Nikon D7100

[Burnouts]

The new flagship of Nikon's DX-format HD-SLR lineup. Achieve a thrilling new level of image quality and sharpness thanks to a specially designed 24.1-MP DX-format CMOS sensor. Enjoy speed, precision and convenience at every step, from shooting up to 6 fps to instantly sharing your shots with the optional WU-1a Wireless Mobile Adapter. Create dazzling Full HD 1080p videos and ultra-smooth slow-motion or time-lapse sequences. Unleash the power of Nikon's nimble DX-format system.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/1513/D7100.html


----
Personally it just looks like a D5200 to me.

[I @ M]

Personally it just looks like a D5200 to me.

Man, do you need to get your eyes checked or what!!!

Ignoring the totally different outwards appearances between the D5200 and D7000/7100 bodies (http://camerasize.com/compare/#7,393). The improvements over the D7000 all appear to be quite positive steps.

[Sar NOP]

So far, it looks like the best birding camera to me...:):):)
Any idea of its price in OZ ?

[arthurking83]

LOL! looks like a D5200 in what sense?..... specs? :lol:

Looks like a D7000 to me, which means that it also looks like a D600ish styled camera. If the D5200 looks anything like that, then this is by coincidence.

Specs are a different ballgame tho, and just because you see 24Mp in the tech specs, a good look at the focusing system reveals performance more like the D800/D4, than a D5200.
Besides the lack of an AA filter is going to make a significant enough impact on overall IQ to differentiate it from the D5200.

So like Andrew, I'm finding it hard to see it from this sort of perspective(that it looks like a D5200) too.

If you have ever used a DSLR in anger then you know that the number of pixels it possesses is only 1/8th of the total story .. AF makes up the other 3/4s!! :D
(btw, hardware buttons make up the other 1/8th)

A side issue with this new revelation(which has been predicted for some time now), is where does any prospective D400 fit in?
There's barely any wiggle room for a D400, and surely the D300s has to be killed off now, as it really is a dinosaur by comparison.

The only reason you would have chosen a D300s over a D7000 was for the better focusing system on the D300s
(or if like me you like external hardware controls in favour of controls via menus, then the D300s has one other advantage).

But with this new focusing system, you'd be mad to go for a D300s over a D7100!

price looks very competitive too :th3:

I'd say that a D400(D300s replacement) is unlikely to see the light of day now, as it's totally unnecessary, unless they have a 36Mp APS-C sensor also in the works).

Another less publicized, but important feature is native compatibility with Nikon's CLS system. D7000/7100 can control external speedlights as commander, whereas the D5200 does not(requires an external commander to do so).

So as to this comment that it looks like a D5200 ... :confused:

[Burnouts]

Should of said, specs look like D5200.

[I @ M]

Should of said, specs look like D5200.

Errr, no.

Definitely not like the D5200. Unless of course you are the type that simply looks at the megapickle specs. :confused013

[swifty]

Price is aggressive at $1199 usd. Camera Pro has it at $1399AUD pre-order although I haven't seen any other Aussie price mentions.
Leaves quite a big price gap to the D600.
Max RAW buffer depth of 9 shots in 12 bit compressed NEF. I've never had a problem with buffer depth for my type of shooting but I wonder how sports shooters feel?
Weather sealing's a nice touch.

[arthurking83]

Should of said, specs look like D5200.

And also, if you could elaborate on which specs look the same as a D5200 .. it'd be much appreciated.
(I must be missing something)

[manohartvs]

Looks like a great camera and a very aggressive price point indeed. I am also of the impression that the D400 is an unlikely release..how could they possibly top the D7100 in the DX range? Even if there could be improvements made, it has to significantly different to the D7100 to be able to stand out.

[Lance B]

It's listed at B&H for US$1,200.00 body only for pre order and available 21st March, which is incredible value! Probably about AU$1,500, which is generally how these things seem to work out.

If the IQ is better than the D7000, the res works out and the AF is as good as the D800, then it could be a great birding camera. :D

[Sifor]

Looks great, and I think it's the final nail in the D300s successor's coffin.

Does the D7100's grip increase its fps?

[Sar NOP]

The D7100's grip won't increase its fps, but probably the number of shots by battery charge.

[fillum]

Certainly plenty of camera for the dollars...


a good look at the focusing system reveals performance more like the D800/D4Any details on this AK or is this based on the 'sales talk'?


But with this new focusing system"New" focus system looks to be the CAM-3500, same as the D300s (and the D300 before that). Not a bad thing though (and likely tweaked from it's early days).


you'd be mad to go for a D300s over a D7100!Count me amongst the mad Arthur (but only at eGlobal prices, not at Nikon Aus prices :D)


I'd say that a D400(D300s replacement) is unlikely to see the light of day now, as it's totally unnecessaryI think there will be a D400 (although I'm not particularly confident), but I disagree that it's unnecessary. From online musings there seems to be plenty of demand, although that would obviously depend on where they price it.



Cheers.

[willnixo]

I read about this on Gizmodo this morning, Looks like it could be a good upgrade from my D5100,
I like is the sound of the 51-point autofocus, 6fps and a larger viewfinder

[Burnouts]

Personally I think people need to step back and look at what you're actually paying for..

51 AF points.. really? 39 were more than enough. I'm not sure what you even need them for, if your doing sport you'd be using a single AF point. With that many points trying to work out the focus you'd get inconsistently.

Bigger screen will mean shorter battery life for sure.

Stereo mic.. yeah sure it's cool but if you're serious about video you'd be using external mics.

1.3x crop mode seems silly to me.

Instead of "abusing" me for saying it is similar speced to the D5200, perhaps you could please state how you think it is different? To me it is using exactly the same sensor, same video specs (60fps etc), same processor, same stereo mic, same RAW abilities..

The only things that seem different are a bit pointless.. $700 D5200 vs $800 D7000 vs $1500 D7100..

[swifty]

I tend to agree with fillum.. still think there's room for a D400.

Anyways.. AF module appears to be the newer version of multi-cam 3500DX with detection range down to -2EV and centre AF for lens down to f8. Also face-priority AF mode that came in with the D4/D800's if I'm not mistaken (although I have no experience how well this mode actually works). All in all, an excellent upgrade.

In 1.3X crop (of the already DX-sized sensor which in itself has a 1.5X crop factor from FX), RAW buffer goes up to 14 in 12bit compressed NEFs. Not huge but potentially significant if you're going to crop anyways. You still get 15 odd MP, plenty of resolution and should provide an interesting comparison with the 4/3 format that are currently around 16MP and 2X crop from 135 format (in other words very similar to the 1.3X crop mode of the D7100).

[Lance B]

Personally I think people need to step back and look at what you're actually paying for..

51 AF points.. really? 39 were more than enough. I'm not sure what you even need them for, if your doing sport you'd be using a single AF point. With that many points trying to work out the focus you'd get inconsistently.

Bigger screen will mean shorter battery life for sure.

Stereo mic.. yeah sure it's cool but if you're serious about video you'd be using external mics.

1.3x crop mode seems silly to me.

Not for in camera reach. In otherwords, you are cropping in camera to 1.3x so that you get added reach at 15Mp. Great for birders and the lower Mp means more fps.


Instead of "abusing" me for saying it is similar speced to the D5200, perhaps you could please state how you think it is different? To me it is using exactly the same sensor, same video specs (60fps etc), same processor, same stereo mic, same RAW abilities..

The only things that seem different are a bit pointless.. $700 D5200 vs $800 D7000 vs $1500 D7100..

You get superior build quality and weather and dust sealing over the D5100 and more Mp over the D7000. A more rubust camera in the semi pro arena which can handle the long lenses better due to the magnesium alloy frame, larger VF for easier focusing and composition, faster fram rates, 59 AF points over 39, AF that is superior, ie faster and more accurate.

Remember, just because you may not see the benefits of these features doesn't mean that these features are not beneficial to others even at the higher price.

[Tommo1965]

I think at the moment the D7000 at around $800 is a good buy..the 7100 if sold for about $1100 at DWI would also be a great camera ..not sure what id pick.. probably the 7100

[Burnouts]

Not for in camera reach. In otherwords, you are cropping in camera to 1.3x so that you get added reach at 15Mp. Great for birders and the lower Mp means more fps.



You get superior build quality and weather and dust sealing over the D5100 and more Mp over the D7000. A more rubust camera in the semi pro arena which can handle the long lenses better due to the magnesium alloy frame, larger VF for easier focusing and composition, faster fram rates, 59 AF points over 39, AF that is superior, ie faster and more accurate.

Remember, just because you may not see the benefits of these features doesn't mean that these features are not beneficial to others even at the higher price.

I think what I'm getting at is that how Nikon built the D7100.. mostly D5200 internals in a D7000 body and call it "NEW". D7000 when it was released was an amazing step forward.. D7100 not so much.

[Sar NOP]

:):):)

[salnel]

Pardon my ignorance on this but I have a question regarding the 1x3 crop. Nikon says that this is roughly twice the magnification of your lens. So, I have the 300 plus the 1.5 teleconvertor. If I use the 7100 with the new crop feature, does this turn a 420mm lens into an effective 840mm reach?

[fillum]

If I use the 7100 with the new crop feature, does this turn a 420mm lens into an effective 840mm reach?That's basically correct Sally. You'd have 1.5 (standard crop) x 1.3 (reduced crop mode) = 1.95, so almost double the "reach" (but at a reduced resolution) compared to the same lens on a 35mm full frame sensor. (Note that lens characteristics - DoF etc - don't behave like the "longer" lens, so for example even though your angle of view appears to be that of an 800+mm lens, the DoF at the censor will be the same as for 420mm).

You don't need a special crop mode to do this. When you crop an image in PP you are effectively simulating a reduced angle of view (more "reach") but again at reduced resolution. The point of a crop mode in the camera is to reduce the amount of image data that needs to be processed so that you get more images before the buffer fills up and a faster frames-per-second rate.



Cheers.

[Lance B]

I think what I'm getting at is that how Nikon built the D7100.. mostly D5200 internals in a D7000 body and call it "NEW". D7000 when it was released was an amazing step forward.. D7100 not so much.

I think you have to remember that on release, the D7000 was around the AU$1600 mark and is now "only" around the AU$1,000 mark because it is probably going to be discontinued at some time or it is at a production end, so they are discounting it. So, the D7100, which is quite similar to the D7000 in features and build quality, will have a similar price upon release, hence the price of around AU$1,500.

There is quite a difference in build quality between the D5200 and D7000/D7100. The AF is vastly superior on the D7000/D7100, the D7100 has a pentaprism viewfinder instead of the much cheaper D5200's pentamirror, the D7100 has 100% VF view @ .94x whereas the D5200 is only 95% @ .78x, giving the D7100 a vastly superior larger view through the VF. D5200 has only one card slot, the D7100 has 2. What I am getting at is that it is not a case of the D7100 having "mostly D5200 internals" as that is definitely not the case, apart from the sensor and possbily a few processing pieces of hardware. Most of the cost is made up of these other things like the pentaprism, AF module and associated peripheries, magnesium body, dust and weather resistance, faster write speeds, higher frame rate requiring a more robust shutter/mirror to name just a few.

I think if you held the two cameras and used them in the field using pro lenses on sports/birds/wildlife etc, you would quickly realise why there is a cost difference.

[Burnouts]

There is quite a difference in build quality between the D5200 and D7000/D7100. The AF is vastly superior on the D7000/D7100, the D7100 has a pentaprism viewfinder instead of the much cheaper D5200's pentamirror, the D7100 has 100% VF view @ .94x whereas the D5200 is only 95% @ .78x, giving the D7100 a vastly superior larger view through the VF. D5200 has only one card slot, the D7100 has 2. What I am getting at is that it is not a case of the D7100 having "mostly D5200 internals" as that is definitely not the case, apart from the sensor and possbily a few processing pieces of hardware. Most of the cost is made up of these other things like the pentaprism, AF module and associated peripheries, magnesium body, dust and weather resistance, faster write speeds, higher frame rate requiring a more robust shutter/mirror to name just a few.

That's the thing, the "new" internals don't effect IQ when you take the picture. I've used a D5200 with a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 that's about 2kg of class hanging off it without using the tripod mount, I found it didn't flex at all and felt no different from using a "pro" body.



I think if you held the two cameras and used them in the field using pro lenses on sports/birds/wildlife etc, you would quickly realise why there is a cost difference.

I have used both with decent lens mounted on them, I find it hard to find to justify spending extra money on a D7100. D7000 at grey now is $750 + $50~ postage, while D5200 is at cheaper prices.

[MattNQ]

. A more rubust camera in the semi pro arena which can handle the long lenses better due to the magnesium alloy frame.....
Remember, just because you may not see the benefits of these features doesn't mean that these features are not beneficial to others even at the higher price.

From the pictures, it is not a full alloy frame. To ask a silly question - I'm wondering why the lens mount area is still plastic. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the front face and mount area of the camera fully alloy & the rear plastic? The front is also where the impact will be felt when you drop a camera & lens.
Mind you I swing an 80-200/2.8 off the D3000 and it hasn't flexed or cracked yet - and I am not too gentle with it

Some pretty heated arguments on other forums about this camera. Kind of funny really. :lol:
Does it do everything I'd like...nope. Will the 7DmkII be a better sports camera...possibly. Will there be a D400...probably, but who knows what Nikon is thinking these days...But as Lance said, some will appreciate the finer improvements such as the pentaprism, improved AF, additional crop mode etc etc and some won't.

In the tradition of Ann Elk, my opinion, which is mine....is as follows....For me who is way overdue upgrading from the alleged "worst DSLR Nikon ever made" to find a balance between sport & landscapes the D7100 looks good and I'd buy it over the D600. For me, while my landscapes are RAW, I shoot sport in jpg (raw offers little benefit), and kids football, netball, and athletics are all short duration periods of action - a burst of action here, then a break in play. And if you are good enough, you will follow the play and capture the moment in a few shots rather than machine gun every play & hope you nail a good shot.

It looks to be a fine camera, and while some will wish it had different specs, like any camera body, you learn to work with its strengths & weaknesses.

[I @ M]

That's the thing, the "new" internals don't effect IQ when you take the picture.

Don't they? Do you have some inside knowledge about how the processor in this unreleased, unreviewed body works in relation to past models?
Nikon would have to be one of the most secretive companies going when it comes to modifying the internal software workings of their cameras.



I've used a D5200 with a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 that's about 2kg of class hanging off it without using the tripod mount, I found it didn't flex at all and felt no different from using a "pro" body.

There is a bit of an opinion out there that picking up and holding a camera / lens combination should be done by holding, the heaviest and or longest component of the two.

Distorting the body at the lens mount by excessive weight leverage on it due to long / heavy lenses is one of the most common focus problems that Nikon repairers are asked to rectify.

Maybe, just maybe, the polycarbonate bodies bend and then return to shape when abused in that way but I know that the full alloy frame bodies don't.


You seem to be quite touchy and feel that you are being "abused" according to post #15 but I really think that you are blowing things out of proportion there. You have made statements, some ( me included ) disagree with them and have answered those statements. Nobody has been rude to you or abused you.

You have your opinions, others have theirs and they are entitled to express them. If you feel that the D7100 is not a good camera, easy, don't buy one but please don't try to describe it in ways that it is clearly not because you don't like it.

[Lance B]

That's the thing, the "new" internals don't effect IQ when you take the picture. I've used a D5200 with a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 that's about 2kg of class hanging off it without using the tripod mount, I found it didn't flex at all and felt no different from using a "pro" body.


I have used both with decent lens mounted on them, I find it hard to find to justify spending extra money on a D7100. D7000 at grey now is $750 + $50~ postage, while D5200 is at cheaper prices.

Well, if you've used them both and found no difference for your shooting style then it is obvious that it would be of no benefit to you and apart from that, you've already made up your mind. One wonders why you made a comment about it anyway as you have been shown the reasons as to why the D7100 is dearer you have dismissed them out of hand and the fact that you tried them both means that your questions must have been rhetorical. However, with the subject matter that I shoot at and under the conditions and speeds that I shoot at, I am sure that the D5200 would be found wanting, especially long term.

[I @ M]

From the pictures, it is not a full alloy frame. To ask a silly question - I'm wondering why the lens mount area is still plastic. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the front face and mount area of the camera fully alloy & the rear plastic? The front is also where the impact will be felt when you drop a camera & lens.
Mind you I swing an 80-200/2.8 off the D3000 and it hasn't flexed or cracked yet - and I am not too gentle with it



Matt, see my post ^ re bodies / lens mounts.

The poly carbonate bodies do flex, I have made a D7000 body flex ( visibly ) by depressing the lens mount / dismount button.

Did it seem to stay "bent"? No.

Did it destroy the picture quality / focus ability?

I certainly don't think so.

Impact damage is only one area of the "debate" between proponents of one body over another and my thoughts are that a "poly" body dropped under the exact same conditions as a "alloy" body in a "gentle" drop test may even survive better due to flex and rebound shock absorption.

Drop them both hard enough and they are both going to die. :(

[MattNQ]

It is a similar debate to 4wd bullbars I guess - The newer poly ones flex but absorb impact and rebound, The alloy ones absorb to a degree, but then bend beyond repair.

[Burnouts]

Don't they? Do you have some inside knowledge about how the processor in this unreleased, unreviewed body works in relation to past models?
Nikon would have to be one of the most secretive companies going when it comes to modifying the internal software workings of their cameras.


Considering it is exactly the same MP and sensor size of the D5200, I don't see why Nikon would go making up a new sensor (or borrowing Sony/Toshiba and calling it there own).

I'm just very disappointed in the D7100, I had been waiting for a long time for the replacement of the D7000 and put off upgrading to a D600 because of it.

I'm sorry if I come across pissed off, but I am with Nikon atm.

[I @ M]

Considering it is exactly the same MP and sensor size of the D5200, I don't see why Nikon would go making up a new sensor (or borrowing Sony/Toshiba and calling it there own).

Is it the "same" Sony/Toshiba sensor?
Nikon ( as far as I know ) have only had one or maybe two sensors made by firms other than the aforementioned two companies but it certainly doesn't preclude them from doing it again. Apart from that, maybe it is a Sony/Toshiba sensor but made differently to those in the past.
I think you may be a little premature in your "assumptions" unless of course you have "the knowledge" that you are correct.


I'm just very disappointed in the D7100, I had been waiting for a long time for the replacement of the D7000 and put off upgrading to a D600 because of it.

I'm sorry if I come across pissed off, but I am with Nikon atm.

So why bother waiting?
Just buy another brand camera that meets your needs.

I mean, it is not as if you have mega dollars locked up in one brand in the way of lenses and are going to take a huge financial loss swapping brands.
I'm sure that you could find satisfaction ( or maybe continuing dissatisfaction ) in another brand body and lenses.

Or how about, just go and buy a D4 or even a D3s and be happy ever more. Or are they too old tech for your needs and abilities?

Why be angry at Nikon?
They are purely a company ( much the same as all others ) that exist to make profits and keep the bosses rolling in sushi and sake and not a loss making venture that supplies several dozen different model bodies purely to keep the minority of their customers from foaming at the mouth.

[AVALANCHE]

If I didn't already have the D7000, I would certainly get this camera.

[arthurking83]

......

Instead of "abusing" me for saying it is similar speced to the D5200, perhaps you could please state how you think it is different? To me it is using exactly the same sensor, same video specs (60fps etc), same processor, same stereo mic, same RAW abilities..

.... The only things that seem different are a bit pointless .....

..... ..

This is a joke yeah?

Those pointless differences is what makes the camera. Give me more camera and less sensor any day(at a reasonable cost that is).

Some of the important spec differences have already been mentioned.

24Mp sensor is not the same as a 24Mp AA free sensor! You should see some resolution advantage from the D7100 compared to a D5200.

Sensor doesn't make the camera ... in fact some people regarded them as a hindrance :p

Focus system operates down to -2Ev .. same as D800 and D4. D300, D7100, and mostly all other Nikons up till about this year have all done AF down to -1Ev.

FWIW: this means f/8 focusing on at least one point, not f/5.6!

I think you will find this to be a huge leap in many situations compared to even a D300, let alone a D5200.
And you can't think of how 51 AF points can be an advantage over 39 points, then you probably haven't used a camera for long enough to realize that this is still an advantage.
these 51 points will almost certainly be configurable to something like 9, 11, 39 and 51 if required too, so there is the advantage of just the choice of how many the operator thinks is nice to have access too.
And of course there is 3D tracking, which if memory serves me correctly is not an option on a D5200.

OK, so you probably don't seem to think twin memory cards are enough difference to distinguish between a 5200 and a 7100 either, so it's probably not worth mentioning.

Buffer will be at least twice as large.

D5200 has no option to save camera settings into memory that are easily accessed as user banks.
While D7100 is not perfect in this respect, at least there are memory banks for those that need them.

Sometimes there's absolutely no point in having an uber fantasic lens attached to a camera body that can't capture the image you're trying to get. While lenses make a huge difference in some ways, if the camera locks up ...... eg. full buffer, or slow write speeds to card, or it simply won't lock focus due to low light.

Been there done that, and I no longer use it, and prefer the camera with the better ability + lower quality lens.

And while Lance has already mentioned the viewfinder coverage at 95%, what is important to note here is that it's 95% in both the vertical and horizontal directions.
i.e is that the reality is that it's closer to 90% overall coverage of a 100% viewfinder. If you prefer to use it like a P&S, then this makes no difference, but a good quality viewfinder is what a DSLR is all about.

Something simple like Flash FP high speed sync modes are not supported on the D5200, whereas they are on the D7100. For high speed flash operation this is a major limitation on the D5200.

Just because you may have never used or preferred these features, doesn't mean that they're insignificant features .. so, one thing the D7100 is NOT is a D5200!
It's a D7000/D300s replacement with copious quantities of ability, and way too much resolution for it's own good.

D7100 is almost a pro level camera, and I can easily see how many professional users would see this as a great high resolution option in many situations!
Apart from the cost of the D5200, it has very limited appeal to someone that already owns something like a D300/D800 etc.
Going backwards in terms of features(as mentioned above) is not an appealing prospect.



.... I think what I'm getting at is that how Nikon built the D7100.. mostly D5200 internals in a D7000 body and call it "NEW". D7000 when it was released was an amazing step forward.. D7100 not so much.

Don't get hung up with megapixels and sensors. They don't make the camera, otherwise we'd all be shooting D5200's and D800's only and that's it.
ie. a D4 would have no place in this world, as it's only an old measly 16Mp, which is surely underwhelming in this day and age.

And I'd like to know what is so wrong with updating the 24Mp sensor from the D5200, remove the AA filter, and shoehorn it into a D7000 body anyhow! :confused: to me this sounds like a new camera if ever I heard of one.
I dunno how long you've been around digital cameras, but almost all manufacturers do this. And Nikon have been doing this in many variations since 2000 anyhow!
D100 sensor went into the D70/s and D50/D40. D200 sensor went into the D40x and D60, D300 sensor went into the D90 and D300s ... etc, etc ......

But more important than history, is that the camera body is made up of more than just one part! Lot's of features not usually mentioned that make all the difference in the world!

- - - Updated - - -

ps: we're not abusing you .. think of it more as education

[Epoc]

The dream: take a D7000, whack a D5200 sensor and the D300 AF in it. This has been talked about all over the net as the perfect crop camera. Now it's here, I'm gobsmacked it is now getting criticised. Nikon must be scratching theirs heads at this reaction. We gave them what they wanted and they still whinge! The 7100 will be an awesome camera and is a massive update on the 7000. Comparing it to a 5200, cmon mate, that's just laughable :)

[Issy]

Looks good, would like it with a 70-200mm f4.

[Lurchorama]

Not being a Nikon user; the 7100 is still interesting to the rest of us. For the APS-C class of camera; it's set a whole new benchmark. From an IQ point of view the K5 has been king of the hill for quite a while now. The 5200 came up to match it, but now the 7100 is king.
BUT... It's only Feb, and both Canon and Pentax are still due for their big releases for 2013.

This is gonna be a really good year.

[Sar NOP]

Looks good, would like it with a 70-200mm f4.
Or with a 800/5.6E FL...:D:D

[arthurking83]

Question is .. is the D7100 E lens capable?
(I'm sure it is tho)

[Sar NOP]

For a DX new flagship, it certainly will...

[Tommo1965]

And while Lance has already mentioned the viewfinder coverage at 95%, what is important to note here is that it's 95% in both the vertical and horizontal directions.
i.e is that the reality is that it's closer to 90% overall coverage of a 100% viewfinder. If you prefer to use it like a P&S, then this makes no difference, but a good quality viewfinder is what a DSLR is all about.



Do you know that Nikon measure their Viewfinder coverage by a linear method ?....I was always under a assumption that it was area....but I've no idea if im correct or not.

[arthurking83]

All manufacturers will advertise the best numbers to make the product look better than it may really be.

Nikon state that in the specs that the viewfinder coverage is 95% both vertical and horizontal (D5200). Overall tho this adds up to a tick over 90% for the entire frame.

95% sounds a lot more marketable than 90%(total area) .... which it really is.

For some this may not be an issue, and of the few fellow Nikon owners I know with these types of cameras, they've never complained about it.

But I tended to do so with my D70s, which was also this supposed 95%. As I was predominantly a landscape chasing type, one of my main priorities was to frame the scene without the need to crop, at all ... not even the annoying millimeters or so that I used to get with the D300 as well on the horizontal axis.
So even the D300 only has 99.9% coverage according to the viewfinder, which when compared to Liveview would sometimes leave a small obstruction on one of the sides(Landscape orientation) that was not seen via the viewfinder.

So far the D800 is showing true 100% in both vertical and horizontal coverage. Haven't actually looked for any discrepancy tho.

A D5200(to me) would only ever be a fun camera to use. Too many limitations compared to what I like to have at my fingertips.
Of course I've never actually used one, my closest experience with a D5200 has been with the D5100 in terms of body type and a D3200 in terms of 24Mp sensor.

Nikon's timing has to make you wonder tho. Why'd they release this camera with this sensor so far down the track given that the sensor is already available in lower end cameras.
Surely they must have tweaked it considerably more than a simple omission of the AA filter given that it's now more than a 1 year old design!
And now that their marketing strategy has taken a turn, of course there is every chance that a higher end D300s replacement is still in the works too.
Nikon don't usually reveal the origins of their sensors, so there is every possibility that it may be different in specification to the D5200 sensor.

[Epoc]

Bit of a shame they haven't upgraded the buffer capacity from the 7000. Mad BIF shooters may be a bit disappointed.

[arthurking83]

The buffer capacity has come up in another forum too, and I think there may be more to it than simply the buffer size.

you still get the same buffer capacity if you're OK with shooting in 1.3 crop mode, and with that ever so slightly more, apparently 11(D7000) vs 12(D7100) shots fills the buffer at 12bit lossless compressed.

So you still get the same 15Mp and buffer size, with the option to go with the full 24Mp on the D7100.

But this may also be a readout(or write to card) issue as well, not just the buffer size. Until D7100's find their way into the hands of testers, we don't know.
As it stands, there is no info as to how quickly the buffer clears once it's full. What's the point in filling a larger buffer with more data that just takes an excruciating long time to clear?

Alternatively, maybe because of this same sized buffer, Nikon do have plans for a more potent Dx camera in the wings(D400)
That is, the only APS-C camera with the same frame rate performance as it's major competitor in the Canon 7D, is still the D300s! Basically a 6yo camera that is (realistically)behind the eightball by todays digital image standards.

[Epoc]

Yes real world, hands on experience will be the only judge. I have to say, I'm excited by this camera and can't wait for its debut. Might be another 7 series Nikon to add to my collection :D

[Jorge Arguello]

In paper, reading specifications, sometimes there is not much difference. When the camera is used then small difference tend to become noticeable differences.
I have just 4 months with the D7000. I don’t have plans on getting the D7100 but I reckon that is very appealing camera.
I agree D7100 has features that people were asking.
Enjoy the great camera range we can find now.

[wolffman]

Looks good to me. I now want a different camera I can't afford to get until the d90 dies which still doesn't look like happening any time soon
Huge screen
Slow motion Video
250 sync
Ais lens metering
Better af
Even further reach
It's all good

[manohartvs]

Has anyone purchase a D7100 yet?

[soixant]

To an old fella who has trouble holding my gear steady, this 7100 will require me to buy a sturdy tripod to go with the afs 300 lens which to my understanding will be 15mps at 600mm. All I'd need then is for the wrens and their little relations to sit still for a while. Have to save up for this one.

[MattNQ]

Wandered into a few shops today hoping for a play with one. Maybe too early in the piece up here in the colonies??
JB Hifi in townsville apparently not special enough - "only our concept stores down south are getting them". $1900 for body only:eek:
Harvey Norman apparently had theirs delivered, but none out on display. Around the $1600 mark body only
Next door at Camera house...none on the shelf, no promotional guff out yet...and nobody was interested in even asking if I needed help.:confused013..so I left.

[Sar NOP]

The DXO site has just published the test of the D7100 : no big differences compared to the D7000 in term of IQ, except for the DR. The high ISO performances are not as the same level as those from the D600 or D800. The test also shows that the D7100 has a different sensor from the D3200 and D5200.
IMO, the D7000 still is a great DX camera for its price (new or second hand).