Love doing the research and looking at all the different permutations of what's available out in the market. While I was mulling over full frame bodies from Nikon, Sony and Canon yesterday I ventured over to look at the sensor scores for each camera at DXOmark.com. DXO tests sensors and while some people think that the test scores don't always correlate with visual reality I've found them to be pretty spot on in terms of what I'm seeing with various cameras.
While comparing different cameras I had the disquieting thought (occasioned by the list) that there might actually be something in the APS-C range that tested close to what some of the FF cameras deliver. I started looking at the descending order of wonderfulness as it related to sensors and I was pretty amazed to find one or two APS-C cameras that really stuck out. Of these the camera that seemed most correspondent to my needs was the Nikon D7100. Now, I know I started yesterday's column with the premise that the only reason to buy a full frame camera would be to use the 85mm to 105mm lens range as it was intended to be used when it came to depth of field, depth of focus decay and angle of view.
The reality is that I'm doing fine with the M4:3 cameras and recently had a lovely shoot with great results using a Samsung NX30 camera and the NX 85mm 1.4 lens in a manner than made the system look great. The portrait assignment was with 12 different people at outdoor locations where shallow focus was part of the assignment. We shot in open shade and mostly with apertures at f2.0 to f2.8 and shutter speeds in the 1/320th range. The lens is magnificent. I wish I could adapt it to every camera I own....
But when I looked at the DXO numbers for the various cameras I was struck by the fact that the Nikon D7100, using a brand new Toshiba sensor, was a cool 83 score. Almost ten points ahead of my GH4 and almost on par with the Canon 6D. The score also places the 7100 only one point under the current Leica M. The score of 83 is close enough to the Sony a99 and Sony a7S cameras (both in the high 80's) that the differences become minute.
This led me to do a more thorough researching of the camera and as I continued reading I became more and more excited about what I'd found. First of all the 7100 does away with the anti-aliasing filter over the Toshiba chip and ends up yielding possibly the sharpest and most detailed APS-C sensor implementation on the market right now. If you need endless detail coupled with high sharpness and you aren't in the high dollar market for cameras this is the ultimate machine.
I also wanted to know how it would play with my collection of older Nikkor lenses. The bottom line is that it's the least expensive, new Nikon camera body that has a built-in focus motor which makes it compatible with all AF Nikon lenses. It also is capable of mounting and shooting, with full matrix metering, any of the Nikkor Ais or AI lenses. You must set the focal length and the maximum f-stop but once you do that (and you can save the setting in memory) the camera is ready to rock. Finally, there is a digital rangefinder built in, a la the Nikon F4, that shows you which side of sharp focus you are on with your manual lenses and when you've hit the sweet spot. Very nice-----if it works as advertised.
So, lots of sharpness and detail, class leading dynamic range, lots of "legacy" lens helpers, lots of resolution, and a good long battery life. It all sounded good to me but I thought, in the interest of buying science, that I should investigate what Canon has to offer in the same model range. The short answer? Not much. Seems like every camera in their APS-C line is using the same 18 megapixel sensor that's been in the stable for the last four or five years. Not a single Canon APS-C camera crests the 80 line in DXO and most fall down badly in dynamic range. None of them are anywhere near the level of sharpness now being delivered by pretty much the entire new line up of AA-less sensored APS-C cameras from Nikon. It's a pretty stark difference.
Now, I have owned both the 7D and 60D a lot (having owned both) and found them to be well built cameras that were a pleasure to handle. And both of them (and pretty much any of the current 18 megapixel Rebels) will do a great job for 95% of the photo tasks to which they are set....but we left the realm of rationality in camera desire years ago. Now we're looking for cameras that will handle that last 5%, all the time. Doesn't make sense mathematically or financially but as avid photographers we left those credentials at the door long ago.
Okay. If this 7100 is all wonderful and glorious it must cost a fortune, right? Weeeeelllll--- no. It clocks in (naked of lens) at around $1100 brand spanking new. A tiny little more than half of what we set our ultimate budget to in our hypothetical full frame camera quest yesterday. That means we'd still have cash left over for Frappucinos or college funds...
I'm sure none of you grizzled pros believe in unicorns so let's rush in here and do some bubble bursting. The number one fault, according to a little over half of the VSL readers might be this: The camera doesn't accept Canon lenses. The second fault (more grievous) is that the quality of video coming out of the camera sucks hard. Same soft video we seem to get from most Nikon cameras. The third fault is a bit of a skimpy buffer which means fast cards are a must! And the final fault is that there are some reported operational issues with live view.
If there is an ultimate and long term deal killer it has to be this: The camera uses one of those old fashion, optical viewfinders. Yuck.
All of a sudden I see a dark horse stumbling into the race between my previous three candidates---and at such an affordable price point. If only there was a way to prevent system creep....
Or you could ignore all this equipment strum und drang and just curl up on the couch with my devastatingly good novel, The Lisbon Portolio, and spend a couple of days following the adventures of our photo hero, Henry White. Might be a lot more rewarding for both of us than spending more time on DXO. Or at the camera Store.
36 comments:
I thought I'd be the first one to comment. To head off the Nikonista videograficos at the pass. Yes, the Nikon D800 and other Nikon cameras have been used as B-roll cameras by film companies and on TV shows but in each instance the production teams are taking uncompressed footage out of the camera via HDMI ports and expensive, external, digital recorders and processing that video. For most of us in the real world it's the quality that comes gushing out on the cards that we mostly care about....
Just thought I'd nip that one.
Mr stir-the-pot strikes again ;-)
I haven't used a Nikon D7100, but have friends who have switched from Canon, and could not be happier. Their clients are also happy :-)
For me, the main thing CaNikon has going for them is the ability to tether. When will M4/3 and Fuji figure out that the ability to tether is much more important, to some pros, than Retro Design?
As long as I continue to do table-top, I'm stuck with either a 70D or a D7100 with a 45mm Tilt and Shift lens. Meh!
Chuck
For a few hundred dollars more you can get the A7... Personally and would go for that.
Apsc vs m43rds... Especially Nikon apsc is light on dedicated fast primes... So you could get a vl 42.5 f0.95 for a few hungred dollars less...for dreamy portraits and use focus peaking... Or for a few hundred dollars more get the Panasonic.
But personally I would augment m43rds with an a7.
I'm glad that you mentioned the D7100. I'm looking at that model myself. A possible back up camera for me could be a Sony A6000 to use with my manual lenses. The A6000 has a new, great 24mp sensor as well.
I've found out that the D610 may not accept a manual focus screen but what is quite interesting is that the D7100 does accept a Katz Eye screen, so I could use my Nikon manual lenses with some assurance in focus accuracy, if I wish.
Thank you for your excellent blog. Regards.
I thought I'd be the first (probably not by now, and after pre-screening) one to nit-pick.
"Yes, the Nikon D800 and other Nikon cameras have been used as B-roll cameras by film companies and on TV shows"
Which in itself is not much of a proof of anything yet. Many other more or less mediocre video performer has been used in making parts and pieces shown in TV, including even cameras like Sony NEX-5n. If the story and flow are compelling enough and well enough constructed, we tend to ignore the flaws. Unless we are incurable pixel peepers. Skilled graders and editors can mask a lot, too, but that's nothing any of us couldn't learn to do ourselves, too. If one does video, one is likely to have a NLE, too, anyway.
Neverhtless, if a D800 is being used in a high profile production, it usually means Nikon are sponsoring it. For the most part the cameras used regularly for pro video productions are certain models from the usual suspects.
"the production teams are taking uncompressed footage out of the camera via HDMI ports and expensive, external, digital recorders and processing that video."
Which is nothing special per se. Those recorders start from circa $250 (Atomos Ninja Star). Many devoted Nikonisti have more invested in bling.
"For most of us in the real world it's the quality that comes gushing out on the cards that we mostly care about...."
Quite a few, if not most of the people who make a point of buying a camera with a clean HDMI out tend to actually use that option. Typically that would be the people who are serious about video. The D800 may be an exception, because most people don't buy it for video.
The quality that comes out of those HDMI ports is varying, and having that HDMI out is no guarantee of much yet. Only that you'll get a less compressed 200 mbits/s easily editable recording, which is easier to grade in post. Typically that is not feasible for most SD cards. The rest is up to the quality coming out of the HDMI port of the camera.
In that sense, the D800 and, say, GH4 are slightly different. Most of the mainstream Canon DSLR's aren't any better, and the only one that is needs a third party software hack and typically plenty of additional rigging to be used as a video camera.
I take it you already knew all that, though, and I'm not writing this just to argue for argument's sake.
I just find it somewhat interesting how the feedback you got from the previous comments seem to have boiled down to over-simplified and slightly snarkastic three paragraphs. Or maybe you're just playing your readers again. Well, whatever. :)
If the Nikon D7100 floats your boat and its DxO score makes you purr, good for you, just go for it. It doesn't really matter what the mob says or how it votes, does it.
Looks like the D7100 wins the race given the fact that it can use legacy lenses. I have the D7000 and it is a pleasure to use also. It is generally the "telephoto camera" Since I started out in Nikon, I still have many excellent lenses that work with this little gem. The crop sensor yields more reach for subjects like birds and insects. It's a perfect match for the Nikon 200 mm Micro lens. So the D7000 is the image maker in the "Macro Kit" and the "Telephoto Kit." You cannot go wrong buying the 7100 if you have legacy Nikon lenses. And at the $1.1K USD price point, it's a no-brainer.
I have a Nikon D7100 and a Panasonic GX7. I use the D7100 mostly for birds and wildlife with a 500mm lens and some macro and some landscape. It is a great camera, very fast, great focus, esp on moving birds and insects. I use the GX7 for travel, my walk around kit, some macro and some landscape and people. It is small and light, quick to focus. I love the feel of both cameras. When I use the D7100, it reminds me what the GX7 can't do; and when I use the GX7, it reminds me what the D7100 can't do.
The other day I hiked 3 miles in search of birds with the D7100 on a tripod and my GX7 with a group primes in a small waist pack. A full kit in two cameras. I got pictures of birds with the D7100 and 500m and flowers and insects with the GX7 and Olympus 60mm. Had a great time.
If Panasonic or Olympus can solve the long lens, birds in flight issue, I will abandon Nikon (I've been shouting Nikon since 1969). If Nikon comes out with a light, mirrorless AFC with good primes, I will abandon Panasonic.
The main problem with the GX7 is tracking motion and fast long telephoto lens. The main problem with the D7100 is weight and lack of prime lens (love those micro 3/4 primes!).
BTW, what do you care about the quality of the video from the D7100--you already have the best video camera. Maybe we are heading into a period where we will need two systems. In the past we had different kinds of film. Now we have different kinds of cameras.
Kirk I'm not always sure when you are messing with us, your faithful readers and self admitted camera addicts :)
If you go back to Nikon then I will know that hell has indeed frozen over. Having said that, I've never been able to bring myself to sell my trusty D7000 so I get the possible dalliance on your part.
If Nikon introduces their next higher end DX camera at Photokina in September, as expected, the price will likely drop (if you can wait that long).
If you don't need super high ISO or paper thin DOF, the 7100 seems the way to go.
Hi Kirk, I can contribute some experience to that scenario- I use my D7100 also with vintage Nikkors at portrait shootings.
Yes, thanks to no AA filter the Camera is tack-sharp at details- especially with the Nikkor 17-55/2,8 its infamous sharp, focus almost always is on-spot.
With legacy glass, performance is good. I use an old Ai 55mm/1,2 on it, which at f/2,8 gets nearly as good as it could be- but: thanks to the very long focus leeway of old manual glass, you want to exercise (as you stated in some posts) good practise and use a tripod and liveview with that- green spot is not precise enough.
Also shallow DOF: When there is some free room, I use outdoor a 85mm, given enough room behind the model the background is blurred as good as with any full-frame camera. Yes, regarding proportions we are talking rather 135mm equiv. here, but it works.
If you are interested, I could provide some crops from some images..
HTH
Olaf
I don't know if an APS-C sensor will get you the DOF effect/look you were intending to get from the full frame sensor. Isn't an APS-C sensor a little too close in size to m43 to be noticeably different? Just asking.
But since you were asking for thoughts on the Nikon D7100 ... if I was going to get a Nikon DSLR right now, it would likely be that one. I should state up front I have not used the D7100, but I have been using its immediate predecessor - the D7000 - for 2.5 years now. Nice camera! Its 16MP Sony sensor and image-processing engine produces very nice clear images with nice colors and tones. By comparison, however, the D7100's 24MP Toshiba sensor, is supposed to be sharper and retain color information better at higher ISOs.
For me, however, the real improvement in the D7100 over the D7000 is its AF system, which is supposed to be truly pro oriented. The D7000's AF system is pretty good, but it can be a bit pokey for fast action; and it often backfocuses my two screw-drive AF lenses. (I don't seem to have this backfocusing problem with my AF-S lenses.) The D7100's AF system is supposed to be noticeably faster and more accurate. But you might want to stick to using AF-S lenses with it.
Regarding your comment on Nikon video - it is unlikely that a D7100 (or other most other DSLRs for that matter) will ever supplant your GH4 for video work. With the possible exception of the Canon EOS 70D, DSLR user interfaces, contrast-detect AF systems, and sensors in general aren't the best for video. The forte of a DSLR really is still photography.
I'm not dogmatic about brands either but maybe worth mentioning that the 7D will almost certainly be replaced soon--it's coming up on 5 years old.
....and then there's the Sony SLT A77ii - EVF, and Eye AF over face detection, but then there's the horrible hot shoe .......
I shoot sports/action semiprofessionally, and have access to Nikon D3's, D7100's, D7000's, and D300's. Also Canon 5D's, 6D's and my personal favorite, the 7D. These cameras are used outdoors all the time, and need to take thousands of shots (almost always JPEG's), during an event.
I often get to see the mish-mash of files all side by side, and just came back from event where I was looking at 7D, D7100, D3s and 5D Mk III files all jumbled together.
Also, I use Olympus 4/3, micro 4/3 and Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras both semi-professionally and as my personal "fun" cameras.
So with all that in mind, and the fact that I deal with these cameras and their files--by the THOUSANDS--on a weekly basis, here are my thoughts:
1. NOTHING BEATS FULL FRAME. I really don't care what DxO scores say, the tonality and detail of full frame files, regardless of what camera they come from, are always a quantitative leap beyond anything from the APS and 4/3 camp.
2. The D7100 has the most beautiful files I've ever seen from any cropped frame camera, regardless whether it's APS or 4/3.
3. The D7100 is by far, the most unreliable of all the cameras we've used. Two main problems ours keeps having is completely corrupt SD cards--not just a file or two, but the ENTIRE card!--and also the focusing will just go out to lunch, and when that happens, the camera becomes basically useless.
4. My favorite of them all is the Canon 7D. For such an old junker, it takes a licking and keep on ticking. What's even more amazing is that all the 7D's we have were bought USED. (All the Nikons were bought new!) The 7D has completely accurate Servo AI focusing, and they use those wonderful old CF cards. The buffer can't be filled--at least when shooting HQ JPEG's. But most importantly, they are 100% reliable, no issues what-so-ever.
5. The 12mp sensor in my old Panasonic GH1 is the near equal of the 18mp in the Canon 7D when it comes to dynamic range and noise characteristics, and it makes for some incredibly sharp images when used with good glass. However, it's just 12mp and the Canon is 18mp. There really is something to be said for more megapixels....no kidding.
6. The Sony 16mp sensor in my E-P5 is allegedly better than the 18pm sensor in the Canon 7D according to DxO. However, I've seen no REAL evidence of it. The colors and characteristics of the 7D sensor are, in my view, better than what my E-P5 can do. The slight noise advantage that the Sony 16mp has doesn't make up for it's lacks in other areas. For some odd reason, I've gotten better results--from the exact same Sony 16mp sensor--when that sensor was in a GH3 that I rent.
7. Right now, I wish I had bought the Canon SL1 instead of the Olympus E-P5. I might be the only person on earth who likes the look and the malleability of the Canon 18mp sensor over that of the Olympus/Sony micro 4/3 16mp sensor implementation, but so be it. It's nice having that extra stop of defocus built in to APS as well, it can come in very handy at times.
FWIW...
Nice mini-post Zack with some interesting data points in it. Thanks.
The D3200 can be had for UNDER $500, with a lens. The D3300 for about $600 with a lens. Either camera will give you all the image quality of the D7100 in a more basic no-frills package. My local camera store has a refurb D7100 body for something like $800. So do you buy a Fuji XT1 or an Olympus OM whatever at 1k or more, or go with one of the Nikons? Mirrorless might be the sexy choice but it's hard to beat the value that Nikon is giving buyers with its DX line.
Sighs and shakes his head.
"Most of the mainstream Canon DSLR's aren't any better, and the only one that is needs a third party software hack and typically plenty of additional rigging to be used as a video camera."
The day that the first 5D3 arrived at Calumet Santa Ana I rented it. A friend and I were going to shoot some tests of several cameras. So I was one of the first people in the USA to shoot a 5D3 using the new All I compression. For those not familiar All I puts about 4.5 min on a 4GB card vs 15 min for IPB compression.
We instilled a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens on the 5D3 and handed it to one of his camera operators. He shot from just before lunch 'til after the sun set. And got some good bradcast quality footage. No hacks and no cage needed.
Hi Kirk
I am only a hobbyist so take what I say with a grain of salt - unlike you, I don't rely on my cameras to make a living.
To borrow a term that Thom Hogan is fond of, I find the D7100 to be what he calls the "goldilocks choice" - i.e. just right. In the right hands, the sensor is very capable. I have used several AF-D lenses on it: 300 f/4 (with 1.4x tele-ext.), 85 f/1.8, 50/1.8 and the 24/2.8 and have had no problems with any of those. I don't use manual focus lenses, so I can't comment on that.
Unlike another commenter, I have not had any issues with corrupted cards, even when I shot several thousand images over a couple of weeks (not something I do often). The camera doesn't have a large raw buffer but I don't see you as a spray-and-pray shooter ;) and you should not have any problems if you use a couple of relatively fast cards.
FWIW, nearly all the images in this gallery were shot on a D7100 (and the remainder with a D7000). You can't tell from these small jpgs, but nearly every image is very sharp down to pixel-peeping levels at 100% view. http://khberke.smugmug.com/Africa-2013-Botswana-South/
I hope those few comments help with your choice.
Ken
Reflexively shaking my head and wondering how the poor DP with the naked 5dmk3 managed to use the rear LCD w/o a third party loupe in the blazing sun.....
We'll cover the topic of the often misunderstood term, "broadcast quality" in a future post.
As you well said, rationality is the train that has long left the station. Several months ago I performed the same DXO exercise with the same results. Given that we have a stable of older Nikon lenses along with the current AF-S I put the D7100 on my list when refurbished models appear at the right price point, about where the also excellent D7000 is currently. Proof that Nikon is on the right track came with the 24 Mp D3200 I've been using for almost two years. Also, with no in-body focus motor.
Sighs and shakes his head for the last time.
Just having a camera in your hand doesn't make you a DP. He was a camera operator and getting the shot is what camera operators do.
I'm retired IATSE and have worked on many spots, everything from political to national brands. I've also worked on Feature Films and MOWs.
My friend's video production company does everything from regional commercials to corporate films. He also produces catalogs and brochures. His staff shoots the photos, does the design, writes the text, and supervises the printing.
I think both he and I have a better idea of broadcast quality than most folks.
Ron Zack, interesting to read your observations and I agree that nothing beats FF in terms of output quality, but sometimes it is nice to go lighter with a camera that produces more depth of field.
I was wondering which cards you have been using with the D7100?
I was either stupid or unlucky to buy a Lexar 1000x CF card for my D800 and guess what, files were often corrupted. I have never ever experienced that with my SanDisk cards - could be pure accident, but the quality of cards seem to matter. To be fair, I have read Amazon reviews that indicate that some high speed Sandisk cards also have issues.
It sees to me you where already use a camera with a spec like this a few years ago: the Sony NEX-7 (and now the Sony a6000). they score 81 and 82 with DxO. and they do have an EVF.
It seems to me you already had a camera like this. it was called a NEX-7 (and now a9000). they have a DxO score of 81/82 and do have an EVF.
"The camera uses one of those old fashion, optical viewfinders. Yuck."
I'm satisfied with mirrorless cameras, but note that those old fashioned reflex finders exhibit zero tearing, zero dynamic range compression, full subject contrast range, 100% luminosity and gradation, zero color shifts, zero lag, zero flicker, zero glare, infinite megapixel resolution.
When web sites review mirrorless electronic finders, the quality of said finders is directly rated by how closely they resemble reflex viewing, in terms of resolution, delay, etc.
No one ever said of reflex finders- boy, if only they behaved more like EVFs, and less like actually looking out at the world in real time.
"Sighs and shakes his head."
Dear Another Anonymous, yes, feel free to sigh and shake your head, it'll increase blood flow to your neck muscles and increase oxygen flow into your lungs. That'll be all it's good for in this case, though. To quote this guy named Kirk, people don't read too good.
Perhaps you should consider yourself lucky if a regular, plain and 'naked' 5D3 with its regular footage represent the ultimate video shooting experience to you. Everyone to their own.
Not much point in canonising (pun not intended) the Canon 5D3 or any other DSLR, ftm, only for the fact that they can be made to work in certain video productions, usually with the help of some heavy rigging.
Indeed, "cinematic," "filmic" and "broadcast quality" have become often abused buzzwords in the mainstream, and almost equally often misunderstood. They seem to mean wildly different things to different people.
Which in turn often leads to pointless bickering online, in which I'm not too interested in joining.
Speaking of which, Kirk, is playing the gearhead crowd here just a subtle trick to boost your book sales? It's hard to see any other logical motive, but I hope it works. ;-D
Got the Sony A6000 with the same sensor. Great little camera, the more I'm using the more I like it.
Kirk,
Having just graduated from the Oly E1 to the OMD E1 what convinced me this would be all the camera I need was Ctein's 19.95 print which I purchase and was amazed at the detail from a 12 mp Oly EP2. It shows that given the talent of a Master Printer such as Ctein great things are quite possible with less than FF. JM2C.
Bruce
For myself anyway... This is how my reasoning goes. (Warning! It has been suggested that I'm loosing my mind! :-)
If I bought the 70D or the D7100 I'd get the FF glass where all of the weight is. And if I was buying the FF glass why would I want the APC box? I already have the weight, why not go all the way for the FF camera?
The m4/3rd cameras are clearly a different tool (any of the mirrorless cameras for that matter), not bait to get me to buy the big glass. The FF cameras have gotten close enough in price to make them too tempting... why go halfway?
In someways the APC sensor DSLRs are dead end, unless you already have the FF glass or ultimately want to end up in the FF camp.
Kirk wrote: "If you need endless detail coupled with high sharpness and you aren't in the high dollar market for cameras this is the ultimate machine." Actually, if that's what you want, I think the "ultimate machine" would be a Sigma DP Merrill -- probably the DP3M with its 75mm (equivalent) lens. Of course, there a many, many reasons NOT to buy a Sigma. Just my TCW.
Well I'm a little confused, (but that's a constant for me) I thought we were going with a FF camera? Ok, I still like FF best and for my crop sensor I shoot the Sigma SD1M with 2 prime Art lenses. I've shot with the D7100 and Pentax K3 both great cameras but I still prefer the Sigma SD1M for/with a crop sensor. Although it isn't a camera you can just pick up and dance out the door with, you have to get to know it or you'll be disappointed. When you hit the mark the SD1M is the best of the best/Top Gun.
You have to have the right tool for the job.
Good Luck
Roger
Interesting that the APS-C sensor of the Nikon D7100 comes it at 83 on the DXO site while the full frame, Canon 5Dmk3 comes in at 81. Makes you wonder what it all means.
"Interesting that the APS-C sensor of the Nikon D7100 comes it at 83 on the DXO site while the full frame, Canon 5Dmk3 comes in at 81. Makes you wonder what it all means."
...And a shot taken with a MF camera may look more compelling than a one taken with either of those. Such is life.
It means that the DxO scores serve a purpose within a rather limited context, but for the most part they're nerdytainment. You'll get more work done by ignoring them.
"Sighs and shakes his head for the last time."
Good for you, but don't do it too long, for you might start feeling dizzy.
"Just having a camera in your hand doesn't make you a DP. He was a camera operator and getting the shot is what camera operators do."
Thank you, now you're making my point. ;)
That's all the more reason not to canonise your Canon 5D3, isn't it.
I know enough about how the 5D3 works both in its default mode and in ML-hacked RAW mode, and what needs to be done to it to make it usable as a video camera. Or what needs to be endured to use it as such. But that's beside the point.
"I'm retired IATSE and have worked on many spots, everything from political to national brands. I've also worked on Feature Films and MOWs."
And?
That doesn't change the fact that my favourite Kirk quote still holds, "people don't read too good."
"I think both he and I have a better idea of broadcast quality than most folks."
Well, sorry if I sound blunt, but for such an expert you don't seem to be reading too good at times.
FWIW, my commenting on those popular buzzwords was related to what Kirk had already replied to your head shaking. It was in general, not aimed directly at you, nor was it about the 5D3 in particular.
As a generic remark it still holds true. Those buzzwords do seem to mean different things for different people. Even among those who make videos beyond just a hobby.
Anyway, none of this is relevant in this topic in the first place, as the header talks something about Nikon D7100 vs. mFT, so...
/OT
In my D7000 with about 55k Shots, and my D7100 with less than 10k shots under its belt, I am verrrrrry happy with Toshiba Cards (used nearly everything from them in the 4-16Gb Range, from black case, white case to the newer Excerias) and Panasonic Gold Pro Cards.
No problems with these cards.
(Most hassle with some Sandisk Cards, also due to mechanical stability in some combinations...)
Currently my main Setup is the green 16GB Exceria Card, and a bunch of Panasonic 8Gb Gold Pro Cards. RAW on the 16GB, JPG parallel to the smaller 8GB. As the D7100 can only write with approx 60MB/s, they are sufficient.
"(...)but for the most part they're nerdytainment. You'll get more work done by ignoring them.(...)"
Exactly. Not being in either ends of the CaNikon camp, I can safely say that DxO numbers are regarded by a fair share of photographers as a little "fishy"... ifyou know what I mean.
Post a Comment