Upgrade from D7000 to D7100 for more reach?

Mr Bump

Mr Bump

From under the bridge
Messages
11,138
Name
Sophia aka Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks got an odd one to throw out for discussion. Got myself a D7000 and a 70-300 VR lens, very happy with the kit and for my general nature type stuff its great. Recently I purchased a Sigma 150-500 for that bit more reach for the little stuff and yep its a great lens but the extra weight is kind of making me realise that its not going to work out for my long walks and it got me wondering if an upgrade to the D7100 might give me a little more scope. what with the slightly higher MP sensor I could get more detail out of my crops and enough to maybe allow my 70-300 to go a bit further.

To be honest my 70-300 is seriously sharp and some crops are quite small and I just run out of pixels, im not expecting miracles but wonder what people think about that as an avenue?


I don't shoot in low light or with high ISO so not to sure if noise would be an issue.

generally I am F7.1-F8 (max 800 ISO) often in AP Priority.
Ta

Paul
 
Last edited:
I would say no.

The difference between 16mp and 24mp isn't actually that much at all - that's a lot of cash for no real difference.

Also, with 24mp your technique needs to be absolutely bang on to get pixel level sharpness (especially with a telephoto it would seem) so cropping down will only show up any errors.
 
Why not get a monopod for the 150-500, so when your walking about with it, it fits snugly over your shoulder and i don't tend to notice the weight of it so much especially if it was on the strap round my neck.

As per you originally question i went from the d90 to d7100 recently. Yes the pics look a lot nicer but you can see more issues if you get it wrong
 
joker2006 said:
Why not get a monopod for the 150-500, so when your walking about with it, it fits snugly over your shoulder and i don't tend to notice the weight of it so much especially if it was on the strap round my neck.

As per you originally question i went from the d90 to d7100 recently. Yes the pics look a lot nicer but you can see more issues if you get it wrong
Click to expand...

I am not sure if you have got my point on weight on long walks ie 10+ miles I am a hiker who combines walking with piccies, the monopod is not going to lighten my rucksack?

What is your experience with the D7100 and a zoom lens in good light whats the quality like?
 
Nawty said:
I would say no.

The difference between 16mp and 24mp isn't actually that much at all - that's a lot of cash for no real difference.

Also, with 24mp your technique needs to be absolutely bang on to get pixel level sharpness (especially with a telephoto it would seem) so cropping down will only show up any errors.
Click to expand...

not sure what you mean you say 16mp-24mp not much difference, 8mp more seems a lot of difference to me? my technique seems pretty good from my pics, i think i have a very good 70-300 lens maybe, i am finding on crops the quality is there just light on pixels. maybe if i post a few pics.
 
Mr Bump said:
not sure what you mean you say 16mp-24mp not much difference, 8mp more seems a lot of difference to me?
Click to expand...

Yes, but mp is a measure of area, so you have to increase it x 4 to get double the dimensions. To get your subject to be twice the size of your 16mp shot in the frame after cropping, you'd need a 64mp sensor.

At 300dpi, a print from a 24mp camera would be 20" wide, while a 16mp one would be 16.3"; a gain of only 3.7".

Put another way, if your subject took up 25% of the frame width in the middle of the shot, it'd be 1500 pixels wide at 24mp, and 1225 pixels at 16mp, a gain of only 22%. I.e. you only add one pixel width for every 4.5.

Two 100% crops from my 24mp camera, one as shot, one resized to 16mp. I don't know about you, but I can't see much difference:


24mp by MarkBerry1963, on Flickr


16mp by MarkBerry1963, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Mr Bump said:
I am not sure if you have got my point on weight on long walks ie 10+ miles I am a hiker who combines walking with piccies, the monopod is not going to lighten my rucksack?

What is your experience with the D7100 and a zoom lens in good light whats the quality like?
Click to expand...

Yeah perhaps over that distance that wont help lol sorry must read in full better lol.

Yeah in good light it has always been a good lens just suffers at full 500. F8 seems to work well on this lens aswell as it has on others.


DSC_0491 by mdk photos, on Flickr

Exif should be intact for details
 
Not familiar with the D7000 but the D7100 has a dual crop sensor, at 24mp it is a 1,5 crop, meaning you will lose some reach on telephoto lenses
When you put the sensor into 1.3 crop mode it reduces to 15.3mp so effectively no difference over what you have
 
Gremlin said:
Not familiar with the D7000 but the D7100 has a dual crop sensor, at 24mp it is a 1,5 crop, meaning you will lose some reach on telephoto lenses
When you put the sensor into 1.3 crop mode it reduces to 15.3mp so effectively no difference over what you have
Click to expand...


I did not know the D7100 was a 1.5 crop I thought DX was 1.6 crop?
Confused now.
 
Thanks SouthDows and I defo take on board the increase is as you say 20%.
The thing is for me that small increases for say £400 to upgrade from my D7000 to the D7100 is not a bad number and given that it does seem to improve in other areas I would consider that reasonable after all, the lens I have the 70-300 VR is giving excellent results and I think it might be able to handle it, if only I could run some tests, anyone got a D7100 in West Yorkshire?

Also apaarently the D7100 has no AA filter which increases IQ..?
 
Last edited:
redddraggon said:
DX and most manufacturers (Sony, Fuji etc) APS-C are roughly 1.5x crop

Canon APS-C is 1.6x crop.
Click to expand...

Agreed and according to Nikon they are both 1.5 the D7000 and the D7100
so my lens would be the same reach, result :)
 
No AA filter can increase sharpness but at the expense of being susceptible to moire patterning. Moire patterning tends to occur in regular textured things like clothes so probably not a problem for your usage.

Have a read of the image quality section of this:

http://www.bythom.com/nikond3200review.htm

Sure it's the D3200 but it will be even more true with the D7100 as there is no AA.

Just don't expect to be able to crop your images 20% further and expect the same results - it just doesn't work like that.

However, you seem to have made up your mind so there isn't really anything anyone can say to change it...
 
Nawty said:
No AA filter can increase sharpness but at the expense of being susceptible to moire patterning. Moire patterning tends to occur in regular textured things like clothes so probably not a problem for your usage.

Have a read of the image quality section of this:

http://www.bythom.com/nikond3200review.htm

Sure it's the D3200 but it will be even more true with the D7100 as there is no AA.

Just don't expect to be able to crop your images 20% further and expect the same results - it just doesn't work like that.

However, you seem to have made up your mind so there isn't really anything anyone can say to change it...
Click to expand...

Oh i haven't made up my mind at all i'm a Yorkshireman and spending that kind of money i need to be aware of the facts plus or minus, lets be fair in this game we spend a lot of money on sometimes very little gain. I am asking myself if for £400 I will see an improvement in the IQ which for me will be good for my usage. So far I have read the improvements are good ones from the D7k to the D71000. I only realy use my camera for wlaks and nature stuff so I am niche, other stuff like street and close up I use film.
 
Well, on my D700 the 70-300 is more or less my favourite lens.

On my D3200 I am less convinced - yes it can produce stunning images but at pixel level it isn't anywhere near as sharp and it is much easier to slightly miss the focus.

The 35mm prime on the other hand is stunning on the D3200.
 
I'd be tempted to see if a shop will let you try one out with your lens, take your D7000 and take the same shots of something, take the shots home and see what you can get from both camera's, it's the only way you will know for sure if it benefits you, unless you can find this done all ready on line somewhere
 
If it helps I have both and Im not really seeing much difference in image quality between the two, though I dont print massive prints. In fact Im tending to use the D7000 more than the D7100 as Im more comfortable with it and appear to be getting sharper results from the D7000.
Having used the crop mode on the D7100 for bird photos, theres no difference to using full res and cropping in PP.
 
Ok not a picture I would normally share but this is a huge crop from the D7100 with sigma 150-500 and I do mean huge
Having recently changed laptops I formatted the old one so don't have the original for comparison, but it was very small in the centre

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top