Is it worth it to upgrade D3200 to D7000?

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

<br />I have owned by D3200 since last summer and I'm quickly realizing its limitations. I'm generally pleased with the camera, but some of the things it doesn't do that I'd like in a camera are:<br>

<br />- better performance at higher ISO<br>

- high-speed flash sync<br>

- exposure bracketing<br>

- built-in focus motor<br>

- ability for battery grip without add'l shutter cable<br>

<br />There are some smaller things that I don't like about the D3200 (i.e. annoying shutter sound and I actually think it's TOO small), but those are my main reasons for the upgrade "bug". The cameras I'm considering are:<br>

D7000: $600 used, $619 refurb<br>

D7100: $1000 used<br>

D300s: $800-$900 used, $1000 refurb</p>

<p>Price is obviously a big factor so I'm leaning towards the D7000...<br>

For lenses I currently own:<br>

18-55 VR kit lens<br>

55-200 VR <br>

35mm 1.8g af-s<br>

50mm 1.8 af-s</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your advice!</p>

 

<p>Upgrading from the D3200 to the D7000 is probably not worth it. The sensor on the D3200 is excellent. Its performance in low light (as measured in a <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3200-versus-Nikon-D7000___801_680"><strong>DXO comparison</strong></a>) is about the same as that of the D7000. The built-in focus motor is only relevant if you will be buying older lenses that don't have their own motors. The lenses you list will never use the in-body focus motor. The only reason I see to upgrade is if you want the camera to control speed lights with Nikon's CLS system. The D3200 can't do that with its pop-up flash, but can, AFAIK, with a commander flash (SB700, SB800, SB900 or SB910, or some of the non-Nikon clones) mounted on the hot shoe.</p>

<p>I am not sure that any one of those cameras you listed will give you better high-ISO results than the D3200. If anything, the D300S would be a step backward.</p>

<p>None of your lenses requires an in-body AF motor to auto focus. Do you really need to upgrade?</p>

<p>A much better viewfinder would be a teasing prospect to me! Try them out together to find the 10 differences.</p>

<p>Have you considered upgrading your lenses instead? For example the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is an amazing lens and will do well on a D3200. It may be above your budget but is something to consider.</p>

<p>One thing to consider is that lens hold their value over time while bodies depreciate quickly. </p>

<p>You may also consider picking up a good flash and/or a good tripod. They will help in low light situations. </p>

<p>The 17-55 f/2.8 is a great lens, of course, as it should be for $1400. I'm content w/ the lenses I have for now as upgrading to a lens like the 17-55 is obviously quite expensive (I could prob get one used for ~$800-$900). I'mplease w/ the quality I get from the 35 and 50, but like I mentioned in my original post, I'd like the ability to add some inexpensive non-AF lenses just to learn and take advantage of some of their interesting characteristics. I'm actually looking at a Helios 42 for my D3200 (love the swirly bokeh!) That still doesn't give me the high speed sync (even with my SB-600 mounted on the camera it still maxes at 1/200, which makes backlit daytime shots with shallow DOF impossible), allow a wireless battery grip, and when all else fails, higher ISO performance. I read more on the D7000 and it's definitely out, same for the D300s. Does that leave just the $1200 D7100?</p>

<p>I'm really happy with my D7100. I moved up from a D5100 at the time. Much more customization, but you're 18-55mm is not good enough for it. It'll work, but the glass isn't good enough, IMO. You'll see an improvement with the other three lenses. B&H has D7100's starting at <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=d7100&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&usedSearch=1&Top+Nav-Search=">$929</a>. You can sell your D3200 to KEH.com to save more money. They have a D7100 in stock now for <a href="http://www.keh.com/search?store=camera&brand=Brand&category=Class&k=d7100&s=1&bcode=Brand&ccode=Class&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=0&r=SE&e">$919. </a>The 17-55 is big. You can get the Sigma or Tamron version for 1/2 the price, but still both are good.</p>

<p>I'd go for the D7100. The difference in price is well worth it for a more updated camera. 24mp is wonderful to work with, it focuses fast, great color in a variety of lighting, dual memory slots, etc.</p>

<p>I'm not hearing a clear need to upgrade. There is no reason not to have a new camera if you want to but a little delayed gratification right now might be in order. <br>

I have a D7100 and am having a love affair with it. It is with me and the D3 sits on the shelf most of the time. I think Nikon has hit a real sweet spot with it. You can't go wrong saving up to get one. If you need it. I agree with Chun though that you are not going to see that much difference in high ISO results even with the D7100. <br>

If you are wanting to do better flash work then an upgrade could be justified for that alone. Unless you are just chomping for these additional capabilities I would hold what you have and save for the D7100. </p>

 

<p>Have you looked at the new D3300 or the new D5300? Here's a link comparing the D3300, D5300 and the D7100. The D3300 actually had better low light results than the other 2: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D3300-sensor-review-Revised-entry-level-model/Nikon-D3300-vs-Nikon-D5300-vs-Nikon-D7100-Similar-sensor-performance<br /> All 3 have similar if not the same 24-Mpix sensor.<br>

I've been looking at upgrading my D50. I like the D3300 except it only comes with the cheap kit lens and no rotating screen. The D5300 comes as a body only, or with the 17-140 lens. But it has WiFi and GPS, which I have no need for or even want, so I would prefer not to pay for it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...but <strong>like I mentioned in my original post</strong>, I'd like the ability to add some inexpensive non-AF lenses just to learn...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Nope, can't see that bit..:-)<br>

<br>

Anyway, no-AF 'operation' is common to all of them. If you mean non AF-<strong>S,</strong> then yes you need a 7000 series. The 300 is a slight backwards step ISO wise, and certainly resolution wise.<br>

<br>

I sold my D3200 after a few months because I hated the single dial operation and the menu interface. You also can't tether it. I got a refurb D5100 (still single dial) as a stop-gap.....I'm saving my cash for the D7200 in the autumn. </p>

<p>I like the D5100s vari-angle screen and the slightly better interface. The WiFi, GPS and 1080p of the 5300 is tempting, but if the 7200 doesn't have all those and much more, then Nikon are being daft.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>As others have said, you won't get much of a high ISO boost over the 3200 except by going to full frame.<br />

<br />

For the rest of the issues, is the D7000 really out? The D7100 is indubitably better, but the 7000 is perfectly capable, especially if you don't mind the resolution drop compared with the 3200. If you didn't mind high ISO getting <i>worse</i> then the D90 might have been worth a look, too.<br />

<br />

The image quality of all the recent DX Nikons is pretty similar. It's functionality that you gain as you move up the range, and it sounds as though that's what you want. Unless you really need 8fps, or if you want the best autofocus without paying for a D7100, I would suggest that the D300s is out, though - mostly because it doesn't count as a "recent DX Nikon" for the purposes of image quality. Good luck.</p>

<p>Get the D7100 or wait till you can afford it !!!</p>

<p>Hi speed sync is the same for all, except the D70 (if my memory serves me right). So, no gain there. There are two points where a D7x00 could be an advantage to you, in my view:</p>

<ul>

<li>Better viewfinder, which is quite nice for manual focus lenses;</li>

<li>metering with Ai and AiS lenses.</li>

</ul>

<p>Otherwise, it doesn't improve on a D3200 much, apart from the better AF module, but honestly none of your lenses is going to set AF-speed records, so that advantage seems somewhat limited to me. And handling is different - whether it's better or not is a personal preference.<br>

Why is the D7000 out? As nice as the D7100 is, the price difference with a D7000 is considerable, making the D7000 to me the more attractive option.</p>

<p>Another consideration. If you're not happy with the high ISO results of the D3200, it could be worth having a look at your post processing, the tools used for that, and possibly invest in training/software there.</p>

<p>The D3200 is quite new so why upgrade?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D3200 is quite new so why upgrade?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One potential reason is simple NAS.</p>

<p>NAS is not a myth, I have had it for years.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>Come on, guys. Jeff has said:</p>

 

<blockquote>some of the things it doesn't do that I'd like in a camera are:<br />

<br />

- better performance at higher ISO<br />

- high-speed flash sync<br />

- exposure bracketing<br />

- built-in focus motor<br />

- ability for battery grip without add'l shutter cable</blockquote>

 

<p>Now, we've pointed out that his suggested upgrades don't help with higher ISO, and I trust whatever Wouter said about HSS (I've not checked). To the best of my knowledge (not having owned or upgraded from a D3200), the rest are perfectly valid limitations of Jeff's current camera. If he's prepared to pay to resolve them, that's his problem.<br />

<br />

I know there are a lot of people on the internet in general saying "I want to take better images, so I want a more expensive camera, what should I get". Jeff's actually got justifiable complaints about things the D3200 can't do, which presumably do matter to him. We shouldn't dismiss the valid questions just because others have asked invalid ones.</p>

NAS?

<p>NAS = Nikon Acquisition Syndrome</p>

<p>only to be bested by GAS (gear acquisition syndrome)</p>

<p>Did you decide what to do? Just wondering - you said after more research, you felt the d7000 was definitely out. How come? If it's the AF issues it's had, don't let that scare you. It's nothing a little AF-fine tune won't fix.</p>

<p>Thinking again, I am more than inclined to support anyone's desire to improve their flash photography. Often experienced photographers take this skill and capability for granted but there is perhaps no better way to take one's photography to the next level than to master flash. </p>

<p>The D3200 does not have high speed sync nor commander mode. These are super options. Jeff did not say what off-camera flash he is using so his equation must include not only the cost of the new body but also the cost of a capable flash. So he does not already have the flash add at least another $300.00 to the problem.</p>

<p>It might be that for the money the sweet spot is the D7000. For less than the price of a D7100 you get commander mode, AutoFP high speed sync, a SB-700 refurb and a grip. That is his whole wish list. As much as I like the D7100 there is really not that much difference between it and the D7000. </p>

<p>Slaps to Jeff for wanting to master flash. To many folks just crank up the ISO endlessly until they 'get what is there'. Controlling the light is something quite different. </p>

<p>No owned both and the D7000 is only slightly better on picture quality but 1000% better in the controls ...<br>

Better to go to a D7100 and a decent lens for it is essential ...</p>

<p>Sounds like he wants to continue with weddings with the flash and the battery grip. That means he is getting serious. 100% viewfinder coverage, wireless commander mode and more comprehensive controls you can save to a dial position make the D7000 sound a good fit for him.</p>