[bossa]

Let me get this straight K5 II kills the D7100 as long as you do not scale the D7100 that’s good to know
But in essence what you are saying whatever the shared output size the D7100 pulls ahead so if both are viewed in the same print the D7100 pulls ahead If they are viewed at shared 10mp, 16mp, and 24mp the d7100 pulls ahead so how can one say the k5II kills the D7100?

I'm only referring to the noise but I'm also not interested in arguing the point. Just take a look at the Studio Comparison tests at DPR and if you actually think the D7100 is better beyond ISO800 then good luck to you. I really don't have to worry about this anyway because I have two D800E that I'm very happy.

PS. the print size has nothing to do with this discussion as that's not the camera or any part of it. There are other output media.

PS2: I should learn to choose my words more carefully because I really have no idea if the D7100 "beats" the K-5II/s when scaled back to 16MP. I would have thought it preferable that a 24MP camera be used as such though.

---

Last edited by bossa; 09-25-2013 at 02:50 AM.

[bossa]

Why high ISO performance is being discussed? What fast moving objects are you going to shoot in low light? Bats?

If you want to stop action you need high shutter speeds and that usually requires a bit of an ISO hit unless you've got a fast telephoto. I was thinking from my own perspective when I brought up high ISO.

[northcoastgreg]

Just take a look at the Studio Comparison tests at DPR and if you actually think the D7100 is better beyond ISO800 then good luck to you.

Don't those comparisons really only apply if you are pixel peeping? So unless one only cares about how one's images appear at a pixel level, the difference between the K-5IIs and the D7100 are largely insignificant. At pixel peeping levels, the K-5iis produces cleaner files with a little less detail, whereas the D7100 gives you a little more detail but a little more noise. Some have reported that, even at base ISO, you can run into noise issues with the D7100 if you try to make changes to the raw files in post. D7100 raw files are a bit more fragile. But again, this is largely an issue you'll run into only if you insist on pixel peeping.

I would not make a decision between these two cameras based on what can only be detected via pixel peeping. A switch from one brand or another should be done on stricly pragmatic grounds, based on reasons that actually have a bearing on practical real world output, as reflected in how the images are actually going to be used and consumed. I suspect accuracy of tracking AF will have considerably greater effect on the actual image than the extra bit of noise generated by the 24MP sensor. Better to have an in focus subject with a little extra (barely detectable) noise, than an out of focus subject with a (barely detectable) cleaner file.

Before switching from Pentax to Nikon for better tracking AF, I would at least wait to see what the K-3, rumored to be released by the end of October, can do. Pentax has said they want to be number one in AF. If you're already invested in Pentax glass, might as well stick around and check out how well Pentax has succeeded in closing the AF tracking gap with Canikon.

[prime.partisan]

If you want to stop action you need high shutter speeds and that usually requires a bit of an ISO

Thanks for the explanation bossa. I've never shot sports or actions so didn't know this.

[bossa]

Don't those comparisons really only apply if you are pixel peeping? So unless one only cares about how one's images appear at a pixel level, the difference between the K-5IIs and the D7100 are largely insignificant. At pixel peeping levels, the K-5iis produces cleaner files with a little less detail, whereas the D7100 gives you a little more detail but a little more noise. Some have reported that, even at base ISO, you can run into noise issues with the D7100 if you try to make changes to the raw files in post. D7100 raw files are a bit more fragile. But again, this is largely an issue you'll run into only if you insist on pixel peeping.

I would not make a decision between these two cameras based on what can only be detected via pixel peeping. A switch from one brand or another should be done on stricly pragmatic grounds, based on reasons that actually have a bearing on practical real world output, as reflected in how the images are actually going to be used and consumed. I suspect accuracy of tracking AF will have considerably greater effect on the actual image than the extra bit of noise generated by the 24MP sensor. Better to have an in focus subject with a little extra (barely detectable) noise, than an out of focus subject with a (barely detectable) cleaner file.

Before switching from Pentax to Nikon for better tracking AF, I would at least wait to see what the K-3, rumored to be released by the end of October, can do. Pentax has said they want to be number one in AF. If you're already invested in Pentax glass, might as well stick around and check out how well Pentax has succeeded in closing the AF tracking gap with Canikon.

Well said, but as I stated in a subsequent post I was more thinking about the way I want to use a 24MP sensor. I find I use my AF-S 300 + 1,4x TC on my D800e for birds and end up cropping down to 1:1 (100%) most of the time. It's not necessarily that I want to pixel peep but that I cannot afford a $10,000 telephoto which would allow the entire sensor to be used - I am trying to squeeze every last bit of data from the sensor to get closer the the subject. I also tend to shoot at high ISO's to limit subject motion and camera shake at longer focal lengths and to try and compensate for the small apertures used. This practice would change if a 400mm f/2.8 lens or 600mm f/4 were used instead of my combo at f/7.1 or f/8. So I guess my attitude to the D7100 would be different with a different lens attached for my purposes.

[Arpe]

- Button placement on the K-5, especially ISO and dials, is much better Now that I'm used to them Nikon's are fine. The AF button on the Pentax is terrible positioning, much better on Nikon (when the AEL button is programmed to do it). If you don't use back button focus it may not matter.
- Workflow on the Pentax is easier/faster (when it's not blocked during writing) Not sure how you have a workflow on the camera, but setting things is easy, especially as you have a "My Menu" where you can out your most used settings.
- Auto ISO on the Nikon is not really great and initially complicated to understand I had no trouble.
- The VR is good but a bit annoying using the AF button in AF-C (needs to be activated via the shutter release first) I liked it that the VR didn't come on using the AF button, only the shutter button, unfortunately they have changed that with the D7100.
- Two card slots is a gimmick I think (the K-5 holds one in the battery grip) Gimmick? To be able to double your shot capacity or have shot backup automatically?
- The rear LCD screen doesn't automatically come on the D7000, much easier on the Pentax to quickly change settings I hate it when the back screen all the time.
- Need a beep to tell me when the Nikon stopped focusing as I can't hear it anymore (is that good or bad???) The nikon D7100 has three pitch settings (IIRC) and loudness settings for the beep, all of which I turn off anyway.

Enjoying my D7100.

Of course when comparing ISO you should only do it when the images are at the same size, afetr all you always show or print them at the same size. I'm happily using the D7100 at ISO 4000 for my sports shots, and I'm thinking I will allow it to go higher in the future.

[rawr]

One thing I just noted about the D7100 that seems a very cool feature (for telephoto users in particular) is that it has a 1.3 crop mode... This mode knocks the resolution down to about 15MP, and also means the 51 AF points practically cover 100% of the shooting area.

The most useful thing about the 1.3 crop mode is, of course, that it is adds even more crop to the existing 1.5 crop of APS-C, bringing the effective crop level achievable with the D7100 to about 1.8 - almost micro-4/3's level of crop So in terms of FF equivalence, your 300mm lens becomes a 540mm lens... no need for teleconvertors anymore. The fps is also boosted when in 1.3 crop mode to about 7fps.

Nikon | Imaging Products | Capturing power - Nikon D7100

If Pentax are doing a 24MP APS-C, that's a feature I'd certainly like to see in it.

[Arpe]

Helps fit more on the card too.

[BeerBelly]

And buffer doesn't fill up in 1.3 crop mode so easily as well. So if you need plenty of frames in a burst crop mode is the way to go.

[Kunzite]

Before switching from Pentax to Nikon for better tracking AF, I would at least wait to see what the K-3, rumored to be released by the end of October, can do. Pentax has said they want to be number one in AF. If you're already invested in Pentax glass, might as well stick around and check out how well Pentax has succeeded in closing the AF tracking gap with Canikon.

They also said they would incorporate LED lightning in flashes, and noth... oh, wait.

[kricha6431]

Hi,

I'm currently an owner of the K-30 and am quite happy with it. My collection of lenses for the K mount is also quite extensive (my signature) and not really lacking. My main interest of photography is wildlife and at the moment I do that using my DA*300, AFA 1.7x and Tamron 70-200 when shorter mm is needed. I'm currently thinking of swapping my whole system (selling) to switch to Nikon. I would either get the D7100 or the D800 (although FF is not really what I need right now and budget wise it might be too much) and probably buy some used lenses for the Nikon system (eyeing the 80-400).
The logic behind the switch is better AF (especially AF.C - my K30 seems to struggle there still), more choices when it comes to lenses (used & new) and faster development (over the recent years).

What I would like is some input if you think such a move is wise or would I basically be making a move to the same and lose some money in between? Thanks for all your thoughts.

Have you put any thought into maybe the Canon 70d, though it's weather sealing i'm nentirely sure of, it does have a good size buffer, and supposedly good high iso!
I too am into bird Photography, and I personally want a good DSLR for action Photos, and the 70d shoots at 7fps