«

Speaking of the Nikon D7000 it looks like a replacement D7100


The new Nikon D7100 DSLR features a 24.1MP DX-format CMOS sensor and an
EXPEED 3 image processor, which work together to produce high resolution
still imagery and full HD 1080i/p video in multiple frame rates. Movie
recording is also benefitted through the inclusion of both external
microphone and headphone jacks as well as the ability to manual adjust
exposure settings during recording. A notable improvement in image
sharpness and resolution is afforded through the removal of the optical
low-pass filter, and a 51-point autofocus system with 15 cross-type
sensors ensures quick and precise focusing. The large 3.2" 1,229k-dot
LCD monitor allows live view monitoring and image review and the optical
pentaprism viewfinder incorporates an OLED information display and
provides 100% field coverage. The EXPEED 3 image processor also provides
a wealth of speed throughout the camera system and enables a
full-resolution continuous shooting rate of 6fps, a 1.3x DX crop
continuous shooting rate of 7fps and an expandable maximum sensitivity
to ISO 25600. The new Spot White Balance features permits selective
control over custom white balance settings and built-in HDR
automatically composites bracketed frames to produce a single image with
an extended dynamic range. The D7100 is compatible with the WU-1a
Wireless Mobile Adapter to enable wireless connectivity and the ability
to instantly transfer imagery to iOS and Android mobile devices. Housing
all of the imaging technology is a redesigned body that features
magnesium alloy top and rear covers for increased durability and
moisture- and weather-resistance. The D7100 is available as a body only
or in a kit with the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5l.6G ED VR lens.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:02:27 +1100, Rob <> wrote:
: Speaking of the Nikon D7000 it looks like a replacement D7100
:
:
: The new Nikon D7100 DSLR features a 24.1MP DX-format CMOS sensor and an
: EXPEED 3 image processor, which work together to produce high resolution
: still imagery and full HD 1080i/p video in multiple frame rates. Movie
: recording is also benefitted through the inclusion of both external
: microphone and headphone jacks as well as the ability to manual adjust
: exposure settings during recording. A notable improvement in image
: sharpness and resolution is afforded through the removal of the optical
: low-pass filter, and a 51-point autofocus system with 15 cross-type
: sensors ensures quick and precise focusing. The large 3.2" 1,229k-dot
: LCD monitor allows live view monitoring and image review and the optical
: pentaprism viewfinder incorporates an OLED information display and
: provides 100% field coverage. The EXPEED 3 image processor also provides
: a wealth of speed throughout the camera system and enables a
: full-resolution continuous shooting rate of 6fps, a 1.3x DX crop
: continuous shooting rate of 7fps and an expandable maximum sensitivity
: to ISO 25600. The new Spot White Balance features permits selective
: control over custom white balance settings and built-in HDR
: automatically composites bracketed frames to produce a single image with
: an extended dynamic range. The D7100 is compatible with the WU-1a
: Wireless Mobile Adapter to enable wireless connectivity and the ability
: to instantly transfer imagery to iOS and Android mobile devices. Housing
: all of the imaging technology is a redesigned body that features
: magnesium alloy top and rear covers for increased durability and
: moisture- and weather-resistance. The D7100 is available as a body only
: or in a kit with the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5l.6G ED VR lens.

So.... Is THIS the long-awaited "D300 Replacement"? Or just one more shred of
evidence that Nikon now equates serious photography with full-frame and that a
true D300 replacement is a pipe dream? (As a Canonian, I of course ask this
question only to stir the pot and keep it boiling evenly.) ;^)

BTW, I don't think I'd be happy with the kit lens, if the best it can do at
105mm is f/51.6.

Bob

In article <>, Alfred
Molon <> wrote:

> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

On 23/02/2013 21:18, Alfred Molon wrote:
> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

In theory, yes, but you /did/ see the post from someone who had taken
several thousand photos on a filter-free D800, and only seen aliasing in
a couple of them? With "consumer" rather than "quality professional"
lenses the visibility of such errors is much less likely (as lower
lenses have lower MTF at the higher spatial frequencies).
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

Robert Coe wrote:

> So.... Is THIS the long-awaited "D300 Replacement"?

No.

"I can assure you that the D7100 is not positioned to replace the
D300s as Nikon's flagship DX-format camera - such is the information
received from Nikon Japan on the matter." // Nikon Europe Support

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/th...-post-50901841
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/02/24/ni...lace-the-d300s

--
Fredrik Jonson

On 1/03/2013 6:52 AM, Fredrik Jonson wrote:
> Robert Coe wrote:
>
>> So.... Is THIS the long-awaited "D300 Replacement"?
>
> No.
>
> "I can assure you that the D7100 is not positioned to replace the
> D300s as Nikon's flagship DX-format camera - such is the information
> received from Nikon Japan on the matter." // Nikon Europe Support
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/th...-post-50901841
> http://nikonrumors.com/2013/02/24/ni...lace-the-d300s
>


I don't think it ever was a d300 replacement, my understanding, at the
time, the D7000 was a D90 replacement and fits that category.

On 2/23/2013 5:08 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <>, Alfred
> Molon <> wrote:
>
>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
>
> it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
> detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
> take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
>

And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

--
PeterN

In article <51315af1$0$10794$>, PeterN
<> wrote:

> >> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
> >
> > it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
> > detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
> > take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
>
> And your experience using one is?
> Or is your comment made based on a survey.

displaying your ignorance again, i see.

it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

> One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
> are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
> she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
> is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

that's nice.

being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
or not there is aliasing.

On 2/03/2013 12:50 PM, PeterN wrote:
> On 2/23/2013 5:08 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <>, Alfred
>> Molon <> wrote:
>>
>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
>>
>> it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
>> detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
>> take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
>>
>
> And your experience using one is?
> Or is your comment made based on a survey.
>
> One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
> are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
> she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
> is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.
>

My only option in getting the D800 was the availability of the E only.

Like I have mentioned previously, out of all the thousands of images
there has only been a couple showing aliasing. Its not a problem in not
having the filter. I haven't compared it side by side with the D800 so I
don't Know.

I would suggest that to give it a proper test you need to shoot side by
side and compare the results frame by frame.

Would I buy another E - yes. Its people who put up all the technical BS
that don't use one but thing everyone else shouldn't be using them either.

On 3/1/2013 9:35 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <51315af1$0$10794$>, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>>>> No AA filter => lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.
>>>
>>> it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
>>> detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
>>> take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.
>>
>> And your experience using one is?
>> Or is your comment made based on a survey.
>
> displaying your ignorance again, i see.

Yes I am totally ignorant of the factual basis for your statement.
All I know is what works and what doesn't. Your past history gives us
little reason to accept your conclusion, without proof. This is
especially true since you appear never to have used the cameras under
discussion.


>
> it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
> something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
> cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
> bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.
>
>> One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
>> are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
>> she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
>> is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.
>
> that's nice.
>
> being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
> or not there is aliasing.

For the individuals I mentioned being happy means they are well paid.
Any any faults you claim to exist are well within the bounds of high
standard commercial acceptability. Just as circles of confusion can be
commercially acceptable.

BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results
from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately
produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people
use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and
Eizo, at the upper end.


--
PeterN