Is a Nikon D7000 too outdated?

ski_rush · Jun 27, 2017

I'd like to try my hand in photography. It's something that I've thought about for some time. I'm going to take a class in a few weeks, but I need a professional grade camera. The reason being that, if I get good enough, I'd like to be able to eventually do portraits.

I'd like to start out with a reasonably priced, yet good quality used DSLR. I've narrowed it down to the Nikon D7000 and the D7100. I'd like to spend less than $500-600, but lower would be even better since I'm only just learning. But...I don't want to "outgrow" my camera within the first few months. Is a Nikon D7000 going to render good enough quality to be considered professional quality? My concern is that it's rated at 16 megapixels and first came out in 2010 (I believe).

Or... Am I better off apting for the slightly newer (but more expensive) D7100, which is rated at 24 mega pixels. I know that megapixels are not everything that goes into a quality image, but I also know more is better.

I'm looking at used cameras. I know ask the seller about the shutter count.

Please let me know with your opinions on the D7000 vs. D7100

goooner · Jun 28, 2017

Well, it really does depend on what you want to shoot. You mention portraits, for portraits a full frame would probably be better (D600, or D610). If the portraits are in a studio you will need speedlights and some light modifying equipment. More important than the camera imo is the lenses you put on said camera. I think the 24MP in the d7100 is great, especially if you crop your photos afterwards. This should not be a problem in a studio setting though.

Your budget is tight, but I would suggest a d7100 with the kit 18-140mm lens. You can then start taking photos, and determine after a few months which focal lenght you use most on your kit lens, before investing money in prime lenses that are normally quite pricey.

snowbear · Jun 28, 2017

I think a lot of people just want to have the latest, rather than actually outgrowing a camera. I used my D40 for 10 years before outgrowing it (but we also tend to hold on to cars longer than many).

That said, given any price differences, I'd probably go with the D7100 because of the better AF and processor. Battery life is lower, but that's fixed with a spare.

goodguy · Jun 28, 2017

Professional gear, how many times we heard that before.
What is a professional camera ?
If you use a professional camera does that mean you are at a professional level ?
Can you make professional results with a non professional gear ?

If you plan on working only in studio then you can get by with basic D3400 which has a very good sensor in it and invest in lenses.
Portrait photography is about the accessories as its about the camera body.
In studio you don't need good AF and other features, if you want to go outside and shoot moving subject then a better AF might be helpful.
D7000 vs D7100, had both cameras, get the D7100!!!

If you really aiming at portrait then don't bother with kit lenses, get good, sharp and fast glass so you get best sharpness and ability to blur background.
You can start with the Nikon 50mm 1.8G, Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 is a good general use lens that gives you fast aperture and good sharp images for a reasonable price on DX body.

Full frame for the long run is better for portraiture, it lets you get better shallow depth of field then APS-C

By going to study you show understanding that to get good results the MOST important thing is the users skills, a photographer with good skills can make beautiful images with even cheap equipment while a photographer with no skills will probably make boring or bad pictures even with 10000$ equipment.

benhasajeep · Jun 28, 2017

The D7000 will give you good pictures. It was used by advanced photographers for 3 years before the next model came out! Must have been pretty decent then! Of course newer cameras out will have new software and some hardware to make them better. That doesn't negate the fact older cameras made poor pictures. 16mp is plenty for portrait work.

The only caveat to buying the D7000 is you know it's older and as you learn more. Your going to want a better cameras in terms of performance. So you may find yourself buying a newer body sooner than expected. That's just human nature. Now if you buy the D7100 will you still want to upgrade sooner than later as well? That's the question. If you know your the type that's going to want a better one fairly soon. And just need something to start with now. Might as well save a little and get a good working used D7000. But if you have good self control, or your wallet controls the decision. And a better one is not in the near future. I would suggest paying the little extra for the D7100.

Differences between the 2 - D7100 - 24 vs 16 MP, Finer screen by about 25%, more AF points 51 vs. 39, 2-5 frames exposure bracketing (2-3 on D7000), predictive autofocus on D7100. For used equipment. I think the D7100 is worth at least $100 more maybe $150 more for good working used cameras. They both sold for same price new.

fmw · Jun 28, 2017

No it is not outdated. What is outdated in my view is the concept that a newer camera with more features will make one a better photographer.

pixmedic · Jun 28, 2017

with few exceptions, cameras are rarely "outgrown". its more a matter of people just wanting the latest conveniences.
portrait work is very forgiving as far as the camera itself goes. I have a 10 year old sony a700 12MP camera that does portraits just fine.
my very cheap fuji x-a1 was used for my last portrait session and its a 16mp DX sensor camera.
whats more important for portraits is the lighting. I have half a dozen speedlights i set up with 42 inch brollys with one on a monopod for a hairlight.

th D7100 is a step up from the D7000 in a number of ways ( ive owned both) and if you can swing the D7100 its a great camera, but theres nothing wrong with the D7000 OR its 16mp sensor.

you havent mentioned what lens choices you are considering, or if you have a seperate lens budget.

jaomul · Jun 28, 2017

The d7000 is still a great camera. It had a great kind of new type of sensor at the time it came out which has great dynamic range. Basically newer cameras have a slight improvement in this and more pixels, but nobody needed 16mp ten years ago.

jake337 · Jun 28, 2017

You could even save more money with a D90 or D80.

idcanyon · Jun 28, 2017

benhasajeep said:
Differences between the 2 - D7100 - 24 vs 16 MP, Finer screen by about 25%, more AF points 51 vs. 39, 2-5 frames exposure bracketing (2-3 on D7000), predictive autofocus on D7100.

More MP - Only useful if you also buy a lens that can deliver that kind of resolution (don't ignore the importance of lenses in your budgeting.).
Screen difference - Does not help make better pictures, D7000's screen is great.
More AF points - Mostly worthless for most of us. Think about this if you expect to shoot action sports.
Predictive AF - Nice addition if you are shooting sports with lots of motion - Example: soccer, American football, maybe some extreme sports.
More exposure bracketing frames: Saves time under certain circumstances. You can accomplish the same thing manually as long as speed is not necessary.

ski_rush · Jun 28, 2017

Thanks for all the quick replies. Yes, I do have a separate budget for the lens. I was thinking of going with a 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens to start. I am enrolling in a photography class at a local community college and I will also buy some books to learn more before the class begins. I'm leaning toward the D7100. A used one is about $150 more than a used D7000.

I'm intrigued by the D90, but it seems like it would be too cheap a camera. I am interested in your opinion on the D90. I'm guessing the internals are far cheaper and poorer quality than those in the D7100.

fmw · Jun 28, 2017

idcanyon said:
benhasajeep said:

Differences between the 2 - D7100 - 24 vs 16 MP, Finer screen by about 25%, more AF points 51 vs. 39, 2-5 frames exposure bracketing (2-3 on D7000), predictive autofocus on D7100.

Click to expand...

More MP - Only useful if you also buy a lens that can deliver that kind of resolution (don't ignore the importance of lenses in your budgeting.).
Screen difference - Does not help make better pictures, D7000's screen is great.
More AF points - Mostly worthless for most of us. Think about this if you expect to shoot action sports.
Predictive AF - Nice addition if you are shooting sports with lots of motion - Example: soccer, American football, maybe some extreme sports.
More exposure bracketing frames: Saves time under certain circumstances. You can accomplish the same thing manually as long as speed is not necessary.

I've owned both (at the same time.) To me the only meaningful improvement of the 7100 over the 7000 was the built in horizon level. Seriously. And I got along fine for half a century without one.

jcdeboever · Jun 28, 2017

I just asked my Nikon FM, it said no.

KmH · Jun 28, 2017

Nikon's professional grade DSLR cameras.
• D500 (DX)
• D700
• D800 series
• D1 to D5 series

Consumer grade: D40, D50, D60, D70, D80, D90, D3x00 and 5x00 cameras, D600 (FX) series.
Enthusiast grade: D7000 series.
Prosumer grade: D100, D200, D300 series (All DX), D750 series.

Derrel · Jun 28, 2017

The D7000 was always a so-so reviewed camera...it's available at a low price. It had a history of focus problems, and was a NEW body development, not an iteratioin of an earlier design...as such, I consider it outdated/dated/not a winner, but a camera that was, consistently, an under-performer. In the grand scheme of things, Nikon's SECOND-iteration camera or THIRD-iteration camera,in every user class, has almost always been **the one** that people loved,loved,loved.

For example: Nikon F....nice! Nikon F2--incredible performer, for its era. Nikon F3--perhaps the finest F-series body they made, in many respects. I shot the F, F2A, F2-AS,F2A-SB, and the F3-HP: I shot the F3-HP from '84 until 2001...it was **that good** a camera. The third-iteration film flagship was remarkably a great 'shooter'.

Nikon D1, D1h,D2x,D3x..owned all of them, from 2001 to 2017.... the D2x was adequate...the D3x extraordinarily good. The D3x is an incredibly great 'shooter'.

The "consumer" type D7000 was, as stated, a new effort...the D7100 was well-regarded...the THIRD-iteration, the D7200, has been perhaps the very best camera Nikon has made in that market segment, and is an exceptionally well-reviewed and capable APS-C sensor camera. The D7200's sensor is ISO-invariant, a milestone in sensor-tech.

I dunno...I would RATHER have the "outdated" and "old" D700 (Dee Seven-hundred) rather than many other cameras, for portraiture...BIG viewfinder, full-frame sensor, CLEAR finder image, 12-MP sensor.

Is the D7000 "outdated"??? In some ways, YES...old sensor quality....D7100has a better sensor...the D7200 has an exceptional sensor, for a crop-frame camera, at an affordbale price.

I would rather have a NEWER-sensor camera than a D7000; even a D3400 or D5400 would be preferrable, to me, in most ways. If you like the flippy screen, the D5xxx models have that!

Cameras are user-dependent...I've owned some of the finest Nikons (D1,D1h,D2x,D3x) as well as consumer-type cameras from Nikon and Canon and FujiFilm...I prefer the BIG-viewfinder cameras over the crop-sensor cameras...just a personal preference, and I like the way the FX cameras use the best-quality, portrait-oriented lenses (85,70-200,105,135,180) much more so than the stand-back-and-shoot cameras with the cropped-down sensors.

On FX, a full-length shot with an 85mm lens is from 20 feet; on an APS-C Nikon, you have tyo be 34 feet away, to get the SAME framing! That reallllllly affects DOF and picture "look" in a lot of scenarios where portraits are being done.