There's an old saying........"if a deal seems too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true." You'd likely be buying a lens that would not be covered under the manufacturer warranty, and as such, if something goes wrong, could be a nice paperweight, but not a good lens.
Buy from a reputable dealer and pay the price of admission to get a lens that Nikon will stand behind should you ever need Nikon to stand behind it.
On the Nikon Rumors Forum, the thread asking for Nikon to build a D300S replacement is quite long. It seems many want it. Unless Canon comes out with a 7D Mark II, Nikon will have no real incentive to sell a D400. But IF Canon does come out with a 7D Mark II, Nikon will likely have to follow suit.
jd7000 wrote:
I hit send too soon! That makes no sense. What I meant was reading the manual is a slog but it will pay off.
Yes, a slog is a good word for it. Reading the manual was um, painful to say the least. But I read every word on every page. Just not in one sitting. It actually took me about 3 weeks to get through it all. I took it section by section, but I'm really glad I did.
Barry G. wrote:
My first Nikon was a D40 x, then a D5000 then a D80 converted to IR.
Just ordered a D7100 and it will be a huge leap for me.
What are some things that I should be aware of when it
arrives other than the wow factor?
You made an excellent choice getting the D7100. Don't let anyone rattle you with their "you should have gotten a Canon" fodder. Boys and their toys, often make people feel superior, as long as you're in their camp. Canon and Nikon both make great gear. The fact you've been shooting Nikon and likely have Nikon glass already, made the D7100 a terrific choice.
I went from D5100 to D7100. The absolute control the D7100 offers over menu driven controls is what [IMHO] distinguishes the D7100.
In addition to taking your time with the manual (I also downloaded the PDF to my iPad, so I can read it anywhere), I'd recommend you get one of the aftermarket books, which will offer a different and sometimes better perspective on many of the camera's functions and options. I read "Nikon D7100 Experience" by Douglas Klosterman. I still refer to that book a lot when I'm trying to learn a new/different way to do something. This too can be bought in the iBook Store on iPad.
Welcome to the D7100 club. You're going to love the camera. I know you will.
A-PeeR wrote:
Probably one of the most important specs for me on my FF, larger viewfinder with a penta-prism versus smaller viewfinder with a penta-mirror. I shoot macro and the difference is night and day. To the point that I can actually see individual facets on a fly's eye in the viewfinder and distinguish individual ripples of focus bands in the sub millimeter range.
D7100 is also penta-prism
I went from a D5100 to the D7100. I had hoped the D7100 would include the articulated screen, but the D7100 has SO MANY more virtues that the movable screen pales in comparison.
The D7100 is a better built and sealed body.
The D7100 has a built in focusing motor, which the D5300 doesn't, which means you can use legacy lenses.
The D7100 has needed controls on the body, which are buried in menus on the D5300.
The D7100 feels better in my hand (OK, this is subjective, but it does feel better and that's important).
The D7100 has dual SD card slots, which let's you do cool things, like save one raw image and one JPEG to each card at the same time.
There are just so many advantages the D7100 offers that even without built in Wifi or an articulated screen make it a much more competent camera and one you can grow with as your skills improve.
jerryerdman wrote:
Which camera is best for still photography. Iam interested in shooting vintage buildings inside and out, landscape and nature photography.
If video was important to me, I would own the Canon 70D. The dual pixel sensor is a major plus for video.
Since I don't take video and still photography is much more important to me, I own a D7100, which in most camps, trumps the still photographic abilities of the Canon.
However, both cameras will take an excellent picture.
I'll third B&W. All of my filters are made by them and they use superior optical glass. They're more expensive, but certainly worth it.
Mark7829 wrote:
The 610 is a full frame camera, larger sensor, better image quality especially at low light. One thing that most don't mention is that crop sensor cameras like the 7100 have a larger DOF. This is not desirable. If you want the soft blur known as bokeh which is preferred by professional photographers, you get the full frame camera.
Sorry, but this is not an accurate statement. One can produce very nice bokeh on a crop sensor camera. Set the aperture appropriately of course.
Turbo wrote:
Suspicious ratings at best.
The D800 ( which is a superb camera ) is nice at high ISO ( up to 3200 or so.
But it is better than the D4 ?? I don't think so !
I have seen pics taken with a D4 at 25000 ISO and right out of the camera they were a bit noisy but better than the ones from a D800 at 3200.
Meanwhile, Pop Photo magazine choosed the CANON 5D Mk III over the D800 for their camera of the year mainly because of its superior HIgh ISO noise performance. ( and the CANON 1Dx is better yet ! ).
ADORAMA picked 20 cameras at random or used some other method ( which was not clearly defined).
Scott Kelby, who knows a bit about cameras, recently switched from NIKON to CANON. There has to be a reason for that !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz94bdlVVlcSuspicious ratings at best. br br The D800 ( whic... (
show quote)
When a highly regarded pro switches brands, they say they do it for all sorts of reasons, but I know a pro who tells me, they are courted mightily by the manufacturers. I'd be willing to guess Scott's migration was greatly influenced by Canon incentives.
Another famous photogrpaher Tamara Lackey, recently switched from Canon to Nikon.
http://tamaralackeyblog.com/switch-from-canon-to-nikon/These defections don't really mean much.........
JaiGieEse wrote:
Very interesting that Sony sensors seem to do so well. My first digital camera was a Sony DSC-F828. Has a Zeiss lens and does a pretty good job, but the DSC-F828 is notorious for noise in low light and it also has significant issues with chromatic aberration - the dreaded "purple fringe." I suppose that Sony must've have learned a few things in the last decade.
Yes, of course. But there's WAAAAAY more to low light photography than just the sensor.
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Interesting that the "Dark Side" does better in the dark...at least in this review. (I love my D800)
Dark Side? That's funny. Nikon has always been regarded really well for low light picture taking abilities. And just to be nice.....Canon is highly regarded for video abilities. Since video is simply not important to me, I'll take better low light.......