot more keepers of slightly more distant subjects than I could with D80/D90/D300S. $800 new is a steal and less for a loved one 2nd hand. Wait till the D7100 is on the shelves and a lot of people will just sell their hardly used D7000's. You will need the spare $$$ for a new hard drive! Each RAW image on the D7000 is already 25MB+!
I am biding my time to see what happens with the D300s replacement...that rumoured D400. The D7100 is too small an upgrade for me now that I own a D7000 despite it's advantages. |
|
|
|
03/08/2013 10:02:56 PM · #36 |
Best recommendation if on a budget is the D7000. Best recommendation of not on a budget: D7000. I say that because to go for higher resolution has tradeoffs in processing load and little incremental gain in resolution or functionality.
The D7000 was a quantum leap in the series of compact body configurations beginning with the D70 with leaps in resolution, viewfinder (finally 100%) and other functionality such as usable live view, focus improvements, etc. I frequently use it over the D700 for its resolution and framing precision, not to mention weight and size economies. (The D700 is better when using gloves however since it inherits the larger body size & weight even of the earlier D100, 200, 300 APS-C bodies.)
Another major consideration not mentioned so far is your processing platform and if you use RAW. File sizes are nearly three times the size of your D70 files so you can expect sluggish editing performance especially on an older PC. If you use RAW and Adobe Photoshop or Elements, ACR will require CS5 or a recent version of Elements. New models such as the D600 or D7100 will require the latest versions of Adobe and a newer PC with RAM of at least 8GB. I upgraded from 2GB RAM to 16GB before I was happy with the load times for multiple D7000 full resolution files in CS5.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 01:48:30 AM EDT.
