D7100

[marypar4]

<p>So I got the D7100 too..<br /> I must say I was very excited to upgrade to this new model. I hoped for quicker focusing..somewhat better image quality, better ergonomics, 1.3 cropped sensor for better reach,and better ISO capabilties. I presently own the D7000 so I have a good camera in which to compare results. After spending the day shooting birds, tress, ocean, indoors, babies etc I can honestly say I do not see a signifcant difference. I own some decent lenses but certainly not the top of the line Nikons. I have wonderful results with the D7000 with the lenses in my bag.<br /> SO my conclusion is, I am sure this is a great camera...BUT you will need to upgrade your lenses in order to get optimum results. The only area in which I noticed <em>some</em> significant difference was in the auto focus. If you are a birder,sports shooter,etc you are sure to see some improvement but not $1200 worth. Going from 39 points to 51 is not that significant IMHO. The D7000 is very adequate and I do very nicely with 39 points.<br /> I write this in order to warn those who have the D7000..don't expect miracles. If you are expecting great ISO capabities you will be disappointed. Noise shows up after 2500 so basically you are getting one stop over the D7000. If you were looking for a bigger camera with a better grip..not there yet. IF you were looking for lightening speed (fps) not happening. If you thought 24 mp was going to make your images shine..not so. If you think the extra crop factor matters ..very little. Take you money and put it into quality lenses. As SHun stated when the D7000 came out..cameras are starting to outrelsove our lenses..which is probably what the manufacturers have in their master plan. Buyer beware!</p>

[johnw63]

<p>I've been out of the daily loop on new cameras, due to a family issue, but, with my casual reading I had assumed the D7100 was an improved D7000, not a huge jump. More focusing points and a few other small changes, but that was about it. It's a good replacement in the Nikon line, but not a camera you need if you already have the D7000. Your experience seems to show that. </p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the biggest improvement other than added MP seems to be the AF module, which is a big deal for wildlife/sports shooters. but, good to know that for the majority of folks out there, a d7000 is all the camera they need. i doubt nikon will continue to sell it forever, however.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>This is why when I upgrade, I basically skip at least one generation every time.</p>

<p>I'm still rockin my D90 for as long as I can keep it shooting.</p>

[Two23]

<p>How useful ANY camera gear is depends on what you do with it. If you mostly shoot portraits or landscapes, rarely print larger than 11x14, and already have a D7000, then the upgrades on the D7100 don't have a lot of utility for you. If you photo sports, wildlife, or weddings then the noticeably improved AF system becomes a factor. If you shoot wildlife and crop a lot, or print larger than 16x20, then the 24mp vs. 16mp become a consideration. My other two cameras are a D300 and a D5100. What I got was 24mp, clean shooting at ISO 2000, sync at 1/250s, faster AF, reliable AF in dim conditions, beefed up weather sealing and a second thumb wheel (D5100 has one.) All of this is proving useful for me. I passed on buying the D7000 because the D5100 used the same sensor and (I think) same AF. The D7100 changed the equation just enough. The D7100 just might be Nikon's second best wildlife camera, second to the D4. It also fixed some of the weaker areas of the D7000 to make it a good choice for a part time wedding photographer.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"</em><em>don't expect miracles"</em> what miracles were you expecting?<br>

<br>

For many, the improved AF will be worth the purchase/upgrade alone.</p>

[marypar4]

I will also add that the body is cheaper feeling odd plastic feel to it compared to d7000. Also the shutter is quite mushy

but if you use af on button the shutter becomes more responsive. ..go figure! Did some indoor shots last night with no

flash and the ISO looking useable at 6400 which is encouraging! The shutter is loud and almost annoying compared to

d7000. I hate to say it but it is starting to sound like a Canon which sounds horrible to me. These things are not that

important BUT if you are a person who it hard on your equipment beware this camera is not pro built at all. I think Nikon

has something up their sleeves and I smell a D400 on the horizon with better buffer, built in wifi, gps and 9 fps...anyone

want to wagger a bet? The miracles I expected were in the image quality and I see no noticable difference from the d7000.

[Two23]

<p>I've had the D7100 out in some very tough winter conditions the past few days, and nothing seems to bother it. It's certainly not fragile, even at temps near zero F. As for pro build, I've had a change of heart over the years on that. I'd rather have two cheaper cameras than one expensive one. If the expensive one breaks it's going to cost a ton of money to fix anyway. With two cheaper cameras I'm still going to lose if one breaks, but I can simply pull the second one out and keep shooting.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[marypar4]

I am comparing it to the D7000 which feels like a little tank and very solid. This one has a cheap feel more like low end

Nikon. It certainly will not effect the image quality for sure or anything else other that if you drop it. I am certain it will

break all the cheap plastic which surround the body I have dropped my D7000 on a tile floor and nothing happened to it.

[ShunCheung]

<p>As far as I can tell, the D7000 and D7100 have similar construction. I have handled both cameras, although I am, of course, a lot more familiar with the D7000 since I have had one since it first went for sale 2.5 years ago. When I had our NDA conference call with Nikon USA prior to the official announcement of the D7100, they emphasised that the D7100 has the same type of weather sealing as the D300/D300S.</p>

<p>The way Nikon positions the D7100 is part of the reason why I don't think there will ever be a "successor" to the D300/D300S.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Informal tests such as these, in which the lenses used aren't listed and the results are neither shown as images nor quantified, are not very useful. I agree with Elliot that for many of us, the improved AF alone is worthwhile. In low light, when flash is not permitted, I often use an SU800 flash commander on my D7000 for focus assist. (It's both more effective and less annoying than the focus assist lamp on the body.) It would be easier not to have to use the SU800. That said, I haven't yet decided on upgrading one or both of my D7000 bodies.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I kind of doubt that you'll find any huge improvements from the Multi-CAM 4800 (D7000, D600) to the Multi-CAM 3500 (D3, D4, D300, D700, D800, D7100). It is a bit better to have 51 AF points and especially 15 cross type vs. 9, but the D7000 and D600 also have very good AF.</p>

<p>Coming from the D300 and D700, when I first bought my D7000, I tested its AF very thoughly before I decided that it would be my DX body of choice in late 2010, and my D300 has been the backup ever since.</p>

[thomas_lozinski]

<p>Mary, That's exciting that you got the D7100. I hope you'll let me try it out at some point. The buffer is the deal killer for me but the new AF module is really interesting. </p>

[szrimaging]

<p>The buffer is troublesome, but I think for me the AF and video modes make the upgrade worth it. That said, I don't need to upgrade until next winter when I need the fast AF...</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Mary, Thanks for starting this thread. And thanks too to the respondents for their insights. Since the D7000 is on my radar screen the above discussion is valuable to me, both the Pro's and the Con's. I'll now be looking for threads which point to the lenses which WILL do this camera's sensor (or the D7100's) justice. Best, LM.</p>

[marypar4]

<p>I did not post pics because as I stated earlier this cameras image quailty is virtually the same as the D7000. Why bore folks with squirrels and babies as I find that useless as many folks don't calibrate their monitors and now we are off on some other meanless tangent. THe man reason for my upgrade is better autofocus and improved ISO and megapixels for cropping which I got for my $600. I sold my D7000 as I do not need two bodies. I have a D90 with enough life in it to keep me secure in case of catastrophy. I think my assessment is pretty much on the money. A moderate upgrade similiar to D300 to D300s nice little features but IMHO if you already have a D7000 perhaps wait for the next one which is sure to have some more goodies..like wifi and gps built into body. I happened to have a friend who wanted my D7000 and I had a nice check from IRS so I treated myself to a new toy. I thought this was all about who has the best toys!</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>....as I find that useless as many folks don't calibrate their monitors...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's always the case, so this way one can never post a picture ;-)</p>

<p>Personally, if I read your assessment correctly: the D7100 is about a stop better at high ISO. I really cannot understand what one could be disappointed about. Sounds like a another nice step forward again - usable ISO3200 on a 24MP APS-C sensor.... pretty impressive! Maybe it's me, but the OP sounds quite negative, while all in all, that D7100 sounds a good, well-rounded camera (with too small a buffer, which was clear from the start). Maybe not a massive upgrade from the D7000, but I think it was never meant to be that.</p>

[marypar4]

<p>I am a realist..not at all negative and my message is... be realist about your expectations if you are upgrading from a D7000. I bought this camera and I am keeping it. Some owners of a D7000, which I stated in my asessment, will not be overly wowed as much as the owner of a d60 or d80. Thats it in a nutshell. I look for small impovements which I certainly got with this upgrade. As far as posting images, I have seen images from D4 which I would have thrown in the recycle bin..lol and those taken with a D3100 which are spectacular so to me its all about the photograher and his ability to get the most out of his equipment and his software. If someone posts a inferior image taken with a d7100, who does that serve..certainly not Nikon. Folks can go to their web site and look pics at the new D7100 image files. or to Flickr to the D7100 club.</p>

[richard_miller5]

<p>Mine was delivered yesterday. I upgraded from a d90 so this is a large upgrade for me, due to previous committments I have only shot 20-30 shots. What I like and why I upgraded<br>

1. dual media slots, much quiter shutter<br>

2. much improved ISO over the D90<br>

3. The user defined settings on U! and U2...<br>

4. Over all superior white balance.<br>

5. I couldn't justify upgrading to the 7000 and waited for the next version.. I too skip upgrades. <br>

disappointments: the 1.3x crop after looking at the two captures i used it on... its something i want use much...<br>

So once I knock out my 1040 today... i will crank it up and take it out for a drive. </p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>I have only had the D7100 for a day and used it this morning while monitoring a local eagle nest. The differences I have noticed compared to the D7000 is how fast it focuses. One issue I had with the D7000 is that it didn't pair very well with my 600mm lens as far as focus, especially at a distance. I was eventually able to get decent results using Fine Tune Focus, but my results so far with the D7100 and that lens has been very good out of the box. I would describe the shutter as very crisp, but shutter feel and sound is personal. The focus alone has been worth the upgrade for me.</p>

[pge]

<p>Many of us are still back in 2005 when each new camera blew away the camera before. Ipods were the same, phones too. Things are different now.<br /> <br />Sometimes you have to have a camera for a while to truly appreciate it. Many improvements are subtle and only reveal themselves over time. Try going back to your D7000 in a few weeks, you might feel different about it then.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>1. dual media slots, much quiter shutter<br /> 2. much improved ISO over the D90<br /> 3. The user defined settings on U! and U2...<br /> 4. Over all superior white balance.<br /> 5. I couldn't justify upgrading to the 7000 and waited for the next version.. I too skip upgrades.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Essentially 1 to 4 are already available on the D7000. 5 is not applicable to the D7000, and you can debate how much the D7000 is better than the D90 concerning 2 and 4.</p>

[marypar4]

<p>Upgrade from D90 will be huge. Shutter souinds loud and clunky to me so maybe I will check one at my local camera store to see if it is different then mine; went out today briefly and seeing some great detail in birds..I agree the crop factor is a disappointment..not really even seeing a significant difference except camera shoots at 7fps so may be useful at some point. Being able to bump up ISO is a nice feature for action..yippy I am starting to fall in love...lol. Now I need a great quality midrange zoom to replace my 18-105.</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>About 3 months ago I read an article which compared basic jpeg output images of the D90, D300 and D7000. I stress this was using the basic P mode and no fine tuning of shooting settings. I was interested in this because it simulates what a big proportion of shooters do. Setting up picture controls etc is hard for a lot of people.</p>

<p>The results were 1. D90 2. D7000 3. D300<br>

So with used D90 prices down in the $3-400 range, that's good buying I think. If you look at used prices for the other two, $500 for an D300 and $7-800 (still new) for the D7000, there is some good buying out there</p>

[virginia_john_mybusiness]

<p>Mary, my new best friend. I want to sincerely thank you for the $1200 you have saved me!</p>