Jump to content

Is it worth getting the d7100 or wait for the d7200?


yockenwaithe

Recommended Posts

<p>So I've got an old Nikon D90, and the artifacts have started coming in hot and heavy on the pictures. I'm having a hard time deciding between the d7100 and the d7200- from what I've seen the 7200 is just an upgraded 7100, so doesn't seem worth the several hundred dollar hike. On the other hand, I've used a 7200 and am quite impressed with the image quality. The comparison sites online aren't much help either.<br>

Long story short, is it worth saving several months to get a 7200 or just get a 7100?<br>

Alternatively the Df looks like a pretty sexy camera, and full frame has been something I've been wanting for a while now</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I love my DF -- more than my D 750. A terrific camera if you want to spend that much. The other cost is going from DX to FX lenses. I had a stock of old ones from film days which I often use, but got a couple of used & refurb current lenses as well. The DF is the camera I reach for and carry most often. It seems to be a camera people either love or hate, so I'm sure there will be other views. As to waiting, there will always be something new, but it is great to enjoy your hobby in the present. Good luck with your choice!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to be a camera people either love or hate, so I'm sure there will be other views.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't "hate" the Df - but on my list of Nikon cameras to purchase, it is pretty much on the bottom. The Df for me is just an overpriced D610 with a weird user interface.<br /> D7100 vs D7200 - I have both. The D7200 is worth it if the small buffer on the D7100 creates an issue for you (it did for me). There's also a small improvement in high ISO noise with the D7200. I use the D7200 when I need the bigger buffer for bursts; for all other shooting, the D7100 is doing just fine.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As a side comment, as recently as less than two months ago, it looks like the OP got a D90 and was also interested in medium-format film cameras:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00e0Nb">Just got a new[ish] Nikon, looking for lens suggestions</a></li>

<li><a href="/medium-format-photography-forum/00e0n9">Any suggestions for a cheap medium format camera?</a></li>

</ul>

<p>Since film is now out of favor, film photography has become a niche and is getting expensive, especially medium and large format. Film cost and processing cost are very high nowadays (easier if you process black and white yourself). If the budget is not huge, one is better off saving for the one right camera or you could be upgrading very frequently. For that same reason, the Df is not the answer.</p>

<p>Like Deiter, I too have both the D7100 and D7200. The most noticeable difference is the deeper RAW buffer on the D7200. The D7200 has better high-ISO results, but it is not huge although noticeable also. If you don't shoot "machine gun" style for action, the D7100 is perfectly fine.</p>

<p>However, while the D90 is an older camera from 2009, it is a less-expenisve version of the (as of 8, 9 years ago) highly popular D300. It should still be able to do a good job today. I wonder what the problems are. The D7100 and D7200 do have much newer electronics, 100% viewfinder, dual memory cards, and a much better AF system.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The d90 I have has started getting bright red artifacts on a majority of the pictures- and the price of the body doesn't seem like it's worth it to fix any sensor issues. It has been heavily used both before and after I got it so things like that are apparently to be expected. <br>

I did get a medium format- it is for portraiture only [where the few clients I do get demand high quality pictures], the digital camera is for everything else <br>

I'll be probably getting the d7100 all things considered, I don't generally shoot machine gun style or use high ISO very often, so the price seems to speak for itself. If I want a full frame I'll probably get one when I have some deeper pockets<br>

Thanks all for the input!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Digital is still moving fast enough that trying to stay current costs unnecessary money unless there's a good reason for a person to buy the newest possible camera. I bought a brand new D7000 in late 2014 for under $500. Sure beat paying $1,200 for it. The 7100 hasn't dropped that much yet, but that's what I would buy in this situation.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I shortly got a DF after it's introduction, and really like it<br>

But the UI is an acquired taste (you'll probably love it if you think back with nostalgia to the old film camera's, but could be in for a cold shower if you're used to the modern button way of doing things), the AF although not really bad is kind of slow under certain circumstances, and of course the MRSP is pretty steep.<br>

For me the major reasons were the IMO compared to eg a D2X, D3 or D800 better balance with my old Ai/Ais lenses, the excellent sensor, and being an old fart with a past shooting F2 and FE film camera's.</p>

<p>Despite primarily shooting FX, I recently got a D7100 as well.<br>

Partly because I really wasn't using my old D2X and D70S anymore and wanted to get some money for them before they became really impossible to sell, partly because sometimes I just want to take a 'better then my phone 'camera along that's not as expensive as my FX bodies and lenses.<br>

<br />Did consider a D7200, but apart from the larger buffer and slightly better IQ, decided for the cheaper (especially 2nd hand) D7100.<br>

A DF is as far as IQ and high ISO is concerned considerably superior, but at a price. The D7100 is a nice, smaller, camera, with in the 'lower' ISO range also quite a good IQ, and still very good value for the money.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>That's why I was considering the Df- I'm quite quick at using adjusting the settings on film cameras but cannot for the life of me do it quickly at all on a DSLR [excepting manual focusing, which I'm still pretty fast at]<br>

That being said I've decided to wait on full frame for a bit, until I have more money to do so [or desperately need a larger sensor, which at the moment I don't]</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"is it worth saving several months to get a 7200 or just get a 7100?"<br /><br />What if the 7300 comes out while you're waiting? :)<br /><br />If money wasn't a consideration I would say buy the 7200. But it sounds like the consensus is that there are minimal differences between 7200 and 7100, and the 7100 is going to be light years ahead of your D90. I'm still shootnig paying jobs with a D200 and D7000 and have no immediate urge to buy another body. Just because you camera isn't the very latest doesn't mean you can't make good pictures with it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The only reason the 7200 was in consideration was that I've used it before- so I had experience. From what I've been told the two pretty much feel the same so I went with the cost factor over and small improvements the 7200 has<br>

I usually wait for the coolest new toys to come out before buying because the 'old' digital cameras usually drop a little in price [i.e. if the 7300 were to come out], but in this case it's sort of necessitated by the death of my camera sensor- which happens to be the only digital camera I own</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>now that the D500 is out, there's not enough differentiating the 7100/7200 to justify the price difference. in terms of image quality, they have the same sensor. personally, i would avoid the Df unless you get a really sweet deal on a refurb or barely-used one and/or have a lot of legacy lenses. it's kind of an odd camera, with a retro body and a parts-bin mix of d7000, d610, and d4, the d750 is a better-performing camera for much less $$. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Like others here, I too own both the D7100 and the D7200. As a person who values auto focus speed above most anything else, I would buy the D7200(Almost on par with the D750. They supposedly have the same autofocus module). Like others the D7200 does have better ISO performance and the buffer I am sure is useful for those who need it. But honestly, I did not see much of a performance difference when I went from the D7000 to the D7100. But from the D7100 to the D7200 it was significant. Perhaps consider a D7000 and use the extra money for a good fast lens.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>now that the D500 is out, there's not enough differentiating the 7100/7200 to justify the price difference. in terms of image quality, they have the same sensor. personally, i would avoid the Df unless you get a really sweet deal on a refurb or barely-used one and/or have a lot of legacy lenses. it's kind of an odd camera, with a retro body and a parts-bin mix of d7000, d610, and d4, the d750 is a better-performing camera for much less $$.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although I bought the Df and love it. I don't want the D750 or D810. With that said you must think carefully as to why you want the Df. The D750 offers almost everything more fore less. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Possibly a little off subject, but I have had similar thoughts. We all lust for a new gadget. I have been shooting with a D7000 since they came out. I'm perfectly content with the image quality. I find only two shortcomings with the camera. I do wish for a faster and better AF. Once in a very rare while I wish for a deeper buffer, but not very often. I shoot RAW and JPG at the same time. If I wanted speed I would just shoot JPGs and be done with it. I do not shoot sports and very many moving subjects (except those moving in the wind). The build quality of the D7000 is just fine for me. The weather sealing as well. I do push the camera and work in environments that could challenge the build. I have about 50,000 activations on the camera and see no issues. I have cleaned the sensor once - that worked out great.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first port of call when trying to decide between

camera bodies would be imaging resource's

camera comparometer. You can see images from

a variety of cameras side-by-side at 100% zoom.

 

Of course that tells you nothing about their relative

handling, but at least you can decide for yourself

whether any difference on IQ is worth the extra

cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I also recommend considering the D7000 and its "paltry" 16mp sensor. While my main DX camera from Nikon is the D7200, I keep a D7000 in my car as backup. They're that cheap, nowadays. I got mine as a Nikon Refurb, same with my D7200. Excellent way to get great, hardly-used cameras.</p>

<p>Several times now, I've been out shooting, and I've had (or desired) to use the D7000. It's never let me down despite being stored in a car in summer. I won't let it freeze and will bring it in once that starts to occur, but heat seems to be well tolerated, at least mostly temps in the 80's.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Apart from all the valuable comments above, Spencer: consider bringing D90 to a Nikon service point anyway, even when you receive your new D7100. The red 'artifacts' might well be 'hot pixels' that can be easily solved by an expert. I had this done several times for my D200 .. and my D800 should have the treatment too.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Unless you need blazing fast frames per second, your money would be better spent on a D7100 and put the savings on better lens. As for film, I'm currently shooting 5x7, 4x5, 120, and 35mm. Film is MUCH cheaper than digital. My Nikon D800E is worth ~$1,400 and lenses are running a thousand each. My 1983 Nikon F3t with AiS lenses 28/50/105mm cost about $1,000. I can buy a helluva a lot of film for the difference in cost. My Chamonix 045n is worth about $800, and film is five bucks a shot. With that camera I can use lenses from any vintage ever made (oldest is 1845.) Since I typically don't shoot very many sheets at a time (concentrate on getting it right the first time,) my Nikon DSLR gear still costs considerably more in total than even my 4x5. When you consider the total picture of photography, including travel costs, film is one of the cheaper parts. Anyone can use a digital camera. You have to know what you're doing to use a medium or large format camera. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>just to add, you may well be able remove those D90 red dots yourself. Take a long (30 second) exposure with the body cap on (with long exposure NR turned off) and then the moment the mirror returns, activate the sensor clean. Check the next normal image for dots and repeat if required. This worked for me - the camera mapped them out - its an unlisted feature.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...