Yeah, that!
To D7100 or not D7100
- Thread starter adox66
- Start date
- Status
This is my first post here. So hi everyone! 
I just got a D7100 and also had the D3200 for about a year. I got started with a couple of prime lenses (35 and 85mm) and that's when I started feeling I have to go to a better body. I'd say go for it. There was a big difference is the things I can do with the 7100 as opposed to the 3200 specially with the prime lenses.
I just got a D7100 and also had the D3200 for about a year. I got started with a couple of prime lenses (35 and 85mm) and that's when I started feeling I have to go to a better body. I'd say go for it. There was a big difference is the things I can do with the 7100 as opposed to the 3200 specially with the prime lenses.
@BackdoorHippie & ShootRaw: every now and then the companies invent hot water, to keep their customers warmed-up. Do yourselves a favour and visit the dpreview "studio comparison tool". Look for sample comparison between D7000/D5100 and D7100. If anybody notices any real difference, other than what comes as a consequence of a difference in resolutions (16mpix vs 24mpix), he ain't a regular guy - he's a bloody Superman (X-ray eyes?)...
You know the story about the "important details being written with the smallest letters", like in legal contracts, do you? It's been said about this removal that HOPEFULLY (hopefully!), accidental moire and other side-products (which were/are avoided by using the anti-aliasing filter) will be possible to cure during (post)processing. Not for me - I like hopping, not hoping (never really understood religions, except rock'n'roll)...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocompare.asp
...You know the story about the "important details being written with the smallest letters", like in legal contracts, do you? It's been said about this removal that HOPEFULLY (hopefully!), accidental moire and other side-products (which were/are avoided by using the anti-aliasing filter) will be possible to cure during (post)processing. Not for me - I like hopping, not hoping (never really understood religions, except rock'n'roll)...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocompare.asp
Last edited:
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Look for sample comparison between D7000/D5100 and D7100. If anybody notices any real difference, other than what comes as a consequence of a difference in resolutions (16mpix vs 24mpix), he ain't a regular guy - he's a bloody Superman (X-ray eyes?)
Really?! Thing is, without even downloading anything I can discern a difference here...
Is it significant? Is it subtle? Who cares, I can see it. Is it because of the higher resolution sensor and not the lack of an anti-aliasing filter? I don't know, but I don't care either. What I do see is more information for me to work with, more pixels per bird, more light, and that's all going to allow me to pull the most out of my photograph - the rest is all up to me.
Now, if you want to talk about the anti-aliasing filter, stop comparing apples to oranges and look at the 800 vs. 800e, because there you truly have "all other things being equal". Now, I could let wonderful comparisons by folks known in the field do my job for me (Nikon D800 vs D800E, Nikon D800-D800E First Comparison), but since you chose the battlefield just take a look at this side-by-side of the 800 vs. 800e...
No Superman needed, and if you did there would have been an outcry ages ago. This ain't rocket science. But if you can't see it there, let me stick it in front of you. From the Luminous Landscape comparison here you have two 100% crops of the same image with no add'l sharpening.
D800
D800e
Just look at the edges of the text and the crispness (or lack of it) in the watermarks. If you cannot see the difference, then I'm sorry for you and would be happy to schedule an appointment for you at the optometrist.
Look, I get it, some folks are natural skeptics. And some folks do actual research. Do all cameras and photographers need a camera without an anti-aliasing filter? Absolutely not!! In fact, it could be hell for a portrait photographer shooting men in synthetic golf shirts. Are cameras without them sharper? Without a doubt. If I were a landscape photographer would it make a difference in my selection of a new body? Hell yes.
Last edited:
@(dpreview comparison tool pics). Differences that you saw DO exist, true. But, they are differences in contrast and gamut - the D800 produced WARMER and MORE SATURATED colors. That's all... You died in the middle of the battlefield...:beaten:
I knew I've got good reasons to trust my ophthalmologist (his services aren't cheap, but you would be astonished to see how devotedly he does his job)...
I knew I've got good reasons to trust my ophthalmologist (his services aren't cheap, but you would be astonished to see how devotedly he does his job)...
Last edited:
Flugelbinder
Senior Member
Don't even try, it's not worth it... Some people only know about pp...
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Ummm... No.
If you seriously can not discern the difference in detail sharpness between those two shots, you really *should* look into having your eye's examined or maybe a better computer monitor.
Case in Point #1: Nikon D800e: Is it too sharp for you? -- Extreme Tech
Case in Point #2: AA Low Pass Filter Removal -- Life Pixel
Case in Point #3: Nikon D800 or D800e: Which One To Choose? -- Luminous Landscape
.....
Last edited:
"Is it too sharp..?". The author presents (among the other things) an IR photo:
"As part of the conversion the anti-aliasing filter was removed, resulting in blisteringly sharp images like this one of a local vineyard:". To take a "blisteringly sharp photo" is a one thing, to take an IR photo is another thing. Epic fail, Mr. Cardinal (or should I say: cardinal mistake)
But, it's ok to believe whatever you want to believe (Paul Simon: "all lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"). The bottom line, for me, is: it's a marketing trick (though don't get me wrong, I do not think it is Nikon's specialty, and this is certainly not the first such gimmick launched by some company as a humdinger, nor it will be the last one). And when I say "trick" I mean that real effect, real impact on the photo, in this case, is LIGHT YEARS far away from what customers are induced to swallow in the form of (such) biased reviews and other marketing methods...
"As part of the conversion the anti-aliasing filter was removed, resulting in blisteringly sharp images like this one of a local vineyard:". To take a "blisteringly sharp photo" is a one thing, to take an IR photo is another thing. Epic fail, Mr. Cardinal (or should I say: cardinal mistake)
But, it's ok to believe whatever you want to believe (Paul Simon: "all lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"). The bottom line, for me, is: it's a marketing trick (though don't get me wrong, I do not think it is Nikon's specialty, and this is certainly not the first such gimmick launched by some company as a humdinger, nor it will be the last one). And when I say "trick" I mean that real effect, real impact on the photo, in this case, is LIGHT YEARS far away from what customers are induced to swallow in the form of (such) biased reviews and other marketing methods...
Last edited:
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Okay, so let's recap. I present objective evidence to support my case, you offer... What? Besides a dull repetition of your firmly (if incorrectly) held conviction to the contrary and cutesy quotes? And you're trying to say *I'M* the one who "hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"... ??
Wow, the irony is this just a little too thick with you. Have you ever heard of the concept of Confirmation Bias; because you could be their poster child.
Ok, serious question: Do you have *anything* of actual substance that backs up your assertion? Song lyrics do not qualify by the way, no matter how well they seem (somewhat ironically) to apply to you.
.....
But why are you so upset by me observing this detail in a way that differs from yours? I just think, or am convinced, that the impact of the omission of this filter is far from being as significant (in terms of raising the sharpness) as "marketing department" would like me to believe. And you are right when you think that the verse applies to me, too.
That's all...:encouragement:
That's all...:encouragement:
Last edited:
Debating, discussing, exchanging our impressions, preferences... Yes, nothing can beat that. Humans are social beings - even the greatest misanthrope of all times would be lonely without...people, and whatever comes with them. But, probably I was not clear enough from the very start of this debate - I do understand (and tolerate the fact) that some of us are fascinated by certain (such is this one) "architectural changes", which mean nothing to me.
Re: To D7100 or not to D7100
Back to the original question as the AA filter is a side track. Get the 7100, it will make you smile when you use it as it will feel like a more serious tool. On top of that it will produce fantastic images.
Forget full frame, everything suddenly gets expensive and heavy for what will be little gain that you will see anytime soon. I was testing a lens on my D800 and my wife's 7100 at home today. The output was very good (almost similar) on both, although the 800 had nicer noise and the 7100 had better resolution as I was using the middle of the sensor.
Keep the kit lens unless you do what Jake says and replace it or you will have a gap.
Back to the original question as the AA filter is a side track. Get the 7100, it will make you smile when you use it as it will feel like a more serious tool. On top of that it will produce fantastic images.
Forget full frame, everything suddenly gets expensive and heavy for what will be little gain that you will see anytime soon. I was testing a lens on my D800 and my wife's 7100 at home today. The output was very good (almost similar) on both, although the 800 had nicer noise and the 7100 had better resolution as I was using the middle of the sensor.
Keep the kit lens unless you do what Jake says and replace it or you will have a gap.
This is the closet I have to anything landscapey...lol 28mm 1.8g
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/83727240@N03/11501144845/]
[/URL]
This was with my 50mm 1.8g
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/83727240@N03/11537027555/]
[/URL]
Love my D7100 and lack of AA filter...Super sharp..
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/83727240@N03/11501144845/]
[/URL]This was with my 50mm 1.8g
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/83727240@N03/11537027555/]
[/URL]Love my D7100 and lack of AA filter...Super sharp..
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
What makes you think I'm upset? I'm just curious why you make assertions and then refuse to support them while at the same time dismissively refuting clear, objective, third-party evidence that is in clear contradiction to what you say. That's not being upset, that's pressing the issue and holding you accountable for what you say.
This isn't a matter of observing a detail in a way that differs from my own; first you say the removal of the OLPF (Optical Low Pass Filter) is a marketing gimmick, now you're saying it's removal is not as significant as Nikon's marketing department would have you, or us, believe. I'm curious where you find Nikon's marketing department touting the removal of this filter as... well... anything... But this is probably just another question you won't answer.
.....
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Dog with a bone, my friend. You can wave steak at him all you want, but he's already got something to chew and isn't about to let go. I let go last night after he saw his blood on the field, laughed and thought it was me. The way I look at it, not everyone will look at things objectively, and it's not my job to fix that - all I can do is leave bread trails to help anyone else listening.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
And you've come to this conclusion how? Because it's all you've bothered to PM me about?
The significance of omitting the LPF is a slight increase in sharpness and that is significant to those who desire it. I think sensor technology has reached a point where they can only be improved slightly, until the next great leap in technology. Billions of dollars are spent on medications that only improve outcomes by 1-2%, to some that slight "improvement" is important. Even if the improvement is slight, I will want it next time I spend 2-3k on a body.
Flugelbinder
Senior Member
I've come to this conclusión, not because I've PM you asking for help with something that should be trivial for you like how to sabe and reuse a watermark layer (which you so elegantly refused to do!!! Thank you again and I am sorry I would take some of your time...), but because some of the answers to some questions about "mistakes", or better put, wrong choices in exposure at the time the capture is done, is pretty much always: "Don't worry, you can fix it later"... I admit I've started to use a PP software, but, so far, I haven't done more than deciding on the color to use, and even then I've been happy with the preset installed on an oldes version of Elements. So; I still think that is always better to get it right on camera, that's all... I'm sorry if some people feel ofended with this remark, but that's what it seems like, to me. P.S. Sorry for all the editing, but I'm typing on a spanish "speaking" laptop and it keeps trying to change the english for spanish words, as you can see in the begining of this post... Hey, even the Elements came in spanish and I haven't spoken the language in 3 years (that's also why I asked for help...)
Last edited:
- Status