New Update on D400, Not Good News

[Retief]

But that would make it so boring... :biggrin:

I think I would reduce the frame rate to 5 fps if I had a D7100, so that I could shoot at least 2 secs before the silly buffer fills... At 7 fps, you've got exactly 1 second of 14-bit lossless before it slows - that would never work for me!

I think someone said that at 5 fps in 1.3 crop with 12-bit lossy, you can actually get 25 frames before the buffer fills - that sounds much better...


Mike

Interesting thought of reducing to 5fps. Then again, for most of what I shoot I don't see enough difference to keep at 14-bit, so I shoot generally at 12-bit lossless, which helps a little.

Of course this also depends on a couple of other factors:

1. Actual file size - this one always drives me nuts, as it can be so variable depending on background and subject matter. If you shoot flat white walls you can get a lot more in before the buffer fills.
2. How long a "second" is :wink:, you just need longer ones ....

 

[RickW]

Nancy - regardless of which camera can do what, that is a sensational painted bunting photo. I have been trying to get a PB for at least 10 years and have never managed to see one in the wild. My wife and I are avid birders and that sucker has just eluded us. Closest I came was in Corkscrew Sanctuary and that bird was a captive.

Well done!

 

[socrreferee]

I love my D7100. I do shoot sports however, and some of my clients insist on having the RAW files. FPS is fine for sports. It's not as good as my D3s, but it's still workable. However the buffer size is a killer. If only it would be bigger.
I remember that Nikon once had an option which cost $500 to increase the buffer on the D3. You sent your camera in & it came back with a larger buffer. If they don't come out with a D400 (assuming it does have a larger buffer than the D7100), then I would love to have a similar option available from Nikon for the D7100.
The other items mentioned (dedicated AF button, etc.) would be nice to have and something I would expect a D400 to have, but if I can get an increased buffer, then I would be extremely happy with the D7100.
Just my opinion.

 

[Retief]

I remember that Nikon once had an option which cost $500 to increase the buffer on the D3. You sent your camera in & it came back with a larger buffer. If they don't come out with a D400 (assuming it does have a larger buffer than the D7100), then I would love to have a similar option available from Nikon for the D7100.

I would not if the cost was an additional $500. I would expect, if they did this, they would just have a D7100s with the larger buffer and I would just buy that second body as I would guess it would be about the same price as the D7100.

The actual work to change the buffer, if it was like the old one, was just the change of a single chip. The cost is not the part, it is the labor to open the camera, replace the chip, put it all back together.

 

[wizzard0003]

This is why I think there will be something like a D400 type camera...

The cost of doubling/tripling the buffer size is infinitesimal since there is no extra labor cost during the
manufacturing process... It's only a higher part cost and even that is minimal, it's just RAM and RAM is
cheap... The ONLY logical reason (short of stupidity) to cripple the D7100 like this is if you have plans
for a slightly higher end model and you need to hold the spec's/features of the D7100 back to allow room
for that "premium" model...

Though I could be wrong and Nikon is just stupid and short sighted but I'm hoping they are not...

 

[bpdougd]

This is why I think there will be something like a D400 type camera...

The cost of doubling/tripling the buffer size is infinitesimal since there is no extra labor cost during the
manufacturing process... It's only a higher part cost and even that is minimal, it's just RAM and RAM is
cheap... The ONLY logical reason (short of stupidity) to cripple the D7100 like this is if you have plans
for a slightly higher end model and you need to hold the spec's/features of the D7100 back to allow room
for that "premium" model...

Though I could be wrong and Nikon is just stupid and short sighted but I'm hoping they are not...

It might be more than just buffer space. It could also be processor power. Even if the added cost is twenty or thirty dollars, across the sales lifecycle of the 7100 that is a lot of money. I don't pretend to understand the priorities and limitations that inform the final feature set and performance of any product. But I think there is probably more to the story than just the few dollars that a little buffer space would have cost.

 

[Carole]

What do D300 owners dislike about the D7100? I know it lacks the AF-ON button, which I have to admit, I'm spoiled with now that I have it.

But I just don't see why it's not acceptable to most. What does it lack?

I don't know. I've seen people on here talk about the buffer, but I took mine out the other day on a whale watch trip, and the D7100 rattled off like a machine gun. I got every single shot I wanted and more. I used 95MB/s cards and I had no problem at all with the buffer.

In addition, the camera with my 70-300VR lens got me some really amazing shots that I wouldn't have gotten with the D300. You can see them at http://www.carolemayimages.com/p887545687 See for yourself what this camera can do from a boat that was moving :biggrin:

Carole

 

[mneary]

I don't know. I've seen people on here talk about the buffer, but I took mine out the other day on a whale watch trip, and the D7100 rattled off like a machine gun. I got every single shot I wanted and more. I used 95MB/s cards and I had no problem at all with the buffer.

In addition, the camera with my 70-300VR lens got me some really amazing shots that I wouldn't have gotten with the D300. You can see them at http://www.carolemayimages.com/p887545687 See for yourself what this camera can do from a boat that was moving :biggrin:

Carole

Are you shooting jpeg or raw, Carole? Makes a huge difference!

Mike

 

[Carole]

Are you shooting jpeg or raw, Carole? Makes a huge difference!

Mike

For whale watching, I shoot jpg fine. And I was amazed at the IQ I got. When I was post processing, the only thing I had to do to the photos was straighten horizons and crop. The colors were spot on straight out of the camera.

Carole

 

[mneary]

For whale watching, I shoot jpg fine. And I was amazed at the IQ I got. When I was post processing, the only thing I had to do to the photos was straighten horizons and crop. The colors were spot on straight out of the camera.

Carole

That explains it - the buffer is only an issue for raw shooters.

Mike

 

[Carole]

I do shoot raw when I'm out doing landscapes or nature and I'm in single servo mode. But when I'm photographing the whales on continuous high, I use jpg fine. I'm still impressed by the images I got the other day with the D7100.

Carole

 

[mneary]

I do shoot raw when I'm out doing landscapes or nature and I'm in single servo mode. But when I'm photographing the whales on continuous high, I use jpg fine. I'm still impressed by the images I got the other day with the D7100.

Carole

For me, it would be the opposite - when I'm shooting action I have less time to check settings, so shooting raw is my safety net when the exposure is off...

Mike

 

[Russ_]

Sure it does, read up on the d3 setting.

At the same time?

 

[Russ_]

-less buttons? For what...

Read it again - for direct control.:wink:

 

[ErolB1]

What do D300 owners dislike about the D7100? I know it lacks the AF-ON button, which I have to admit, I'm spoiled with now that I have it.

But I just don't see why it's not acceptable to most. What does it lack?

I'm a mere D90 owner myself, but what I'd want as a D400 is basically a DX-mode-only D800 with some tweeks to optimize it for shooting in DX mode (e.g. a full view in the viewfinder), plus costing $1000 less than a D800 because it doesn't have an FX sensor.

So, list everything that the D7100 doesn't have, but that the D800 does have, even when shooting in DX mode. That's what the D7100 lacks.