D3100 v D7000

[patty_ann]

<p>I'm in the hunt for my new camera and am just torn between these two. I am an amateur with hopes of doing more. I particular, I'm in Colorado so I do a lot of landscape but I really like macro for a lot of wildflowers and such. For that I use the 200 zoom lens on a Nikon 3000. That camera isn't mine so this would be a second for the family as we both have different interests and compose differently with our photography.<br>

I also want to be able to sell my work down the road and am thinking that the d3100 would probably be the best idea. I'm thinking I could get the 3100 kit and then with the money I save from not buying the d7000 I could get a 300 zoo lens. There is an instant $200 rebate on that lens until the end of the month.<br>

So I am need of some opinions. Which would be best...should I go for the 7000 and forego the bigger zoom lens. Or get the 3100 and the zoom? I could get a dedicated macro later as I use the zoom for some macro work which seems weird. <br>

I'm also concerned with print quality. <br>

Thanks in advance for your opinions.<br>

</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>For me the deal breaker would be the lens compatibility of the D7000 over the 3100. As you may know, the D3100 will only autofocus with the newer AF-S lenses while the D7000 has the screwdriver motor to focus non-AF-S autofocus lenses also. Additionally, the D7000 will meter with older manual focus lenses, while the D3100 doesn't. In the last year or so, I've added 8 used manual focus lenses to my collection that altogether add up to less money than one 70-300 AF-S VR lens.</p>

<p>There are other differences between the two cameras, but not knowing what you intend to do with them (portraits, landscapes, sporting events, etc.) it's hard to say whether or not those differences will be an issue for you.</p>

[kettlepot]

<p>Cory nailed the big difference for me. I have a few non-AF-S lenses, so it was worth the extra money to get the D7000 (which I love, by the way).</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>That would be the deal breaker for me but it really depends on your use and needs. The D7000 also has a much better AF module and better viewfinder. I consider it most important to get a good balance between body and glass as well as a good tripod setup.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>There's no way I'd get a D7000 for "serious" photography. There are things on there you'll want (and maybe need) that you don't even know.</p>

<p>For regular old amateur family snapshot and vacation photography sure... but for anything serious, I wouldn't consider it.</p>

[elliot1]

 

<p><em>"I'm also concerned with print quality. </em>" While technically there are differences between the two cameras, under most shooting conditions it would be difficult to tell the difference when examining identical prints from both bodies. Get what you can afford. You will be thrilled with ANY Nikon DSLR you invest in.</p>

<p>True macro work requires a true macro setup of some kind. While the 70-300mm VR lens does offer quite a bit of really nice close-up ability at 300mm, it is not a true macro. So if your sole purpose of getting a lens with 300mm reach is for macro work, I would suggest you investigate other choices. There are numerous macro options that will give you the results it seems you want at a price significantly lower than the 70-300mm VR lens. (If you have the budget, get both!)</p>

 

[stank]

<p>Ever wonder why so many D3000, D5000 and now D3100 end up on the used market? </p>

[dbcooper]

<p>Starting out I'd get the D3100 and spend the rest of the budget on good glass. The D3100 is capable of delivering terrific results. You will indeed be limited to AF-S lenses, but if that's what you're buying anyway, so what?</p>

<p>If you don't know <em>why</em> you'd need a D7000 instead, you don't need one (more megapixels is not the right answer). If you have good lenses, they'll carry over when you're ready to upgrade to another DSLR body in the future. Getting good glass is more cost-effective and results-effective over time.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I have a D3100 and IQ is nothing to worry about. Its IQ is as good or better than my D90. You'd have to go to a D700 to see much improvement. I see two main issues. One is the lens issue. If you think you may want lenses that will not AF on the D3100, get the D7000. The second issue is that the two cameras are very different in size, weight, and controls. You should handle both cameras before making a decision. I bought a D3100 because it is smaller and lighter than my D90 yet has as good or better IQ. I love my D90, but size and weight are important to me. It may or may not be important to you, but as I said, you should handle both.</p>

<p>To confuse you even more, maybe you should consider a D90. It still has very good IQ, it AF's with nonmotorized lenses, and it's a lot less expensive than the D7000. You could save even more with a refurbished one. You might even be able to get one and still get a new or refurbished 70-300 VR.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<blockquote>

<p>the D7000 will meter with older manual focus lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Following up on Cory's statement, and with reference to your interest in macro photography of wildflowers, here is some macro lens information.</p>

<p><em>Manual focus macro lenses at KEH.com prices:</em><br /> 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor Ex cond. $152.00<br /> 105mm f/4 AI Micro-Nikkor Ex cond. $199.00<br /> PN-11 extension tube for 1:1 (lifesize) macro, $75.00 on Ebay.</p>

<p><em>Auto focus macro lenses at new prices:</em><br /> 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro-Nikkor $540.00<br /> 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor ED VR $476.00</p>

<p>The manual focus macro lenses will meter only with the D7000.<br /> The auto focus macro lenses will meter and auto focus with the D3100 and the D7000.</p>

<p>I own both of the manual focus Micro-Nikkors that I listed above. I use them on my Nikon film bodies, and on my Nikon crop sensor digital body, with excellent results. Using the 105mm Micro-Nikkor on a crop sensor gives an effective 157.5 mm focal length. This provides good working distance, and the ability to isolate your subject against a pleasing out-of-focus background. Your camera would need to be on a tripod.</p>

[moosekaka_lim]

<p>" In the last year or so, I've added 8 used manual focus lenses to my collection that altogether add up to less money than one 70-300 AF-S VR lens."<br>

cory, which 8 lenses are those? i got a refurbished 70-300 afd vr with nikon 90 day warranty from adorama for $350....are you saying those MF lenses cost less than $50 each on average??<br>

to OP: get better glass...they hold their value better and you can always sell them on if your needs change...now try selling your d7000 in 5-10 years and see what you get :)</p>

<p> </p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"Ever wonder why so many D3000, D5000 and now D3100 end up on the used market?"</em> The last time I looked (on eBay), there were a lot of just about EVERY type of Nikon DSLR body ever made available for sales used except perhaps the D3X. (And yes, there are even a few used D3S's for sale on eBay).</p>

[alan_bessler]

<p>Get the best glass you can afford,you will never regret it later.like it was said earlier try selling that 7000 body down the road.</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>@Moose- I was actually going by the price of a <em>new</em> 70-300 which B&H has listed at $520 for the USA version ($455 for gray market), but adding up the costs from the receipts I saved, the total comes to $343, so it's still less than your refurb model. Guess I should mention that I don't usually buy fast lenses because I don't need them for my style of photography, and all of the lenses I bought at KEH.com, with one exception, were in BGN condition because I don't mind a cosmetic blemish here and there (though most of the items I got look almost new). Here's the list:</p>

<p>28/3.5 non-AI- $43<br>

50/2 non-AI- $27<br>

55/3.5 micro AI- $79<br>

135/3.5 AI- $49<br>

200/4 AI- $69<br>

43-86/3.5 AI- $29<br>

tokina 80-200/3.5-4.5 AIS mount- $12<br>

off brand 500/8 pre-set- $35 (from eBay, a truly awful lens, the only one I regret buying)</p>

<p>With the exception of the 500, I use all of these lenses (on a D50 that doesn't meter with them, by the way) and have been quite happy with the results. However, I realize that others may have needs that these lenses would be unsuited for.</p><div></div>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<blockquote>

<p>There's no way I'd get a D7000 for "serious" photography</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Prior to FX sensors, the D2x(s) was Nikon's flagship professional DSLR (still in use today). The D300 is considered by many to have surpassed the D2x in image quality, and some aspects of shooting performance. The D300(s) remains a professional choice. The D7000 is built around a sensor that is the next generation following the D300. Shun has made enough comments on the robust build of his D7000, using it in harmony with his D300.</p>

<p>Peter, WADR, your comment on the D7000 seems vague may be confusing to the OP. I don't get it either.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>If someone can't do "serious" photography with a D7000 (or D3100) the problem is with him/her, not with the camera.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I would take a careful look at the D7000 and D3100 viewfinders and note the clarity of detail that you can observe. There is quite a considerable difference between a "pentamirror" and glass pentaprism viewfinder.</p>

<p>As to lenses, I think the 16-85 DX may be worth considering for general landscape photography on DX. A solid tripod can make a big difference in this type of photography (do not think for a second that VR can do what a tripod does). You can get a 70-300 VR for more distant subjects (I suppose this is common in mountainous places) but then there will often be image degradation over long distances due to scatter in the atmosphere (which is why I tend to stop at 135mm on FX for landscapes). I think the 60mm AF-S Micro Nikkor would be a fine choice for flower close-ups, alternatively any of a number of macro lenses can work well. I couldn't possibly give an exhaustive list but the 60mm is nice and not outrageously expensive.</p>

[vikas_kohli]

<p>@Peter - can you tell us what you mean by...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's no way I'd get a D7000 for "serious" photography. There are things on there you'll want (and maybe need) that you don't even know.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Oops.</p>

<p>I meant 3100. I would DEFINITELY get a 7000 for serious photography. My bad.</p>

[vikas_kohli]

<p>Haha.. thanks for clarifying that Peter:)</p>

[alan_sevilla]

<p>Ive used both and all i can say is that they are great bodies to start w/. theres a lot of factor like lenses (compatiblity) and for the type of shooting you will do. For travel cant beat the d3100. Its light and compact and w/ a prime attached like the 35mm you are set. The kit lens is no slouch either so instead of purchasing a fast one you can use that 1st to complement a prime lens. D3100's IQ compareable to the the d7000 and really close to the fx systems. Yeah you heard me right even the d3100 is stellar in the high iso range much better than my d90 wc I already sold when I got the d3100. The d7000 of course offers more resolution and then some (build, focusing, extra features like cls) but only thru cropping and pixel peeping youd see the diff. They are very much alike as far as output is concerned. My only gripe w/ the d3100 is once you attach a speedlight or use flash its not as snappy as a d7000. Maybe the new firmware has fixed this problem. Havent had a chance to upgrade firmware since I sold it b4 the release. B4 when I had both bodies I relegated the d3100 for daily carry and travel but for work youd still be left wanting more coz of the focusing. If work will be mostly ambient lighting the d3100 is great. For its price its hard to beat but in the end to avoid upgrading go for the better cam wc is the d7000 thats if budget wont be a problem. :)</p>

[patty_ann]

<p>Hey thanks everyone for all the helpful replies. I gave it a lot of thought as I really wanted the 7000 but ended up going with the 3100 and then was able to also get the 70-300 lens. So far I haven't used it a lot but did take it up to Breckenridge to the snow sculpture festival and got a few good shots. But what was surprising to me was how vivid a picture I took (non snow related) turned out. The red was really vibrant! Loved it.<br>

I figured that the 3100 will do a good job of helping learn this profession, maybe sell a few with my business and take lots of pics of my daughter. <br>

Although, there are many limitations, but I just don't know all them yet so it was probably a good idea to go the way I did. I'm really excited about all this. Can't wait to get a new macro lens. But it will be many months before that happens. I'm hoping that my next camera will be what you guys call professional grade (i saw a lot of disagreement about this) But you see...if I can compose well first and then find the medium that suits me best then I think then I'll be ready to get the bigger, faster and as some may say better camera.</p>