D7000 or D7100?

T

toyanorak

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
Apologies if this has been asked before, but I’m looking for some help and advice.

I currently use a D70 – yes I know it’s old, but a good workhorse for me.

I’m mow looking to finally upgrade and was considering the D7100 – nice and new and obviously a major step up from the D70.

After popping in to a local store they advised I should consider the D7000, especially with the cash back offer.

I’m not a huge camera user, hence why I’m just considering the upgrade, but would want my next purchase to be current for at least 6 months!

I can sit for hours comparing specs, but I’m after some real world advice from people who have hands on experience.

Thanks.
 
Depends on your needs. D7100 for MP's and video. D7000 for low light without downsampling. D7100 for low light at same print size.

If you've been happy with the D70, then I would probably say get the D7000. It will be a significant upgrade for you. The D7100 is notably "better," but you always pay a premium for "the latest/greatest," and it won't be "the latest/greatest" for long...
 
In many ways my D70 was the best camera I ever owned (still have it - although my youngest has laid claim) ... I upgraded to the D7000 and I was quite surprised at the differences, and I suspect if I had waited until the D7100 came out the surprise would have been greater - I'll try and explain

When I first started shooting with the D7000 I got a lot less keepers, I saw all sorts of IQ problems, from missed focus, soft focus, camera movement etc. Initial thoughts were I had got a duffer. I hadn't, I was the duffer not the camera. I took the kit lens off and put my 35mm f1.8 DX prime on, a true little gem of a lens and one I knew was spot on. Then put it on a tripod and took a few shots - pin sharp, and I mean pin sharp too, way more detail than anything from the D70. Then replaced the 35 with the kit lens and repeated the exercises, whilst focus was now correct and the handling issues resolved, the images still were not as sharp as with the prime ... so I tried another kit lens (55-200mm VR) and it was better and definitely usable but still no match for the prime. Then tried an 18-200mm and no reel difference from the kit lenses.

Anyway long story short (well shortish) - ended up putting a 17-55 f2.8 lens on and the IQ was every bit as good as the prime. I believe that the resolving power of the sensor was better than the glass I had, the moral I guess is that with even higher resolving potential from the 24MP it will show up poorer glass more and will also show up poor technique too imo.

I don't know what glass you are using so none of the above may matter, and I am certainly not implying your technique is poor either! Mine was though (and may still be but ...)

The D7000 was, and still is an excellent camera, it is a massive upgrade from the D70 and will allow anyone to be taking great images for as long as the camera lasts. I sometimes wished I still had mine (I've gone FX).
 
Thanks for the responses. I do have ‘cheap’ glass at present, but would be looking to purchase the 70-200mm f2.8 to go with the new camera, which would also start to improve my lens collection. I currently run a sigma 10-20 F4-5.6, the stock 18-70mm and a very old sigma 70-300mm. I would also be looking for suitable quality 35mm as well in the future.

As I’ve kept the D70 for so long, I’m not one for looking to upgrade each a new body is released, so I’m looking for a keeper.
 
PaulButler said:
I believe that the resolving power of the sensor was better than the glass I had, the moral I guess is that with even higher resolving potential from the 24MP it will show up poorer glass more and will also show up poor technique too imo.
Click to expand...

Due to pixel density I have to use higher SS's w/ the D7000/D800 than with other cameras...The D7100 will be even worse.
 
I too would pick the D7000 over a D7100 and spend the rest towards decent lenses.

I filled up a SanDisk 8GB SD card on my D7000, it took 17minutes and 32seconds to copy onto my MacBook Pro via its SD slot. I'd hate to think how long it would take with the bigger D7100 files. :|

Riz :)
 
I would echo everything above - get the D7000.
I have a D7000 and also had a long play with the D7100 at Focus on Imaging earlier this year. The D7100 is very nice but not enough of an upgrade in my opinion. I see my D7000 lasting at least another two years, maybe longer.
I also use it with a Nikon 24-70 2.8 and Sigma 70-200 OS 2.8 - it seems to love good glass as mentioned above. I had a Sigma 70-300 OS before and it was truly terrible on the D7000.
The cheap as chips Nikon 35 f1.8 is a great lens though and really shines on a D7000.
 
Last edited:
The d7000 is a great camera and a very good buy at present. The extra money can go towards a good lens. I've used a d7000 for around 18 months now and all I can say is I'm very happy with it. With good glass its fantastic, I'm mainly into wildlife so a 300mm f4 is one of my mostly used lens, along with a 70-200mm f2.8. The ISO performance of the d7000 is great, you can push it towards 1600-2000 ISO not problem, even 3200 can be very usable in the right conditions.

ISO 1600


Brown Hare- I'm Wet by Rob'81, on Flickr

ISO 400


Whooper Swan by Rob'81, on Flickr

I've been lucky to be able to upgrade to a d7100 and keep the d7000. Keeping the d7000 was a no brainer to me as the new price has made used prices unsellable.... and a great excuse to keep the d7000! I've not yet had a chance to really compare the d7000 and d71000. I don't think there is too much in it, auto focus seems to be a bit better and the extra MP will be great for cropping. I had to think long and hard about getting a d7100, it was a close call between getting it or another d7000. In the end the better auto focus and sensor pipped it, but then I had some good glass to get the best from both of them. Good glass does make a difference.

The d7000 is a very capable camera and one that will last me a long time. Think of it this way the price difference is nearly a 17-55mm f2.8, a cracking combo for the price of a d7100 body only.

What lens do you already own?
 
I only purchased my D7000 4 months ago, I was nervous in case it's replacement would blow it out of the water. When the D7100 arrived i did not feel let down by my D7000 and was confident that the huge price difference for the d7100 right now is not worth it. In my opinion current D7000 prices (£530ish after cashback) make it Nikon's bargain body.
 
What's your budget?

I ended up buying a good little collection, the only lens its lacking is the 70-200mm f2.8 VR :( but that's way too expensive for my needs at the moment.

Nikon D7000
Nikon MB11 battery grip
Nikon NL15 battery
Nikon MC1 microphone
Nikon LC1 remote trigger
Nikon SB600 speed light
Nikkor 35mm f1.8
Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5-4.5
Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR
Nikkor 12-24mm f4.0
Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8
B+W 77mm filter & CPL
Hoya 52 & 67mm filters
Nikon 77mm filter & CPL
Lens pens, Giotto blower and other cleaning bits
Manfrotto tripod
National Geographic walkabout bag
Black rapid RS4 strap

I think that's everything....

Riz :D
 
All depends on your budget. If you tend to keep your gear, the. Buy the best you can afford. That could be the 7100. If you buy the 7000, then you may have wished you'd bought the 7100.
 
Thanks for all your advice – plenty for me to think about.

My only thought is that due to some of the motorsport photography I do, I end up cropping, so having a few extra pixels to play with would help in this sense.
 
thegreatroberto - that is also a major consideration for me - I'm not likely to replace it for some considerable time as photography is only one of my hobbies. I would always be thinking that I should have gone for the 7100 as I don't want to move to full frame.
 
toyanorak said:
Thanks for all your advice – plenty for me to think about.

My only thought is that due to some of the motorsport photography I do, I end up cropping, so having a few extra pixels to play with would help in this sense.
Click to expand...
You may also find the 51 AF system a little better too for motorsport - but be warned, it will mean you have to get good glass as the sensor will show up kit lenses and the like.
 
I'm in much the same boat, having held on to the trusty D70 for a very long time. A great camera, though I do spend a fair bit of time tweaking after to get the levels right. I rarely get what I want out of camera.

An upgrade that's more likely to give me deep contrasts I like would be good, though the biggest thing I'd be looking for myself is a much faster rapid shot. The 3 per second (for a couple of seconds then it slows down) on the D70 is very slow for action shots and I'm trying to get into a bit of that, especially for my other love (mountain biking). Also interested in the video capabilities though. Not to shoot big movies, but to get some high quality short pieces, though really to play with and see what I can do. On the mountain bike scene everyone goes round with GoPros, which are nice but tend to be from the PoV of the rider and a fixed wide angle lens.

Have been looking at the D7000 and seems to do much of what I want. Though I carry my D70 in my bike backpack (and likewise when skiing) and got used to taking tumbles with it (it survives fine). Not sure I'd be so keen on taking a nice shiny new camera where it can get smashed on rocks, but then if it gets me the shots I want. Hmm. :D
 
Just buy what you can afford.
Me, I now I'll be going FF sometime, so all my lens purchaces are now driven by being FF compatable. Play the long game.
 
The d7100 has become a landscape camera (24mp).The d7000 can do landscape but it can also do most action photography also.The d7100 has far to small a buffer.Reports are saying set on 6fps large jpeg it packs in after 6 frames then stumbles along at 1 fps due to buffer being full! A design fault if you ask me.:shake:
 
Phil Young said:
Interestingly, much better than the D7000 when it's in crop mode. 17 shots, I only get about 6-8.
Click to expand...

Yes I think Nikon have definitely increased the buffer in the D7100 but the increased megapixel count offsets this unless in crop 1.3x mode.

No doubt the D400 will be the one which has real-world high fps due to a better buffer.
 
Phil Young said:
Do you know something I don't???
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear there is room for a D400 and I suspect it will be out 2nd half of this year to rival the Canon 7D II.

Nikon have already confirmed that the D7100 is NOT there flagship DX body ;)

Riz :)
 
Here we go again ;)

Back on topic. If you have the money go for the D7100 as its a newer camera with better overall performance.
 
Overall, I think I would use the features of the D7100, especially the 1.3x crop, so will wait a bit for the prices to drop. I'm in no hurry to change, so can wait and see if Nikon do address the buffer issue, although I think the key is to use the fast cards from the start.
 
toyanorak said:
Overall, I think I would use the features of the D7100, especially the 1.3x crop, so will wait a bit for the prices to drop. I'm in no hurry to change, so can wait and see if Nikon do address the buffer issue, although I think the key is to use the fast cards from the start.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt Nikon will significantly change the buffer in the D7100 as it is primarily hardware.
 
I loved my D7000. Have got some of my best photographs with that camera. I would say it will be more than enough for you and they're a bargain price at the minute.
 
I took this at the weekend early morning sun, it was just a handheld quick capture as wanted to have a play with my 300f4 its not the best pic by far but shows the crop detail still available on the d7000, I have been looking hard at getting a d800 or now a d7100 but find it hard to justify


Original by Adam Sibbald, on Flickr

Here is the crop you can see detail in the eye still

Crop by Adam Sibbald, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top