D7000 > D7100 to replace 18-200, daft idea? or go 16-85? read on.

Messages
999
Name
Mick
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got a D7000 and love it. I have a Tamron 17-50 and a Sigma 70-200 and love the quality they bring.

But I shoot my kids dancing events that need to be 18mm one minute, zoomed the next, so I struggle the use the above combo.

I have tried my 18-200 recently, but this appears now faulty, full details and some sample shots in this thread: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...imited-performance-what-other-options.551109/

Whilst on the face of it, the last shots I took with the 18-200 were sharp, it was a sunny day and I was at f8 to help the lens out. Not every day is going to give me those perfect shooting conditions.

I've contemplated a 18-105 etc and other bigger zooms, but probably on par with 18-200 methinks. Nikon 16-85? Okay, fine lens, but much of a difference over my 17-50 2.8?

Looking through my lightroom catalog, i'm wondering what I could get away with on these shoots, 100mm max maybe? So this is where i'm thinking D7000>D7100 and don't bother with a new lens?

a) D7100 is 24mp versus 16mp of the D7000
b) this crop mode feature the D7100 has

I suppose the basic question i'm asking is, will the extra megapixels (and maybe the crop mode) give my 17-50 a shot in the arm with regard its zoom? ie using cropping to make up for lack of zoom?

Or do I look at say the 16-85 and go at it that way? Last resort, get the 18-200 fixed and stick with that?

Any comments or thoughts very much appreciated.
 
Are you not getting sharp shots with the 18-200 because you're at full zoom, f/5.6 with low light levels of a schools dancing performance? Anything theatrical is always going to be difficult at 200mm with a slow aperture.
 
Yes, issues with the 18-200 lens as described in the other thread, this is more about the viability of the d7100 route really.

And no, I don't want to go down the 2nd body route. :)
 
16-21mp isn't really that big a jump and IMHO not really worth it. 12-24mp maybe, but 16-24 not really.
 
think u need 2 bodies, while a higher res sensor will work, u get more noise, the lens needs to be really good to warrent the digital crop your intending, and its probably ok at lower iso todo that, but high iso sensor performance is worse, so it gets less viable
 
2 bodies are just not an option for me....... replacement lenses and bodies I can sneak past the good lady, they all look the same to her........ a 2nd body, not on your nelly. ;)
 
I have the 18 to 200 VR2 useing it with a D300 at the moment, the VR2 is a upgrade on the VR1. I have no probs with lens and have taken some great images. I know people who use the D7000 with this lens and they have no probs. I also have a D7000 with the 12 to 24 lens, it's a cracking lens, I am toying with the idea of getting the D7100 to replace the D300, and put the 12 to 24 on that, with the 18 to 200 on the D7000, I do a lot of landscape and the 12 to 24 suits my work, as I said it's a great lens.
 
This might be ever so slighty off the original topic, but on the same lines, i recently got a D7100, i had 2 D300's, have got rid of one. I also have the 18-105 nikon, a 70-200 f2.8 nikon and a 70-300 f5.6 nikon lens kit.
I got the 70-300 just for lightness, saves having to carry the lump of the 2.8 around when not doing important stuff.
Now heres the funny bit, on the 7100 with the 18-105 lens, i have noticed that the image quality on jpeg (converted from RAW with nikon software) is worse than that from the d300. I have tried different shooting conditions, baring in mind that on the d300 i have shot many a wedding, i tried the same lens on the d7100 on a wedding, good lighting conditions etc and found that during group shots were im at the lower end of the wide angle the faces of the subjects seem to be soft in detail from those from the D300.
I went to RIAT this year and put the 70-300 on the 7100, and again noticed alot of soft images, weather conditions were sunny, i was shooting at high speed around 2000 sec, give or take, now when i look back at some RIAT shots i did a few years ago with the d300 they were pretty much on the ball.
Anyway, over this week i have been doing some pics for a brochure of birds of prey, mainly a barn owl, and i tried out the camera lens combos again, with the d300 coming out best for detail and overall sharpness, which is strange seeing that nikon have removed the filter from the sensor on the d7100, which they state that it will give a sharper image!!
I have also noticed that the noise in some of the 7100 images is appaling, its there even at 400 iso in the shadow areas in some..not all images.
Im going to be giving the cameras a good work out over the next few days on comparison tests to see whats going on.......i have had some great results from the 7100, dont get me wrong, i just feel that with the updates in tech / sensor size..i would of thought they would be far more consistant.
 
This might be ever so slighty off the original topic, but on the same lines, i recently got a D7100, i had 2 D300's, have got rid of one. I also have the 18-105 nikon, a 70-200 f2.8 nikon and a 70-300 f5.6 nikon lens kit.
I got the 70-300 just for lightness, saves having to carry the lump of the 2.8 around when not doing important stuff.
Now heres the funny bit, on the 7100 with the 18-105 lens, i have noticed that the image quality on jpeg (converted from RAW with nikon software) is worse than that from the d300. I have tried different shooting conditions, baring in mind that on the d300 i have shot many a wedding, i tried the same lens on the d7100 on a wedding, good lighting conditions etc and found that during group shots were im at the lower end of the wide angle the faces of the subjects seem to be soft in detail from those from the D300.
I went to RIAT this year and put the 70-300 on the 7100, and again noticed alot of soft images, weather conditions were sunny, i was shooting at high speed around 2000 sec, give or take, now when i look back at some RIAT shots i did a few years ago with the d300 they were pretty much on the ball.
Anyway, over this week i have been doing some pics for a brochure of birds of prey, mainly a barn owl, and i tried out the camera lens combos again, with the d300 coming out best for detail and overall sharpness, which is strange seeing that nikon have removed the filter from the sensor on the d7100, which they state that it will give a sharper image!!
I have also noticed that the noise in some of the 7100 images is appaling, its there even at 400 iso in the shadow areas in some..not all images.
Im going to be giving the cameras a good work out over the next few days on comparison tests to see whats going on.......i have had some great results from the 7100, dont get me wrong, i just feel that with the updates in tech / sensor size..i would of thought they would be far more consistant.

Must admit I'm also not convinced by the D7100's sharpness - it's certainly no sharper than my D90. Sharpness/Detail on D7100 drops substantially once you exceed ISO 400 and the RAW files don't seem as clean/crisp as to what the older 12mp sensors produced. I'd say noise wise ISO 400 on D7100 is comparable to ISO 1600 on my old FX D700. I always shoot in A mode and I've noticed the D7100 always gives me a way slower shutter than any other Nikon at same aperture setting - only way I'll ever get to use 1/8000 sync is if I go manual. Overall I think the D7100 is more dependant in very good light to produce sharp/detailed shots - more so than any other Nikon I've owned.

In response to the author of this thread…

I'd say 16-24mp isn't such a big jump to make a significant difference to your shots. The crop mode on D7100 is handy if you're running out of memory and shooting distant subjects that you know you'll always end up cropping in pp. The crop mode would be better if Nikon had blurred the outer unused part of the frame when using it as sometimes you forget.
 
It's probably because the d7100 is out performing the lenses. The lens just simply can't offer up enough resolution to deal with the sensor. Drop some top quality glass on both the 300 and the 7100 and I think you'd see a big difference.
 
It's probably because the d7100 is out performing the lenses. The lens just simply can't offer up enough resolution to deal with the sensor. Drop some top quality glass on both the 300 and the 7100 and I think you'd see a big difference.

Minnnt, having recently got the D7100, I was wondering the same thing. Do you think the 16-85 is good enough, with the same question applying to the relatively dated glass of the 17-55? All opinions welcome!
 
Not having a D7100 i'm not really sure mate. Having looked at a couple of the new Sigma Art lenses i have noticed that they state that they have been designed to deal with today's demanding high resolution sensors, maybe google the D7100 and 17-55 f2.8 to see if it's a goer. Gut instinct would be yes but I'm not 100% sure. Seem to recall someone here using a D7100 and the 16-85 lens though, just can't remember who.
 
l m not sure how big /small the space that your kids perform in but i ve always found that the 70-200mm was more than enough. I try to find a spot that the 70mm would cover the whole stage then zoom in for detail shots. Its a win win situation, you carry one lens, one body and keeps you away from those at the front with their mobile phones:)
 
A few comments:

1. If you are unhappy with your D7000 & 18-200 & its giving you inconsistant focusing then send it to Nikon. It probably is 'flaky'.
I had to do that with mine & it was night & day difference.

2. Getting a D7100 - nice upgrade.. (I'm getting 1 this week) however reason 1 may make that not required.

3. Didn't get on with my 18-200 v's my 70-200 vr2 - it just didn't compare in sharpness - apples v's oranges....

4. A camera that is 'flaky' means you won't take it with you or want to use it.
 
Last edited:
minnit has, I believe, hit the nail on t'head - the D7100 (well anything with LOTS of pixels) punishes lenses and camera technique too

Remember the old inverse rule for shutter speeds from the film days ??? Basically, the advice was that the min shutter speed should be the inverse of the lens' focal length, hence 30mm you should use faster than 1/30th, while with 200mm it was faster than 1/200th

Well, that's all gone out of the window now as it was based on a resolution of around 6-8mp equivalent, at 16, 24 and 36mp as some DSLRs can do its just far too slow and camera shake is causing the softness many see in their images ADDED to which is that the non-Pro spec lenses are rarely up to the job too

Anyone know Andy Rouse (wildlife chap) ??? He recently commented on this same resolution based shutter speed problem by saying that he now shoots at 2000 ISO as a minimum, even on sunny days in Africa, just to force the shutter speed way up to avoid the hint of shake. He added that he'd rather have a slightly noisy SHARP image than a noise free blurred one

A Wedding tog pal of mine uses two D7100 and found he had to buy better glass as well as half his shutter speeds, so where he could happily 'get away' with 1/50th sec he now has to use 1/100th or faster. Another Wedding tog pal bought the 36mp D800 when it first came out and sold it just a couple of months later, he really can't do slow shutter speeds and that 36mp showed up camera shake far too easily

I think the D7100 is an excellent camera capable of awesomely sharp images IF shot at a high enough shutter speed AND with the best of glass

Dave
 
I moved from a D7000 to a D7100, i had focus issues with the D7000 and had no reason to go full frame.

I have had to really pay attention to my technique as this camera will find you out. It is sharper than the D7000 but not by that much. Noise performance is better too.
The extra pixels, for me make a big difference when cropping and extracting detail and the AF system was worth the upgrade on its own.

I have also pretty much changed my lens line up too,some because they were poor on this camera and some for my shooting needs.
For the price you can pick these up for now,I would do it all day long.
 
Anyone know Andy Rouse (wildlife chap) ??? He recently commented on this same resolution based shutter speed problem by saying that he now shoots at 2000 ISO as a minimum, even on sunny days in Africa, just to force the shutter speed way up to avoid the hint of shake. He added that he'd rather have a slightly noisy SHARP image than a noise free blurred one
Dave

I believe he's gone to Canon now - so only 24mp for him to deal with these days..
 
I'm using a 16-85 on my D7100 and find it behaves beautifully. I originally had a 17-55 which I sold on for weight reasons and cannot see any difference in IQ. Clearly I no longer have the F2.8 option throughout the range but have not yet found that to be much of a problem.

I'm also using a Nikon 35mm F 1.8 and Tokina 11-16 F2.8 and both perform faultlessly on the D7100.
 
I'm using a 16-85 on my D7100 and find it behaves beautifully. I originally had a 17-55 which I sold on for weight reasons and cannot see any difference in IQ. Clearly I no longer have the F2.8 option throughout the range but have not yet found that to be much of a problem.

I'm also using a Nikon 35mm F 1.8 and Tokina 11-16 F2.8 and both perform faultlessly on the D7100.

That is very interesting, I am using the 16-85 on my D7100 and am quite happy with that combination but have been wondering if the 17-55 would be sharper or would the relatively older glass show it's age with the D7100 sensor?
I have been having a bit of a 'play about' and have tried my 35mm f1.8, my 50mm 1.4, my 85mm 1.8 and my 70-300 and have been pretty happy with the results, particularly with the 35mm f1.8 which is a cracking lens for the money.

(Also thanks to David and others for their comments.)
 
Having read the comments regarding the 'soft looking' images i was getting from my D7100, where it was stated that better lenses were the key to getting a sharper image from a large MP sensor etc, i also did some research about monitors.
As i stated, the IQ on my monitor from pics took on my D300 were superior to those taken on the D7100. To cut a long story short, i went to my local currys today, armed with a selection of high res images on a sd card from both the D300 and 7100.
I looked at the various montors on display, they were connected up to a PC running windows 8. I asked the chappy to demonstrate some of the monitors using my images, and what a difference in the various monitors that could be seen, even placing 2 side by side. One of the monitors rendered amazing detail when zooming into the image and the sharpness / IQ was much better.
I ended up purchasing it, not the most expensive monitor around, but at 150 seemed to be well worth it.
Anyways, now its all connected up to the pc and looking at some of the images that were 'soft' on the previous monitor, they are now sharper and much improved...so job done.
the monitor in question is an ACER s236HL
 
From my film days I have always had 2 bodies, one I would leave a 80 to 200 on permantley, and the other I used with either 24mm 35 mm 50mm or 85mm lenses. Now haveing gone digital I had 2 bodies the D300 with the 18 to 200 VR2 and a D7000 with the 12 to 24 mm nikon lens The D7000 with the 12 to 24 lens gave a lot better images than the D300( I have had some great images from the D300 and am not knocking it, it's a great camera). I tried the 18 to 200 on the D7000 and found that my images were definetly better than the D300( I tried both camera's with the 18 to 200 the same day, at the same loction useing both manual focus and auto, same setting 's Fstop and ISO on a tripod). I have now purchased a D7100 and put the 12 to 24 on to this camera. I am looking foreward to my next shoot, when the D7100 will be given a work out, but from the couple of images I have taken so far I have seen a improvement over the D7000.

The other point is that I purchased a new screen a HP Pavilion 23xI, set up was a doddle, gave me a choice of what I wanted to use it for, picked Photo, and that was it, on EPZ they have a B&W 16 segment zone chart I can see all 16 clearly, from white to black. Can really recommend this screen.
 
A friend of mine upgraded his D300 last year to a D7100 and the results he is getting from his 18-200 VR1 are superb he even said its like having a new lens !
But then again it was no slouch on his D300.
But he feels the 18-105mm isn't anywhere as good on the D7100 as it was on the D300 and I would 2nd that opinion.
 
Back
Top