Nikon D7200 or D7100

Hello,

i want to upgrade my camera from D3200 to D7xxx Series, and my budget is limited (D7100 plus kit lens or D7200 only body).

some friends suggest go for D7100 body and other amount spend on some good glass, and some prefer D7200.

im very confused about that which should i buy.

im not a sports photographer so high buffer not my concern, and im not sure about image quality and iso performance between two models. other thing focus system, my 90% photography is product, candid, street and weddings so which AF system best for me ?

i hope for good response

kind regard

Sohaib Siddique

The D7100 does havea very small buffer so you may run into its limitation in wedding photography e.g. during the center corridor walk, bouquet toss etc. The D7200 has a more liberal buffer, intermediate size which should be good for most things. It also has a newer variant of the Multi-CAM 3500 AF sensor with improved performance in low light. Finally some people push the files and find some banding in D7100 files at some ISO settings but I didn't run into this. It is daid to have been fixed in the D7200. I guess how important these improvements are to you vs. money saved is something you have to weigh yourself. Personally the buffer of the D7100 was really irritating to me. But if you don't shoot rapid series of images it may not be an issue.

A dilemma for sure. Both my wife and I have done some shifting since a recent trip to the Amazon made the flaws in our rigs irritating. I have abandoned the D3200 largely because of its poor high ISO performance. Fine for many things, but not for telephoto wildlife shots. My wife found the small D7100 buffer limiting in similar circumstances - not enough to be really bummed, but enough to decide to give herself a Christmas treat.

 

As a result, she now has a D7200, and I now have a nice used D7100.

 

We never had a problem with the banding. Nor has the AF of the D7100 caused any grief, being good and fast and accurate - a big step up from the D3200. I doubt you'll find either one a problem. The D7200's added speed may show up at some point, but both are very good. The D 7200 does have the better buffer, cleaner high ISO, and its images at all ISO settings are very nice, but the D7200 is way better than the D3200 too. Also, better battery life, and wi fi, of course, if those are important.

 

One thing I would mention is that although the kit lens on the D3200 is not awful, it is very cheap, limited in reach, and mine physically wore out (bad focus roller). By comparison, the 18-400 kit lens on the D7100 is much better, not only in reach, but in features and sharpness. It's really quite nice. If the budget requires that you keep your old D3200 lens with a D7200, I'd suggest the D7100 and kit lens just for that.

For weddings you need faster lenses, such as the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. That is the priority. I used to use two D7100 to do weddings and they worked fine. Spending more money on a camera than a lens is almost always a mistake, and especially so here. I will add that not to knock any of the posters above, but none so far have mentioned doing weddings. I did over a dozen with the D7100 (all paid, not for family/friends.) There is no way I'd choose a d7200 with a kit lens over a D7100 with Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens for doing weddings. You really need the speed of an f2.8 lenses most of the time. I will also add that only having ONE camera to shoot weddings is very foolish (if you are being paid for this.) Cameras break, get stolen, lost all the time.

 

 

Kent in SD

Edited February 18, 2017 by Two23

I was called away and my post seems to have posted itself before I finished editing it (must have hit a button on the way out), so d7100 and 7200 get mixed up a bit. The D7100 is enough better than the 3200 to be a significant improvement in high ISO, even though the 7200 is better. It's really quite nice. I believe in the original post the choice was between a D7200 body alone, keeping the old D3200 lenses, or a D7100 with its kit lens. I would agree that if you're doing weddings, no kit lens is likely to be fast enough, but if so, certainly the D3200 kit lens is more marginal, and there would be a good argument for getting a D7100 body and using the extra for a faster third party lens. That might especially be better if one plans to sell the D3200, which might fetch more with its kit lens.

I was called away and my post seems to have posted itself before I finished editing it (must have hit a button on the way out), so d7100 and 7200 get mixed up a bit. The D7100 is enough better than the 3200 to be a significant improvement in high ISO, even though the 7200 is better. It's really quite nice. I believe in the original post the choice was between a D7200 body alone, keeping the old D3200 lenses, or a D7100 with its kit lens. I would agree that if you're doing weddings, no kit lens is likely to be fast enough, but if so, certainly the D3200 kit lens is more marginal, and there would be a good argument for getting a D7100 body and using the extra for a faster third party lens. That might especially be better if one plans to sell the D3200, which might fetch more with its kit lens.

i will sale my D3200 with kit lens and 50mm f1.8G still in my bag, so if i go for D7200 body i have only 50mm with it but if i go for D7100, there will be both 50mm and kit zoom lens

i will sale my D3200 with kit lens and 50mm f1.8G still in my bag, so if i go for D7200 body i have only 50mm with it but if i go for D7100, there will be both 50mm and kit zoom lens

 

 

You would be better off with just D7100 and a 17-50mm f2.8 lens for what you are doing.

 

 

Kent in SD

Over time and through a few digital cameras I really learned to recognize and hate the look of an AA filter on picture quality. When I had to replace my D300, I decided to bet on the D7200, which as far as I know does not have the filter where the D7100 does. My D7200 hasn't disappointed me, where I'm pretty sure the D7100 would have.

D7200, which as far as I know does not have the filter where the D7100 does

Both don't have an AA filter.

You would be better off with just D7100 and a 17-50mm f2.8 lens for what you are doing.

And even better with the D7200 and said lens. The very limited buffer of the D7100 can be a serious issue; the camera slows down significantly after 6 shots (RAW) or 9 (JPEG); when using the fastest SD cards available at least it does not fully lock up but proceeds at a much reduced frame rate.

Both don't have an AA filter.

 

And even better with the D7200 and said lens. The very limited buffer of the D7100 can be a serious issue; the camera slows down significantly after 6 shots (RAW) or 9 (JPEG); when using the fastest SD cards available at least it does not fully lock up but proceeds at a much reduced frame rate.

 

For weddings, f2.8 zoom still trumps everything else. Never ran into a buffer issue shooting weddings with D7100. I speak from experience.

 

 

Kent in SD

For weddings, f2.8 zoom still trumps everything else.

In case I wasn't clear, I agree on that one.

Never ran into a buffer issue shooting weddings with D7100. I speak from experience.

I only said that it can be an issue - and I know that it is for me and the way I shoot. In fact, I should never have purchased the D7100. For other with a different shooting style, there might not be an issue at all. Some can even shoot a wedding with a Leica M rangefinder; I know without even attempting it that I would not.<br><br>I also would not attempt to shoot a wedding with one camera and one lens only. Though I have shots events that way, but with backups at the ready.

i read all your posts and thanks to all

 

anyone using 50mm f1.8g with D7100?

or should i sale my 50mm with my D3200 and purchase a 17-50mm f2.8 instead of kit lens,

 

i never used brust on my old camera, and if i used brust it will be maximum 7-8 shoot or may b 10 shoots, so i guess buffer will be ok,

 

and one thing i read about D7100 black band on higer iso, actually my all pics capture on max 400 mostly on 100, so black band it's not an issue specially if u have f1.8 lens.

 

my 80% mind switched to D7100, lets see guys which model waiting for me

The 50mm prime is likely to be very useful; keep it.

If you're shooting raw the burst on a d3200 is just about the same as the d7100. Maybe one or two more, as it's always in 12 bit lossy compressed. I think with the fastest cards I got 8 or 9.

 

I would not worry about the banding on the d7100 for normal use. The examples I've seen were in fairly extreme conditions. With that said, it's apparently completely not an issue in the D7200, which also is visibly cleaner at higher ISO, so if your expectation is to do a lot of shooting in dark and extreme conditions, there's likely to be an advantage there. I'm quite happy with the d7100 (of course since it was, essentially, a cost-free replacement for a well worn D3200), but I'd keep in mind that if you can swing the slight difference in price, even with a little difficulty, it will likely seem smaller as time goes on. On things I kept a while, I've rarely if ever regretted going a bit over budget as much as going under.

I suggest

 

I suggest you get the 35mm f1.8 DX lens. Great lens for $200.

Again, for weddings, you need a 17-50mm f2.8 type zoom. Period. If you really aren't shooting weddings, or not doing it for money, it doesn't matter. The problem with keeping the 50mm is that would prevent you from buying an f2.8 zoom that is far, far more useful for weddings. Not even close. If not shooting weddings, doesn't matter. As for banding, I've never seen it in either of the D7100 cameras I owned and used. I typically shoot D7100 at ISO 800 and would go to ISO 2000 when needed. The D7100 is fully capable of that.

 

Kent in SD

Again, for weddings, you need a 17-50mm f2.8 type zoom. Period. If you really aren't shooting weddings, or not doing it for money, it doesn't matter. The problem with keeping the 50mm is that would prevent you from buying an f2.8 zoom that is far, far more useful for weddings. Not even close. If not shooting weddings, doesn't matter. As for banding, I've never seen it in either of the D7100 cameras I owned and used. I typically shoot D7100 at ISO 800 and would go to ISO 2000 when needed. The D7100 is fully capable of that.

 

Kent in SD

recently i saw a video tutoria, someone explained about both model at 100 ISO D7100 has more shadow detail as compare to d7200,

and on 1600 iso D7100 has black band in dark areas and D7200 fine with these,

 

so what you sat about that difference?

recently i saw a video tutoria, someone explained about both model at 100 ISO D7100 has more shadow detail as compare to d7200,

and on 1600 iso D7100 has black band in dark areas and D7200 fine with these,

 

so what you sat about that difference?

 

Shooting over a dozen weddings (maybe 15-18), and using the D7100 for hundreds of night photos and "street" photos, never once saw banding. You worry too much about stuff on internet, I think. If cost is a big consideration here, you will be better off with a less expensive camera (D7100) and a more expensive lens (17-50mm f2.8). That is generally the case anyway. The camera I use is worth maybe $1,200 on ebay but my lenses are worth $8,000. I buy the very best lenses that are available. With the money leftover, I buy a used camera. To put more money into a camera than a lens is exactly backwards.

 

 

Kent in SD

Adding to the above, I also would not put too much stock in the report of the D7200 being inferior to the 7100, and would consider the source. But if you don't need the buffer and the high ISO, I'd seriously consider looking for a used D7100, as there seem to be quite a few out there.

thanks all

decision was made, mow i have D7100 currently im using with 50mm f1.8g