[Clavius]

51 AF point, they had that for ages.

What do you want to say with that? If they had it for ages, then it makes Pentax look even worse. Having so much time without catching up.

Build quality, superior with the K-5's body.

K5=Magnesium alloy body.
D7100=Magnesium alloy body.
It's the same.

Quiet shutter/mirror operation (a real one).

Oh you heard the shutter of the new Nikon already? Please tell us about it...

Yes, the mirror and shutter of the K5 are very quiet. That would actually be useful if the Pentax AF system didn't go: "ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZPPP CLANK ZZZZZZZZPPP!!!!!!!!! beepbeep"

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

K5=Magnesium alloy body. D7100=Magnesium alloy body. It's the same.

I believe that the D7100 has magnesium alloy top and bottom plates like many lower-end cameras, not the whole body.

[ogl]

+1

The three year old K-5 offers 7 FPS and maximum 20-25 14 bit RAWs continuous.

D7100 = Total fail.

Real speed approx. ~ 6.5 fps at 16 MP. 23-24 RAW of 14 bit RAW. Yes.


D7100 has 6 fps with 24 MP and 7 fps in 15 MP mode.

Buffer Size (RAW, Lossless 14-bit) - 6
Buffer Size (RAW, Compressed 12-bit) - 9

Yes. Not big, but the problem is not buffer size, but the speed of buffer clearance.

K-5's RAW buffer is 35-40 seconds to clear with fail of shooting speed to useless level (lower 0.8 fps).

D7000 has 9 second to clear buffer with speed 1-1.5 fps.

And D7100 has better processor.


P.S. I never used K-5 as sport camera with full buffer in RAW and 6 fps mode. No any sense. Because, no real tracking AF system.
Tried with K-5IIs one month ago - to shoot birds - I've got 1-2 pictures in focus after such shooting with AF-C (from approx. 20 shoots)...

[the swede]

D7100 = Total fail.

and for those that dont use continuous? still a fail? just asking... i dont ever shoot continuous, would you still tell me D7100 is fail?

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

I have an idea... why don't those people who think the D7100 - or any other camera - will let them take better pictures than they do now, go buy one and stop the incessant whining. Me, I haven't begun to test my K-5 to the limits, and I suspect not many people have. I wanted full frame, so I bought a D3, then a D800. What camera do I use most? The K-5, it does 90% of what the Nikons do, and it's not a pain to carry around all day, especially when you throw the lenses into the equation.

[Kunzite]

What do you want to say with that? If they had it for ages, then it makes Pentax look even worse. Having so much time without catching up.

It means a 51-point AF system is not so extraordinary. The D7100 was presented as an extraordinary thing Pentax could not possibly match. In a new model, initially, but now I see the 2.5 years old K-5 being used as a baseline of what a higher end, completely new K-3 could do

K5=Magnesium alloy body.
D7100=Magnesium alloy body.
It's the same.

Forgetting about the polycarbonate bits, eh?
If the D7100 has a similar build quality like its predecessor, it's not the same.

Oh you heard the shutter of the new Nikon already? Please tell us about it...

We should see if Nikon was able to catch up to Pentax, but I doubt.

By the way, did you already preorder the D7100?

[kent]

D7100 = Total fail.

Failed post is failing

[jogiba]

+1

D7100 = Total fail.

Right, B&H , Adorama and others will not even carry it, a total fail.

[VoiceOfReason]

I will simply wait to see what Pentax tells us about what the specs are. Who knows, I may get one, but then again I most likely will not because other than autofocus in certain conditions I am pretty happy with my K5.

[Kunzite]

Right, B&H , Adorama and others will not even carry it, a total fail.

It will sell, it will sell well, because (I'm sure) it's a good camera and because of the badge.
It won't kill Pentax, though.

[DaveBlack]

Maintaining the same shutterspeed, the larger sensor needs less exposure to capture the same information and thus the signal can in comparison be amplified without loss (i.e. a higher ISO setting can be used). To capture the same total amount of light (i.e. information) you therefore need a lens, which is one stop faster on APS-C. Additionally, as a by-product, you then also will obtain the same DOF. That's why size and weight for equivalent lenses is (nearly) the same. This turns my and your FA* 200/4 effectively into a 300/5.6. A FF camera with the same pixel pitch than an APS-C camera would allow for all the described "advantages". So why would one not want a FF camera, if the price difference of the bodies becomes marginal?

Nikon D7100 Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Nikon-D7100/images/viewfinderdisplay.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Nikon-D7100/images/afarray.jpg

Nikon D7100 DSLR Hands-On Preview

Will there be a D400 (placed between a $1100 D7100 and a $1500 D600)?

Pictures: Nikon | Imaging Products | Still Images - Nikon D7100

The D400 will be price above the budget FF D600. It will be better built with more processing power.

Dave

[eurostar]

I believe that the D7100 has magnesium alloy top and bottom plates like many lower-end cameras, not the whole body.

Top and back, the rest is polycarbonate.

[eurostar]

and for those that dont use continuous? still a fail? just asking... i dont ever shoot continuous, would you still tell me D7100 is fail?

Obviously not. But great tracking fast continuous focus is used mostly by sport and wildlife shooters who needs many fps and an adequate buffer. I'd say that most of the people don't even need more than the central, single focus point and AF-S... still many other have much more sofisticate needs.

What I mean is that I would like to have the 24 MP and the 7100 51 point 15 cross sensor AF on the K-3, but if that cost the 7 fps, 25 frame buffer of the K-5, I am not for the exchage.

[Pål Jensen]

Maintaining the same shutterspeed, the larger sensor needs less exposure to capture the same information and thus the signal can in comparison be amplified without loss (i.e. a higher ISO setting can be used). To capture the same total amount of light (i.e. information) you therefore need a lens, which is one stop faster on APS-C. Additionally, as a by-product, you then also will obtain the same DOF. That's why size and weight for equivalent lenses is (nearly) the same. This turns my and your FA* 200/4 effectively into a 300/5.6. A FF camera with the same pixel pitch than an APS-C camera would allow for all the described "advantages". So why would one not want a FF camera, if the price difference of the bodies becomes marginal?l]

This is irrelevant. In photography you want the image. You use a larger format in order to get better image quality. By boosting the ISO you reduce the image quality advantage of the larger formats. Lenses are not equal due to absolute DOF wide open (and who says they need to be equal anyway? One of the pleasures of different formats is that the lenses are not equal).

To get the same image you need to shoot at one stop slower shutterspeed on FF than on APS. This means that in order to freeze action (for example) you need to crank up the ISO thereby loosing the high ISO advantage. I know all about this;I've shot two different formats for 15 years and there are no free lunches.

The price difference between FF and APS is not marginal. Comparable bodies are about twice the price. If you account the lenses the difference is huge. Thats why FF don't sell well. And most people don't want "equivalent" lenses after your definition. My FA* 200/4 Macro has no FF equivalent and never will. And if it did exist I couldn't afford it or lift it. A FF 300/5.6 (or an F:4 lens in the cases you want to freeze action on non-DOF sensitive subjects where you want to keep the image quality advantage - equally "equal" as DOF wide open). ED IF macro at 1kg and a lenght of a 200mm lens + 50% larger than life-size magnification is just a pipe dream...

[Pål Jensen]

The D400 will be price above the budget FF D600. It will be better built with more processing power.

Dave

..and sell twice as much...