Regarding Image Quality

Go here, select your camera and any others you want to compare to and see the empirical data... then start adding your lens to the comparisons and badda bing...

Compare Camera Sensors - DxOMark

Caveat, I am not familiar with the D90, but you may find this helpful.

I have the D5100 and the D7100. The image is a bit better than my D5100, but I'm not going to say there is a enough to make the jump for THAT reason. To make my point look through the pictures of Don and his D5100 shots. Through is knowledge, experience, and editing he can really make that camera achieve beyond its ability in my opinion.

The real reasons to jump to the D7100 are the direct access to things via buttons rather than menus (which you already have). The 51 point focusing system. Dynamic range is nice. And to your question, the 24 mp allows for a lot of cropping while maintaining a high ppi print ability. What I mean is sometimes I will shoot a picture in landscape, but after seeing it on the computer I decide it looks better cropped as a portrait - I have the versatility.

I guess a real question that would help me to make the decision your contemplating is... when was the last time you printed images? Most people I know have never printed their digital images. My wife and I are always printing our images. If you PRINT images then I would say yes, do it. If you don't then skip it and invest in more lenses. A great part of my desire for the D7100 and its megapixels is that I do regularly print large to small poster size prints.

Hope this helped in some way.

jkinzel said:

Regarding image quality: For those who have moved from a 12MP camera to the D7100, is the image quality a big leap and worth the move? I’m not unhappy with my D90 and intend to keep it, but I have been thinking about getting the 24MP D7100 under the assumption the image quality would be better and quality loss would be less when cropping.

Click to expand...

I've gone from a D40 to a D5100 to a D7100 and yes, there's a difference in image quality IMO, but it's hard to say how much or to attach a dollar amount to what I'm seeing. I wouldn't give up my 7100 but that has as much to do with the feature-set it brings to the table as it does image quality. On related note, I think the IQ difference has more to do with color *depth*, than the number of raw pixels; your D90's color depth is a respectable 22.7 bits but D7100 comes in at 24.2 bits, and that's significant increase and shouldn't be dismissed lightly. Then there are things like dynamic range, ISO noise, focus points and the number of cross-type focus sensors... So yeah, it's not a matter of one BIG thing here, it's a matter of several small things all adding up.

As cost-conscious happy medium you might want to consider something like the the D5200 and a really good prime lens if you don't have one already. The 5200 would be a significant step up from the D90, yet considerably less than the D7100.

It depends on what you're doing with the images after you take the shots. Are you just sending them off to facebook? Or are you going to actually get them printed? Are the prints going to be just 4x6? Or are you going to want them printed at 11x14 and up? Doesn't make much sense to upgrade if you're going to just share the images or print them as 4x6. The image quality isn't going to be that noticable. Plus with the higher pixel count you're loosing some low light performance. I shoot with both the D90 and D3s. The D90 makes some pretty impressive photos. The D3s even more so but not enough to run out and buy one.

The D90 is a rock and I agree that unless you want to print extra large the D 90 is very credible. You might want to consider faster and higher quality glass instead. sharp fx lenses work very well on a D90., and then you would have them for when you do make the transition.

All of you have certainly given me something to think about and as stated, my D90 is very dependable, bullet proof and I have no complaints. I believe the next logical step would be to a full sensor like the D600, but I’m going to wait and see on that. In mean time I’ll start looking at glass.

Thanks everyone.

I Would get the 7100 over the 600..in all the comparison tests the d7100 can hang quite well..If you really want a jump in going FX, get the 800..

ShootRaw said:

I Would get the 7100 over the 600..in all the comparison tests the d7100 can hang quite well..If you really want a jump in going FX, get the 800..

Click to expand...

I must agree with getting the 800 if I go FX (the rumored D610 could change this), something my wife may not agree with. Getting to cut loose of $2,000 for the D600 was going to be challenge enough, :sneakiness: but $3,000 for the D800 might require the jaws of life to pry the money out of her hands.:nightmare:

My plate is pretty full through the end of the year so I won't be doing anything until 2014.

Just get the D7100 $1150 for body only....Glass,Glass, and more Glass..
That's where its @

It would definitely be a jump in image quality, providing you stick with good glass. However, I recently tired out a couple of 'cheapy' old Nikon lenses and even the results with those were quite reasonable. The D90 is a fantastic camera, but really, it's old technology compared with a 7100.