Upgrading from D7100

[belindamccune]

I am looking to add a second camera to my collection. I photograph weddings, children, families and other events. I currently have a D7100 and love it. I would like for the second camera to be an upgrade from this one. What would be the best route?

[Andrew Garrard]

Hi, and welcome.

 

If you're doing commercial shoots (which is how I'm interpreting your list of things you shoot), the advice tends to be "have a back-up". I'd suggest that having a back-up that's as similar as possible to your main camera is wise, since otherwise you'll be putting up with moved controls that'll trip you up (a main reason I never used my D700 alongside my D800e).

 

I'd say a D7200 is similar enough to a D7100 not to cause difficulty, and it has advantages (notably in buffer size and low-light focus) to be handy in some wedding/moving children situations.

 

The D7500 is faster than the D7200 and has a better meter and a flip-out touchscreen, but more controls (notably the swap of ISO/meter area) have moved, you lose the second card slot, there's no vertical grip and it won't work with fully manual lenses (if you care).

 

A D500 is even more different - I suggest you'd probably be tripping over the differences in control layout more than would be advisable (and while it's even faster and has better autofocus, the two card slots are different, and it's very much in the D300/D5 style of controls, which are not like the D7100's). Plus it's a lot more expensive.

 

On top of that, the D7500 and D500 lose a few pixels compared with the D7100/D7200 - this shouldn't matter much, but it's certainly no upgrade.

 

So with the proviso that I'd give a different answer if you weren't using your D7100 alongside it (and you probably should, for what you're mentioning), I'd say D7200.

 

The only real disclaimer I'd put on that is that if all your lenses are full-frame, something like a D750 has fairly similar handling and would give you better low light handling at the same aperture settings - but, being an FX camera, all your focal lengths would be 1.5x smaller on it. If you have DX lenses, they can only use the middle of the frame (properly), which is fairly pointless - you'd just get a low resolution equivalent to what the D7100 was giving you. However, if you've got FX lenses, the D750 would arguably make more use of them, and you'd be able to choose between two focal lengths (or ranges, for a zoom) by choosing which camera to put the lens on. That difference makes a D750 a better complement to the D7100 than a D7200, but possibly a worse backup. Choose your poison.

 

The one other concern about that is that the D750 is now one of Nikon's oldest current cameras, so it might get a replacement sooner rather than later (which would, if nothing else, drop the price). The controls of the replacement are pretty likely to follow the design introduced for the D5/D500/D7500/D850 though, so you'd have similar issues switching between bodies.

 

So: Without more information, D7200. But a D750 might be worth considering if you've got the lenses and budget for it. Either way, I'd try them both in a store if you can.

 

I hope that's a useful starting point for discussion; I'm no pro, so others may be able to give better input to the two-camera shuffle, especially from a commercial perspective.

[ShunCheung]

What kind of lenses do you have? If you are staying with DX bodies, I would get a D500 if you have the budget. If not, the D7200 is nice and is similar to the D7100.

 

If you shoot anything critical such as weddings, I would immediately reject the D7500 since it only has one (SD) memory card slot. IMO, having dual card slots so that you can capture images in the backup mode and write each image onto two cards is critical. I like the D500 since it has an XQD slot and XQD is the better, more mature memory card technology.

[Hector Javkin]

D7200. It has an improved sensor and buffer, and controls quite similar to those of the D7100.

[DavidTriplett]

For an upgrade, go to the D7200, for all the reasons mentioned above. For a low-cost, high value backup, why not another D7100? My understanding (from the comments of others) is that there really isn't that much difference between D7100 and D7200. But, it can be hard to justify a major investment in such an old model. Good luck!

[belindamccune]

Hi, and welcome.

 

If you're doing commercial shoots (which is how I'm interpreting your list of things you shoot), the advice tends to be "have a back-up". I'd suggest that having a back-up that's as similar as possible to your main camera is wise, since otherwise you'll be putting up with moved controls that'll trip you up (a main reason I never used my D700 alongside my D800e).

 

I'd say a D7200 is similar enough to a D7100 not to cause difficulty, and it has advantages (notably in buffer size and low-light focus) to be handy in some wedding/moving children situations.

 

The D7500 is faster than the D7200 and has a better meter and a flip-out touchscreen, but more controls (notably the swap of ISO/meter area) have moved, you lose the second card slot, there's no vertical grip and it won't work with fully manual lenses (if you care).

 

A D500 is even more different - I suggest you'd probably be tripping over the differences in control layout more than would be advisable (and while it's even faster and has better autofocus, the two card slots are different, and it's very much in the D300/D5 style of controls, which are not like the D7100's). Plus it's a lot more expensive.

 

On top of that, the D7500 and D500 lose a few pixels compared with the D7100/D7200 - this shouldn't matter much, but it's certainly no upgrade.

 

So with the proviso that I'd give a different answer if you weren't using your D7100 alongside it (and you probably should, for what you're mentioning), I'd say D7200.

 

The only real disclaimer I'd put on that is that if all your lenses are full-frame, something like a D750 has fairly similar handling and would give you better low light handling at the same aperture settings - but, being an FX camera, all your focal lengths would be 1.5x smaller on it. If you have DX lenses, they can only use the middle of the frame (properly), which is fairly pointless - you'd just get a low resolution equivalent to what the D7100 was giving you. However, if you've got FX lenses, the D750 would arguably make more use of them, and you'd be able to choose between two focal lengths (or ranges, for a zoom) by choosing which camera to put the lens on. That difference makes a D750 a better complement to the D7100 than a D7200, but possibly a worse backup. Choose your poison.

 

The one other concern about that is that the D750 is now one of Nikon's oldest current cameras, so it might get a replacement sooner rather than later (which would, if nothing else, drop the price). The controls of the replacement are pretty likely to follow the design introduced for the D5/D500/D7500/D850 though, so you'd have similar issues switching between bodies.

 

So: Without more information, D7200. But a D750 might be worth considering if you've got the lenses and budget for it. Either way, I'd try them both in a store if you can.

 

I hope that's a useful starting point for discussion; I'm no pro, so others may be able to give better input to the two-camera shuffle, especially from a commercial perspective.

 

My backup right now is my older D80, which still works great but I would like to upgrade. I love my D7100. The D80 is only used for backup or as a second camera if needed, but not as good as the D7100. My dad is my backup photographer and he uses the backup camera while I have the primary camera. My lenses are just the normal ones. I haven't bought any special ones except a telephoto. Since I'm not doing this full time, I haven't got into the different lenses. Thanks for your time and information!

[belindamccune]

Thanks for all the good and helpful comments! Decisions decisions!!!

[Andrew Garrard]

Glad to help, Belinda (I assume?)

 

Just to clarify the disparity with Shun's comment: The D500 is the better (more capable) camera - if you were asking for a single camera upgrade, I'd do that. But in the context of needing a backup, and possibly needing to have different lenses on different bodies, I'd stand by my "similarity" argument.

 

The D7200 handles very like the D7100, but it has a bigger buffer (if you've ever hit that) and a number of minor improvements (including image quality), but nothing radical. The buffer is probably the big one, and it was the biggest problem reported with the D7100; then again, you did say you were looking for an upgrade...

 

It looks (after a quick hunt on B&H) like the price premium for the D7200 over a D7100 is about $200. Up to you whether you feel that's worth it; there's nothing wrong with a second D7100. As Shun says, I'd be concerned about a D7500 for your needs; the D500 is a lot more money (for, admittedly, a lot more camera) and you need to start looking into XQD cards, flashes (if you don't have them), etc.

 

In your position, not that I claim any expertise of it, I'd probably go D7200 and think about some lens upgrades, if you're still using the kit lenses (variable aperture zooms?) If your style of shooting never hits the buffer limits, maybe saving the money and getting a second D7100 would be wiser. Not that it matters much if your clients are happy and you're getting the shots you need. We try not to encourage people to spend unnecessary money on this forum, however fun it is to exercise our Nikon Acquisition Syndrome vicariously.

 

Best of luck!

[Matthew Currie]

I have a D7100 and my wife a D7200, and there's little difference between them, and under most circumstances they are nearly the same. If you need the buffer, it's nice to have. It's just enough better, especially in 14 bit Raw, to make a difference for wild life and action. If you're not pushing the ISO up, you probably will not notice any difference in image quality, including the issue of low light banding which one rarely actually encounters, and if you're not shooting wildlife you probably will not need the restored function of trap focusing which was disabled on the D7100 and re-enabled on the D7200. But the differences are there, and though minor they're real. I'd be inclined, if you can afford the difference, to go with the D7200, as the upgrade includes some gain but no loss.

 

In my case, my wife replaced her D7100 with a D7200 (buffer frustration), and I got her D7100 to replace my D3200 (noise frustration mostly). We are both happy with the result, and when we go traveling our resulting images are largely similar in quality. Both will do well, but there have been a few times when I've envied her the extra bit of high ISO and the bigger buffer. Whether that is an issue for you may depend on whether you're shooting people or monkeys and whales.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I'd stand by my "similarity" argument.

Since Nikon rarely, if ever, not make any changes in the UI, the only totally safe bet is to have two identical models serve as primary and backup. But since the OP asks for an upgrade over her D7100 and with her not having any FX glass to begin with (excluding FX as an option), the only upgrade (albeit small) would be the D7200.

 

immediately reject the D7500 since it only has one (SD) memory card slot

That decision by Nikon appears to turn away a lot of potential buyers. It was the one (missing) feature that had a friend of mine select the D7200 over the D7500.

[ShunCheung]

I have both the D7100 and D7200. It is well known that the D7100 has a shallow RAW buffer, but that is unlikely an issue for wedding and party photography. The D7200 is definitely an improvement concerning the buffer. However, the D7200 also has better high-ISO results, and that can be important for wedding photography. But of course I would use FX for low-light situations.

 

The D7100 and D7200 were designed to be the top-of-the-line DX bodies when Nikon was pushing higher-end users to FX, which they are still doing. Therefore the D7000, D7100, and D7200 all have dual SD card slots. However, a couple of years ago Nikon made a U-turn and introduced the D500 as their top DX body in January 2016, and the D7500 is now the 2nd-tire DX body. If you want the best DX body today, you get the D500 with dual memory cards. The D7500 is now squeezed between the D500 and D5x00 series and is more geared towards consumers, hence it has only one SD slot.

[Andrew Garrard]

> It is well known that the D7100 has a shallow RAW buffer, but that is unlikely an issue for wedding and party photography

 

Is it? I'll trust that Belinda knows how often she hits the buffer, but I've run out of buffer space quite often at friends' weddings with D700/D800/D810 - usually during the dancing (if there's some kind of cèilidh going on or during the first dance) or if people are throwing confetti. Having run out of other SD cards I had an Eye-Fi in my D810 at one point, and it took the best part of a minute to empty the buffer during dancing (it's "only" class 10). 90% of the time it doesn't matter, and for someone being selective with shots and good with timing it may not matter at all, but I'd rather have the flexibility in that position.

 

On the other hand, in low light, a step up from the kit lens will do wonders, which advocates some economy!

 

And yes, the D500 is the new high end DX with the "differentiated" D7500. But the two slots you get with the D500 aren't the same as the two you get with a D7100 or D7200, which complicates things. (XQD is nice, but not if you're trying to share cards between cameras; arguably the same is true for UHS-II SD cards. I'm expecting to ditch a load of flash storage when I upgrade my D810.)

[ShunCheung]

>

Is it? I'll trust that Belinda knows how often she hits the buffer, but I've run out of buffer space quite often at friends' weddings with D700/D800/D810 - usually during the dancing (if there's some kind of cèilidh going on or during the first dance) or if people are throwing confetti. Having run out of other SD cards I had an Eye-Fi in my D810 at one point, and it took the best part of a minute to empty the buffer during dancing (it's "only" class 10). 90% of the time it doesn't matter, and for someone being selective with shots and good with timing it may not matter at all, but I'd rather have the flexibility in that position.

Andrew, IMO the actual problem is your shooting style and the type of (slow) cards you use. :)

 

(XQD is nice, but not if you're trying to share cards between cameras

You own the wrong cameras. I see no issue sharing cards among the D4, D4S, D5 (XQD version), D500, and D850. IMO XQD is the way to go now. Unfortunately, it is probably too big for the small cameras a lot of people prefer.

[brianbishop]

I just upgraded. I went to a used d600. You will really benefit with being able to use a higher iso. The controls are very similar to my d7100. I would look into a full frame set up if I were you.

[Andrew Garrard]

> Andrew, IMO the actual problem is your shooting style

 

'tis always the way. *Sigh*.

 

> and the type of (slow) cards you use.

 

I'm trying. I have the fastest (UHS-I) SD cards and fastest CF cards I could find. I just ran out of them on this occasion, and the Eye-Fi was all I had left.

 

> You own the wrong cameras. I see no issue sharing cards among the D4, D4S, D5 (XQD version), D500, and D850.

 

Cool. Buy me all of them? :-) (I'll go D850 in a few months...)

 

> IMO XQD is the way to go now. Unfortunately, it is probably too big for the small cameras a lot of people prefer.

 

I've not had any XQD issues when I hired a D500, so for the future, at least given that there doesn't seem to be a compatible upgrade path, I'm not going to argue. I'm just glad we're not yet all using UHS-II micro-SD. Although my Lexar card reader is the only one I've got that works properly; possibly I should get a UHS-II/XQD reader before all Lexar products disappear from the stores (if I'm not too late).

 

> I just upgraded. I went to a used d600. You will really benefit with being able to use a higher iso. The controls are very similar to my d7100. I would look into a full frame set up if I were you.

 

Brian: a D600 has slower maximum shutter speed, slower flash sync speed, is marginally slower at maximum shooting rate, has worse battery life, worse video (no 1080p60), and most importantly a significant step back in autofocus compared with a D7100. The D610 is only marginally better. Not that it's in any way a bad camera, and full frame does have some advantages, but in quite a lot of ways it's not really an "upgrade" - the D600 is more of an upscaled D7000, and the D7100 was quite a step forward.

 

A D750 has (slightly) better-than-D7100 autofocus and better-than-D610 low light performance. If going to FX is an option, I'd strongly suggest the D750 (except that it'll probably soon be replaced). But it sounds as though there'd also be a lens investment in doing so (if the existing cameras have DX kit lenses), so it depends how much Belinda wants to spend! (Two D850s and a set of f/2.8 zooms are probably where this conversation will end up.)

[heimbrandt]

Andrew, is not the D750 limited to the same shutter top speed and X sync speed as the D6X0? Many said the D600 was the intended upgrade path from the D7000 and I fully understand that and would say the D6X0 is a viable upgrade path even from the D7100. I would say it depends on how you frame your images and your shooting style if the AF sensor coverage area is a real life concern. I do not find it to be so for me on my D610 and the horses I shoot move faster than most wedding party attendants I have shot.

 

I have shot many weddings with a Pentax 67 and I would value the larger sensor and better high ISO performance of FX far more for weddings than the marginal difference in shutter speeds (for which you need the D8X0) and AF. But then I do not know what lenses the OP use, so perhaps a D7200 is the best upgrade.

[Two23]

I used to shoot weddings with a pair of D7100 and had no issues. My suggestion for you is a used D7200, not a D7500 since it doesn't have 2nd card capability. Weddings are all about back-up. The lenses you need, as a minimum, are a 17-50mm f2.8 (I think the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS is the best) and a 70-200mm f2.8. An f2.8 is the slowest I would ever consider for weddings. Something like a Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Nikon 35mm f1.8g would be great as a back-up or extreme low light lens too. If you go to an FX camera you will gain a stop of ISO, but you're going to quickly discover how much lenses will cost. I currently have over $6,000 in FX lenses, all state of art.

 

 

Kent in SD

Edited September 16, 2017 by Two23

[ben_hutcherson]

t you're going to quickly discover how much lenses will cost. I currently have over $6,000 in FX lenses, all state of art.

There's nothing that says you have to have "state of the art" either.

 

Nikon has been making lenses that will cover an FX frame since 1959, although of course things can get complicated with pre-77 lenses. Still, even first generation AF lenses are fully compatible with all FX bodies.

 

In many cases newer lenses are better, but that's not universally true. AF-S lenses do often focus faster than comparable AF or AF-D lenses, but good bodies can usually focus smaller/lighter AF/AF-D lenses pretty darn quickly. Even relative monsters like my 80-200 2.8D are not terrible on my D800(although that particular lens is loud).

[Two23]

I would not go cheap on lenses that are used for weddings. Or lighting. Weddings are a one time deal and can't be done over.

 

 

Kent in SD

[ben_hutcherson]

I would not use low quality equipment, but low price doesn't mean that you're getting low quality.

 

The 50mm 1.8D is a good example-you can buy two of them in good, lightly used condition for less than cost of a 50mm 1.8G. Is the G version going to be twice as reliable as the D version? Yes, it does have some advantages(full time manual focus over-ride) but optically you'd be hard pressed to see a difference. Aside from that, between the AF and AF-D version, you have probably 25 years that the same basic design was still current and used every day by wedding photographers and the like.

[Two23]

I've never found 50mm focal length on DX to be very useful for weddings. A 35mm f1.8G DX is inexpensive and good, but again I would have something like that only for a back up, not as a main lens.

 

 

Kent in SD

[Dieter Schaefer]

I've never found 50mm focal length on DX to be very useful for weddings.

Wouldn't then the Sigma 18-35/1.8 be a better choice than the 17-50/2.8 that you recommend? How useful is OS for weddings?

[ben_hutcherson]

I've never found 50mm focal length on DX to be very useful for weddings. A 35mm f1.8G DX is inexpensive and good, but again I would have something like that only for a back up, not as a main lens.

 

 

Kent in SD

 

 

Your comment was on "state of the art" FX lenses and their cost, not DX lenses. I was merely commenting that you don't need to buy "state of the art" to get good quality FX lenses.

[mike_halliwell]

Like many others, I'd go D7200 for all the reasons mentioned. I still have my D7200 even though I have a D500 now too. I use the D7200 as a walk around 'tourist' camera and sometimes use the pop-up flash. The D500 is for fast sports etc where the improved AF is important.

 

The Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 and the 50-100mm 1.8 are both superb DX lenses. But the focal range 'gap' between the 2 could be important for your type of shooting.

 

Neither are cheap, but the money saved with buying a 2nd hand D7200 rather than a new D7500 or D500 is considerable.

 

I wonder if Sigma is working on a 30-60mm 1.8?

 

If you have 2 (near) identical bodies, I guess you could use both at the same time with one of those twin harness thingies, and not miss too many shots and still be able to use very fast f1.8 lenses.

Edited September 18, 2017 by mike_halliwell

[Andrew Garrard]

> Andrew, is not the D750 limited to the same shutter top speed and X sync speed as the D6X0?

 

It is, but it does have the better autofocus - and the autofocus behaves better in low light. In some ways, the D750 is a downgrade from a D7100, and flash sync is one of them. I was just pointing out that the 600 is a downgrade is lots of ways; to get the flash sync back in FX you need a D8x0 or D4/D5. I've never shot a wedding with the D7000/D600-class autofocus; I may be over-stating the concern, but I'd rather have the better system. I agree an FX body has merits (which is why I shoot them) - but since Belinda says she "just has the normal lenses" I'm assuming there would be a big investment there too

 

[50mm f/1.8]

> Is the G version going to be twice as reliable as the D version? Yes, it does have some advantages(full time manual focus over-ride) but optically you'd be hard pressed to see a difference.

 

Well... I have a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D. I got my D800 and wanted to check it for the off-centre-AF issue. I tried to focus off-centre with the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D wide open, and I couldn't see a thing because it was so soft. So I bought the AF-S. It's not brilliant - but it's appreciably better at wider (f/1.8-f/2) apertures (the AF-D is very good stopped down even to f/2.8 - its corners sharpen up faster than the AF-S) and has better bokeh; it's clearly different optically. I still have the AF-D because it's substantially smaller; I also have an E-series for the same reason. And I have a Sigma ART for better quality if I can get focus to hit. On a DX body, I'd lean even more to the AF-S - and of course it's compatible with bodies without AF motors. I should probably also mention the 50mm Sigma f/1.4 HSM as a DX lens - it's discontinued and not as good as the Art, but its weakness is mostly in the corners of FX, and it's a lovely DX lens.