SD cards can make a big difference, however, they are still not as fast as the memory in your camera's buffer. RAW shooters can also switch to 12 bit instead of 14 bit for a little more room, or you can switch to Jpegs and have lots more room in the buffer.

My biggest complaint with the 7100 is that I can only go a second or so in RAW before the buffer fills - one of the reasons I never purchased one. I can't tell you how many sequences I've had over the years that lasted longer than 1 second. The longer buffer with a fast FPS camera (and 6FPS is pretty good) allows you lot of extra options when it comes time to sort your images. I'd rather pick the perfect wingbeat from 18 images than just six.

For each of the images below, I was in a situation where the action had been non stop. In the case of the egrets, both shots happened after the first second, so I would have likely missed out if my buffer had expired.

For the pronghorn, he and his friends were all over the place. I was shooting in short controlled bursts, but there was action everywhere and I would have easily hit the buffer on multiple occasions as they chased each other around.

That said...

I also have a large collection of shots where a short buffer would have been just fine too. I simply like having it available and for the difference in price between the 7100 and 7200 I think it makes sense - at least if you shoot any kind of action in RAW. (OTOH if you never shoot action, save the $$).

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Thanks :)

The buffer helps when the action lasts longer than 1 second. Like when you're shooting sandhill cranes as they come in one after the other, or when pronghorn are racing around a field or when you're getting all sorts of cool expressions from a bear or when an egret hovers slowly as it moves in looking for a landing spot or when a polar bear is moving along giving you shot after shot of great expressions (I have more if you like :) )

As a wildlife photographer, I can promise you the D7200 buffer is a nice addition.

Thanks so much for the kind words. The first and third were the same day (same bull too), and the middle was the very next day. Nothin' like a sticky wet snowfall to add a little extra to the pics :)

A few Elk from a Yellowstone trip. I need to get back there :)

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

I don't know. I saw a few of Adams prints (some of them fairly large) on display and none of them struck me as soft - even by today's standards.

I see your point with portraits - sort of. Years ago I used to shoot weddings / senior portraits / etc on film and we would occasionally use soft focus filters for effect. However, when I messed up an image and it was out of focus, it really was a throwaway. No one was pining away for soft images, even in the portrait world.

With digital, my argument is simply why not have it sharp? You can soften in post production if you want, so no need to start with an out of focus image.

Also, keep in mind I am coming from a wildlife / landscape background here, and sharpness rules the roost for those types of images. Based on the type of photography I do, that might make me a bit biased towards critical sharpness, and I freely admit it. :)

Finally, I'm not arguing that everyone needs to buy an Otis lens here either. My discussion is primarily directed at soft photos caused by poor technique, not gear. Most modern gear will give good results in the right hands (even kit lenses are pretty good now).

But a soft image of a sharp concept is a throwaway :)

Sharpness is one of the basic elements of most photos. Asking if sharpness is important to a photo is like asking if doors are important to a car. Sure, you still have a car, but not one most people would want.

Is there more to a photo than sharpness? Sure, but a great composition and great sharpness aren't mutually exclusive either. I'd personally rather start with a tack sharp image and soften it up in post than to have an image that's not so sharp and wish it were sharper. We don't have to choose - we can have a tack sharp image, a great composition, great light, etc all in the same image - and it's often those kinds of images that get published and get awards.

Also, as someone who has images published, I can promise you the magazine and calendar companies I deal with think sharpness is a big deal :)

Depends on what you photograph. The D7100 is a fine camera for general subjects, but if you find yourself shooting action, I think you'll really appreciate the improved AF system and deeper buffer of the D7200.

I had the 200-400 and it was OK with the 1.4 and I really didn't like it with the 1.7x. (I'd never do it with the 2X)

If I was shooting that setup with a D810, I'd use a combination of the 1.4 converter and cropping. I actually like the 1.2X crop in the D810 - gives you a bump in the FPS and buffer, and still outputs 24MP.

Depends on the image sizes, both the initial images and what you do in Photoshop.

For my D810, I have 32GB in my iMac, but I can also work on those files just fine in my Macbook Pro with 16GB. Personally, I'd use it as is for awhile and see how it goes.

Also, under Utilities, there should be a program called Activity Monitor that will let you watch your RAM usage (memory pressure as apple puts it, since they use some kind of compression or something now).

It was under $2 here in OH a week ago - went back up to around 2.25, but still not bad :)

Thanks again for the kind words everyone :) Hopefully getting another lighthouse or two this week :)

Keep in mind the monitor as well. On my uncalibrated iMac monitor, everything looks over saturated and far too contrasty. Not only that, but there can also be difference between calibrated monitors of different makes as well!

That said, on my calibrated monitor things usually look much better (although there are always super saturated overdone images - I've done a few myself in the past but I'm trying to get better about it :) )

Just a thought.

I agree with all the above - I think a polarizer would work great in that situation. I think I would try to dial it in so you leave just a little reflection on the dog's fur, especially the black ones. However, full polarization might do that anyway (it doesn't always completely remove the reflection, depending on the intensity of the reflection and the angle).