A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Featured Equipment Deals

The Top Five Most Reluctant Subjects and How to Get the Best from Them Read More

The Top Five Most Reluctant Subjects and How to Get the Best from Them

We've all had one. Maybe even more than one: a reluctant subject. Photographer Dawn Kubie shares her tips to get the best from these tough customers.

Latest Equipment Articles

Sony a6300-First Impressions Read More

Sony a6300-First Impressions

When Sony's invitation to spend a couple of days shooting with the new a6300 in Miami arrived via email, I didn't have to think twice before sending my RSVP. Announced in February and shipping this...

d300 vs d7100

Steven . , Mar 20, 2013; 06:55 p.m.

If I am not pixel-peeping will I see a significant difference in image quality between the d300 and the d7100 assuming same image size print?


Mary Fenton , Mar 20, 2013; 07:06 p.m.

I think you will based on 12 mp vs 24mp..I see it and I am moving from 16 to 24!

Kent Staubus , Mar 20, 2013; 07:07 p.m.

I own both cameras. For less than an 8x10 shot at ISO 800 or lower, I doubt you will see a difference. If you start making 16x20 you very likely will. The images from the D7100 do look cleaner overall, but someone not into photography may not notice the difference in small to midsized prints. As a D300 owner, I've been finding the resolution of the D7100 astonishing!

Kent in SD

JDM von Weinberg , Mar 20, 2013; 07:16 p.m.

All else being equal (and it is not always so), more pixels is better than less pixels.

That being true, back when Nikon only had 6MP cameras, a lot of Nikonians said that was plenty.
They were actually right. Even larger than 8x10 can look pretty good from even 6MP.
However, it's not only how many megapixels can dance on the head of a sensor -- the sensors themselves and the software & hardware that interpret what the sensor produces are improving at an astonishing rate too.

When I started out in digital, my two cameras were 8 and 10MP. Today when I work with those images I rarely sense anything "wrong" with them. Still, my newer, larger images are a joy to work with. "Roomier" somehow.

Peter Hamm , Mar 21, 2013; 06:59 a.m.

Mary writes

I think you will based on 12 mp vs 24mp..I see it and I am moving from 16 to 24!

hmmm... you seemed to indicate in your other thread that ...

After spending the day shooting birds, tress, ocean, indoors, babies etc I can honestly say I do not see a signifcant difference.

...between the 7000 and 7100. Which is it?
The fact is, this answer depends on how you use your images more than anything. For many uses, 6MP was all anybody would ever need. For huge prints and tight crops, the extra MP really matter.

Mihai Ciuca , Mar 21, 2013; 08:44 a.m.

It depends what are you shooting. I do not have a D7100 but I used to own a D300 and I didn't like the way it rendered the sky. When I upgraded to D7000 I was much happy in this regard. I also suppose that the dynamic range of D7100 will be a plus in the output.

Mary Fenton , Mar 24, 2013; 10:45 a.m.

Peter are you the forum police? LOL I did some shooting at cropped mode and then a day later switched to Dx which is a full 24 mg I am seeing more details in the feathers shooting full . For most they will not really see a HUGE difference coming from a D7000 which produces excellent images at 16 mp but as Kent stated he is astonished... so that is moving up from a D300.

Back to top

Notify me of Responses