-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D7100 a significant upgrade over D7000??
- Thread starter smrags
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d7000 nikon d7100
Pradipta Dutta
Veteran Member
If you shoot a lot of fast action, you will absolutely find the D7100 to be a major upgrade over D7000. The Auto Focus on D7100 is vastly improved. Extra resolution, improvement in flash exposure, etc., will come as bonus.
--
My Online Gallery - http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
--
My Online Gallery - http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
Last edited:
If I didn't own a D7000 already, I probably would buy the D7100. IMHO it's worth the little extra over a D7000 but not worth it to me to replace what I have now if that makes sense?
sshoihet
Veteran Member
I love my D7000 and have over 100K images on it. Although the d7100 may not offer a significant, practical improvement in IQ, there are some very significant upgrades to the AF and several controls. Only you can tell if the new features are something you'd miss.
CeleryBeats
Leading Member
Actually the video output from the D7100 is better overall. I would say it is more clear from visual artifacts due to the somewhat softer image. It's similar to a mark III in terms of sharpness. Less aliasing for sure and better dynamic range, color quality.
Adding sharpenning in post is therefor more flexible as well.
In body sound recording is, eventhough not enough for many, significantly better.
--
http://jeroenselderslaghs.be
http://www.facebook.com/jeroenselderslaghsphoto
Last edited:
CeleryBeats
Leading Member
It's an improvement in virtually every aspect. I would conclude that as being pretty significant!
therefor, unless you really don't have the money, going for the D7100 is a nobrainer. It's a more advanced and stronger DSLR.
--
http://jeroenselderslaghs.be
http://www.facebook.com/jeroenselderslaghsphoto
Last edited:
BirgerH
Veteran Member
Just like you, I'm buying a new D7000 - will arrive soon.
But there is, naturally, some very significant differences between the two. Just read the DPRreviews to compare. And one of the differences is the cost.
The question is - do those differences influence your supposed use of the camera?
To me it is clear -
24MP - my old 12MP D90 has not yet been challenged that much, that I would ever see a difference - only bigger files.
Faster AF - the D90 is still faster than my eyes and brain.
And so on and so on... the thruth is that I have even no excuse for buying the D7000 except that I wanted it from the start.
Therefor - no D7100
BirgerH.
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Excellent, I was going by DPR`s review and the very very low score they gave Video on it in the summary . I`d have liked it to be good as it has Pro Vid features such as headphone output, full manual controls and HDMI RAW Video streaming . how many built in mics is of course irrelevant, a shotgun mic is the minimum..
BTW My Mark III doesn`t even do live view let alone Video, neither did the 1D version - LOL
--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **
Last edited:
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Its well worth a 30% premium all day long - whether it`s worth the 100% Premium in the UK is a different matter, this is a secondary work tool for me (I run two systems, C full frame & N APS-C) and the extras it offers extends beyond what the D7000 was capable of being used for.
For those who don`t need C-AF or Auto area and are happy with cross sensors around the middle area and 16Mp is enough (which it is for most) then IN THE UK, the D7000 is a Steal where the difference is twice the price currently
larrywilson
Veteran Member
I used to have the d7000, I shoot birds and birds in flight and the d7000 af just wasn't accurate enough for me. I bought the d7100 and the af is much, much better. For my type of photography, the af alone is worth the upgrade. The additional pixels is really nice for more cropping.
Larry
Larry
light_bulb
Leading Member
I have thought about it not as an upgrade but as a TC for my Sigma 120-300 OS. However with that buffer size issue it is useless for action shots.
;-)
--
http://home.fotocommunity.de/andreaspastowski
Last edited:
Adam-T
Forum Pro
The buffer is fine in JPG - if you set the sharpness to 1 notch above "0" (about 3 or 4 down from default) and sharpen in Photoshop instead of using Nikon`s awful "Halo-engine" in-camera sharpening, the EXPEED-3 JPG engine is capable of very good detail - to gain a bit more when shooting under ISO800, turn the NR to OFF (it`s still not really off but as close as you can expect from Nikon) , OK it`s still not as good as RAW + a decent converter like Capture one fior pulling ultra fine detail at 100% by quite a margin but almost as good as the likes of ACR .
--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **
larrywilson
Veteran Member
I disagree, not usefuless for action shots, 5 fast frame shots is not desirable, but in most situations probably good enough. I had the d7000 and it couldn't of had much more if not less buffer than the d7100. I am using the d7100 for bird photography and its not all that bad. I have to get the bird close enough and have the focus tracking working and locked on before I push the button and in more cases than not, 5 frames is enough.
Larry
Larry
RobCMad
Forum Enthusiast
I don't understand your point, as I say FF has better IQ than a D7000.
Daniel Bliss
Senior Member
The big difference, I suspect — I say "suspect", because the only 51-point AF body I have is a D800 — is going to be that autofocus module. And even there, you've got a limited group of people who will really benefit a lot.
My D7000 bodies have done quite a good job of autofocus, once I finally sent them into Nikon for mirror angle adjustment. Both bodies were backfocusing under incandescent and having some difficulty with AF accuracy in mixed lighting but were basically accurate under daylight; so it wasn't a conventional backfocus situation but rather a situation in which the mirror that reflects the light into the AF sensor was at the wrong angle, causing focus errors that grew bigger under warmer light the more chromatic aberration the lens had. That is to say, there were minor indoor errors with a 70-200 VR II 2.8, things were moderately bad with the 24/2.8, and with the 17-55 DX it was a disaster. Once the adjustments were done, great success. Looking around all the DPReview posts on D7000 autofocus, I strongly believe the mirror angle issue was very common, while conventional backfocus or frontfocus were rare. That also means that an in-adjustment D7000 will do a fine job of AF, and those of you for whom it still isn't working should have this checked out.
Where the D800 module, and I assume also the 7100 module, improves on this is that it's a bit more responsive and the 51 points are smaller, fitting into basically the same area of the screen as the 39 points on a D7000. So the focus ends up being more precise as well as faster to lock on. Compared to those D7000 bodies that are still out of adjustment, it will be a huge improvement. For those with a D7000 body that's already in adjustment, the main difference is likely to be a little extra precision and speed.
The D7000 is already so strong on dynamic range and acuity that I doubt the D7100 will be too much of an improvement. Where I'd say, "go for the D7100" is if you do something that's really demanding of AF, like birds in flight, or if you're doing something that requires every last ounce of resolution, such as tripod-based landscape photography with a really good lens at a moderate to wide aperture.
The video review on the 7100 is a bit of a disappointment, however -- the 1.3x mode, which ought to be the ideal one for video, instead produces inferior video to full DX on the D7100 or D7000.
My D7000 bodies have done quite a good job of autofocus, once I finally sent them into Nikon for mirror angle adjustment. Both bodies were backfocusing under incandescent and having some difficulty with AF accuracy in mixed lighting but were basically accurate under daylight; so it wasn't a conventional backfocus situation but rather a situation in which the mirror that reflects the light into the AF sensor was at the wrong angle, causing focus errors that grew bigger under warmer light the more chromatic aberration the lens had. That is to say, there were minor indoor errors with a 70-200 VR II 2.8, things were moderately bad with the 24/2.8, and with the 17-55 DX it was a disaster. Once the adjustments were done, great success. Looking around all the DPReview posts on D7000 autofocus, I strongly believe the mirror angle issue was very common, while conventional backfocus or frontfocus were rare. That also means that an in-adjustment D7000 will do a fine job of AF, and those of you for whom it still isn't working should have this checked out.
Where the D800 module, and I assume also the 7100 module, improves on this is that it's a bit more responsive and the 51 points are smaller, fitting into basically the same area of the screen as the 39 points on a D7000. So the focus ends up being more precise as well as faster to lock on. Compared to those D7000 bodies that are still out of adjustment, it will be a huge improvement. For those with a D7000 body that's already in adjustment, the main difference is likely to be a little extra precision and speed.
The D7000 is already so strong on dynamic range and acuity that I doubt the D7100 will be too much of an improvement. Where I'd say, "go for the D7100" is if you do something that's really demanding of AF, like birds in flight, or if you're doing something that requires every last ounce of resolution, such as tripod-based landscape photography with a really good lens at a moderate to wide aperture.
The video review on the 7100 is a bit of a disappointment, however -- the 1.3x mode, which ought to be the ideal one for video, instead produces inferior video to full DX on the D7100 or D7000.
greg mclemore102171
Leading Member
- Messages
- 801
- Reaction score
- 30
I had and enjoyed both, for me it was worth it, I sold the D7000.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum