Anyone regret upgrading to D7100 from D7000?

<p>Since the D400 is nowhere in sight I'm going to get a D7100, the thing holding me back is the pathetic buffer. I am really hoping a fast SD card will help the situation, but has anyone regretted the upgrade? I shoot raw 95% of the time and I do a lot of action / bird photography. </p>

<p>The D7100 is a pixel upgrade, not a performance upgrade. If you want performance you should be looking at another model in another system, like Canon's 7D or the promisingly-spec'd new Pentax K-3.</p>

<p>I'm happy I upgraded. Not sure if it was entirely necessary, but the d7100 has features that made it just attractive enough.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /><br />The D7100 is a pixel upgrade, not a performance upgrade. If you want performance you should be looking at another model in another system, like Canon's 7D or the promisingly-spec'd new Pentax K-3.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>When I decided to buy a d7100 I could take or leave the additional pixels, and the missing AA filter. I like them now. I like the pictures I take with the d7100 a lot more then the d7000, though maybe I am subconsciously trying to justify NAS, and there is no difference. What really attracted me to the d7100 was the autofocus system, which is in my mind is worth the upgrade - if you need it. I also really like the lock button on the mode switch, finer grained Auto-ISO controls and a few other small things. <br /><br />The buffer is still small, fast cards help - there have been dozens of threads about this, I shoot with San Disk Extreme Pros or whatever and I don't run into it too often. <br /><br />No regrets, but is it worth it? I can't really answer that for you.</p>

<p>The D7100 is very much a performance upgrade from the D7000. The D7100's AF is second to none among all Nikon DSLRs today; it is on par with the AF on the D800 and is clearly superior to that AF on even the D3, D3S, D700, and D300. The D7000's 39-point AF system, while still very good, is a step down from the 51-point Multi-CAM 3500 on all other cameras I mentioned in this paragraph.</p>

<p>The D7100 can write 3 lossy compressed RAW files onto SanDisk's 95MB/sec Extreme Pro SD cards. The D7000 can only write one file per second. Compared to the D300, both the D7000 and D7100 have a limited memory buffer. Not that it is perfect, but the D7100 works quite well for me.</p>

<p>When I reviewed the D7100 for photo.net several months ago, I prepared this folder to accompany the review: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1052968<br /> I captured every image in the folder myself, of course, and every image that is not the D7100 camera itself or memory cards was captured with the D7100. There are a lot of bird and in flight images. You may be a better wildlife photographer than I am, but the D7100 is not really holding me back. In fact, I have captured a lot more birds in flight images with the D7100 since that review, and I haven't updated that folder for several months. Having said that, I wouldn't mind using a D3S or D4 some day as I prefer an even faster frame rate, but unfortunately I'll lose the crop factor.</p>

<p>I agree with Shun that the d7100 is very much an upgrade performance wise. In addition to the improved autofocus there is clearly an improvement in high ISO performance by at least a full stop if not more. The buffer issue depends on what you shoot. I also use the DanDisk 95 MB/ sec. Extreme Pro cards. Like I say, I do not shoot fast moving sports except for an occasional equestrian event and I have had no trouble. </p>

<p>I made the upgrade from the d7000 with some hesitation but have never looked back. The d7000 is a wonderful camera and I have it as a backup.</p>

<p>The 24 mpx are a bonus for me for cropping and large prints. Good luck.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

<p>The OP mentioned nothing about desiring better AF performance. His comments was:</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br>

the thing holding me back is the pathetic buffer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...so the fact that he considers the buffer pathetic is the main concern. The D7100 is indeed a better focusing camera with a bigger buffer but it doesn't come free. Is it worth it? I'd say no. If the buffer is pathetic in your eyes the money will not be well spent. If you want a bigger buffer you'll need another camera.</p>

 

<p>Patrick S., the OP is asking about using the D7100 to photograph action/birds. How much experience do you have using the D7100 in general? How about using the D7100 to photograph birds in particular?</p>

<p>I had the D7000 and used it primarily with my 600mm f/4 for birds. I was never completely satisfied with the AF performance of the combination at more than medium distances, although through AF fine tuning I was able to get acceptable results. Since just acceptable is not what I was looking for I eventually sold the D7000 because of that and used my D300S until the D7100 came out. Like Shun pointed out, the AF system on the D7100 (at least to me using the 600mm) is far superior. I have been extremely satisfied with the results and like Owen consider the extra MPs a bonus for cropping. My only complaint like everyone else is the baby buffer on the D7100, but I can live with that for the much improved AF performance. If I did a lot of birds in flight though I might have a different opinion. I shoot RAW 100% of the time and use the fastest SanDisk card and still only manage between 3-4 shots at best before the buffer slows down. That prevents you from using the "spray and pray" technique, so maybe Nikon is just trying to make us all better photographers with the smaller buffer. :)</p>

<p>I might just have to switch to jpg for BIF etc. 24mp jpg should have a lot of flexibility built in for post processing. How a 24mp jpg compares to 16mp raw for highlight/shadow recovery I'm not sure. . .</p>

<p>Barry, it doesn't make sense that you only get 3 to 4 shots. To me, the key is to use lossy compressed instead of lossless compressed. Lossy compression makes the NEF files much smaller so that the RAW buffer should be 7 frames, even at 14 bits. At 6 fps, by the time you use up those 7 frames after a second, it should have written 3 frames onto the Extreme Pro. As a result, you should get about 10 frames before it slows down.</p>

<p>I also use lossy compressed RAW on the D7000.</p>

<p>If you shoot RAW + JPEG or have other noise reduction, etc., it would further eat into the RAW buffer. If you must use RAW + JPEG, which I did at the very beginning since RAW converters for the D7100 were not yet available, I used RAW + JPEG basic.</p>

<p>Keep wondering why Nikon couldn't put the D600 buffer into the D7100 - it would solve the one issue that everyone is complaining about.</p>

<p>Shun, I have more money than skill or talent, so I have both the Canon 7D and the Nikon D7100. For my money if I were shooting action or birds in flight, and I insisted on shooting RAW, I'd take the 7D out. 25 RAW shots to fill the buffer. That's insanely above the D7100. At the same time, if I were shooting JPGs I'd go with the D7100.</p>

<p>Good for you, Patrick, but I have a portfolio to demonstrate that one can do quite well shooting RAW only on the D7100 with birds in flight images. I own plenty of DSLRs myself and therefore have many choices, including the D300, D7000, D700, and D800E. I wouldn't use the D7100 if I find it really restrictive.</p>

<p>When using the same equipment, if someone else manages to do things you can't, maybe it is about time to find out how they manage to achieve it, rather then just dismissing the equipment.</p>

<p>I am sure the Canon 7D is a great camera for wildlife photography. However, it is over 4 years old and despite numerous rumors, I see no sign for any so called 7D Mark II yet.</p>

<p>Shun said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D7100's AF is second to none among all Nikon DSLRs today; it is on par with the AF on the D800 and is clearly superior to that AF on even the D3, D3S, D700, and D300. The D7000's 39-point AF system, while still very good, is a step down from the 51-point Multi-CAM 3500 on all other cameras I mentioned in this paragraph.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This has been exactly my experience. This fall, I've been shooting field sports (football, soccer, field hockey) with a D3 and a D7100. There is no question that the D7100's AF system acquires focus more quickly and accurately and tracks moving objects better, especially objects that are moving directly toward or away from the camera. My biggest problem with the D7100 is that I get so many keepers that I can't handle them all. That is not hyperbole, it is fact. Last year I was shooting the D3 and a D7000, and the keeper ratio was distinctly in favor of the D3.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I upgraded and kept my d7000. There are settings on the d7100 that are fantastic. 1) It will automatically set a minimum shutter speed per your focal length. This is great when changing lenses in my wildlife photos. 2) I use class 10 sd cards, and the d7100 seems to take photos just as fast and as many as the d7100. 3) They both have the ability to copy sd cards. This is a life saver and negates the need to lug around a laptop to protect the loss of a card. 3) The added focusing cells do really help with moving bird photos. 4) The battery seems to last slightly longer. The d7000 used to be the best camera made by Nikon, and I have owned them all. Now the d7100 is the best. Too many great features on both cameras to list here.</p>

<p>Shun,<br>

Good catch. I meant 3-4 seconds, not 3-4 shots. Like I said, I don't do a lot of birds in flight with the D7100. I do a lot of high school football and for that I use a D3s when I need higher frame rate.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a portfolio to demonstrate that one can do quite well shooting RAW only on the D7100 with birds in flight images.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A fact which tells us nothing about how many you <em>didn't </em>get because you maxed out the buffer too soon, Shun...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am sure the Canon 7D is a great camera for wildlife photography. However, it is over 4 years old and despite numerous rumors, I see no sign for any so called 7D Mark II yet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see how a camera's age is relevant here. Age has nothing to do with the 25 image RAW buffer on the 7D. The 7D simply has it, the D7100 doesn't.</p>

<p>Both cameras are nice. The discussion should have been about the buffer size, not how many great bird shots someone has gotten with either. The OP asked about buffer size and if he wants a bigger buffer than the D7100 he'll need to look elsewhere. </p>

<p>The way I read the OP's question was "has anyone regretted upgrading from the D7000 to the D7100", thus my response that I had no regrets based on the improved focus ability. The buffer size is a deal killer for some and not so much for others. Each person will have to make their own decision based on what their particular photographic needs are.</p>

<p>I originally got the D7100 because I decided that my D90 just wasn't up to the job of being the second body I needed alongside my D7000 - and because the the D7100 had the one big thing I missed on the D7000 - the top-tier AF system. As others have said, the difference is plain as day. I also found that I like the color rendition even better on the D7100, and most surprisingly, it feels noticeably different and better in my hand. I liked the D7000; I love shooting the D7100. I thought I might save the D7100 for jobs and still shoot the D7000 for casual photos, due to file size. Nope. All the little improvements make the D7100 a real pleasure to use - so I use it, and now my D7000 mostly sits on the shelf. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>A fact which tells us nothing about how many you <em>didn't </em>get because you maxed out the buffer too soon, Shun...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keith, let me remind you that Nikon sent me a D7100 to review back in March. I used that camera for 2 months, 4, 5 days a week, during the spring hummingbird season. Towards the end of those two months, I bought my own D7100 and had both cameras together for about 2 weeks.</p>

<p>I have no idea how many images I didn't get because I maxed out the buffer, but it can't be all that many because I don't max out the buffer very often. Throughout the summer, I was shooting birds maybe 3, 4, 5 times a week for one to two hours each time. Usually I ended up with maybe 200 to 300 images per day. And I max out the buffer fewer than once a day on the average. However, I would say that is once too many.</p>

<p>Another major difference is memory card write speed. Back in the D2X era, it took about 5 to 7 seconds to write one RAW file onto the memory card. Therefore, once your buffer is full, you are stuck for several seconds. By the D3/D300/D700 era, it improved to writing 1 file per second. The D7100 can write 3 NEF files per second. Therefore, even though the buffer is full, the D7100 can still sustain 3 fps with compressed RAW because it can write much faster. Granted, 3 fps is slow, but you are never completely stopped.</p>

<p>My point is that I am so demanding on bird images that I wouldn't have bought my own D7100 if it didn't meet my requirements. I still own both a D300 and D7000; they merely sit at home doing nothing in these days.</p>

<p>In reality, I lose far more images to incorrect focus, poor composition, and poor timing since chasing flying birds with long lenses is never easy. Maxing out the buffer on the D7100 is, at most, a minor issue in comparison.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see how a camera's age is relevant here. Age has nothing to do with the 25 image RAW buffer on the 7D. The 7D simply has it, the D7100 doesn't.<br>

Both cameras are nice. The discussion should have been about the buffer size, not how many great bird shots someone has gotten with either.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If buffer size is the only thing that matters, the OP could have just read the specs and wouldn't need to ask any question.</p>

<p>Instead, most of us use the cameras to take pictures. The real issue is whether the camera is preventing you from getting great images. The D7100 has a shallow buffer, but it can write to memory cards much faster than cameras from 5, 6 years ago. Therefore, the shallow buffer is not all that big an issue.</p>

<p>As I have pointed out before, the current UHS-1 SD cards have a theoretical 104 MB/sec write speed. In practice we can now write about three 24MP NEF files per second. The up-coming UHS-2 standard is 312 MB/sec. When those cards are available, new DSLRs will be able to write 8 to 10 24MP NEF files per second. If we stay at 24MP, we can write directly onto the memory cards and won't need any buffer any more.</p>

<p>The OP asked: "Anyone regret upgrading to D7100 from D7000?" A number of people have already answered. Of course, those who don't think upgrading to the D7100 is worthwhile probably wouldn't have done so.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. I am going to let me D7000 go and my D7100 should be here tomorrow. I got the 95mb/s san disk extreme pro card for when I need it, and 3fps when the buffer fills is actually a lot better than I was expecting. With slow cards on the D7000 and d800, I had experienced 1-3s between shots which was totally frustrating. I appreciate the thought out replies, and it's always interesting to see how a simple question can open a heated debate on here. The consensus was that no, buyers don't regret switching to the d7100 from the d7k. </p>

<p>After a few days of using the D7100 I must say I'm happy with it. The images are great and the buffer isn't much of a problem as long as you're using the fastest available SD cards. The one thing that I'm finding disappointing is the long exposure noise reduction. I'm still getting lots of amp glow even with long exposure noise reduction on. Shots of 30s at ISO3200. I haven't done the direct comparison but I think the D7000 was a lot cleaner (something that won't matter for most users.) The 1.3 crop mode is more useful than I thought it would be for the speed/extra buffer. Focus feels as good as my D800 although I did have some trouble switching modes at first, I was only given option of single point or full auto (I must have been locked out by some other mode, not sure.) To answer my own question. . . I don't regret the upgrade.</p>

<p>For me, one of the major upgrades to the D7100 is the locking mode dial. (upper left dial to set body on aperture priority) On my D7000, there was no lock and the dial was always changing mode when I pulled the camera out of my bag. I've actually lost shots because of this on the D7000. Great improvement on the D7100. Now my only remaining problem is the SD card door opening up when I handle the body with my right hand only. Very irritating. </p>