D7000 or D7100?

[Viridian]

Just a quick question, I'm planning on upgrading to a better body from the d3100. I'm thinking the d7000 or the d7100. The d7000 is only around $900 dollars, and the d7100 is around 1200. Is the d7100 worth the extra 300 dollars for all the features that it has over the d7000? Let me know what you guys think please!

[pnodrog]

That is really a question only you can answer. The D7100 is definitely an improvement on the D7000 but how significant the improvements are to you will depend on what you photograph and probably more importantly what you use the photographs for.

[Manfred M]

In my view the D7100 is definitely a more modern and more powerful camera, BUT unless you shoot very expensive Pro glass, your lenses will not be able to get the maximum quality out of the new sensor. By my calculations, if Nikon were to upscale the sensor to full-frame you would be looking at a 51MP sensor.

[NorthernFocus]

I had a D7000. Took some darn nice photos with it. My advice is if you shoot mostly landscapes or people or other things that don't move fast, the D7000 is fine. It does not focus well with fast moving objects that are traveling toward or away from you. All the reports I've seen from people who's work I am familiar with is the the focus on the 7100 is really good.

If you do decide to go with a D7000, you may want to consider a lightly used one. You can likely pick one up for $600 or so. At half the price of a 7100 it is really attractive if you don't need the focus tracking.

[NorthernFocus]

... if Nikon were to upscale the sensor to full-frame you would be looking at a 51MP sensor.

I think it's even higher than that, like 54MP.

[Viridian]

So basically the biggest advantage the d7100 has over the d7000 is the sensor and the focus tracking? I mean, I'm just getting into taking photographs for money* so my question is do I really need something like the d7100. And I hardly shoot fast moving things. And there is a lightly used d7000 on B&H for 729 for just the body. And to what Diver said, I don't shoot with very expensive pro glass, so I wouldn't utilize the new sensor in the d7100 I guess.
*I just booked my first appointment for next week.

[NorthernFocus]

So basically the biggest advantage the d7100 has over the d7000 is the sensor and the focus tracking...I hardly shoot fast moving things...I don't shoot with very expensive pro glass, so I wouldn't utilize the new sensor in the d7100...

Sounds like you summed it up.

[Viridian]

So basically, it would be wise to go for the d7000. Sounds about right to me.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Viridian,

You may find this review helpful, it compares the D7100 with D5200 and D7000 with comparison images (on Resolution and Noise tab).

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ni...00/index.shtml

Seems the lack of OPLF isn't something anyone will notice over the D5200 and there isn't that much resolution difference from the D7000 either.

Also, the second post in this thread is where I compared spec. to my D5000, the advantages over a D3100 will be similar, perhaps more so for you, but of course, many will apply to the D7000 too.

I shoot wildlife, so the 1.3x crop mode, faster fps and better AF confirm the D7100 as my best choice an I'll likely 'treat myself' soon - I'm really not looking forward to losing the tilting LCD though, when you need it (e.g. composing extra low or high angle shots in Live View), it is invaluable, but that's not that often if I am honest.

Cheers,

[PhotomanJohn]

I can't help but throw my two cents in about Nikon being back in the marketing driven, mega-pixel race. When the D800 came out, dpReview noted that they needed the best glass, heavy tripod, sand bags, mirror lock-up, remote release, ....... to take advantage of the high resolution sensor. I forget the exact numbers now, but the D7000 has about the same pixel pitch as the D800 and I can confirm that, when pixel peeping, it is easy to see the difference between photos I take with pro glass versus very good DX lenses (forget the kit lenses). As others have said, the D7100 significantly exceeds the pixel density of the D800. So going back to dpReview's D800 test, I wonder if anyone will really take advantage of that sensor. Also, if you do pixel peep, you will probably start driving yourself crazy about very slight focusing errors. I am really not knocking these new sensors, I'm just saying I don't think that sensor pixel count should be part of most photographer's buying decision process.

Back to you Zack - As others have said, I would buy a new or lightly used D7000 and you will be very happy. Take the money you save and invest it in better glass.

Have fun,

John

[Viridian]

Thanks for your input, John! I think I'm gonna go for a new d7000 sometime soon once I can save up enough. Should I get the kit lens with it, or just keep my kit lens from my d3100, the 18-55mm

[NorthernFocus]

... I forget the exact numbers now, but the D7000 has about the same pixel pitch as the D800 and I can confirm that, when pixel peeping, it is easy to see the difference between photos I take with pro glass versus very good DX lenses.... Also, if you do pixel peep, you will probably start driving yourself crazy about very slight focusing errors....

As a matter of fact, for practical purposes it is the same. On an area basis, an FX sensor is 2.25x the area of DX. 16MP x 2.25 = 36MP

Recall when the D7000 came out there was all the noise about focus issues. IMO it was generated by "pixel peepers" with poor glass who were not accustomed to the resolution. I'm not suggesting there were no focus issues, just not to the degree that they were advertised. Then lo and behold, when the D800 hit the market and pros started using the same resolution camera, all the articles about good technique and using only the best glass came out. Now the D800 gets nothing but praise for how well it resolves and the poor old D7000 is still trying to shake off the bad wrap.

The D7000 is a fine camera. I used one for about 18mos and only sold it because I shoot a lot of fast action subjects which are not its strength. And for landscapes I now have a D800.

[PhotomanJohn]

Should I get the kit lens with it, or just keep my kit lens from my d3100, the 18-55

Zack - My humble opinion is that, if you are looking to improve the image quality, don't but any more kit lenses. I would expect that if you use the old 18-55 on the D7000 you won't see a difference in the photos as compared to the D3100. That is really the point that we have been trying to make. The limiting factor on any of Nikon's current cameras is generally the glass.

The D7000 has a focus motor in the body and also can couple the aperture setting on AI and later manual lenses. If you are looking to get a sharp lens and save a few bucks look into buying a used "D" or other version prime lens, maybe a couple. Check out Ken Rockwell's site for suggestions on old lenses that have good optics. I have several older lenses and I love using them. They are sharp and well made.

Dan - You are absolutely correct about much of the focusing issues with the D7000 when it first came out.

John

[Viridian]

I mean, I have the 1.8g 50mm as well, I just use the kit lens for now as a "general purpose" lens, I was just curious if I should buy the d7000 with its kit lens or just the body.

[Manfred M]

Carefully said, I shoot both the kit 18-55mm and the 55-200mm lenses on my D90 and the pro trio f/2.8 14-24mm, f/2.8 24-70mm and the f/2.8 70-200mm on my D800. There is no question that the pro lenses are better, but I am willing to bet that with most shots people would not be able to tell if I shot the pro glass or with the kit lenses without looking at the metadata files. If I enlarge the images enough or shoot under some very specific conditions that are near the limits of what the kit lenses were designed to do, they perform admirably. Together they cost me about ¼ of what I paid for any one of the pro lenses. That being said, they are not built to last and are probably getting close to the end of their life cycle. The pro lenses also shine when one shoots them wide open with low ISO setting giving very shallow depth of field and great dynamic range.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion and hearsay when it comes sharpness being sensor limited or lens limited. If you shoot in a lab type environment under ideal settings with your camera set on a heavy tripod, then perhaps these statements make sense, but in real world photography other conditions are going to prevent you from shots that test the limits of your sensor. If your sensor is not being used to the limit, then using a less expensive lens is not going to impact your image that much either.

I have a number of the older style lenses that use the camera motor to focus. I find that at shorter focal lengths, the focus performance difference between these lenses and the ones with the built in focus motor are noticeable, but not that significant. Once you start shooting longer focal length lenses, it can make a difference. My 80-400mm seems to take forever to focus, and it uses the camera focus motor.

It sounds like you have a couple of lenses to get you started with. You should only buy a lens if you have a very specific need for it, and that depends entirely on what and how you are planning to shoot. Should you get another kit lens? Perhaps, but just make sure that you don’t go out and buy another one that duplicates the focal length range or maximum aperture that you already have. With the 18-55mm you are covering a reasonable wide angle (27mm full-frame equivalent) though to a short telephoto (82.5 mm full-frame equivalent), which is getting towards the short end of a portrait lens. Figure out what type of photography you are going to be doing and this will help move you in the right direction (I have lenses that range from an 8mm fisheye to a 500mm long zoom).

[Viridian]

Well then with that being said I presume the "Body Only" option is the best bet for me, because my kit lens that came with my d3100 is an 18-55mm, I have a 50mm 1.8g, and a sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6. The kit lens for the d7000 is 18-105. So for an extra 100 or so dollars to fill that tiny gap between 55 and 70mm seems to be unreasonable to me.

[Manfred M]

It certainly sounds like you have a lot of the range covered; the only place where you might be a bit sparse is in the wide angle part, but that may not be something you are looking to shoot anyway.

[Viridian]

Yea, I tend to find 18mm to be wide enough for what I need. But what if I bought a piece of pro glass instead of a d7000 and stuck with the d3100? And then I'd have that lens forever and then held off on the new body.

[pnodrog]

Yea, I tend to find 18mm to be wide enough for what I need. But what if I bought a piece of pro glass instead of a d7000 and stuck with the d3100? And then I'd have that lens forever and then held off on the new body.

This approach is fine provided there are not any short comings in the cameras functions that are limiting your photography. For years I did 35mm photography happily with the widest lens being a 28mm which your 18mm is more or less an equivalent on a DX body. I did enjoy the additional wide view I had when I got a 24-120mm (equiv to 16-80) but I could certainly manage without it unless I was taking interior shots (inside a church etc)

The good thing is that you are now reviewing your needs in a broader way.

[Manfred M]

Yea, I tend to find 18mm to be wide enough for what I need. But what if I bought a piece of pro glass instead of a d7000 and stuck with the d3100? And then I'd have that lens forever and then held off on the new body.

That is something I did after I bought my D90. My first three lenses were DX (the 18-55, the 55-200 and the Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm). After that I figured out that I would be moving to full frame with the next generation release from Nikon and I started accumulating FX glass; three years before I got the D800. The only lens I bought after I went full-frame was the f/2.8 14-24mm. I did buy two more DX lenses; a cheap 8mm Samyang fisheye and the f/1.8 35mm that I use for street photography.