Was deadset on buying the D7100 soon, but now with all the rumors.. Should I wait?

[GertjanGoetynck]

Hey all!

After alot of research and FINALLY collecting the funds, I was about to buy the Nikon D7100 this week, and then the rumors came.

All of a sudden both the Canon 7D Mark II and Nikon D9300 are rumored to be anounced soon...

I know that these 2 cameras would likely be overkill for a beginner, but I really do plan to take photography seriously. I am looking for a camera I can grow into, one that won't need replacing for quite some years.

Judging by the research I did, the D7100 fit close to all I wanted in a camera, except the atrophotography performance (mainly milky way shots when out hiking is what I mean by this).

So my question is, should I wait till more is known about these 2 rumored cameras before buying the D7100, or should I bite the bullet and buy the D7100 this week with the chance of having regrets when the rumors get confirmed?

Also, would the 2 rumored cameras be alot above the pricepoint of the D7100? I can add a few 100 euros on top of it's price, but anything more would count me out. I know this is impossible to really know, but I'm sure some veterans got a rough idea

And lastly, assuming both these cameras get anounced in around may, when do you think they will be on the market? I am going on a 2 week hike in the Scottish Highlands this september, so I would like to have whatever camera I'll buy at least mid august so I can spend a few weeks learning to work with it, at least the basics.


Thanks alot in advance!

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Probably be way above in price point just because it's new. If you have something sufficient, and you're a gear nut that has to have the latest and greatest, wait. If not, the D7100 is a great camera. I own one myself, but the complaints that are made on the interweb are not applicable to me. 1 - I don't shoot video. I know the D7100 is better at not showing moire than the Canon, but the Canon has better controls. 2 - The buffer is too small. I have a fast SD card, and I don't spray and pray. I've only done this once, and it was to capture my kids blowing dandelions, in which case, only requires 5 to 6 shots before the moment is over anyway. In regards to image quality, I'm not good enough or experienced enough to see the difference in IQ between my D7100 and a D4s. I see pictures that are waaaaaaay better than mine, but that's because of my personal suckiness at composition, technicality and PP.

 

[jaomul]

Write down what you need in a camera. If one is available now buy it. If you take 2 good photos a day and wait 3 months for a new singing and dancing camera that's about 200 Good photos you don't have, waiting for a camera with specs you don't need

 

[GertjanGoetynck]

Write down what you need in a camera. If one is available now buy it. If you take 2 good photos a day and wait 3 months for a new singing and dancing camera that's about 200 Good photos you don't have, waiting for a camera with specs you don't need

The D7100 fits almost all my current needs, except the night photography wishes I have.

Part of the doubts I have is actually that I'd feel more comfortable buying into Canon, since everyone in my enviroment uses Canon cameras. All the pictures I loved the looks of and are of the kind of subjects I am interested in, ended up being taken with canon aswell once I did some research on the cameras used. Their lenses seem to be better for people on a budget too (multiple versions of a zoomrange in different priceranges), but the best crop sensor camera they are selling (the 70D) is just not what I am looking for in a camera. They basically seem the best option for what I am looking for in the "high end" range, but in the pricerange I am in at this time Nikon has them beat.

Nikon seems the best CURRENT choice with what they have, but my worries are more about the future, when I become more experienced and buy heavily into lenses etc. Are they the best choice for landscape / wildlife / night photography?

I guess I am making this decision harder for myself by not only thinking about NOW, but also trying to consider where I may be in 10 years or so

 

[jaomul]

To be honest even if Nikon come out with a d9300 it will likely be 24mp with very similar image characteristics to the d7100/5300. If you need higher quality at higher iso look at a Canon 6d or nikon 610d. They are options not to Far Off the D7100 or the price of a new pro spec Nikon crop I would think

 

[GertjanGoetynck]

On a slightly related question, would Nikon be a worse choice to buy into than Canon for what I want? I am talking mainly about the future here. I plan to focus on landscape, wildlife and some night photography. If I look at my needs and the high end cameras that fit them (to sort of plan a roadmap for my future in photography), I see that for Canon the 5D Mark III is the best option for what I plan to do with the camera, and for Nikon the D4 is. But the D4 is incredibly expensive compared to the Canon 5D Mark III, and I fail to see a real REASON for this price difference because the performance isn't THAT far apart according to the things I read.

So ny question really is, is Nikon a good brand to buy into for wildlife / landscape / Night photography? This camera purchase will be the first step down the road of whichever brand I go for, and if Nikon is a good choice I may just go for the D7100 without waiting for the anouncements.

My worries mainly originate from the fact that whenever I look up wildlife photographers, I see canon in 90% of the cases. I have no idea if this is imaginary or not, but it does make me sort of scared of buying into Nikon. There MUST be a reason outside of Canon's marketing that these professionals don't choose Nikon...

 

[jaomul]

Nikon and Canon are both good and likely here for the long haul, but then again who knows what the future holds

 

[table1349]

He who hesitates is lost.

 

[bribrius]

canon is a lot more popular it seems......
wonder why that is.

 

[KmH]

The difference in price is more about features than performance.
The D4 is a pro grade DSLR, the 5D MK III is a prosumer grade DSLR.
The Nikon equivalent to the 5D MK III is the D800, not the D4.

 

[KmH]

canon is a lot more popular it seems......
wonder why that is.

Canon is a much larger company than Nikon, and has a larger advertising budget.

 

[Derrel]

canon is a lot more popular it seems......
wonder why that is.

Better marketing. White, high-visibility lenses. EARLY autofocus-era superiority. 1990's lack of successful transition to autofocus on the part of Nikon, and spectacular FAILURES in AF on the part of Pentax,Yashica,Olympus, etc, and moderately poor AF success on Minolta's part, combined with a HUGE multi-million dollar lawsuit and court loss on Minolta's part back in the early digital camera era. Better advertising--on television and the internet and in magazines. "Canon Explorer of Light" hype. A whole network of payed shills, developed to hype Canon cameras and lenses.

Canon used to be a laughing stock among Nikon professionals in the 1970's and throughout the entire first seven years of the 1980's, but the Canon EOS system established Canon's technical abilities and by early 1990's, Canon's well-conceived and well-engineered EOS bodies and EOS lenses were causing many long-time Nikon users to switch to a superior AF system. As film wound to its end over the next decade, the "other" companies, like Pentax and Yashica/Contax (Kyocera owned), and Minolta, Ricoh, and so on...they ALL flopped, spectacularly, and all that was left was basically a duopoly, of Canon, and Nikon.

CANON's early successes with MASS-market television advertising during the AE-1 and AE-1 Program days, with emphasis on professional tennis stars hawking motor-winder-equipped 35mm SLRS, and with an ad slogan, "It's so advanced it's simple," showed Canon the key to success; better marketing,and better advertising. Making those big, white-colored lenses was a marketing master stroke!

 

[JerryLove]

canon is a lot more popular it seems......
wonder why that is.

Better marketing. White, high-visibility lenses. EARLY autofocus-era superiority. 1990's lack of successful transition to autofocus on the part of Nikon, and spectacular FAILURES in AF on the part of Pentax,Yashica,Olympus, etc, and moderately poor AF success on Minolta's part, combined with a HUGE multi-million dollar lawsuit and court loss on Minolta's part back in the early digital camera era. Better advertising--on television and the internet and in magazines. "Canon Explorer of Light" hype. A whole network of payed shills, developed to hype Canon cameras and lenses.

As you've just pointed out: at the dawn of the digital DSLR age, Canon was making better cameras. They were also, as far as I can tell without researching, making better, higher MP sensors until Nikon leap-frogged to Sony's 24MP.

So even if we assume that Nikon is making better bodies now (and it's more debatable than the stats would suggest), you have simple inertia (people already vested in the Canon ecosystem who don't find Nikon's present advantages compelling enough to switch) as well as people who feel safer with Canon because more people already use it (like the OP).

Some people will prefer the Canon interface (others the Nikon), some will want some feature the Canon is better at (others the Nikon), others through happenstance will just start with a Canon (others the Nikon).

Canon used to be a laughing stock among Nikon professionals in the 1970's and throughout the entire first seven years of the 1980's, but the Canon EOS system established Canon's technical abilities and by early 1990's, Canon's well-conceived and well-engineered EOS bodies and EOS lenses were causing many long-time Nikon users to switch to a superior AF system. As film wound to its end over the next decade, the "other" companies, like Pentax and Yashica/Contax (Kyocera owned), and Minolta, Ricoh, and so on...they ALL flopped, spectacularly, and all that was left was basically a duopoly, of Canon, and Nikon.

Sounds about right.. though Pentax is still here and still can't seem to gain real traction despite what looks to me to be an excellent offering.

CANON's early successes with MASS-market television advertising during the AE-1 and AE-1 Program days, with emphasis on professional tennis stars hawking motor-winder-equipped 35mm SLRS, and with an ad slogan, "It's so advanced it's simple," showed Canon the key to success; better marketing,and better advertising. Making those big, white-colored lenses was a marketing master stroke!

And better AF systems, and higher lens-compatibility (such as with AF), and better sensors (for much of the DSLR days), etc.

Though I don't doubt the power of marketing at all.

 

[Derrel]

Marketing is a BIG, big, biiiiig deal.

Coke. Pepsi. Pepsi is the Nikon of the camera world.

Coca~Cola was, for literally decades, the single most-valuable brand in the world. That title was recently lost. The most-valuable brand in the world... built upon basically....great marketing of....sugar water...

 

[GertjanGoetynck]

So basically, the only reason Canon is used more by pro wildlife photographers is hype and marketing, not performance?

Could anyone link me some professional wildlife photographers who use Nikon? I am edging more and more to the Nikon now, reading all of this. I just need a last "push" to feel completely safe doing it