Nikon D7000 or D7100

npinks

npinks

Suspended / Banned
Messages
517
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a D3100 and i and looking to upgrade and have my eye set on the D7000 or D7100

One of the main reasons is the D3100 lack of a focus motor and meaning the more costly AF-s lenses only.

Is the extra cost of the D7100 worth the extra investment or should i save the money and put towards a new lens also (Sigma 24-70mm f2.8)

I am only a amateur/hobby type snapper, taking the odd landscape and family holiday snap, but wish to improve in time.
 
I went from D3100 to D7000, It was the inbuilt motor that drew me a little as well, I find I only want the AF-S lens because of the silent nature of them compared to the older motor driven from the body ones, go figure.:gag:

The extra controls are nice though and the extra sd card is nice, the extra size is better than that of the D3100, it's still not perfect size wise and I am going to get a grip for it and that should then fell much better in the hand, I hope

One huge difference is the lcd screen, the D7000 is much much better than D3100.
 
Last edited:
For your purposes, indeed for most people's purposes, the 7000 will be absolutely fine. Save on the body and invest in good lenses.

We all get too caught up in this 'have to have the latest' malarky. Its really all racketeering by the hardware/software manufacturers.

I have a D7000 and its a tool, albeit a very good one. I am still perfectly happy to use my old D80, and indeed I regularly do so. I point of fact, I haven't yet taken a better picture with the D7000 than my best with the D80.

Its not the camera, all modern kit is superb. Its the photographer!
 
I would go for the 7000. The ISO performance and dynamic rage is arguably better than the 7100 and they are about half the price. The 7100 has a slightly larger screen and higher resolution but I don't think these are worth the extra money.
 
horrocks said:
Its not the camera, all modern kit is superb. Its the photographer!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about this, yes there is no substitute for being a good photographer but the same photographer can general take better photos with better kit providing they know how to exploit the improvements.
 
ah5168 said:
I'm not sure about this, yes there is no substitute for being a good photographer but the same photographer can general take better photos with better kit providing they know how to exploit the improvements.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but we're talking about the differences between a D7000 and D7100 here. Thy £200 or so saved would buy a lens that would arguably make a far bigger impact on an individual's photography.

I went with the D7000 recently, as much as anything because I wanted to keep the MP count down a bit. A lot of my shots end up on very large prints, but 24mp is overkill and just slows everything down.

It would take a very specialist photographer to genuinely need the differences in spec, in my opinion, possibly a video shooter due to the stereo mic.
 
ah5168 said:
I would go for the 7000. The ISO performance and dynamic rage is arguably better than the 7100 and they are about half the price. The 7100 has a slightly larger screen and higher resolution but I don't think these are worth the extra money.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that:thinking: I thought the D7100 was better in that regard.

I would add though that I don't think the D7100 is worth the extra over the D7000, the megapixels being 24 is certainly not worth it for the hobbyist imo.
 
Not going to rush in to anything at the moment, as I also want to find out what sort of price a friend of my sister in Law can obtain me a new D7100 for as she works for Nikon.

But if i was to look at a used D7000, what sort of shutter count would be acceptable, looking at MPB there is some at the 8-16k mark for around £460

then whatever they might offer me on trade in for my D3100
 
The iso isnt better on the 7000 the pictures are sharper on the 7100 and thus the noise is sharper. If you where to add the same blur the aa filter would apply the 7100 comes out better.

Id say go for the 7100. Everything is a lil better than the 7000.
 
npinks said:
Not going to rush in to anything at the moment, as I also want to find out what sort of price a friend of my sister in Law can obtain me a new D7100 for as she works for Nikon.

But if i was to look at a used D7000, what sort of shutter count would be acceptable, looking at MPB there is some at the 8-16k mark for around £460

then whatever they might offer me on trade in for my D3100
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about them figures for the shuter, but saying that, digitalrev are doing new for only a tenner more:)
 
now that is interesting:thumbs:

I am thinking that the more i think about this the happier i will be with a newer model.... just got to convince myself thats not the way to go:bat:
 
npinks said:
now that is interesting:thumbs:

I am thinking that the more i think about this the happier i will be with a newer model.... just got to convince myself thats not the way to go:bat:
Click to expand...

You will be happy, as what you get for the D3100 will mean it's quite a cheap upgrade and overall the D7000 is a big step up from it, it's worth it for the extra control, two wheels, the longer battery life as you won't be going through menu's to change settings as the extra buttons take care of a lot of stuff and that small screen on top lets you know what's being changed without involving the rear LCD, this all add's up to a much longer lasting battery.
 
Ivan S said:
I wouldn't worry about them figures for the shuter, but saying that, digitalrev are doing new for only a tenner more:)
Click to expand...

Try hdew cameras. I recently brought from there and the service was great and I got a 3year warranty
 
ah5168 said:
I would go for the 7000. The ISO performance and dynamic rage is arguably better than the 7100 and they are about half the price. The 7100 has a slightly larger screen and higher resolution but I don't think these are worth the extra money.
Click to expand...

So far in real use I'm happy to push the ISO further on the D7100 than the D7000. With the D7000 I used to keep to ISO2000 max, whilst now I'm happy to push the D7100 to ISO3200 or even ISO4000. Here's a ISO test shot at ISO6400, it surprised me how well it came out.


Water Vole- Close Up by Rob'81, on Flickr

The D7000 is a great camera but the D7100 is just as good and seems a little better overall for my uses. I mainly shoot wildlife so the better focus system was an improvement for me. AF seems better to me as I seem to get more in focus images. Ive never been completely happy with the AF on the D7000 so it's soon going for checking. I've kept the D7000 as its not worth selling for 2nd hand prices as its still a great camera.

Whether the improvements of the D7100 over the D7000 are worth it depends on what you shoot. For many the D7000 is plenty and is a bargain. Price wise there is only one winner. If you need the extra MP for cropping/larger prints or the better 51 point AF system then the D7100 is for you. I've recently done a comparison of cropping versus teleconverter and its changed the way I think about using teleconverters. If you don't need these then save some money and upgrade your lens, you won't be disappointed with the D7000. Both camera benefits from good glass to get the best out of them, the old saying glass first body second is so true.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's a good test to use high ISO in daylight like that, there is more than enough light for the sensor.
 
IMO, the only real difference between the two is MP's.
Mp's are a +/- thing. The more you have, the smaller they are. The smaller they are, the higher the SS requirement and the higher the lens IQ requirement. The D7000 is already = to the D800 and has the same requirements as the D800. Smaller pixels are also less capable of collecting light and thus perform worse in lower light and have lower DR/color sensitivity. In all of these aspects the D7100 will be "worse" at native resolution.

These issues go away if you down-sample the image (i.e. combine two pixels as if they were one) but if you are going to do that why deal with the larger files generated by more MP's?

You don't hear about these issues w/ the D7000/7100 like you do with the D800 because they aren't purchased by pixel peeping gear snobs (or by people who might actually use the full resolution of the D800).
 
Ivan S said:
I don't think it's a good test to use high ISO in daylight like that, there is more than enough light for the sensor.
Click to expand...

That's a fair comment. The highest high ISO shot I've taken in very low light was in the Peak District is below. It's not as high an ISO as I was able to keep the ISO lower at ISO2500 with 1/125sec and f4 being the lowest I could possibly use for a slow moving target at 20:07 when the sun had disappeared behind the hills. Like Ive said I try to keep ISO as low as possible so in this case I was not trying for a high ISO shot. Many of the grouse shots had to be manually focused due to the long grass.


Red Grouse & Purple Heather by Rob'81, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
To be fair though Rob, that grouse is limited to 1024x683 pixels, that's not the resolution you can view that at usually, if that was a full res image then it would look more noisy I guess?

I took a shot the other day, inside my house, on my desk, dull day outside so no real natural light and I am at the window wall so no light was able to spill onto it, and this at 3200 ISO on D7000

907433006a7fc5e5f9d4e4d7b20ff76d.JPG


I'd say they both fair very well at ISO upto 3200, I wouldn't fancy using over that but I am sure if I had to it would be usable but nothing about ISO peformance would warrant £300 difference, now no AA filter that may be different, but then I don't have £1000 lenses to put on to really notice any difference in sharpness.
 
On that basis, the OP will probably be ok with the d3100 he has and money would be better spent on glass.

I look to upgrade my d3100 but the main reasons for me to change ( better low light and better screen ) don't justify it yet
 
Last edited:
Ivan S said:
To be fair though Rob, that grouse is limited to 1024x683 pixels, that's not the resolution you can view that at usually, if that was a full res image then it would look more noisy I guess?

I took a shot the other day, inside my house, on my desk, dull day outside so no real natural light and I am at the window wall so no light was able to spill onto it, and this at 3200 ISO on D7000

I'd say they both fair very well at ISO upto 3200, I wouldn't fancy using over that but I am sure if I had to it would be usable but nothing about ISO peformance would warrant £300 difference, now no AA filter that may be different, but then I don't have £1000 lenses to put on to really notice any difference in sharpness.
Click to expand...

That's a great image. I only upload 1024 max to Flickr for obvious reasons since Flickr changed its rules and have full res images on my website but that image is not there. The D7000 is a great camera (hence I kept mine as its not worth selling and I now use both). I agree with you that that majority of performance is the same except for the issues the 24MP sensor give. It all depends on whether you can use the extra ability to crop further. The main improve I've seen is in AF performance, it's seems to be much better than my D7000. I think that's possibly down to my D7000 being one of the earlier ones that have the AF issue (most lenses at -18 and still focus can be off). I'm going to send it in repair as I have really liked the D7000 when it does work. I think that's where I subconsciously trust the D7100 more as its worked straight of the box and why I see the think like I do. If it was a rubbish camera I would have got rid of it but its not and its produced some stunning results. Once I get the AF issue repaired I can't wait to have it back and use it more. In some ways it's the same with the D7100, many reported early issues with focus, I think I was lucky and got one that worked well but unfortunately it seems I got a early issue D7000.

I think for the OP he would be best going for the D7000 as its plenty good enough for his use. Buying new is a bargain and if any problems (not heard of any recent issues with the newer models) you have the warranty to send it back. The D7100 does need good glass to get the best out of the sensor and the OP doesn't need the 24MP sensor or 51 point AF.

Note recent d7000 models don't seem to be affected by the AF issue as far as I know.
 
Quite a few different points and opinions between the two models

Good interesting reading
 
With no aa filter both the image and the noise will be sharper. And yes the 24mp comes in to play. But if you where so simulate the aa filter in post you will soon see how good the 7100 is. And if you regularly use iso 3200 maybe you need to be looking at a ff body? Ive still not used my d7100 in anger due to other commitments and I got it new with a 3year warrenty for £750.. id have been daft to go for the d7000 BUT thats not to say it wouldnt have been enough for me.

Yes spend money on glass but you need a body you enjoy holding (stay on subject people haha) and for me the d7100 just felt a little nicer also
 
Having this decision my self, have got some money come free which should be enough to give me a new body and some glass.
My thoughts are the d7100 would be the better long term option. Although i have thought about a d600 and a nice lens, But what would you lot do with £1700 ?
 
Davemm said:
Having this decision my self, have got some money come free which should be enough to give me a new body and some glass.
My thoughts are the d7100 would be the better long term option. Although i have thought about a d600 and a nice lens, But what would you lot do with £1700 ?
Click to expand...

I'd spend it on a Nikon 70-200 to go on my D3100 - but that's just me :)
 
Id really like to upgrade my old d40 though, so as nice as that would be i dont think it would be the best option :(
 
I'd get the D7100, a 35 f1.8g, a 50mm f1.8g and a sigma or tamron 70-200mm f2.8 with £1700
 
Ivan S said:
I'd get the D7100, a 35 f1.8g, a 50mm f1.8g and a sigma or tamron 70-200mm f2.8 with £1700
Click to expand...

This was my thinking, although instead of the 2 primes i was looking at a 17-50mm f2.8 sigma or tamron

just not sure how much better the lenses would be over the cheap nikon end lenses 18-55mm 55-200mm vr
 
I have the Tamron 17-50 and its brilliant. Much better than the kit lens ( which is by no means a bad one ) and well worth £200-or so
 
Can't comment on a D7100, as I don't own one, but ehere's how I see the the ISO situation on the D7000:

ISO 12,800

ISO 12,800 by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

ISO 6400

ISO 6400 by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

ISO 3200

ISO 3200 by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

You can click through to flickr to see lager sizes (1000x1350 I think)...

I've also done some indoor test shots, with crops, right up to 25,600...

ISO 25,600

ISO 25,600 by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

ISO 12,800

ISO 12,800 by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

ISO 6400

ISO 6400 by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

ISO 3200
http://www.flickr.com/photos/patmacinnes/8021041088/in/photostream/
 
Last edited:
Cashback on both these bodies from today has got me thinking about a change....

Hmmm
 
Just my opinion - GO FOR IT! Again, just my opinion but the lack of the AF motor (as I understand it, a big factor in your wanting to upgrade) in the low end Nikons usually proves to be a false economy when owners want to expand their lens line-up. 2nd hand examples of AF-S lenses do exist but not in such great numbers (or at such low prices) as screw driven ones. I'm sure this will chance over months/years to come but that seems to be the situation at the moment.

As to which to go for, I would look at the specs of both models side by side and see if the 7100 offers many features that you (the OP) will find useful. Personally, I would buy (if possible) from a good local retailer rather than a box shifter in the far East. Buying grey may save you a few quid but any warranty issues will take longer to sort and with the cashback, how much will you actually save? Will Panamoz/DR/? give you anything in trade in against your choice?

Happy shopping!
 
D7100 & Tamron 17-50 f2.8 gets my vote. If you want longer reach then the 16-85.

I found the screen, focus system, lock button on dial, grip and view finder all to be better on the D7100.

I have seen excellent images from both, but the above swayed it or me.
 
Just to reopen my old thread, on which camera to opt for, just placed my order today for a D7100, I got a excellent price on it too, brand new so a bit more confidence in it, and not that its been sold on with issues etc

Just hope Nikon don't take forever getting it to me
 
im glad you did, been thinking the same thing, and this has give me a lot to think about, the only difference i have a D5100, so not sure if the D7000/D7100 will have quite the same impact as it would from the d3100 ??
 
I had a D7000 that was plagued with issues (not endemic with the line. Just my bad luck) recently got upgraded to a D7100 due to my faulty 7k

The D7100 is better, and if I was offering advise I'd say get the 7100 if your budget covers it, but the 7000 is a great bit of kit and won't disappoint (unless you have my misfortune)

Also, I went from a D40, so most things would be considered an improvement


*note: the D7000 was a refurb unit, just not refurbed very well. 3 times.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, if you have a super high mega pixel sensor then you also need good lenses to make the most of them, which kind of negates the point of trying to buy the cheaper/older ones (although some older lenses are still very good).

Don't think buying a new body will make your pictures any better, lenses is where it's at so invest in them first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top