D7100 sensor is from Toshiba
Feb 21, 2013 10:52:46 #
After wondering about the source of the sensor in the new D7100 I checked the specs compared to the D3200, which has a sensor made by Sony. And the D5200, which has a sensor made by Toshiba.
The Sony sensor is 23.2 x 15.4mm and is 24.2MP.
The Toshiba sensor is 23.5 x 15.6mm and is 24.1MP.
The D7100 sensor is stated by Nikon to be 23.5 x 15.6mm and 24.1MP is size so that would indicate that it indeed does have the Toshiba sensor and shares it with the D5200. But The D7100 adds the Expeed 3 processor to that sensor for better and faster processing of that information.
Just in case anyone wants to know.
The Sony sensor is 23.2 x 15.4mm and is 24.2MP.
The Toshiba sensor is 23.5 x 15.6mm and is 24.1MP.
The D7100 sensor is stated by Nikon to be 23.5 x 15.6mm and 24.1MP is size so that would indicate that it indeed does have the Toshiba sensor and shares it with the D5200. But The D7100 adds the Expeed 3 processor to that sensor for better and faster processing of that information.
Just in case anyone wants to know.
Feb 21, 2013 23:20:21 #
MT Shooter wrote:
Thank you. :thumbup:After wondering about the source of the sensor in ... (show quote)
Feb 22, 2013 05:35:38 #
MT Shooter wrote:
After wondering about the source of the sensor in ... (show quote)
So MT whats your thoughts as to the D7000 vs D7100 ?
Feb 22, 2013 09:27:41 #
50teeslady wrote:
quote=MT Shooter After wondering about the source... (show quote)
I sold all 4 of my D7000's after going to the D800's. Primarily because using a D800 in DX mode gets me a larger image than the D7000 gives. But I am now considering a D7100 as the larger image file and no anti-aliasing filter will now offer me a large file size and density than my D800. A clear advantage with a long telephoto when shooting wildlife.
Feb 22, 2013 10:11:45 #
MT Shooter wrote:
After wondering about the source of the sensor in ... (show quote)
What's you take on the new AF sensor range? I'm a little confused. Does it not have expanded sensitivety between f5.6 & f8? I'm confused by the Nikon wording on their site.
Feb 22, 2013 10:29:30 #
naturepics43 wrote:
quote=MT Shooter After wondering about the source... (show quote)
What that does is give you more latitude on what lenses you can use a teleconverter on. Previously if a lens/tele combo exceeded F5.6 then it may still work but you would lose autofocus with the combo and would have to manually focus the lens. Now with the new AF sensor, you should be able to use a lens/tele combo that is up to F8 and still have Autofocus in the camera. The D800 has that feature and in theory it works, but in reality its questionable. I SHOULD be able to use my 1.4X TC on my 800mm F5.6 and still have AF, but when I mount them up the AF still will not work and I have to manually focus. Not really a big deal there as I usually manually focus that lens anyway.
Feb 22, 2013 10:30:18 #
I just read an this comparison and don't know what this really is ...nor do I understand what is being said! Is this important or not?
"As I was compiling the data for my Nikon D7000 vs D7100 article, I realized that the D7100 has one major drawback that will immediately draw criticism from current D300/D300s owners the small buffer size. Even compared to the existing Nikon D7000, the D7100 can only handle up to 9 images in compressed 12-bit RAW format (which is the smallest RAW file size) at full resolution and up to 14 images in the same format at 1.3x crop size, whereas the D7000 can handle 15 RAW files without the crop. Compare that to the D300s, which can take 45 compressed RAW images before the buffer gets full thats quite a difference."
"As I was compiling the data for my Nikon D7000 vs D7100 article, I realized that the D7100 has one major drawback that will immediately draw criticism from current D300/D300s owners the small buffer size. Even compared to the existing Nikon D7000, the D7100 can only handle up to 9 images in compressed 12-bit RAW format (which is the smallest RAW file size) at full resolution and up to 14 images in the same format at 1.3x crop size, whereas the D7000 can handle 15 RAW files without the crop. Compare that to the D300s, which can take 45 compressed RAW images before the buffer gets full thats quite a difference."
Feb 22, 2013 10:34:42 #
50teeslady wrote:
I just read an this comparison and don't know what... (show quote)
That is indeed the one drawback to the D7100 that I can see and could deter sports shooters who love to machine gun images from using it. The D7100 has the EXACT same buffer as the D7000, but because of the increased file size from the 24.1MP sensor it is unable to process the number of images as fast as its predecessor. Hence the 9 images compared to the 15 images. The D300s can process many more images as it TAKES a much smaller image to begin with. D300s users looking for MORE speed need to consider the D4 as that is what it was specifically made to do, machine gun sports images.
You also need to remember that the buffer is constantly writing those images to the memory card and that means that the camera will NOT shut down after 9 images, but may slow down the shutter after 12 or 13 images as it works to clear the buffer.
Feb 22, 2013 10:41:11 #
Feb 22, 2013 10:47:20 #
50teeslady wrote:
sorry if this is dumb but does it matter if you shoot jpeg?
It does. The problem with shooting only JPG is that the camera still shoots in RAW no matter what. When you select JPG as the storage file, the camera must then take that RAW image and process it using the preset algorithms into a JPG file before it is sent to the buffer for transfer to the card. Many times that actually SLOWS the storage process because of that extra processing step. However, once the JPG is transferred to the buffer, the write time to the card is actually much faster as the processed JPG file is much smaller than the full RAW image was.
Confused yet? ;)
Feb 22, 2013 10:55:50 #
oh I understand....now will this buffer thing be that noticeable if you don't really shoot much sports?
Feb 22, 2013 10:56:53 #
50teeslady wrote:
oh I understand....now will this buffer thing be that noticeable if you don't really shoot much sports?
I don't shoot a LOT of sports, but some, and have never had any camera slow down because of a full buffer.
Feb 22, 2013 10:59:58 #
okay great....I don't know a great deal about that stuff..I was waiting for income tax to purchase the d7000 ...thinking I will wait and see what the people say about the 7100...I like the fact that they say it has a better image quality and that is most important to me!
Feb 22, 2013 11:24:16 #
MT, a few months ago I speculated that the 36 mpx. D800 would exceed Nikon's research of a couple years back that said the best noise/sharpness ratio would max out around 16 mpx. on a crop sensor camera. You pointed out that the 36 mpx was exactly that when expanded to FF because the FF was 6% greater than double the crop sensor size. Now we have 24 mpx crop sensors that would exceed 50 mpx when expanded to FF. Are we accepting more noise in order to get sharper images or has the technology dealt with the greater noise problem of having too many receptors crowded together?
Feb 22, 2013 11:29:59 #
Bridges wrote:
MT, a few months ago I speculated that the 36 mpx.... (show quote)
Amazing how technology advances and overcomes previously estimated barriers each and every day, isn't it?
Consider the miniscule 1/2.3" sensors in point and shoots rated at 18MP that are out there. You could put 9 of those sensors on an APS size sensor so would that mean 162MP DX sensors? I guess it could be done.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.