« Happy Birthday AA | Main | Kick Me! »

Thursday, 21 February 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yeps, that one came as no suprise to Nikonion....but guess what, it will be the one I will be oogling......

Greets, Ed

So, is there any new tech being applied to these sensors coming out with no AA filter?

Why was AA needed in the past but no more?

Looks like a great camera. Sometimes I miss being part of the Nikon gang.

I do wonder why Nikon still does not seem to want to put flip out screens on their higher end models.

Mike, interesting announcement that immediately brought to mind the warnings issued when using the 36 mp D800. We had been told, because of the extreme pixel density, that only the best lenses could be used with good results (ex. Nikon's D800 Techincal Guide) and the camera can only be used on a tripod since, evidently, the pixel density coupled with our inability to hold the camera steady enough will degrade the image. So, I'm waiting to hear if Nikon and the photographic sages issue the same warning since the pixel density of this camera (as well as the D3200 & D3200 as well as some Sonys) have a pixel density that is 33% greater. Somehow, I think that hasn't and won't happen. So why the warning the the D800? What has changed?

"...and sports a nifty 1.3x crop mode that extends the effective magnification of focal lengths a little more (helpful for telephoto shooting. That 35mm ƒ/1.8G, for example, becomes a 70mm-e in crop mode."
Too early in the morning for higher math? The crop mode is 1.5x. The 35/1.8 becomes a 52mm lens, not 70mm. Just little details.
BTW, I ordered the 85/1.8 during the sale.

[My mind is never up for higher math, but the D7100 "crops the crop," necessitating a 1.3x factor to get back to APS-C, which takes a 1.5x factor to get to FF...meaning the total factor in the D7100's crop mode is 1.95x or ~2x. Hence a 35mm lens is 68.25mm-e, or ~70mm. --Mike]

The D7000 is a fantastic camera, and the 7100 looks amazing - of course it does, as I just sold a D7000 and have a D600 on the way. But if you want a crop sensor body, there's not likely a camera to do better, especially with the improved AF module.

Is the chip Sony or Toshiba?

So why is this big news? Only because the D7000 (now available for $300 off) has been such a highly competent and greatly appreciated working tool for so many photographers, both amateur and professional—it's been the "judicious pick" in the lineup for many Nikonians, and has legions of satisfied users.

The problem I see is, for three or four hundred dollars less than a D7100, the D7000 is probably STILL the "judicious pick" the the budget-conscious Nikon customer. It depends on what you're using it for, but for the vast majority of photographers, I don't see what the D7100 does that the D7000 can't. It seems like we've reached a point of diminishing returns on DSLR iteration, were it no longer makes sense to spend top dollar on the latest-and-greatest. It's almost always a better bet to buy something one generation old at a deep discount.

Given Nikon's reluctance to embrace a pro-level mirrorless system, or for that matter, any other radical innovation that would get people to open up their wallets even though their old DSLR still does everything it needs to do perfectly well, this problem is only going to get worse for them. Tough to maintain those profit margins when everyone's response to your new camera is to buy the old on at closeout prices.

Still, looks like a great camera. Maybe I'll get one when the D7200 comes out...

So its a bit more than half a D800E at a bit less than half the price?

If it had a flip out LCD I'd be all over it.

My luck being what it is, I ordered a D7000 literally less than 12 hours before the announcement of the D7100 (forehead slap!). The factory refurbished bodies hit what I felt was a good price point even if the new body was announced ($750) and the rumor sites thought no D7100 till maybe April. For my sanity, let's just hope the D7000 doesn't go much cheaper in the near future... which I'm thinking it won't? The D7000 is still going to be a very nice upgrade for me and I'm very happy (if only slightly jealous of the new camera's specs).

[Josh, if you ordered it from B&H or Amazon I'm sure they will honor a return. --Mike]

Does this move to no more anti-aliasing filters represent an improvement in sensor technology or an admission of error on camera makers part? I'm personally pleased to see less interference with sharpness but curious on why it's suddenly coming to market.

I'm not sold on the removal of aa filters from mainstream models. With such high resolutions images are super sharp even with the filters, as sharp as needed for most uses. Removing them seems more of a marketing move than a meaningful improvement.

When we get to resolutions where they provide no benefit, they should be removed, but are we there yet? I don't think so. It is apparently pretty easy to get moiré from the higher resolution D800E in ordinary architectural photos. With the D7000 being such a popular model, I'd rather have seen a D7000E submodel than have no aa filter on any of them.

No AF-ON button? Sadly, no sale - my D300 will just need to keep soldiering on.

Arg: "Is the chip Sony or Toshiba?"

The Magic 8 Ball of the Internet says it's the same as the D5200 sensor i.e. Toshiba.

Mel: It's answer #3: The lack of an AA filter is more a mix of marketing (everyone is doing it) and most users inability to recognize aliasing (other than color or luminance moire) when they see it.

Nyquist still says you need a OLPF to avoid aliasing. Sampling theory hasn't changed.

D7000 Looks awesome.! Looking forward for the launch here. I am just starting out on photography, will this camera be OK for me or is it only for advanced users?

"Nyquist still says you need a OLPF to avoid aliasing. Sampling theory hasn't changed."

Sampling theory has not changed, but the sampling resolution has. With the growing density of pixels, the sensor can resolve higher and higher frequencies, making the occurrence of aliasing less common.

That said, the in-camera and off-camera raw processing has also evolved to better hide the effects of aliasing, at least for the non-trained eye.

So why not get rid of OLPF. You save on material, sourcing, and assembly cost and gain a marketing point to boot.

Not that D7100 has no AA filter. D800e, on the other hand, has an AAA (anti anti-aliasing) filter. Not sure if it makes a difference or not.

Dear Nikon,
Could you please make a small wide angle DX prime? It shouldn't be that difficult. It was one of the first lenses you made for CX.

Patience Wearing Thin

Indeed Kevin,

But the smaller the pixels of the sensor so the higher the pixel count the fewer the situtations where image detail frequency actually visibly (as noticeble by the viewer) creates interference with the pixel spatial frequency. So sir Nyquist can put his head on his pillow (and should not start haunting Nikon and Leica engineers since the M9 is also AA-less), but I wonder what would happen at extreem blow ups....

Have to do some angular calculations to find that out. But Leica experience tells me that some traces of aliasing are never completely avoidable in a RAW.....

Now my dear nephew own a 800e and I have not met problems in the pictures he send me, so I guess Nikon has performed some dark magic (aka programming) to wield out possible problems. Test will show that.....BTW, aliassing still is a BIG pain in the posterior end when using HD video, even with the best of camera's AA filter or not.

Greets, Ed

PS more of a dealbraker can be banding observed on D5200 Toshiba equiped Nikons in the darker regions of the pictures. Now that could be the proverbial achilles heal of this camera as well......wait and see, would be my advice. So I keep oogling till june........then I'll get back on it.

Mike, you said:
meaning the total factor in the D7100's crop mode is 1.95x or ~2x. Hence a 35mm lens is 68.25mm-e, or ~70mm.
So, stealth 4/3 mode? I wonder if this is something Toshiba cooked up as a sensor feature for possible future dual APS-C & m4/3 bodies for a different manufacturer. Pentax, perhaps? Wouldn't that be a treat? It opens up the possibility of other crop ratios, including a slightly larger than 4/3 spec square format! Roughly speaking, 24MP in 2:3 format is slightly more than 12MP shrunk down to 4:3, yes? Maybe around 16? Sounds like a good plan to me.

I'm not sure how nicely that would work out for lens pairs though. Switching a 50 between 75mm-e and 100mm-e doesn't strike me as being that useful. Perhaps making the long end of consumer zooms really, really, long would make people happy?

[One effect is that it makes your long lenses "longer" for sports and wildlife work and so forth. Another advantage, as I understand it, is that the rectangle of the smaller crop is almost completely covered by the focus points. --Mike]

Also, given the previous posts, I'm disappointed that no one has cracked a really good "lack of AA" pun yet. I'm coming up empty too. I must not be in the right zone for a really good joke to filter to the surface.


>>No AF-ON button?

If the D7100 is anything like the D7000, you can use a custom function to convert the AE-L/AF-L button to AF-ON. There's also a special Fn button on the front of the camera, next to the lens mount, that you can move AE-L or AF-L to.

One has to wonder what problem this latest Nikon will have that Nikon refuses to acknowledge for months.... This happy D800E user is just sayin'....

Just sold the D7000. Hmmmm D600 or D7100?

Ken: You can program the AF-L/AE-L button to act as AF-On.

I hate to admit this but I just bought a D90 (new) for very little money to replace an aged D80. Now I can shoot at night, when my brain has eased into life.

Not only that but I'm delighted with it. Anyone who gets a D7000 cheap really will be picking up a bargain.The spot white balance of the D7100 looks very cool, though.


"Could you please make a small wide angle DX prime? It shouldn't be that difficult. It was one of the first lenses you made for CX."

That's because Nikon 1 is mirrorless and a flange/sensor distance of 17mm not 45ish mm for F mount. That makes all the difference in designing wide angle lenses. Even so I'd like to see at least a 23mm f/1.8 DX and a 17mm f/1.8 DX prime but I suspect that's not on Nikon's agenda (i.e. buy a zoom and joing the crowd :-).


If you do the calculations (or look at the images :-) you can see aliasing issues especially color and luminace moire do pop up in urban landscapes with their repeating features in the distance. Not 100% of the time of course but enough to be annoying when they do appear unnanounced. If people photograph "natural" objects they may never notice the aliasing issues.

The lack of a AA filter in the Leica is to keep the sensor cover plate thin (a very fragile 0.25mm rather than the usual 1.5mm + OLPF). This reduces dispersion in the corner of the sensors from high angle rays so that those cameras can get the most from their old non-telecentric lenses. It seems pretty much everyone has though they left it out for "resolution" purposes but it was a engineering design choice (according to Zeiss!) to support legacy M mount lenses. Other mirrorless makers leaving out the OLPF haven't cottoned onto this yet or perhaps would rather you buy their lenses. For DSLRs this isn't an issue as they only use telecentric lenses.

Video aliasing is a different issue (not low pass filtering before decimation the data off the chip) but it's even more annoyingly visible when in motion than when static.

Mike: in my humble view cameras have become a fetish for many. Conspicuous consumption and rank materialism is a real problem among the Digital SLR afficionados. No one is doing photography anymore - its all about the hardware - its like we're always comparing penis sizes. Its not about the size of the mega-pixel - it's how you use it that matters. Everybody wants cameras on Viagra any more. Whatever happened to settling for a Leica, a 50 mm lens and calling it a day for 15 or 20 years? No, today our eyes bug out of our heads every week, waiting with bated breath for the next big thing.

@Will, good one. Without AA will we be able to use the D7100 for black and white?


Nice addition......no contradictions, I just like to say, I have not met them, not in city views either. A my nephew probably uses NX2 and is no fool....


has a nice example of the Black Magic I was refering to.

And yes I'm quite familiar with the Leica philosophy.....(in order to read Steve Huff's site you have to :-)).


Could that be somewhat related to the BP dissaster in the Gulf :-).

Greets, Ed.

1:3 or focal length x 2 will treat Micro Four Third envy.
55-300 becomes 110-600

"1:3 or focal length x 2 will treat Micro Four Third envy. 55-300 becomes 110-600"

Yikes! I have one pre-ordered and just realized my Bigma could = 100-1000mm! I guess that takes care of not being able to get a TC for it (one that doesn't eliminate auto focus that is).

A nice feature to be sure, if one is after birds or supermodels. Alas, I'm in the first camp.


I believe 1.3x crop on 1.5x crop will be ~2.00x crop instead of such a difficult number 1.95x because DX format itself is not a pure 1.5x crop, but instead 1.52x or 1.53x. Take a look at an example: 24mm FX sensor height versus 15.6mm sensor height on DX; sensor width? 36mm vs. 23.5mm.

Therefore I also believe the 1.3x crop is not really 1.3000x crop but maybe 1.31x or 1.29x etc to make final crop easier to manage ~2.00x crop.

This is a pretty neat discussion on the crop mode. As a bird photographer on a budget, I may buy into this.

Presently, I use the D7k with a Sigma 150-500, making a 300-1000 equivalent without loss of stops but with less MP is fine by me. Most bird photographers on a budget crop anyway. This is just a handy feature. Also, a bump of 1 fps is none too shabby.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007