After two years, the D7100 has been replaced/surpassed. Strangely, it is a very minor update.
I'd commented a while back that they could have released a bigger still frame buffer in an updated camera body called the D7110. This is practically what they've done.
However, the newer auto focus module is more responsive in low light, similar to how it works in the D750, down to -3EV. It also has built-in WiFi, just like the D750. It includes the Expeed 4 processor and better ISO sensitivity. Interval shooting has been improved from 999 shots to 9999. Auto bracketing has been improved. Maybe, that's enough for a D7120. Maybe.
At US$1199.99, is it enough? In two years, the Canon 70D, 7D MkII, Pentax K-3, Olympus E-M1 and E-M5 MkII, Panasonic GH3 and GH4 (and various models from Sony, such as the a6000) have become competition.
I've wondered why it has taken Nikon so long to replace the D300 properly, as well as the D700. It's not a surprise that the D7200 is so similar to the D750, just as the earlier two were connected. (Ricoh-)Pentax' K-3 seemed a proper successor to the D300 with some great functionality, hampered with typically Pentax firmware. (As a perennial underdog, I wonder if the firmware had been written by Olympus that the K-3 would take a huge share of the US$1000-2000 interchangeable lens camera market.)
I'm not saying that the D7200 isn't welcome. I'm saying that it's just a bit late. Those who were waiting might have gone for the D750.
It feels as though Nikon doesn't believe that the market is worth much, or any, development. That seems reasonable since it took Canon 3 years to revise the 7D. It seems as though there isn't much money to be made in camera bodies under US$3000 for Nikon or Canon.
Thankfully, the price is good at US$1199.99. Hopefully, this means that the D7000 won't continue to be sold.
In any case, with the buffer handled, the D300 should have a proper successor, but in a more economical model. The Expeed 4 processor and revised image sensor should clear up the noisy photos issue from the D7100. The bigger range of ISO sensitivity speaks to the noise elimination in the sensor, and the better processing of the Expeed 4 processor.
I'm not in love, but I'm definitely in like.
Update 2015.04.03: Having shot indoors at Woodward West during a scooter competition, ISO 3200 was a necessity, as 1/250th of a second shutter speed was a minimum. Unfortunately, the Olympus E-M1 is as its usable (my opinion) limit, as is the Panasonic GH4 for still photos. The GH4 1080p video looked okay, though.
While I don't regularly shoot in such situations, I have enough times that I might want a more capable body. The D7200 is that body. Is it good enough at ISO 3200 to make a purchase around US$2600?
Obviously, it's not just the US$1199.99 for the D7200 but the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 is the same price, and of course, taxes count. The 135 Format-effective 22.5-45mm focal length range is slightly wider (but a lot shorter) than my current effective 24-80mm or 30mm fixed focal length. I would prefer a bigger range but keeping good image quality is important. If I used a superzoom lens, why bother with a better camera body? I could just buy an ultrazoom compact camera and throw it all away. Perhaps, a Pentax 645Z with a 3x normal zoom? The D750 might be able to keep up, though I might have to switch the zoom range to 24-70mm but I suspect that will raise the price quite a bit to get a weather-sealed lens. Is US$1199.99 enough for low light?
Update 2015.07.08: On Sunday, I bought the D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, quickly replacing a Pentax K-50 and kit lens that was only an experiment. Someone I know had a camera stolen, and I gave the Pentax K-50 to him.
I'm having many new user problems, especially since this is the first Nikon product I've used extensively since film. I chose not to buy the D100 or D70 back in 2004.
The Black & White ISO 51, 200 and 102,400 modes are interesting. They only produce JPEG files but they work. It bothers me that the ISO selection shows both ISO Auto and ISO 100, for instance. As far as I'm concerned, it should show one or the other, but not both. Showing a specific Auto ISO range makes sense.
It's not difficult to find the metering choices, but the auto focus choices? They seem to be impossible to find. Hopefully, they are hidden in plain sight. It seems to be a sub-selection on a left-hand, rear-side button, but working the button to get that function is odd.
I took the D7200 and 18-35mm f/1.8 out around 11 at night and it didn't work nearly as well as either the Olympus E-M1 or Panasonic GH4. In many cases, the camera refused to work at ISO 25, 600, even though the E-M1 and GH4 would work. Alternatively, I had trouble with the E-M1 and the GH4 in the daytime. That wasn't amusing.
It will take a while to be accustomed to another brand, although shooting is fairly reliable.
I needed to update to Phase One Capture One Pro version 8.3.1 to have raw file compatibility.
Update 2015.07.27: I've been having too many new user problems. It was confusing that there is a menu option for 51 or 11 auto focus points, but nothing about the pattern. I found the control encircled by the AF/MF switch. It still didn't seem incredibly intuitive. The camera body is reliable. It's amazing to have 6 frames per second though, and think of it as slow. The Olympus E-M1 does 10 FPS and the Panasonic GH4 does 12.
I'm working on a full report of my experiences.
Familiarizing myself
Using the High ISO Black & White modes
Update 2015.09.20: The D7200 is a good camera body, but it's not incredibly better than the Olympus E-M1 or Panasonic GH4. Yes, the sensor is bigger. That gives the body great potential to be better.
Since I've got some experience with it, I'm getting better photos. Having the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens makes it a good combination. However, it's a very slight improvement over what I can do with micro Four-Thirds. The Olympus E-M1 has great facial recognition, so accurate focus for portraits with it is easy to get. The Panasonic GH4 and GX8 do fine, but they take more time. Naturally, with Phase Detection AF, there is no facial recognition and a slight mis-calibration of the lens can mean auto focus will not be in the correct place.
For skate park photos, it's not bad but the burst rate isn't fast enough to get the action every time. Got to say that the extra 1.3x mode is helpful, and I can get a similar effective focal length as with micro Four-Thirds. Also, when it's dark, the GH4/GX8/E-M1 EVF is much more useful, as I can actually see what's happening. With the D7200, I see the dark, just as I do with the Olympus E-1 and E-5.
Thanks to the bigger buffer (and the 6 fps burst rate), the D7200 doesn't fill up that quickly. If you consider 12 fps from the GH4, 43 photos come pretty quickly before the camera slows down significantly, there is a difference from the D7200.
Update 2016.01.11: It's been about a week since the emotional replacement for the D300, the D500, was announced.
Had this been available at the same time as the D7200, my choice would have been for the D500. The D7200 is sufficient, but doesn't feel substantially better than my micro Four-Thirds camera bodies, even if a few of the available lenses are worth the switch.
The extra US$800 gets you three times the focus points, a better metering array, a big buffer, and an Expeed 5-class processor for better stills work. The ISO 1 million+ sensitivity probably isn't very useful, but it is there, at least, for bragging rights. Having ISO 51,200 in the normal range instead of a high ISO black and white mode means that ISO 6400 might actually provide reasonable photos and ISO 3200 might be usable in everyday situations. I'm not finding ISO 3200 to be all that usable, except for Instagram and the high ISO modes are only useful for getting the shot when the light isn't there.
Showing posts with label 7D. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 7D. Show all posts
Monday, March 2, 2015
Monday, October 7, 2013
Pentax K-3, successor to the Nikon D300?
I've been dissatisfied with the available choices in dSLRs. I wanted a (mythical?) Nikon D400, but ended up buying an Olympus E-5 to replace/supplement my E-1. The E-5 was a great body for 2007, but it became available in 2010, replacing the slightly horrible E-3 that was two years late, which anti-aliased its photos to mush. The Nikon D300 was a great body for 2007, but was more-or-less replaced by the D300s and then, the D7100.
Unfortunately, the D7100 doesn't have enough buffer depth for raw files in burst mode, so you wait more than you should. That's what happens when you take a buffer from a 12 MP camera body, along with the AF module, etc. The price of the D7100 is great and the plastics in the exterior are reasonable to hold the price down and it is weather-sealed, but performance (for me) isn't negotiable.
Today, Ricoh (omg, Ricoh?) announced the replacement for the Pentax K-5 II, the K-3. (I'm waiting to see the follow-on bodies at lower levels since they had the K-50 and K-500--they already used the K-30 name.)
The K-3 puts a APS-C sized (the same sensor as the D7100, apparently) sensor into a body based on the K-7/K-5, reworks the auto focus, auto exposure, and video, and turns out a camera body seemingly as good as a D300 replacement would be, and for US$1299.99, US$100.00 less expensive than the Olympus E-M1.
They also use the in-body image stabilization/shake reduction to work as an optional anti-aliasing filter, since they've removed one from the mix. If you're dealing with a situation where moiré patterns will be a problem, you can enable the "filter" to smooth things. How this works at the same time with the image stabilization going is anyone's guess but it's great, unconventional thinking.
I normally have terrible things to say about Ricoh because they do some things that are beyond weird. In this case, the mix of Ricoh and Pentax seems to have produced a hellacious camera body that should be able to take on anyone. It certainly beats the hell out of the Canon 70D and 7D and puts the hurt on Nikon's D7100, and nails the coffin on the D300s. It also takes some of the shine off the newly-revised Nikon D610, which seems to have changed minimally.
Will anyone buy it?
This is the big question. The Canikon fanatics don't seem know about other brands, in general. If they have anything to say, it's that the other brands are inferior, even if they use information incorrectly. Pentax has for a long time, been a forgotten brand.
I sold the Pentax ME and K-1000 (and the Auto 110 SLR!) and they were very reliable camera bodies. Given the other choices at the time, Nikon, Olympus, and Fujica/FujiFilm all had better and more interesting equipment. Pentax' claim to fame at the time was the Gallium Arsenide sensor for the light meter, while Fuji was using something called Silicon Blue, and the others were less advanced. Pentax were well known for their 6x6 and 6x7 cameras and commercial work beyond what an enthusiast's camera like the Nikon F2 could do.
Does the Pentax name have enough recognition now to climb out of the hole first dug by the *ist? Barely, I believe. When I've been out photographing sports, I've seen a few Pentax models. That's a big change. Of course, it's easy to see the Canikon equipment but I think people are realizing that they have to buy higher up with Canikon to get what they really want. From what I see, you need to buy the Nikon D800 or the Canon 5D Mk III to get full-featured models. Everything below them is cut-rate.
There seem to be quite a few modern lenses now, and with three levels (two of which are weather-sealed) of bodies on which to attach them, they look to have a sensible line. With Ricoh's imaging (all those copiers have to do something, don't they?) enhancements, it looks quite a bit better. Certainly, the Hoya people weren't doing a lot for Pentax, except dishing the money.
Barring some weirdness, Pentax/Ricoh seems to have a winner on their hands. It may be my next dSLR. Hmm...try to find a Pentax dealer these days. There might be some medium format Pentax dealers, but no one seems to carry their dSLRs in a physical store.
What happens if/when Nikon responds with a D7200? Will it correct the buffer issue?
Update 2014.01.11: Apparently, there is some weirdness that could be corrected by firmware updates. Whether there will be corrections, I wonder, as this is one of the reasons I haven't jumped to Pentax time and again.
As far as the Nikon D7200 goes, Nikon USA tweeted about the D3300 the other day and I replied, asking where the D400 or D7200 was. I realize that they want to sell the D610, but they need a real replacement for the D300/D300s. The Pentax K-3 and 60-250mm look like a good combination for me, but I'm just not sure.
Update 2014.04.10: I have to laugh at DPReview's rather late review. In particular one line caught my attention that they wanted to downplay the K-3's importance in the US$1000 to $2000 sector:
I realize that they don't want to offend their Canikon users, but please, tell it like it is. They have no trouble complaining about the variable focus speed of various Pentax lenses, but they can't say that there is a problem where the Nikon D7100 has to write and write and write to clear the buffer and the photographer has to wait and wait and wait? Do all Nikon-made (or Canon-made) lenses focus at the same speed? I thought that they had differing focusing technologies, as well.
It reminds me of the preview for the Olympus E-M1 where someone slipped a line like "but we don't know if the sensor can go beyond 16 MP" even though we don't know if APS-C sensors can go beyond 24 MP, either. The line was removed for the review, but it was obvious that brand fanatics often write what they want to defend.
Update 2014.04.29: Seeing Imaging Resource's K-3 review and test images, I'm thinking that Pentax (by Ricoh) have made some odd mistakes. The images at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 show the Olympus E-M1 to be better, which seems damned odd, even given that the sensors have a similar pixel density. I really would have expected better performance. Perhaps, it's still possible to re-work the firmware. Right now, I wouldn't recommend it, sadly, even though Nikon don't seem to be in a hurry to fix the D7100's buffer issues.
Update 2014.12.25: It's unfortunate that there is always a bit of weirdness in Pentax products. Adding Ricoh to the mix didn't push things toward the center, but thankfully, it didn't made things worse, as Ricoh products are usually more weird.
I wish there was a standard visual interface for cameras. Pentax makes very desirable products let down by their firmware. Back in their film days, products like the ME Super and Auto 110 SLR were great.
Pentax could really use a boatload of firmware developers who could put things right. They should be selling loads of equipment.
Update 2015.03.03: Since Nikon has introduced the D7200, the hope for the Pentax K-3 is diminished. The K-3 is a very good product, hampered by its firmware. The company really needs to hire better firmware developers to take a fresh look at what they're doing and remove the quirks.
Update 2015.04.27: The K-3 Mk II is now out in the open. Regardless, it doesn't seem as much is known, at least, as how the camera body will work in real life. What I see are good, but minor changes made to a very good body. What probably hasn't changed is the quirkiness of the firmware and operations.
About a week ago, I got a Pentax K-50 and I'm attempting to familiarize myself with the Pentax way of doing things, which isn't like any other experience I've had so far, except maybe for Canon. No, I believe it's quite unique.
I hope that Ricoh, the company in charge of Pentax products, will find a way to make things very easy to use. If they can make the operation of the K-3 Mk II as smooth as Nikon or Olympus, they should be able to gain many customers and make them very happy with their photos and even, their video.
I'm finding from the K-50 that it's very good for still image quality, and it looks as though the video is quite good, even if it's not as great as the Panasonic GH3. The GH3 is formidable in its video abilities but is a bit lacking for still photography. Pentax, like Olympus, excels in still photography, not video.
Since the Nikon D7200, there is an answer to the US$1000-$2000 range that was left open by the D300/D300s' retirement. Is it enough? The D7200 isn't a huge leap over the D7100, which wasn't a replacement for the D300. The D7200 is good, but is the K-3 Mk II better? In general, I think that the K-3 Mk II is better but are the lenses there, and will the firmware be a problem?
Update 2015.07.27: While the Pentax K-50 was very good, I ended up giving it to someone who had their camera stolen. I looked to buy lenses that could be used with the Panasonic GH4 and Olympus E-M1 and the possibilities didn't seem so good with the availability of K-mount lenses or the adapters.
I bought the Nikon D7200 and I'm taking some time to learn how to use it best. Even small things are a pain to learn. Given that I have not used Nikon SLRs since film, it isn't a real surprise. The controls don't exactly seem logical, even compared to the Pentax K-50. It definitely feels good enough to replace the D300, though.
Update 2016.05.16: Since the K-3 has been revised and there is a new 135 Format K-1, the company has done well for itself. They've also addressed the lack of familiar focal length lenses with the help of Tamron. I suspect that they'll still end up a distant third (Sony isn't really involved in dSLRs or APS-C any longer) in the minds of people. However, the price of the K-1 at around US$800 or $900 lower than the Nikon D810 has raised some eyebrows.
The fact that Nikon has brought to market the D500 pushes the D7200 and the K-3 Mk II further away than they were, if you have the extra money for it and then, only if you don't want the K-1.
Unfortunately, the D7100 doesn't have enough buffer depth for raw files in burst mode, so you wait more than you should. That's what happens when you take a buffer from a 12 MP camera body, along with the AF module, etc. The price of the D7100 is great and the plastics in the exterior are reasonable to hold the price down and it is weather-sealed, but performance (for me) isn't negotiable.
Today, Ricoh (omg, Ricoh?) announced the replacement for the Pentax K-5 II, the K-3. (I'm waiting to see the follow-on bodies at lower levels since they had the K-50 and K-500--they already used the K-30 name.)
The K-3 puts a APS-C sized (the same sensor as the D7100, apparently) sensor into a body based on the K-7/K-5, reworks the auto focus, auto exposure, and video, and turns out a camera body seemingly as good as a D300 replacement would be, and for US$1299.99, US$100.00 less expensive than the Olympus E-M1.
They also use the in-body image stabilization/shake reduction to work as an optional anti-aliasing filter, since they've removed one from the mix. If you're dealing with a situation where moiré patterns will be a problem, you can enable the "filter" to smooth things. How this works at the same time with the image stabilization going is anyone's guess but it's great, unconventional thinking.
I normally have terrible things to say about Ricoh because they do some things that are beyond weird. In this case, the mix of Ricoh and Pentax seems to have produced a hellacious camera body that should be able to take on anyone. It certainly beats the hell out of the Canon 70D and 7D and puts the hurt on Nikon's D7100, and nails the coffin on the D300s. It also takes some of the shine off the newly-revised Nikon D610, which seems to have changed minimally.
Will anyone buy it?
This is the big question. The Canikon fanatics don't seem know about other brands, in general. If they have anything to say, it's that the other brands are inferior, even if they use information incorrectly. Pentax has for a long time, been a forgotten brand.
I sold the Pentax ME and K-1000 (and the Auto 110 SLR!) and they were very reliable camera bodies. Given the other choices at the time, Nikon, Olympus, and Fujica/FujiFilm all had better and more interesting equipment. Pentax' claim to fame at the time was the Gallium Arsenide sensor for the light meter, while Fuji was using something called Silicon Blue, and the others were less advanced. Pentax were well known for their 6x6 and 6x7 cameras and commercial work beyond what an enthusiast's camera like the Nikon F2 could do.
Does the Pentax name have enough recognition now to climb out of the hole first dug by the *ist? Barely, I believe. When I've been out photographing sports, I've seen a few Pentax models. That's a big change. Of course, it's easy to see the Canikon equipment but I think people are realizing that they have to buy higher up with Canikon to get what they really want. From what I see, you need to buy the Nikon D800 or the Canon 5D Mk III to get full-featured models. Everything below them is cut-rate.
There seem to be quite a few modern lenses now, and with three levels (two of which are weather-sealed) of bodies on which to attach them, they look to have a sensible line. With Ricoh's imaging (all those copiers have to do something, don't they?) enhancements, it looks quite a bit better. Certainly, the Hoya people weren't doing a lot for Pentax, except dishing the money.
Barring some weirdness, Pentax/Ricoh seems to have a winner on their hands. It may be my next dSLR. Hmm...try to find a Pentax dealer these days. There might be some medium format Pentax dealers, but no one seems to carry their dSLRs in a physical store.
What happens if/when Nikon responds with a D7200? Will it correct the buffer issue?
Update 2014.01.11: Apparently, there is some weirdness that could be corrected by firmware updates. Whether there will be corrections, I wonder, as this is one of the reasons I haven't jumped to Pentax time and again.
As far as the Nikon D7200 goes, Nikon USA tweeted about the D3300 the other day and I replied, asking where the D400 or D7200 was. I realize that they want to sell the D610, but they need a real replacement for the D300/D300s. The Pentax K-3 and 60-250mm look like a good combination for me, but I'm just not sure.
Update 2014.04.10: I have to laugh at DPReview's rather late review. In particular one line caught my attention that they wanted to downplay the K-3's importance in the US$1000 to $2000 sector:
The Nikon D7100 is a safer bet in this respect, too, though it is somewhat hobbled by its small Raw buffer - 7 images, rather than the K-3's 23-or-so.3.x to 1 is "somewhat"?
I realize that they don't want to offend their Canikon users, but please, tell it like it is. They have no trouble complaining about the variable focus speed of various Pentax lenses, but they can't say that there is a problem where the Nikon D7100 has to write and write and write to clear the buffer and the photographer has to wait and wait and wait? Do all Nikon-made (or Canon-made) lenses focus at the same speed? I thought that they had differing focusing technologies, as well.
It reminds me of the preview for the Olympus E-M1 where someone slipped a line like "but we don't know if the sensor can go beyond 16 MP" even though we don't know if APS-C sensors can go beyond 24 MP, either. The line was removed for the review, but it was obvious that brand fanatics often write what they want to defend.
Update 2014.04.29: Seeing Imaging Resource's K-3 review and test images, I'm thinking that Pentax (by Ricoh) have made some odd mistakes. The images at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 show the Olympus E-M1 to be better, which seems damned odd, even given that the sensors have a similar pixel density. I really would have expected better performance. Perhaps, it's still possible to re-work the firmware. Right now, I wouldn't recommend it, sadly, even though Nikon don't seem to be in a hurry to fix the D7100's buffer issues.
Update 2014.12.25: It's unfortunate that there is always a bit of weirdness in Pentax products. Adding Ricoh to the mix didn't push things toward the center, but thankfully, it didn't made things worse, as Ricoh products are usually more weird.
I wish there was a standard visual interface for cameras. Pentax makes very desirable products let down by their firmware. Back in their film days, products like the ME Super and Auto 110 SLR were great.
Pentax could really use a boatload of firmware developers who could put things right. They should be selling loads of equipment.
Update 2015.03.03: Since Nikon has introduced the D7200, the hope for the Pentax K-3 is diminished. The K-3 is a very good product, hampered by its firmware. The company really needs to hire better firmware developers to take a fresh look at what they're doing and remove the quirks.
Update 2015.04.27: The K-3 Mk II is now out in the open. Regardless, it doesn't seem as much is known, at least, as how the camera body will work in real life. What I see are good, but minor changes made to a very good body. What probably hasn't changed is the quirkiness of the firmware and operations.
About a week ago, I got a Pentax K-50 and I'm attempting to familiarize myself with the Pentax way of doing things, which isn't like any other experience I've had so far, except maybe for Canon. No, I believe it's quite unique.
I hope that Ricoh, the company in charge of Pentax products, will find a way to make things very easy to use. If they can make the operation of the K-3 Mk II as smooth as Nikon or Olympus, they should be able to gain many customers and make them very happy with their photos and even, their video.
I'm finding from the K-50 that it's very good for still image quality, and it looks as though the video is quite good, even if it's not as great as the Panasonic GH3. The GH3 is formidable in its video abilities but is a bit lacking for still photography. Pentax, like Olympus, excels in still photography, not video.
Since the Nikon D7200, there is an answer to the US$1000-$2000 range that was left open by the D300/D300s' retirement. Is it enough? The D7200 isn't a huge leap over the D7100, which wasn't a replacement for the D300. The D7200 is good, but is the K-3 Mk II better? In general, I think that the K-3 Mk II is better but are the lenses there, and will the firmware be a problem?
Update 2015.07.27: While the Pentax K-50 was very good, I ended up giving it to someone who had their camera stolen. I looked to buy lenses that could be used with the Panasonic GH4 and Olympus E-M1 and the possibilities didn't seem so good with the availability of K-mount lenses or the adapters.
I bought the Nikon D7200 and I'm taking some time to learn how to use it best. Even small things are a pain to learn. Given that I have not used Nikon SLRs since film, it isn't a real surprise. The controls don't exactly seem logical, even compared to the Pentax K-50. It definitely feels good enough to replace the D300, though.
Update 2016.05.16: Since the K-3 has been revised and there is a new 135 Format K-1, the company has done well for itself. They've also addressed the lack of familiar focal length lenses with the help of Tamron. I suspect that they'll still end up a distant third (Sony isn't really involved in dSLRs or APS-C any longer) in the minds of people. However, the price of the K-1 at around US$800 or $900 lower than the Nikon D810 has raised some eyebrows.
The fact that Nikon has brought to market the D500 pushes the D7200 and the K-3 Mk II further away than they were, if you have the extra money for it and then, only if you don't want the K-1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)