D7100 or D7200 for portraits?

[Johnbeard]

The D7100 is currently around 500$ and D7200 850$. What would be the most reasonable choice for portraits?

 

[hamlet]

They both will do the job. Lenses are more important that the camera body when it comes to portraits, what you can get is the d7100 and use the remaining money to buy a Nikon 85mm f/1.8G if you dont already have lenses that cover that range. You can look for a used d7100 actually, they should be cheaper than new ones.

 

[Johnbeard]

I am already going to buy that lens. What is your preference of the 2?

 

[tirediron]

A lot depends on what sort of portraits (studio, ambient-light only, candid, etc) you want to shoot, but in general, hamlet's advice is good.

 

[Johnbeard]

A lot depends on what sort of portraits (studio, ambient-light only, candid, etc) you want to shoot, but in general, hamlet's advice is good.

Just outdoor light in all conditions.

 

[hamlet]

Since outdoor light is so unpredictable, you should get the d7200 if money isn't an issue for you. It will give you cleaner images in low light situations.

 

[jaomul]

I've owned both. Unless you intend shooting at very high iso constantly buy the d7100. Even if hi iso all the time, the difference is minimal for shots where you don't need big raw buffer and an af that focuses in a little less light

 

[Johnbeard]

I've owned both. Unless you intend shooting at very high iso constantly buy the d7100. Even if hi iso all the time, the difference is minimal for shots where you don't need big raw buffer and an af that focuses in a little less light

I do not want the banding issues of the D7100 though. I have owned it before and it had noticeable banding issues.

 

[jaomul]

Why are you even asking so?

 

[Johnbeard]

Why are you even asking so?

To see if banding issues are supposed to be there often and if it affects portraiture.

 

[jaomul]

Supposedly not on d7200. But I never saw it on 71 either

 

[Johnbeard]

Supposedly not on d7200. But I never saw it on 71 either

Which would you go for?

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Supposedly not on d7200. But I never saw it on 71 either

Which would you go for?

If you've owned the 7100 before, get the 7200. Otherwise, you're just going to itch to have one and get one eventually anyway. I've only owned the 7000 and 7100. If I had to by a 7x00 again, I'd probably get the 7100 just because it does everything I need it to. I've never seen banding either.

 

[Johnbeard]

Supposedly not on d7200. But I never saw it on 71 either

Which would you go for?

If you've owned the 7100 before, get the 7200. Otherwise, you're just going to itch to have one and get one eventually anyway. I've only owned the 7000 and 7100. If I had to by a 7x00 again, I'd probably get the 7100 just because it does everything I need it to. I've never seen banding either.

Is there any logical reason other than improved AF and larger buffer to spend an extra 300-400$? Especially with just portraiture?

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Supposedly not on d7200. But I never saw it on 71 either

Which would you go for?

If you've owned the 7100 before, get the 7200. Otherwise, you're just going to itch to have one and get one eventually anyway. I've only owned the 7000 and 7100. If I had to by a 7x00 again, I'd probably get the 7100 just because it does everything I need it to. I've never seen banding either.

Is there any logical reason other than improved AF and larger buffer to spend an extra 300-400$? Especially with just portraiture?

For portraiture, no. I used my D7100 for portraiture with the Nikkor 60mm 2.8 Macro. That pairing was a beast.