Nikon D7xxx owners thread

minnnt said:
Well I sold my d7k and all lenses before Christmas... lasted a month before I sold all my m43 stuff and made the return. :D

What a plonker.
Click to expand...
I sold my canon gear for m43 stuff, but last year sold the m43 to get my D7000.
May get a 7100 in the future.
 
I also joined the club this week. I went from D7k to Fuji for the lightness. I have started to get into bird photography at home and Fuji have delayed their superzoom by twelve months, hence the change. Bought a D750 before Christmas and some cheap lenses as my budget was tight. I had debris in D750 VF so sent back.

After thinking about my direction I bought the D7100 & a 300mm f4 lens this week. I have decided to build my lenses up and have a good lenses and camera rather than crap lenses and excellent body. Will save for the D750 over the next few months and will buy a 50 & 35 primes for readiness going back to the D750. Unless I really get on with the D7100.

Will also have to save for a CSC for going out as the DSLR will be too heavy for me to lug around due to disabilities. Where I am going to get all this money from I dont know.:eek:

Minnt I have subscribed to CC so will be looking for advice on PP:eek:
 
Last edited:
Well I haven't got a scooby, so any tips appreciated when you are familiar with the camera.

Been using Fuji for a while so only used to shooting in JPEG, never bothered with PP of them or the D7k previously. When I changed to the D750 I was suprised how good the Fuji JPEG's were in comparison. The guys on the D750 thread said that the Nikon JPEGS were poor compared to the Fuji's and I needed to shoot in RAW to get the best out of the them. Have rattled a few off today so will have a play over the weekend.
 
minnnt said:
Well, i have it! :D

It feels very different to the D7000 and it would appear to be slightly bigger aswell? The rear screen is so much better, a real bonus! I was very comfortable with the D7k, probably a little more so than the D7100 but i've only had it an hour so i'm sure it'll become more natural over the coming days.
Click to expand...
Let me know how it compares to the D7000 please.
I was thinking about going full frame with the D750 but after borrowing a D700 I'm not too sure it's the best move for me at the moment, so my attention is being drawn towards the D7100 now.
Thanks
 
c22w1 said:
Let me know how it compares to the D7000 please.
I was thinking about going full frame with the D750 but after borrowing a D700 I'm not too sure it's the best move for me at the moment, so my attention is being drawn towards the D7100 now.
Thanks
Click to expand...

Hi Chris. No experience of the D700, but a few people have commented that at low iso values they could not distinguish a D7100 file from a D700... Obviously high iso shots will be different. I would have thought they 750 goes to a whole other level though? Perhaps?

I will be sure to let you know any differences i find. ATM though the D7100 seems to produce shots with a similar feel to the D7k (as you would expect!) which is familiar to me.

Everyone needs dinosaurs made from icing in their lives, right?


Roaaaaar!!! by David Raynham, on Flickr


Roaaaaar!!! by David Raynham, on Flickr


Roaaaaar!!! by David Raynham, on Flickr
 
Thanks David I like to shoot wildlife but at this time of year I am having to push up the ISO to get the shutter speeds on my D7000. My thoughts were to go FF and due to the superior high ISO performance I would be able to get cleaner shots. In practice (using the same lens on both cameras) when the images are cropped to display the subject the same size (obviously the D700 file had to be cropped more) I got something I wasn't expecting. The D700 file although definitely less noisy (ISO 3200) was far less detailed than the D7000. At full resolution however I got exactly what I was expecting, the FF image is astounding.
I have read that the D7100 files are sharper and carry more detail than the D7000 but also because it has no AA filter and a higher res sensor, noise becomes an issue at lower ISOs.
Mmmm... Its never easy choosing the right camera, the D750 as you say will be a different ball game altogether but its a lot of money to fork out having had no experience of it.
 
From my couple of days testing of the D7100 for high ISO you cant compare to the D750. I took some shots at ISO 6400 and they were very clean, I dont think you would get the same with the D7100.

Have a look at the D750 thread for some examples plus Ross Harveys review. I will buy another when I have saved up in a few months. I sent mine back due to debris in VF and decided to buy some better glass and D7100 whilst I save.
 
Last edited:
Well @markyboy.1967 uses a D700 and his results are superb. They're some of the best birding pics I've seen.

Kristopher Rowe (spelling??) was using a D7100 and the Tamron 150-600 lens with awesome results too. He now uses the D800 I believe and his images have took another leap it has to be said.

I don't have the same lenses now that I had with the D7k so it won't be an exact comparison but I will certainly keep you up to date with it all along with a load of pics in this thread. :)
 
If you have the money probably the best would be the D810 and the relevant f2.8 lens. The 8 series lets you do some serious cropping. You then got to weigh everything else up like new puter, gimbal head etc........your talking some really big bucks, something most people on here couldn't justify or afford. Lottery winning prices. Even then, a lot has to do with the photographer, as you mentioned above David. I would never get to the level of some of the wildlife photographers on here.

I will be happy with my D7100/D750 and 300mm f4 for my needs of garden bird photography. Just bought a 1.4 TC to go with the lens.
 
Some nice pics there, really like the sky in #5. That Sigma seems to be a good lens, how are you finding it against your Nikon 35mm prime?? Seems a usefull lens with the constant 1.8 aperture when needed.
 
It's nice. The new Art range is beautiful. Well crafted and they look really good.

It seems like a very good lens up to yet. It's very heavy though compared to the prime. 810g.

Plan on adding a 70-200 soon so I guess the 18-35 will feel like a featherweight after a day wandering around with that. :LOL:
 
A very sad day, my D7000 is in the classifieds due to my D7100 arriving.

Thanks for the memories, it's been emotional. :)
 
minnnt said:
You disappoint me John...


:p
Click to expand...

Go on David give it another try - you know you want to -
animated-smileys-jumping-012.gif
 
:p David 'Head in the Sand' --- I'm so surprised at you
dunce.gif
 
I take very very few actual photos but spend a lot of time fiddling with the PP only to trash them because they look bloody awful. I like playing with the camera though. Weirdo me (y)
 
It's a hobby and as long as you're happy ;)

And as long as your two girls are happy with your hobby :)
 
Oh sod it - now I've got my hands on a D7000 everybody else has sold theirs and moved onto the D7100 so looking like I'll be all by myself on here
animated-smileys-sad-026.gif


Anyway if anyone is reading can I ask is taking RAW worthwhile or are the JPegs good enough from my ancient relic the D7000 :)
 
I will be with mine for quite sometime yet. I tend to look at a camera as a "Light box". I alternate between my ageing D300 and my d7000 both of which give me the quality of shots I like BUT I have never shot a jpeg out of either of them, it's RAW every time for me.
 
Both jpeg and raw for me. Usually if its for the internet I'll tend to adjust the sliders a little in ACR to gain a little more detail. The jpegs just go into files to keep :)
 
Raw for me unless shooting kids football then jpeg

I will have my D7000 for years yet took me long enough to get it after having the D50 for years
 
Thanks all - I think it was trying to PP a couple of snowy shots that made me think Jpeg looked better but I guess it could well (is most likely) be me :)
 
Initial impressions of the Sigma, the moon shot looks good.? Looking at your other thread (reach) I think I maybe better off with a zoom for the flexability. The 120-400mm looks good, the pics in the other thread confirm this. The older Tamron 70-200 f2.8 gets some good user reviews, but is criticised for slow AF form the review sites, although they say optically it's good. I wonder if I could live with it and the TC I have.............
 
Last edited:
I doubt it, especially for birds if that's what you're thinking of. Also, not sure on TC compatibility. I seem to remember someone tried one on their newer Tamron 70-200 and it didn't work. Not sure what TC it was though.

The Siggy is good up to yet but the real test will come when i can actually get out with it. It's overcast here so i don't think it's a fair test for it. It is absolutely enormous though. :LOL:

Took a few shots this morning with it through the window (you know, walking around the house with it looking all pro) as it was snowing so didn't fancy going out with it. Again, not really a fair test but i'm happy enough with it. Produces nice colours with lovely bokeh and it's seemingly pretty sharp too! :)


Lens Test by David Raynham, on Flickr


Lens Test by David Raynham, on Flickr


Lens Test by David Raynham, on Flickr
 
Was determined not to use the new lens yesterday as it was a crappy overcast day... Well i failed miserably and couldn't help myself taking a visit to the local reservoir. Quite happy with some of the results and i really enjoyed using it. Looking forward to getting out on a brighter day so i can use lower iso's and faster shutter speeds! The OS is actually really good, very Tamron VC like.Never been that fussed about the Nikon VR system, never seemed to make any difference imo. This and Tamron's version gives a very definite clunk so you know it's working and you can actually see the image stop moving.

So, a few birdies... (best viewed full screen on Flickr)


Sparrow by David Raynham, on Flickr

1/80 at 500mm!! Not perfect, but not bad for a first attempt :D

Dunnock by David Raynham, on Flickr

One of my favourite ducks, the lovely little Tufty

Tufted Duck by David Raynham, on Flickr


Ignorant Peawits by David Raynham, on Flickr


Mallard by David Raynham, on Flickr


Moorhen by David Raynham, on Flickr

And one of the better half, quite a nice portrait lens too tbh! :)


The Wife by David Raynham, on Flickr

Thankyou Please.
 
Nice set. The tufty looks as if its head is coming out of a rubber ring, the body looks round in the water. Suppose it's there version of puffing there chests? Was you controlling the aperture or letting it ride, I ask as the first shot of sparrow is at f5.6 @ 270mm.

How did you find it focussing, was the lens hunting much in the current climate?
 
The lens only hunted once and that was only a run through the focus range and then it was sorted.

Aperture was usually wide open but I think I stopped it down a couple of times. Not really the weather for anything else. Once it brightens up I will try it at f8 which is apparently a sweet spot for this lens.

The Tufty was particular portly, yes. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top