D7000 or D7100??

[TheLost]

I would probably give similar advice on those cars.
If you can afford the BMW, get it.
If not, get the Prius.
If you own handcuffs and a riding crop, get the jeep.

Maybe something like this.... back in post #6.

Start with the D800... then go backwards until you reach one you can afford.. D800 -> D610 -> D7100 -> D7000

.. But what gets my hackles up are these types of posts...

... I'm not sure myself is the D7100 is really the right choice for anybody except those who really want the little bit extra that only it has.

... There is really not a tremendous difference between the two cameras when it comes to the end product.

 

[pixmedic]

Why does it bother you? Its just someones opinion. You stated yourself that someone probably couldn't tell the difference between photos taken with both cameras. I just see it as a bunch of minor upgrades. I dont see anything that got upgraded in the D7100 that would make a significant difference in someones photography. Except, maybe, if you had a tendency to do heavy cropping.

While i can understand why you feel i am not giving due credit to an obviously better camera, on the other side of that coin, your posts appear to imply that the D7000 is outdated and useless now that the D7100 is out, and someone would be a fool for buying it.

I just see the D7000 as a very capable camera, and a perfectly viable option for someone looking to upgrade their D3100 without dropping $1k+ on a D7100.

If the two cameras were even close to the same price, my opinion would be different.

 

[TheLost]

Why does it bother you? Its just someones opinion. You stated yourself that someone probably couldn't tell the difference between photos taken with both cameras. I just see it as a bunch of minor upgrades. I dont see anything that got upgraded in the D7100 that would make a significant difference in someones photography. Except, maybe, if you had a tendency to do heavy cropping.

The AF system alone in the D7100 is worth the upgrade. The AF system in the D7000 was not Nikon's best... very inconsistent and constant back focus. I spent a year defending the AF on the D7000 until i went back and looked at thousands of my images (taken with 2 separate D7000's). I then spent a week with a D90 and D300s each and realized how bad the D7000 AF was. I've now gone through a full Rugby, Indoor Football, PeeWee Football and High School football season with the D7100 and IMHO the AF system is even better then the D300s.

Granted... some people won't notice or won't push the D7000 AF system. But at some point your going to want to take pictures of your dog.... and you'll wish you had a D7100

While i can understand why you feel i am not giving due credit to an obviously better camera, on the other side of that coin, your posts appear to imply that the D7000 is outdated and useless now that the D7100 is out, and someone would be a fool for buying it.

I just see the D7000 as a very capable camera, and a perfectly viable option for someone looking to upgrade their D3100 without dropping $1k+ on a D7100.

If the two cameras were even close to the same price, my opinion would be different.

I totally agree... 100%.. However the D7100 is a better camera and if the OP can afford it he/she shouldn't think the D7000 is the same camera.

 

[pixmedic]

Why does it bother you? Its just someones opinion. You stated yourself that someone probably couldn't tell the difference between photos taken with both cameras. I just see it as a bunch of minor upgrades. I dont see anything that got upgraded in the D7100 that would make a significant difference in someones photography. Except, maybe, if you had a tendency to do heavy cropping.

The AF system alone in the D7100 is worth the upgrade. The AF system in the D7000 was not Nikon's best... very inconsistent and constant back focus. I spent a year defending the AF on the D7000 until i went back and looked at thousands of my images (taken with 2 separate D7000's). I then spent a week with a D90 and D300s each and realized how bad the D7000 AF was. I've now gone through a full Rugby, Indoor Football, PeeWee Football and High School football season with the D7100 and IMHO the AF system is even better then the D300s.

Granted... some people won't notice or won't push the D7000 AF system. But at some point your going to want to take pictures of your dog.... and you'll wish you had a D7100

While i can understand why you feel i am not giving due credit to an obviously better camera, on the other side of that coin, your posts appear to imply that the D7000 is outdated and useless now that the D7100 is out, and someone would be a fool for buying it.

I just see the D7000 as a very capable camera, and a perfectly viable option for someone looking to upgrade their D3100 without dropping $1k+ on a D7100.

If the two cameras were even close to the same price, my opinion would be different.

I totally agree... 100%.. However the D7100 is a better camera and if the OP can afford it he/she shouldn't think the D7000 is the same camera.

I have plenty of pictures i have posted here of my dogs playing at the dog park. Taken with my old D200. And they are pretty darn good.
I think what is really needed here is for the OP to give us a budget.
I mean, why go D7100 when for a little more you can get a used D600?
Are we looking at new or used cameras? I am seeing used D700's now for the same or less than a new D7100. Money might be the deciding factor here.

 

[astroNikon]

 

[TheLost]

I have plenty of pictures i have posted here of my dogs playing at the dog park. Taken with my old D200. And they are pretty darn good.
I think what is really needed here is for the OP to give us a budget.
I mean, why go D7100 when for a little more you can get a used D600?
Are we looking at new or used cameras? I am seeing used D700's now for the same or less than a new D7100. Money might be the deciding factor here.

Agreed! but this thread says D7000 or D7100

... And i was talking about taking pictures of moving things (dogs) with the D7000 .. They'll all end up like this..
(focus is on #17 but #19 is sharper.... classic D7000 issue... google it)

I have a server full of images like that... from two different D7000s.. one went back to nikon multiple times..

With the D7100 i can nail focus every time (im always amazed how accurate it is)

(focus was set to the QB... and in the image the QB is in focus).

Not great pictures... but they show my point.

[*edit*] for you pixel peepers who want to see how accurate... you can read the "under armour" on the QB's shoes with a f/3.2 DOF slice.
http://www.lostbyte.net/tmp/pixel_peep.jpg

 

[raventepes]

I mean, why go D7100 when for a little more you can get a used D600?

This is actually a pretty fair point.. Unless there are specific reasons to stick with a DX sensor, a used D600 would be a good argument versus a new D7100. Of course, it really depends on what's needed by the OP, factoring in what they photograph, weather or not a 39 point AF will suffice, Current lenses, etc.

Truth be told, if I had the option of either of the two back when I bought my D7100, There's a very real possibility I could have just taken the D600 and sold my DX lenses for some decent FX glass. I sure wouldn't want to be using a D600 in DX mode for too long unless I had no other options.

 

[pixmedic]

I have plenty of pictures i have posted here of my dogs playing at the dog park. Taken with my old D200. And they are pretty darn good.
I think what is really needed here is for the OP to give us a budget.
I mean, why go D7100 when for a little more you can get a used D600?
Are we looking at new or used cameras? I am seeing used D700's now for the same or less than a new D7100. Money might be the deciding factor here.

Agreed! but this thread says D7000 or D7100

... And i was talking about taking pictures of moving things (dogs) with the D7000 .. They'll all end up like this..
(focus is on #17 but #19 is sharper.... classic D7000 issue... google it)

I haven't personally experienced focus problems with my D7000, but i am aware of the issue.
I guess budget will really be the determining factor. If the OP can't cough up $1k+ for the d7100, his options will be limited.

OP... If you are even CLOSE to affording a D7100, save a little more and get it.

 

[astroNikon]

I mean, why go D7100 when for a little more you can get a used D600?

This is actually a pretty fair point.. Unless there are specific reasons to stick with a DX sensor, a used D600 would be a good argument versus a new D7100. Of course, it really depends on what's needed by the OP, factoring in what they photograph, weather or not a 39 point AF will suffice, Current lenses, etc.

Truth be told, if I had the option of either of the two back when I bought my D7100, There's a very real possibility I could have just taken the D600 and sold my DX lenses for some decent FX glass. I sure wouldn't want to be using a D600 in DX mode for too long unless I had no other options.

Not to wander from the 7000 v 7100

but doesn't the 600 have the same focusing system as the 7000 ?

 

[robbins.photo]

Why does it bother you? Its just someones opinion. You stated yourself that someone probably couldn't tell the difference between photos taken with both cameras. I just see it as a bunch of minor upgrades. I dont see anything that got upgraded in the D7100 that would make a significant difference in someones photography. Except, maybe, if you had a tendency to do heavy cropping.

The AF system alone in the D7100 is worth the upgrade. The AF system in the D7000 was not Nikon's best... very inconsistent and constant back focus. I spent a year defending the AF on the D7000 until i went back and looked at thousands of my images (taken with 2 separate D7000's). I then spent a week with a D90 and D300s each and realized how bad the D7000 AF was. I've now gone through a full Rugby, Indoor Football, PeeWee Football and High School football season with the D7100 and IMHO the AF system is even better then the D300s.

Granted... some people won't notice or won't push the D7000 AF system. But at some point your going to want to take pictures of your dog.... and you'll wish you had a D7100

While i can understand why you feel i am not giving due credit to an obviously better camera, on the other side of that coin, your posts appear to imply that the D7000 is outdated and useless now that the D7100 is out, and someone would be a fool for buying it.

I just see the D7000 as a very capable camera, and a perfectly viable option for someone looking to upgrade their D3100 without dropping $1k+ on a D7100.

If the two cameras were even close to the same price, my opinion would be different.

I totally agree... 100%.. However the D7100 is a better camera and if the OP can afford it he/she shouldn't think the D7000 is the same camera.

I have plenty of pictures i have posted here of my dogs playing at the dog park. Taken with my old D200. And they are pretty darn good.
I think what is really needed here is for the OP to give us a budget.
I mean, why go D7100 when for a little more you can get a used D600?
Are we looking at new or used cameras? I am seeing used D700's now for the same or less than a new D7100. Money might be the deciding factor here.

Ok..so what I'm getting out of all of this is that apparently we are no longer planning on storming Castle Derrel with torches and pitchforks. Great. First the UV Filter Crusades get cancelled, now this... a perfectly good peasent uprising shot straight to hell.

 

[goodguy]

I mean, why go D7100 when for a little more you can get a used D600?

This is actually a pretty fair point.. Unless there are specific reasons to stick with a DX sensor, a used D600 would be a good argument versus a new D7100. Of course, it really depends on what's needed by the OP, factoring in what they photograph, weather or not a 39 point AF will suffice, Current lenses, etc.

Truth be told, if I had the option of either of the two back when I bought my D7100, There's a very real possibility I could have just taken the D600 and sold my DX lenses for some decent FX glass. I sure wouldn't want to be using a D600 in DX mode for too long unless I had no other options.

When talking about the D7100 vs D600 there are few ways of looking and I have commented about it in the past.
I think first buying new vs used, you are buying not just a new camera but also a piece of mind, the knowledge your baby is new and virgin and has the warranty to comfort you in case still something goes wrong and that is an important factor to way in when comparing these 2 cameras especially when you know there is some history behind the D600 original design.

In many ways the D600 and D7100 should produce almost same quality of pictures and the only real different is at night where the bigger sensor of the FX body has the advantage.
This of course is a very important factor but when looking at all these issues personally I would go with the new D7100, it really is such a fantastic camera and even in low light it still produces remarkably good pictures.

 

[pixmedic]

When talking about the D7100 vs D600 there are few ways of looking and I have commented about it in the past.
I think first buying new vs used, you are buying not just a new camera but also a piece of mind, the knowledge your baby is new and virgin and has the warranty to comfort you in case still something goes wrong and that is an important factor to way in when comparing these 2 cameras especially when you know there is some history behind the D600 original design.

In many ways the D600 and D7100 should produce almost same quality of pictures and the only real different is at night where the bigger sensor of the FX body has the advantage.
This of course is a very important factor but when looking at all these issues personally I would go with the new D7100, it really is such a fantastic camera and even in low light it still produces remarkably good pictures.

Eh...
Virgins are overrated.
I prefer something slightly used. Already broken in. At least a couple of actuation's before i get to handle it.

Oh yea.... I prefer used cameras too.

 

[robbins.photo]

I mean, why go D7100 when for a little more you can get a used D600?

This is actually a pretty fair point.. Unless there are specific reasons to stick with a DX sensor, a used D600 would be a good argument versus a new D7100. Of course, it really depends on what's needed by the OP, factoring in what they photograph, weather or not a 39 point AF will suffice, Current lenses, etc.

Truth be told, if I had the option of either of the two back when I bought my D7100, There's a very real possibility I could have just taken the D600 and sold my DX lenses for some decent FX glass. I sure wouldn't want to be using a D600 in DX mode for too long unless I had no other options.

When talking about the D7100 vs D600 there are few ways of looking and I have commented about it in the past.
I think first buying new vs used, you are buying not just a new camera but also a piece of mind, the knowledge your baby is new and virgin and has the warranty to comfort you in case still something goes wrong and that is an important factor to way in when comparing these 2 cameras especially when you know there is some history behind the D600 original design.

In many ways the D600 and D7100 should produce almost same quality of pictures and the only real different is at night where the bigger sensor of the FX body has the advantage.
This of course is a very important factor but when looking at all these issues personally I would go with the new D7100, it really is such a fantastic camera and even in low light it still produces remarkably good pictures.

Ok, so crusades are off, peasant uprising cancelled, and now we are sitting around extoling the benefits of virginity.

Man, what a weird cult this turned out to be.. lol

 

[pixmedic]

We can return to debating which camera is best for the OP if/when they return with a budget. Or news of a purchase.

 

[Derrel]

BestBuy's already advertised Black Friday special of a brand-new Nikon D7000 and a brand-new 18-140mm VR_Nikkor lens for $799 looks like a pretty sweet deal!!! Just sayin...