[Brightcolours]

I fail to see how the DXO "nonsense" measurements have any link to laptop screens or colour space.... 

 

ProPhotoRGB is only useful when one can print on a certain output device which can handle more saturated cyans, magentas and yellows, and you have a good calibrated setup. It is not as if for instance a Canon 100D has a smaller colour space in RAW than ProPhotoRGB.

 

BTW, ProPhotoRGB was specified by Kodak as a way to describe all of the highly saturated colours produced my E6 films. A problem with it is that it encompasses some areas of deep blues and greens that are not actually visible, when editing one can shift colours in these ranges which can cause major problems.

 

It is correct that screens can't show these wide gamut spaces, so changes you make won't show correctly on your display. For most people, AdobeRGB is a safer choice, and only some images with saturated greens and yellows may benefit from a detour into ProPhotoRGB (when output with a system/inks that can cover the expanded gamut space), but handle with care.

 

Colour spaces do not get measured by DXO.

[Klaus]

I commented to soLong's message.

[mst]

While I haven't used the D7100 I am not so thrilled with the sensor used in the A6000/NEX7 and they are at least related.
I hope that Markus is going to publish some D7100-based tests soon ...

Yes, January latest, but probably earlier. Depends a bit on what happens here at my main job. There are some very dark clouds on the horizon, but we don't know how much rain they'll bring until early december.

There is still quite some unpublished data based on the D7000, I guess I will publish a few reviews in parallel, since the DX-section is quite crowded with D700 reviews, which makes comparisons a lot easier.

Regarding the D7100: whenever I have the choice, I still grab the D7000 instead. Not because of the sensor, but because the D7100 has a very small buffer when shooting raw and becomes somewhat laggy when that buffer fills... no image review is possbile then, for example, until the buffer is cleared and written away.

There is still a hole in Nikon's portfolio for a D300s successor...

-- Markus

[JJ_SO]

The buffer sizes of D7000 and D7100 are more or less the same. It's just the file sizes which fills the D7100 quicker. Nikon could have given a little bit more into it.

 

Is there a reason to shoot with D7000 further on? Why not get a D810 and use it's DX size, if you have to test DX lenses? I already sold most of my DX bodies. If I need fast fps (or what Nikon calls fast…), I switch to DX, have still 15.36 MP, huge buffering (with a Sandisk Extreme Pro it slows down after 68 DX 14 bit losless Raws @ 6fps, JPG much longer…) What would be the advantage of a Nikon Pro DX like a D400? Ergonomics, speed (fps) and AF of 7DII is hard to beat at this price. And on the other hand, one gets already a D610 and full frame at around the same money or less… Which has the "better" IQ?

 

It's always nice to see how much DxO is hated or despised, depending on their "victim". As far as I know, they do use the same system for all sensors… So even if their scoring has weaknesses, those are the same for each manufacturer. Mind you, photozone has also a weakness which is testing only one copy of a lens. These days I don't mind much about those testings, I rent the lens in question and see if I'm happy with it. And after that, I try to ignore tests 

 

Here's another Hands-On of the 7DII in German and with pictures from which I can't discover a bad camera.   There's certainly more than DxO scores. I'm pretty certain DxO would rate a Foveon sensor very low although resolutionwise, it equals 36 MP at base ISO and not too huge contrast.

[Klaus]

It may sound attractive to use the D810 for both APS-C and full format but it's not gonna happen.

Readers with APS-C cameras would always question the results. I would do as well honestly speaking.

[JJ_SO]

"Question the results"? How? Pixel density of the D8xx its about the same as the D7000. I don't think, the results would be more questioned than the ones from D200 vs D7000.

 

And since there's still no D7100 involved in Marcus' testings, high MP appears to be no issue for PZ testers?`Or is the problem that several people would check the EXIF and suspect FX results in DX tests? I could understand  you don't want to explain all the time FX body can produce DX pictures without any kind of magic.

 

Allright, it was only a suggestion. And this is the 7DII thread, not even the Nikon board  :unsure:

[popo]

Even if the MP count is about the same, can we say the sensor characteristic of a D7000 and cropped D8xx are the same? Just within the D8xx the AA filters differ, so comparing results between the two will always lead to a question of the difference. If there is a change, I think there has to be a clear change. If I'm not mistaken, the latest DX sensors are all 24MP, so that would be the logical choice for any change.

 

Bringing it back to Canon, I'd like to see the 20MP sensor used going forward. No doubt be rolled out to lower bodies in due course. Time to retire that 15MP sensor?

[mst]

Well, you're right, this is not the Nikon board. But allow me to clarify a few things:

The D7000 has long been our test camera, and it is (physically) here. Replacing it with a D810 makes no sense, since this would mean to spend a lot of money on a replacement, that offers no additional value (in terms of DX testing). Instead, we would lose the ability to compare results within the system. Even though the resolution is similar, the workflow used for the D7000 will not work with the D810... the tools used don't know what a D810 is.

I still use the D7000 for my private shooting, but I no longer use it for testing. New tests already happen on the D7100 (even though there are no obvious signs for this outside of the lab, yet But there is lots of unpublished D7000-based review data, that's why I consider to publish reviews based on both cameras in parallel for a while.

And finally, regarding the D400 (or whatever you want to call it): the fact that Canon builds the benchmark camera in this segment doesn't help the Nikonians waiting for it to be announced. And even if Nikon will not be able to outperform the 7D II with their pro DX camera, that's still no reason NOT to announce it. The market is there. And a D610 is hardly an option for those who want the speed, size, performance and build quality of a D400-ish camera. And also not for those who prefer the DX sensor size... for whatever reason.

-- Markus

[JJ_SO]

Any chance to move this discussion over to Nikon? Just to give others (like our kids or grandchildren after the next two decades  :blink: ) to find it, where they hope to find it.

 

My idea was to go with one body for DX and FX instead of various. Right now, I don't see the super big improvement of 24MP APS-C. And for DX shooters, I'd say from my experience with 3 different ones: Nikon would need to improve a lot. The 8 fps of the D300 won't do, it has to be close to 10. At 24MP (not even the D4 has to transfer such an amount of data). It has to be a competitive AF system. And Canon's mixture of CD and PD, together with a touchscreen and a fast LiveView (talking about 70D now) has potential which Nikon would have to discover.

 

Question is: Are 10fps enough? A friend and "birder" would like to have film speed (24-30 fps) in high quality. So, why not go for a 1V3 and get 60 fps? Mirrorless is a solution for higher fps. I could imagine a Pro DX mirrorless easier than another DSLR. I do like Nikon cameras, although they are not leaders in new technologies. How long did they take to make a tilt display happen on a FX? Comparing to a EOS D70 it's still not exactly leading

 

Fullframe is to me the better half-frame, there's plenty of reserve to crop, the lenses are already very good. For a DX Pro you need Pro glass. If one could get 2 D400 for a D4s, why not? But certainly not for me. I would get 2 D810 instead or even 2 D750 and still get nice glass. I can live with Canon being benchmark in APS C.