D7000 to D7100

<p>With D7100 prices falling rapidly, I'm thinking of getting one. I have a D7000 that I dearly love. I think the D7000 was a real jump in performance. It does 80% of what I ask of it. I wish it had a faster processor and larger buffer and I really could give up video, as I never use it. The weather sealing is more than enough. I use my camera a great deal and have actually worn out its predecessors. I'm about half way through what I would guess is the useful life of this body and it may be time to think about replacing it. The obvious choice seems to be another D7000 at rock bottom pricing, or for only a couple of hundred more -- a D7100. The obvious improvement is in the pixel count and while I don't long for more pixels, I'm sure that I would use them.<br>

Are there those out there that did make the incremental move from the D7000 to the D7100? How do you feel about it after a while using the D7100? Are there noticeable differences? If so, what are they?<br>

Best wishes for the holidays to all...</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Weren't you expecting some so called D7200? http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00czRd<br>

<br />Other then the Df, the D7100 is the only current Nikon DSLR that is still in the EXPEED 3 processor generation. If you want speed, I would wait for Nikon to upgrade the D7100, although I don't know exactly when, I would imagine that it will be in the coming months.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a D7100. The obvious improvement is in the pixel count</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On a DX body, 16MP is plenty. Having 24MP is not necessarily an "improvement" from 16MP as it is very difficult to take full advantage of the difference.</p>

<p>Shun: I was looking for a 7200 with a significant improvement, but if the specs that were released are close to reality, there is not much of an improvement there. The only improvement I can see in 24 MP is the potential for smaller cropping, but don't use that much now. It is largely getting a new body and keeping the old one as a second and just extending its life. What you say gives me more of an argument to find a new D7000, if I can at a cheap price. </p>

<p>$120 difference between a refurb D7000 and D7100.</p>

<p>EJ, yesterday you mentioned some D7200 specs from rumor sites. That is the same site that told us about some Nikon medium-format MX format back in 2008 and more recently some so called D9300 several months ago. Needless to say, those rumors do not materialize. Those people keep on posting nonsense to stimulate traffic to their sites. If I were you, I would take such rumor specs with a large grain of salt.</p>

<p>I have been watching the rumor/wishlist peddlers on the D7200/D9300 for about a year now, I think. I agree with you. Nikon does keep secrets a whole lot better than the US government. There is certainly no harm in waiting. I think probably the best indicator that a new camera will be announced is the deep discount in the current model that has appeared on Nikon's own sites. My current D7000 chugs along just fine at about 1000 frames a week. I'm bargain hunting as much as anything.</p>

<p>Cameras are discounted for various reasons. Any "old" DSLR over a year or two is going to be deeply discounted. For one thing refurbished units will go on the market, and new ones also have to compete against used one as well. For example, it took Canon over 5 full years to update the 7D to 7D Mark II. Meanwhile, 2, 3 years into that 5-year cycle, lots of used 7D were on the market at 30%, 40% below new price. You simply have to discount news one in order to compete against used, while the 7D Mark II wouldn't appear until 2, 3 years later.</p>

<p>Another factor is exchange rate. Needless to say, the Japanese yen has depreciated a lot against the US$ in the past several months.</p>

<p>Nikon has just discounted the D810 by $300. I think the main reason is that used D800 are now around $1500. There is simply no way the D810 can remain at $3300 with so much competition from used D800/D800E as well as gray-market D810 that are cheap due to the low yen. In fact, I expect the D810 to be further discounted, but no "D820" will be announced any time soon.</p>

<p>While I don't think Nikon is going to match Canon's 5-year production cycle and most likely a successor to the D7100 will appear some time in 2015, I wouldn't speculate on the release date and feature set. Chances are that Nikon will make some non-trivial improvements to the successor for the D7100. If you are not in a hurry, it pays to be patient.</p>

<p>When and whether D7200 arrives, you can always get the D7100....or just stay with D7000. Normally I don't use DX, but I'll rent one on occasion and utilize as a second rig...for reach.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>If you use the U1 and U2 feature much, the D7000 works just fine.</p>

<p>On the D7100, you need to push a little button before you can switch between the two.</p>

<p>On the D7000, the SPAM exposure mode control is on the same top left dial as U1 and U2. Back then, plenty of people complained that it was too easy to unintentionally change that setting. After the D7000, on every DSLR with that same control design, such as the D600, D7100, D610, and D750, Nikon has added a lock button in the center of that top left dial. You need to hold down that button to turn the dial.</p>

<p>My advice is keep you're D7000 I believe its a more well rounded camera than the D7100, and I've had both.<br>

The D7200 may be along shortly, and it's likely to have the D7000s attributes plus. ;)</p>

<p>I was one of the people who found the SPAM dial too easy to turn on the D7000. Even catching that you're in the wrong mode in time is unpleasant. That, and the desire for better autofocus in low light, were the reasons I upgraded one of my two D7000 bodies to a D7100. The pixel count was not, and is not that important.</p>

<p>It remains to be seen (1) if the speculation by the rumor site about a D7100 successor are correct and (2) what the actual performance will be.</p>

<p>Unless you need better AF, I am not sure there is much reason to update your body (the areas where you are seeking improvement have not changed all that much/enough to make the upgrade truly worthwhile. It might be prudent to wait to see what the D7200 is all about.</p>

<p>Speculation is speculation but I think if Nikon introduces the 7200 it would have faster burst rate and more burst depth and then some what better performance in noise level. I doubted it would have more pixels than 24MP.</p>

Upgrade to a d7100 if it solves a problem for you. I upgraded from a d7000 and am very happy. The two issues for me

were better autofocus and the dial lock. the buffer is still shallow on the D7100 so it depends on your type of shooting.

24mp for me wasn't a selling point, but rock solid af was.

<p>The difference in auto focus performance is just as big (maybe bigger) than the pixel difference. The D7100 will actually focus by moonlight!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>John,<br>

I have a d7000 and was likewise thinking of getting a d7100 body since prices are falling, but am going to wait. Like Hector and Kent, the problems I have with the 7000 are the easiness of inadvertently moving the mode dial and its abysmal low light focussing ability. IQ is still more than adequate for me (6x4 and 5x7, with sometimes a lash out to 8x10), but its the previous generation image processor. If those things are important, go for it. I'd prefer to wait and spend my hard earned cash on the next incarnation, if I were to. The d7001 is at the end of its product cycle, and its price will probably fall considerably even at its reduced prices now. Good luck with your decision</p>

<p>Apiarist1 (Arthur)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wish it had a faster processor and larger buffer and I really could give up video, as I never use it.<br>

(..)<br>

half way through what I would guess is the useful life of this body and it may be time to think about replacing it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds a bit like upgrad-itis to me, to be honest. The faster processor, what exactly does it need to do faster, which specific aspect of the D7000 is too slow? Without specifying that, a "faster processor" is much like the "more megapixels" jump from 16 to 24 MP. Great for marketing, but in the real world, the difference is hardly ever noticeable.<br>

Larger buffer - that's not the D7100. Video is also still there.</p>

<p>And what's wrong with a body that's half-way through its life, and how do you measure this anyway? Anything might break at any time, there is no half-life time for a camera body, and even if there would be, it would mean the foreseeable future would be no problem.</p>

<p>The main big reason to move to a D7100 is its AF. You didn't list that as a reason. So, stick with the D7000 till it stops working, and then look at what is available in the shops then. If you really want to spend money on some photographic gears, better lenses pay off more than small incremental body updates anyway.</p>

 

<p>I just wanted to point out in the original post:</p>

 

<blockquote>I wish it had a faster processor and larger buffer</blockquote>

 

<p>According to DPReview's experiments, the D7000 can do 6fps for 10 frames in raw before the buffer fills up, or 22 frames in fine JPEG. The D7100 can do 5.9fps for 6 frames in raw before the buffer fills, though it can do 50 frames in fine JPEG. In 15MP 1.3x crop mode, the D7100 can do 7fps for 7 frames in raw, or 100 images in fine JPEG. If what you want from the upgrade is faster shooting and a larger buffer, the D7100 is not your friend - this has been the number one criticism of the D7100. If "faster" includes "significantly better AF system", however, it might be!<br />

<br />

I thought that distinction shouldn't drop through the cracks before NAS kicks in.</p>

<p>Wouter... I really don't know what halfway through the useful life of my D7000 is, because I don't know if it will last longer than previous cameras, it might. I hadn't even considered the improvement in focusing. I do find the camera hunting in low light situations that is frustrating, but the easy work around is manual focusing. I have no intention of getting rid of my D7000 or putting it on the shelf, but simply moving it from the alpha position to the beta position as the workhorse body. I was simply thinking that at these low prices, even though I wasn't looking unless there was some real improvement (D7200... D9300???), I would take advantage of the pricing to get another body. With the price difference between the two at about $120 USD for refurbished bodies, there isn't a lot of difference. I still really like my D7000.</p>

<p>EJ, my point is not to tell you you should not buy a new camera. It's your money, spend it any way you like, of course.<br /> But, just for consideration. There is always a better camera coming up, and newer models also tend to outperform older models, and at some point in time, prices just are terribly tempting. These things happen, and happen all the time. None of which answers the real question: do you need this new body? If you need to convince yourself and find reasons why you might need this new body, then you should really consider whether you're spending your money on the right thing. I seriously do not mean to belittle or condemn; just offering a line of thoughts here.<br /> The D610 is also extremely attractively priced, as is the D750. None of those offer me (for my way of working) anything that I actually need, so even though they are serious improvements over the camera I use today, even though this could be the best moment to get them, I simply have no <em>need</em>. Would I <em>want</em> a D750? Quite, for a few niggles it ticks all boxes right, but not enough to just spend money on it - money that could be spend on other things that offer more value to whatever I do.<br /> And to make all this story very relative: I have too many lenses (according to all sane people I know), and a touch too many filmcameras too, probably. So, no saint at all here :-)</p>

<p>EJ, In my opinion the D7000 has better image quality than the D7100 if that's what's most important to you. It handles shadows better overall. If auto-focus floats your boat then the D7100 is better for you. I've never accidentally switched from one mode to another so I'm not sure what that's all about.</p>

<p>It's interesting that you make that comment about the image quality. I have been very pleased with the image quality on the D7000 -- particularly at high ISO. I have gotten some fine results at 3200 in natural light. The auto focus thing is a bit of an issue -- but I learned to manual focus over 50 years ago and I'm happy to do that and find at times I want to override fully functioning autofocus. At those times when the camera hunts to focus (not always predictable) it is annoying. Over all the D7000 does nearly everything I ask of it and I'm sure would do more, if I knew exactly what to ask. Even after 100,000 exposures, I'm still learning to use all the capabilities. Any improvement would be nuanced. As I said to Wouter, this is almost like putting a camera in the bank because of the attractive pricing now.</p>

<p>D7100 has slightly better image quality in my experience; a bit more detailed images, excellent sharpness with the right lenses, and the mid to high ISO images (800 and higher) are more tolerant to adjustments in post (especially if you miss the exposure there is more room for fixing that) than D7000 images under the same conditions. I felt the D7000 gave very good results up to ISO 400 only, whereas I've been satisfied with images from the D7100 at higher ISO (even up to 2000). I was really surprised how good the D7100's image quality is, and I also think its handling and ergonomics are great. It also features a better AF system that gives a higher percentage of keepers especially with fast primes. However, its buffer is small (it can shoot roughly 9 12-bit compressed NEFs at 6fps before slowing down, if I recall correctly) so it doesn't sound like the right camera to you. I would recommend waiting for the D7100's successor, with some luck it will have a larger buffer, or something like the D750 money permitting. If the purpose is just to buy great deals then the D7100 would certainly quality at its current price, but I think it only makes sense to buy something when it meets your actual needs well, not because it is a great deal.</p>

<p>One of the lessons learned years ago is that the perfect is the enemy of the good. So, I don't think I have time to wait for the perfect -- I'm 72, after all. My biggest complaint is buffer size, but it probably only impacts about 2% of my shooting. I have had very good results with the D7000 (in the right application) at ISO up to 3200. It doesn't work where there is a lot of color content to begin with -- like high shutter speeds in a bright environment. But where color content is minimal, as in very low light conditions, it does quite well and far better than anything I could have done in the days of film. As this discussion has progressed I have been asking myself if better focusing and less manual focusing is something I'd use -- now that I have pretty much built manual focusing into my routine. Technology will always get better. I have spent much more on my computer system than my camera -- just as I did back in the days of film with a high end professional darkroom. I do view this as a systems approach and the camera is just one piece of it. I really appreciate the thought everyone has put into this discussion.</p>