tony_demonte

<p>I have a weird problem with my sigma 10-20mm lens with the D7100 also. In live view, when I try to focus, it won't focus and gets stuck at close focus. so everything is out of focus. only in live view though. the lens works great with a lot of different settings when focusing through the view finder. it's not a big deal, but still weird.</p>

<p>happy to get an update on this, Mary. I thought my D7100 sounds pretty close to the D7000. So, I wasn't to concerned with my copy.</p>

<p>I did some comparison tests with different cards. the extreme pro is twice as fast as others that I tried. def a great choice in card. </p>

<p>look at the prices. $900 for the D7000. so almost $1000 after taxes. $1200 for the D7100. almost $1300 after taxes. so, $300 difference between the two. I, myself feel like $300 is worth it to get the newer camera. the D7100 is an all-around better camera with the latest technology from nikon. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the nikon 16-85mm. great lens. nice and sharp throughout. I was going to get the sigma 17-50mm and of course read and watch numerous reviews online. from what I gathered, although a fine lens (sigma), the sharpness drop-off from the center to the edges was so much. sharp in the center. not sharp at all on the edges. the Nikon performed better throughout the frame I thought. you could easily find a nikon 16-85mm on CL for under 400 cash.</p>

<p>I have never had a problem buying used gear before. knock on wood for the next time. I don't see a problem with buying used because I know what the new price is compared to what you can buy it for used.</p>

<p>I like keh. like everyone on here has said, very reliable. I also like CL for the convenience of just meeting up with someone and making a deal. be careful with CL though. check serial numbers if possible. I usually do. </p>

<p>used = saving money for another lens or just a rainy day. </p>

 

<p>9 fps would be awesome. I wish the d7100 was 8 fps, but 6 is still sufficient.</p>

<p>The "D400" will be coming out soon enough. maybe the end of this year or early next year. Nikon will always be bringing out new dslr cameras. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I see what you mean by the auto white balance, Mary. I did some testing and found that M1 gave it a warmer feel to the picture.</p>

<p>I took the plunge and got myself a D7100. shame on me, I know, I know. anyway, I shoot a lot of action photography (BIF, sports, ext) and what it came down to was the AF system. I went in and tested the D7100 AF systems and found the D7100 to be quite a bit faster. having used the D7000 everyday, I noticed right away the difference in the AF. my D7000 would hunt for focus for the first few frames/shots and then get the focus right on. while shooting the D7100 (@ the bolsa chica wetlands), it would engage and pick up on the subject (birds) within 1 or sometimes 0 frames. It was amazing, it put a big smile on my face. In low light situations, I was pretty amazed by how fast and accurate the D7100 performed. yes, the "crop mode" is a little funky, but I was able to get some nice BIF shots. plus, my lenses like the 50mm 1.8g are now even more of a portrait lens. my 70-300mm VR lens performed flawlessly with the D7100. for me, the D7100 is a great wildlife and sports camera. action photography is a big part of what I like to shoot, so, it fits perfect for me. </p>

<p>to me, the AF was well worth the upgrade because of what I love to shoot. ISO performance is better. I hated shooting above 1600 with the D7000, even at 1600 was a little iffy for me. but I feel very confident at 1600 and even up to 6400. </p>

<p>people upgrade or not for different reasons. I wanted to go up to FX, but the money.....it just scares me. lol. DX just fits my preferences more which is wildlife and sports photgraphy. </p>

<p>NAS....what are you going to do? can't help it. haha.</p>

<p>looks good, Kent. The cropped picture looks pretty darn good considering how much you actually cropped the picture and the fact that the train is moving at 40 mph and it's at night and it's 1600 ISO. very exciting stuff with this D7100. </p>

<p>seems like a lot of places only received the body w/kit lens box today. by early next week, most every place should have at least their pre-orders delivered.</p>

<p>from what I am reading online all day today, it seems like the D7100 is outperforming the D7000 in every way.</p>

<p>how is the ISO performance between the D7000 and D7100?</p>

<p>A better zoom than the 18-105mm would be the nikon 16-85mm. it's actually a lot better from my experiences. it's not the fastest, but takes great pictures for what it is. it's a fantastic walk around lens. you get the wide 16mm (ok, not super wide, but wide enough) and the 85mm is long enough. skip the 18-105mm lens unless you can find it for really cheap. like 100, then it's a steal. but, that would never happen. lol</p>

<p>lots of people will probably tell you to go with the f2.8 zoom lens. 17-50mm from tamron or sigma. nikon has the 17-55mm but for $1400. sigma and tamron has theirs listed for about $500-600.</p>

<p>as for primes. the nikon 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 are both listed anywhere for $200 each. these are fantastic prime lenses for the money. the 35mm is equivalent to a 52mm with the DX crop. so, the 35mm is your walk around lens. the 50mm would be a short telephoto portrait lens. the bokeh is really nice on both of course. </p>

<p>for good portrait, look into the 85mm or the 105mm, both from nikon. the 105mm is a macro lens. so, that's nice to have. </p>

<p>I have the 70-300mm VR G lens from nikon which I love to use for sports/wildlife photography. again, not the fastest lens, but with good light outside, a great lens for the money. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>and one more from Rome.....the Spanish steps</p><div></div>

<p>Rome! a fun trip with some great pictures.</p><div></div>

<p>I can not see the D7100 being worse than the D7000. without solid hands on evidence, we can not judge this camera just yet. it's only a couple of days till the release date. wait for the next day and hopefully we will have a dozen reviews to go off of.</p>

<p>well, I would hope and assume they would get the best picture they could get out of the D7000. I don't believe they would take an out of focused picture and use it to compare to the D7100.</p>

<p>maybe they only took one picture each and they just happen to take an out of focused picture with the D7000? I don't know, but, when I use my D7000 w/the 16-85mm lens, I do get some great photos. </p>

 

<p>wow! that picture of the turquoise rooftop comparing the 16-85mm on the D7000 and D7100 is much better on the D7100. seems to me the D7100 is going to be quite a bit sharper because of no low-pass filter. I can't wait for more head to head comparisons come out.</p>

<p>I like the way option 2 looks.</p>

<p>seems like you answered your own question at the end. if you had a 70-200, where would you put it? myself...I would opt for the lens and just take the extra 20 seconds to change lenses. but, I am usually in no rush to change a lens. I would love to have the 70-200 f/4. if you need to change lenses quick because you're at an event (wedding, gig, ext.) then a second body would be very helpful to get that certain shoot you need to get before the window of opportunity goes away. I would go with the lens and save up for a D7000 which would be very easy to get used for 700 or new for 900. just a thought</p>

<p>maybe get both? lol</p>

<p>I would say that the D7000 is a fantastic camera and not worry about an "upgrade" to the D7100. I went over the facts between the D7100 and D7000 and sure, the D7100 is a nice improvement over the D7000. is it worth the extra 600 dollars (sell the D7000 for 700ish used plus 600 cash to buy a new D7100)?? that's up to you. I went over the math and my personal needs and figured a nice upgrade in a lens would do me much more. so, I sold my 50 1.8d for 100 and bought the 50 1.8g. must say, THAT was well worth the extra 100 cash. super sharp at 1.8 when the 50/1.8d was not sharp until 2.8.</p>

<p>I believe there is enough evidence out there on the web that proves that a crappy camera with an expensive lens will out perform an expensive camera with a crappy lens. I've done it when I still had my D60. not that the D60 was crappy. anyway, I used to think that an expensive camera was what I needed when the truth was that nice glass is the much better investment. a D7000 just 9 months ago was $1100. now it's $900 brand freakin new. and used you can find one for $650. geez!! I bought my 50mm 1.8d for $130 years ago and just sold it for $100. only a 30 dollar difference for years of usage. not a bad investment. </p>

<p>since you asked about DX/FX....it depends on many factors. a big one of course is money. I have already made up my mind that my next camera will be a FX. it probably won't be for years, but, that's the next step for me. I already have invested in FX lenses. the only DX lenses I have are the 35mm 1.8g and 16-85mm. everything else is FX. so, lenses are not a worry. also keep in mind why you want to go to FX or stay with DX?? always ask yourself questions about 'why do this or that?' why move up to FX? make a list of pros and cons. do whatever you need to help make an easier decision. </p>

<p>also took this photo. cracks me up every time. lol</p><div></div>

<p>a friends cat.</p><div></div>

<p>from what I have read on here and other sites, it doesn't seem like it is worth the 500-600 cash to upgrade from my D7000. the expeed 3, 51-point afs, the extra 1.3x crop, and some other things sound great, but, for what I shoot, not worth it. maybe the best bet is to slowly phase out my DX lenses (35mm, 16-85mm, 10-24mm) and eventually move up to FX. that sounds like a good plan.</p>

<p>worth the upgrade from a D7000? or wait another year or so for the upgrade to this?</p>

<p>Like, Craig, I am also dipping into my savings a little bit. If I go the FX way I mean. If I go the way of the DX, I will be under budget. first the FX lineup.</p>

<p>nikon D800 $3000<br>

nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 $1900<br>

nikkor 50mm f/1.8g $200<br>

nikkor 24-120mm f/4 $1300<br>

nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 $2400</p>

<p>now the DX lineup</p>

<p>Nikon D7000 $1000<br>

Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 $900<br>

Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 $1400<br>

Nikkor 35mm $200<br>

Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G $900<br>

nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 $2400</p>