D7100 for landscape photography/long exposures

I'm currently a D3200 user and am seriously considering upgrading to a D7100 next month. I shoot a lot of landscapes with long exposures and have had some issues with the D3200 with noise and possibly hot pixels when using it.

I wil wil use the D7100 for primarily the same purpose and would love to hear from anyone that used the D7100 for the same and their experiences with it.

I'm sure the D7100 will be just fine for landscape photography but for a little more money you can move into a camera more suited to landscapes such as the D610. When it comes to landscape photography, full-frame cameras have a distinct advantage over the cropped sensor cameras by virtue of a wider field of coverage. So if you're serious about doing landscape and not too heavily invested in DX lenses, I would advise you to consider investing in a D610.

Dave_W said:

I'm sure the D7100 will be just fine for landscape photography but for a little more money you can move into a camera more suited to landscapes such as the D610. When it comes to landscape photography, full-frame cameras have a distinct advantage over the cropped sensor cameras by virtue of a wider field of coverage. So if you're serious about doing landscape and not too heavily invested in DX lenses, I would advise you to consider investing in a D610.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting observation as the last time I looked, my wife's Tokina 11-16 @ 11mm had much the same field of view as my Nikon 16-35 @ 16mm. In fact the Tokina is less distorted at the wide end.

adox66 said:

I'm currently a D3200 user and am seriously considering upgrading to a D7100 next month. I shoot a lot of landscapes with long exposures and have had some issues with the D3200 with noise and possibly hot pixels when using it.

I wil wil use the D7100 for primarily the same purpose and would love to hear from anyone that used the D7100 for the same and their experiences with it.

Click to expand...

My wife did some 2.5 min shots the other week and they were fine. You need to cover the eyepiece or it will leak light.

I would go with an Fx body for the same reasons Dave mentioned.

Geoffc said:

That's an interesting observation as the last time I looked, my wife's Tokina 11-16 @ 11mm had much the same field of view as my Nikon 16-35 @ 16mm. In fact the Tokina is less distorted at the wide end.

Click to expand...

But Geoff, this is really a lens comparison. Perhaps the Tokina performs better on Dx than the Nikon (16-35) performs on Fx. Would the Tokina fair as well against the 14-24 on Fx? From a body perspective, Fx has a wide angle advantage, lenses being equal. The crop factor is more optically challenging in a wide perspective.

Geoffc said:

That's an interesting observation as the last time I looked, my wife's Tokina 11-16 @ 11mm had much the same field of view as my Nikon 16-35 @ 16mm. In fact the Tokina is less distorted at the wide end.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct, a 10mm DX will equal a 16mm FX. I guess I was thinking about the 14-24mm. As for the notion that larger sensors making better landscape cameras, I'm certainly not alone in my opinion. In the same way that medium and large format cameras have historically been the instrument of choice for landscape photographers, so too are full frame sensors preferred over cropped sensors. Nevertheless, one can certainly take landscape photos using a cell phone, no argument here. However, I would still advise those interested in landscape photography to consider using the largest size sensor you can afford. Advice that I would have no problem following if I ever win the lotto. In fact, the first camera I would buy is this beautiful little Mamiya 80 mp medium format camera....maybe even two of them!

Sorry guys an FX body isn't an option. A D600 is twice the money of a D7100.

im more interested to hear how the D7100 performs with long exposures as I haven't really been happy with the performance of the D3200.



Thanks for the replies.

Dave, Rick, you are both correct that in a purist world the FX would have some advantages for landscape, albeit things like depth of field is not one of them. A pro would almost certainly go FX or medium format as the difference probably equals $$$.

My point was that if you put equivalent lenses on the cameras you can take a similar scene. The lenses I referenced would be regarded as the FX/DX equivalents. The Tokina is a stunning lens however you look at it and the 14-24 doesn't easily take filters making long exposures tricky or very expensive.

I was also making the point in the context of the person upgrading from an entry level body. I went FX a year ago and it is over twice as expensive for bodies and lenses, plus it's twice the weight or it certainly feels like it. I now use a D800 and my wife uses a D7100. If both are used correctly with equivalent lenses the results for most peoples uses will be similar. The D800 gives better DR for correcting me not using it correctly or for challenging scenes.

This was just one of my observations and I wasn't questioning people's decision to go FX, as I would certainly have to look at myself first.

Well in terms of sensor prestation the D3200 and D7100 aren't that much different. So the risk of noise and/or dead pixels will be about the same gues

Dennis Kussener said:

Well in terms of sensor prestation the D3200 and D7100 aren't that much different. So the risk of noise and/or dead pixels will be about the same gues

Click to expand...

Didnt realise they had the exact same sensor. Doesn't fill me with confidence then as the 3200 seems very poor for long exposures, unless I have a bit of a dud.

Have to decide if I'm willing to take a €1000 gamble to find out.

adox66 said:

Didnt realise they had the exact same sensor. Doesn't fill me with confidence then as the 3200 seems very poor for long exposures, unless I have a bit of a dud.

Have to decide if I'm willing to take a €1000 gamble to find out.

Click to expand...

You're the first person that I can remember who wasn't impressed with the low light capabilities of this series (3200/7100). What is it about the images it is producing that you don't like? If you've got dead pixels then send it back to Nikon for a fix. There should not be any dead pixels. As for noise, there are a number of great ways of reducing noise, both in-camera and during PP. So it makes me wonder if a couple of hints might not fix some of the issues you're having with your D3200. Do you have an example of a problem image you can post?

Dave_W said:

You're the first person that I can remember who wasn't impressed with the low light capabilities of this series (3200/7100). What is it about the images it is producing that you don't like?

Click to expand...

Hi Dave,

i m getting a lot of noise/hot pixels in exposures that are 30 seconds or longer. I did start another thread on it with an example, although the shot I put up was long one, perhaps 15 minutes or something, so maybe an extreme example.

Dennis Kussener said:

Well in terms of sensor prestation the D3200 and D7100 aren't that much different. So the risk of noise and/or dead pixels will be about the same gues

Click to expand...

It's not the size of the sensor, it's how you use it.

And lets not forget the fact the D3100 uses the Expeed 2 processor while the D7100 uses the Expeed 3. The 7100 also has significantly better color depth, two-and-half more stops dynamic range and about 70% better resolution.

adox66 said:

Hi Dave,

i m getting a lot of noise/hot pixels in exposures that are 30 seconds or longer. I did start another thread on it with an example, although the shot I put up was long one, perhaps 15 minutes or something, so maybe an extreme example.

Click to expand...

If you are seeing hot pixels, send the camera back before your warranty runs out. There should be zero hot pixels. As for noise, there are many things you can do before the image is taken that can reduce it. Do you use the viewfinder cover when taking long exposures? Do you use the in-camera NR and if so, what setting are you using? And in terms of PP, what program(s) are you using?

Dave_W said:

If you are seeing hot pixels, send the camera back before your warranty runs out. There should be zero hot pixels. As for noise, there are many things you can do before the image is taken that can reduce it. Do you use the viewfinder cover when taking long exposures? Do you use the in-camera NR and if so, what setting are you using? And in terms of PP, what program(s) are you using?

Click to expand...

I don't cover the viewfinder when shooting and also don't use the in camera NR. Using Lightroom for PP and shooting RAW.

Dave_W said:

You're the first person that I can remember who wasn't impressed with the low light capabilities of this series (3200/7100). What is it about the images it is producing that you don't like? If you've got dead pixels then send it back to Nikon for a fix. There should not be any dead pixels. As for noise, there are a number of great ways of reducing noise, both in-camera and during PP. So it makes me wonder if a couple of hints might not fix some of the issues you're having with your D3200. Do you have an example of a problem image you can post?

Click to expand...

Hi Dave,

Heres a link to a thread I started a while back on it with an image in it as well.
http://nikonites.com/landscape/18436-hot-pixels-long-exposures.html#axzz2oJQHopER

In situations like this, small changes can make a very big difference. For one, you absolutely need to cover the viewfinder when taking long exposures, even if the light coming from behind you seems small or non-existent. Remember, it's additive, so even the smallest amount of light over time will have an impact. Secondly, LR noise reduction is nice but is far from state of the art. For times like this with extremely long exposures, you need something a little stronger than LR. I use Nik's Dfine and believe it is probably the best product on the market for long exposure noise.

And I do remember your post and though I'm not an authorized Nikon repair technician, I do not believe you have hot pixels (at least not the kind of hot pixels I think of when I hear the words "hot pixel"). But if you are convinced you do have a hot pixel issue, send it to Nikon asap. But before you go dropping a large chunk of cash on a new camera, I would revisit your long exposure technique and see if these small changes can't make enough of a difference to obviate your need for a new camera body.

I forgot to mention, you should also turn your in-camera NR on to either normal or high. That, combined with good PP noise reduction software, can make a big difference in the overall noise level. Especially when it comes to the kind of noise you're picking up - heat noise.

Dave_W said:

I forgot to mention, you should also turn your in-camera NR on to either normal or high. That, combined with good PP noise reduction software, can make a big difference in the overall noise level. Especially when it comes to the kind of noise you're picking up - heat noise.

Click to expand...

I don't want to use the in camera NR if I can help it as this will double the time it takes to get a shot which would be a real pain when in the field.