In all of these comparisons, the D7100 is on the left while the competing camera is on the right. You can see the file name at the top left of each picture, where I indicated the camera name and ISO. Click on the thumbnails below to see the full resolution screen capture.
NIKON D7100 VS. NIKON D7000
Viewing samples at 100%, the D7100 and D7000 look similar to me (DXO gives the D7100 about a 1/10th stop edge). However, I viewed the samples in Photoshop (which has a continuous zoom) at about the same viewing size (with the D7100 at around 80% zoom). I found that at ISO 25,600, the D7100 had a significantly better appearance than the D7000.
ISO 25600 |
D7100 @ 12,800 vs. D7000 @ 6,400 |
ISO 6400 |
ISO 3200 |
ISO 1600 |
NIKON D7100 VS. NIKON D600
As expected, the D7100's high ISO performance is not as good as that of the D600.
Even when I compared the D7100 to the D600 at one stop higher, the D600 still came out slightly ahead. I would estimate that the D600 is about 1.5 stops better than the D7100 at high ISOs.
D7100 @ 12800 vs. D600 @ 25600 |
D7100 @ 6400 vs. D600 @ 12800 |
D7100 @ 3200 vs. D600 @ 6400 |
D7100 @ 1600 vs. D600 @ 3200 |
NIKON D7100 VS. NIKON D700
At ISO 25,600, viewed at the same size (the D7100 is zoomed to approximately 66%), the D7100 looks just as good as the D700. In fact, you can even make the argument that the D7100 looks a little better because the grain of the luminance noise is finer, and in addition, the D7100 preserved some details better. With the Umberto medal in the middle, the lines around the bust are better preserved with the D7100 than the D700.
ISO 25,600 |
The same pattern holds true at ISO 12,800, 6,400, 3,200 and 1,600.
ISO 12,800 |
ISO 6,400 |
ISO 3,200 |
ISO 1600 |
The fact that the D7100 samples look about as good as the D700 samples at the same viewing size is really incredible. The D700's full frame sensor, the same as that of the Nikon D3, has about twice the surface area as the D7100's APS-C sensor, and the D700 was well-regarded for its low noise for many years (indeed, even today).
In fact, the D7100 seems to preserve the smallest details a little better than the D700. For example, if you look at the medal in the top left of these samples (near the red and white cross), there is a blue hatching pattern, which looks more accurate on the D7100 than on the D700. If you look at the Umberto medal as well, in the inscription Milano 1881, the number 8 is legible as such, whereas on the D700 the number 8 looks illegible.
CONCLUSION
The D7100's high ISO performance does not seem very remarkable when viewed against competing cameras at 100%. However, at the same size viewing size, the D7100 shines and can actually offer the same (or even slightly better) performance as the full-frame D700. I invite you to download samples from DPReview (using their studio comparison tool) to draw your own conclusions.
Please note also that this was a studio scene comparison. I noted that the D7100's shadow recovery is not as good as that of the D7000 or D600. It is possible that if the samples required significant shadow recovery, these observations might be different.
RELATED POSTS
Nikon D7100 Hands-On Real World User Review
Importing D7100 Raw Files Into Lightroom
Nikon D7100 Low Light Teaser
Nikon D7100 FAQ and Helpful Links
Nikon D7100 Shadow Recovery
Nikon D7100 Real World Dynamic Range
Nikon D5200 and D7100 Band-Aid: Solutions for Banding
Sample of D7100 banding in a real world shot
Please note also that this was a studio scene comparison. I noted that the D7100's shadow recovery is not as good as that of the D7000 or D600. It is possible that if the samples required significant shadow recovery, these observations might be different.
RELATED POSTS
Nikon D7100 Hands-On Real World User Review
Importing D7100 Raw Files Into Lightroom
Nikon D7100 Low Light Teaser
Nikon D7100 FAQ and Helpful Links
Nikon D7100 Shadow Recovery
Nikon D7100 Real World Dynamic Range
Nikon D5200 and D7100 Band-Aid: Solutions for Banding
Sample of D7100 banding in a real world shot
Hi Mic,
ReplyDeletesome days ago I got a bargain for an used D300 and I got it ad it has less than 1.000 shots, so at the moment I'm not considering to buy anything else but your review seems to confirm my impressions I wrote you on you post here (http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/nikon-d7100-vs-nikon-d600-low-light_20.html?showComment=1364052943717#c3005614062880735923)
:)
It seems to me D700 is more usable but it's really an excellent news to know we can then suppose D700 has only less than 0.5 stop High ISO noise gain over D7100.
I think D7100 could be an excellent upgrade if you want to save money and stay in Dx.
Congratulations my friend! The D300 is a great camera. I was very happy with mine for many years. I am sure it will serve you well. It has everything you need.
DeleteYes your observations were correct. I'm sorry I didn't respond previously. That time I had not done the tests yet so I don't know what to say. But yes my observations are similar to yours.
Thanks again and let me know how it goes with the D300!
Best regards,
Mic
Thank you Mic!
DeleteDon't worry, you are always a kind with all of us who follow your blog, and a great photohrapher .. and have also done some tests for me with 28-105, I asked you ;)
Having got the D300 I'm now using the "saved money" for better lenses. The more Fx lenses I can get the more money I think I'll save .. but I have a budget, my friend, and I cannot afford all Fx best lenses. I'm only an enthusiast photographer ..
So I'm planning to buy a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 "push-pull" D type, and stay with it until the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC will be available at a lower price than initial.
The push-pull will replace my "slow" nikkor 80-200 f/4.5-5.6.
Also, as I like to overlap lenses on their focal ranges, I think I'll keep my 18-35 IF ED Nikkor and add a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 Dx.
If I'll change to Fx I'll sell the new Tokina and 18-35, and buy a better Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 Fx or Nikon 16-35 Vr.
Thanks for your tips, bye
Sebastiano
Hi Seb. About the 80-200 I have heard it is a good lens, but personally I find it difficult to use a telephoto lens (especially a large one) in low light without VR. The Sigma 50-150 non-OS is sharp enough but in low light when I need a slower shutter speed to get sufficient exposure, I find it difficult to get a sharp shot without flash (and sometimes it's not feasible to use flash). What do you think of the Nikon 85 1.8G? I will be posting samples of the 85 1.8G on a DX camera soon.
DeleteBest regards,
Mic
Nice article, the image comparisons were useful.
ReplyDeleteToo bad no D4 comparison though : P
Ever wonder why D7000 shots appears brighter? Because you ignored the fact that the D7100 is about 1/3 stop less sensitive than D7000. D7000 shots actually taken at higher ISO than D7000's.
ReplyDeleteYou're right that the D7000 is 1/3 stop more sensitive than the indicated ISO whereas the D7100 ISO is accurate. However, FYI, the test shots here were from DPReview's studio tests. I was not the one who took them, and I did not edit them.
DeleteBest regards,
Mic
My point is that at pixel level, D7k is at least as good if not better than D7100. I am not impressed at all despite D7100's images pack 1.5 times pixels as D7000's. Nikon could have just kept the same pixel count but improve real high ISO performance instead. Thanks for doing the comparisons, Mic!
DeleteHi there! You are right that at the pixel level, the D7000 and D7100 are about the same (DXO says D7100 is 1/10th stop better). Like you, I would have preferred better high ISO performance than an increase in resolution. I really don't need 24mp. The good news for us is that if the D7100 image is viewed at the same size as the D7000 image, it does appear to have less noise. In addition, noise reduction is more effective (you can reduce the noise better while retaining detail). If you haven't done so yet, you can try it out with a high ISO raw file from the D7100.
DeleteBest regards,
Mic
Mic, this is an interesting review.
ReplyDeleteOne problem I have with it, is that low light noise usually is most pronounced in the dark areas and not the bright ones. I understand you were looking at the label as it has a lot of details and so can be used to pass judgement on detail preservation in low light.
Do you think it would be possible to incorporate dark areas into the test as well?
Hi. Sorry for the delayed reply. Just to clarify, I did not take these test shots. They are from the DPReview samples. You can compare dark areas using their comparison tool.
DeleteBest regards,
Mic
Can you do a comparison of OOC jpg? Most people don't shoot raw all the time. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHi. Sorry for the delayed reply. Just to clarify, I did not take these test shots. They are from the DPReview samples. You can compare JPEGs using their comparison tool.
DeleteBest regards,
Mic