# Nikon D7000 or D7100



## timarp000 (Aug 6, 2013)

I need to Make a Quick decision between the D7000 and the D7100. What is the difference in image quality between the two. I was looking forward to the D7100 but a bad buffer is pushing me away from it. Which one do i buy? There is also a significant price difference between the two as you can get the D7000 on sale for $620!

This is what I plan to buy -
Nikon D7000 - $619.99
Nikon 18-70mm - $288.99
Nikon 70-300mm - $509.95
Nikon 85mm Macro - $526.95

TOTAL - $1945.88

The D7100 is an additional $279.96.

Is the D7100 worth the extra? Even when considering the bad buffer?


----------



## SCraig (Aug 6, 2013)

The D7100 has pretty much the SAME buffer as the D7000.  The difference being that since the D7100's images are larger fewer will fit in the allocated memory.  I run into the buffer limitation on my D7000 frequently and it's the one thing preventing me from purchasing a D7100.

Given a choice between the two, and if I didn't have a D7000, I'd certainly go for the D7100 for the additional resolution.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 6, 2013)

SCraig said:


> The D7100 has pretty much the SAME buffer as the D7000.  The difference being that since the D7100's images are larger fewer will fit in the allocated memory.  I run into the buffer limitation on my D7000 frequently and it's the one thing preventing me from purchasing a D7100.
> 
> Given a choice between the two, and if I didn't have a D7000, I'd certainly go for the D7100 for the additional resolution.


The D7100 has only a 6frame buffer in RAW and shoots at only 5fps in RAW. The D7000 has a 10frame buffer in RAW and shoots 6fps in RAW


----------



## SCraig (Aug 6, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> The D7100 has only a 6frame buffer in RAW and shoots at only 5fps in RAW. The D7000 has a 10frame buffer in RAW and shoots 6fps in RAW


The D7100 is also a 24mp camera whereas the D7000 is a 16mp camera.  That 50% increase in resolution, as I said, is a big reason that the buffer holds less and the frame rate is lower, it has 50% more data to process with virtually the same microprocessor architecture.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 6, 2013)

I understand that. But the d7100's buffer is significantly lower. Due to that, it only shoots at 5fps. Thats the issue. So im considering the D7000. Which one should i buy?


----------



## SCraig (Aug 6, 2013)

I can't answer the question of which you should buy.  I can only state what *I* would do and I have already done that.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 6, 2013)

SCraig said:


> I can't answer the question of which you should buy.  I can only state what *I* would do and I have already done that.


Oh! You have a D7100? How is it? Noise performance, Dynamic range? How does it cope up while doing wildlife photography?


----------



## cgw (Aug 6, 2013)

Check the major D7100 reviews. Comparison with the D7000 is usually part of the more thorough evaluations. Have a look at Thom Hogan's views on the D7100.


----------



## goodguy (Aug 6, 2013)

I had the D7000 and just upgraded to the D7100
Still learning the camera but I can give you my insight of what I already see.
Before I will tell you I want to add I had AF issues with my D7000 (which is a known issue of this camera) which were mostly resolve after a long battle but I lost my faith in this specific camera (not D7000 in general just mine).

The advantages I already saw of the D7100 over the D7000

1.Faster AF
2.Pictures sharper (but that could be because of my old D7000 issues)
3.Better dynamic range
4.Camera body lighter (about 100gr)
5.Focuses better in low light situation (The D7000 was hunting more).

If you didn't buy the D7000 already I wouldn't hesitate and get the D7100, its simply a better camera.
Bought mine for 1050$ so its about 400$ more then the D7000, I think its worth it, why buy old technology even though the D7000 is still a VERY good capable camera.

Unless you are shooting a lot of sports I wouldn't worry too much about the FPS issue and if you are shooting a lot of sport event then you are looking at the wrong cameras anyways, the D300s or its replacement (when ever that will come out) is the camera you should be looking at.


----------



## TheLost (Aug 6, 2013)

If you think the D7000 is faster then the D7100 you are wrong...  The specs on the D7000 are exaggerated and on the D7100 they are slighly under-rated.

I've posted this a ton before... but here it is again...







With a fast card (Sandisk Extreme Pro) you won't notice any difference between the two cameras....  If you want a fast and long FPS then get a D300s or a D4.

The only reason to get the D7000 over the D7100 is price.  The D7100 is more expensive but its also a better camera.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 6, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> Oh! You have a D7100? How is it? Noise performance, Dynamic range? How does it cope up while doing wildlife photography?


No, sorry.  I have a D7000.


----------



## cgw (Aug 6, 2013)

Buffer issues aside, few(if any) reviewers who shot both cameras extensively have been dumb-struck by the IQ differences between them. 50% more pixels doesn't necessarily equal 50% better IQ.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 6, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> I need to Make a Quick decision between the D7000 and the D7100. What is the difference in image quality between the two. I was looking forward to the D7100 but a bad buffer is pushing me away from it. Which one do i buy? There is also a significant price difference between the two as you can get the D7000 on sale for $620!
> 
> This is what I plan to buy -
> Nikon D7000 - $619.99
> ...



I've got a D7100 and absolutely love it but having never owned a D7000, I can't really compare the two. Personally, I would shop around for some better deals on glass and use the saving to offset the cost of buying the D7100.

Example: BHphotovideo.com is a very well respected camera store and has refurbished Nikon 70-300mm VRs in stock for $349.00. That is $150.00 savings right there. 

Used Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED2161B


----------



## SCraig (Aug 6, 2013)

cgw said:


> ... 50% more pixels doesn't necessarily equal 50% better IQ.


True, but when shooting birds and wildlife and cropping a lot having extra resolution in the area being cropped does help a great deal.


----------



## raventepes (Aug 6, 2013)

cgw said:


> Buffer issues aside, few(if any) reviewers who shot both cameras extensively have been dumb-struck by the IQ differences between them. 50% more pixels doesn't necessarily equal 50% better IQ.



True, and it certainly doesn't equal 50% better photographer, as some newcomers would like to think. 

Realistically, while I love my D7100, the D7000 is still a superb choice of body. 

One argument I have with the buffer issue is simply this; How often do most people need to shoot a constant 5-6 FPS with a buffer to match? I know I don't need that very often! The OP wants to shoot wildlife. Yes, the D7000's buffer may help, but realistically, you learn to adapt, and you shoot differently, depending on what you're using. 

The D7000 had the better buffer, but the 7100 has better everything else. Its higher ISO capabilities would help considerably since you don't want to use flash on wild animals. That in itself would be my reasoning for the 7100.


----------



## raventepes (Aug 6, 2013)

I'd also scrap the macro and 18-70 and choose the 16-85. You'll thank me later.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 6, 2013)

I have a D7100 and a D7000. 
unless I am doing heavy cropping (which is rare) I really don't see much of a quality difference in the pictures. 
the 7100 has more focus points to choose from, but I pretty much always use center point focus and spot metering anyway. 
The focus points might make more of a difference in af-c mode or active mode, but since i don't use them, i have no idea. 
the AF is just a little faster on the 7100, but not by some monumental amount. 
the 7100 DOES handle higher ISO noticeably better than the D7000, especially up around the 3200+ range. 

for the money, you really cant beat the D7000's value right now. 
if you CAN budget the extra money for the D7100, then its a slightly better camera overall. 
however, I don't see anyone being disappointed buying the D7000 and using the extra money for accessories or glass. 
I would also look for used or refurb lenses. you can get the nikkor 70-300 VRII used on ebay all day long around $350 or so in EX condition. 
you can also check places like KEH, Adorama, or B&H for used gear. I think they all  have a  return policy for used equipment. Adorama's is 14 days.


----------



## jdag (Aug 6, 2013)

I had a D7000 and now have a D7100.  The autofocus on the D7100 is significantly significantly significantly significantly better than the D7000.  In shooting my son's soccer games, the accuracy is unquestionably better.  My son plays U17 and U19, so the speed of the game necessitates accurate and fast focusing.  The D7100 is a huge improvement in that regard.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 7, 2013)

raventepes said:


> I'd also scrap the macro and 18-70 and choose the 16-85. You'll thank me later.


I need a macro lens. I was considering the 16-85 VR but its too expensive.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 7, 2013)

What do you guys think about the D400? Rumours are that it will be announced in Sept. Does anyone know the rumored price for it? Im Thinking $1600 MRP? As the D7100 is $1200 MRP.


----------



## goodguy (Aug 7, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> raventepes said:
> 
> 
> > I'd also scrap the macro and 18-70 and choose the 16-85. You'll thank me later.
> ...



Get the 16-85mm VR used, it will be much cheaper.
If you need a marco lens then get a macro lens.



timarp000 said:


> What do you guys think about the D400? Rumours are that it will be announced in Sept. Does anyone know the rumored price for it? Im Thinking $1600 MRP? As the D7100 is $1200 MRP.



You need to decide what you want and go for it, rumours are rumours.
The D400 if it will come out is a camera with a focus on more pro needs, it will probably be made more rugged with a much bigger buffer and higher FPS count.
Will it cost 1600$ ?
Who knows.

I just bought the Nikon D7100 and it cost me 1050$ so even if the D400 will come out and even if it will cost 1600$ then we are already talking about 550$ difference.
Frankly if I was willing to spend 1600$ on a camera I would add 200$ more dollars and get the D600 which I think for the non pro is probably the best camera in the market to date.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 7, 2013)

goodguy said:


> timarp000 said:
> 
> 
> > raventepes said:
> ...


Well, you can get a D600 for $1450! Thats an amazing deal! Is that worth it?


----------



## goodguy (Aug 7, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> Well, you can get a D600 for $1450! Thats an amazing deal! Is that worth it?



Are you kidding me ?
Is it worth it ?

Heck yeh its worth it!!!
Grab it with both hands and RUN.

D600 is a full frame camera and a very good camera it is.
But you should know the lenses for a FF body does cost more but I think its well worth the investment both in the short and long run.

Get the lenses used, all my FF lenses are used (except the 50mm 1.8), it will make this purchase much easier on the pocket.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 7, 2013)

I'm going to wait and see what comes next.  The D600 just doesn't do that much for me and the D800 would be overkill for my needs.  I don't really have any interest in a full-frame body but at the same time I've had the recent urge to try one for a while.  I've almost bought both at different times, and then change my mind because I don't really want either.  I like crop-sensor bodies because of the high resolution in a smaller area, however a 24mp full-frame has the same overall resolution.  I dunno, guess I'll wait and see what comes next.


----------



## goodguy (Aug 7, 2013)

SCraig said:


> I'm going to wait and see what comes next. The D600 just doesn't do that much for me and the D800 would be overkill for my needs. I don't really have any interest in a full-frame body but at the same time I've had the recent urge to try one for a while. I've almost bought both at different times, and then change my mind because I don't really want either. I like crop-sensor bodies because of the high resolution in a smaller area, however a 24mp full-frame has the same overall resolution. I dunno, guess I'll wait and see what comes next.


I was forced to make the same decision you made.
Unlike you I am dreaming of a FF body (not because I need it but because I want it).
Due to issues I had with my D7K I was forced to get another camera, got a good deal on a D7100 and simply couldnt afford the D600 so I will enjoy the D7100 for a year or two and when the replacement of the D600 will come out I will probably get it.
After all I got the lenses ready for a FF.

But the D7100 really is such an AWESOME tool that I am in no real big hurry to get another camera.


----------



## apvm (Aug 7, 2013)

If you have the budget, get the D7100.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 7, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> What do you guys think about the D400? Rumours are that it will be announced in Sept. Does anyone know the rumored price for it? Im Thinking $1600 MRP? As the D7100 is $1200 MRP.



I'm sure Nikon will release a New Semi/Pro DX body soon and probably closer to the $2,000 range. The question is, what do you shoot? The D400 (or what number) will most likely be geared towards photographers who shoot Sports and Wildlife.


----------



## TheLost (Aug 7, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> What do you guys think about the D400? Rumours are that it will be announced in Sept. Does anyone know the rumored price for it? Im Thinking $1600 MRP? As the D7100 is $1200 MRP.



I would expect the D400 to be closer to the $2000 range then $1600.   The D400 cant just be a D7100 with a bigger buffer.  It needs a bigger/stronger/pro body... It needs a faster processer to move 20+MP images around at a high FPS...  It needs a better AF system then the D7100... It needs a better sensor then the D7100(D5200)... It needs more connection ports (Maybe built in WiFi).  That stuff doesn't come cheap.

With the cost of the D600 dropping (under $1500 for a refurb.. discounted lens bundles... etc) the D400 is going to be a hard sell for the majority of *consumers*.   Nikon has made it clear it wants *PRO's *on FX.  I hope we see a D400 this september.... but then i've been waiting for the D400 each september for the past 3 years.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 7, 2013)

TheLost said:


> Nikon has made it clear it wants *PRO's *on FX.



That maybe a hard switch for wildlife photographers who benefit from the added reach using a crop camera.


----------



## TheLost (Aug 7, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> That maybe a hard switch for wildlife photographers who benefit from the added reach using a crop camera.



I used to think that way...  but the times have changed.  Pixel density on DX bodies and the lack of lenses able to resolve that much detail make "DX for wildelife" a Myth.

DX or FX for Sports and Wildlife Photography


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 7, 2013)

TheLost said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > That maybe a hard switch for wildlife photographers who benefit from the added reach using a crop camera.
> ...



Yes sir, I've read that article. Good article for sure. The Nikon D700 mentioned in that article is a good balance in my opinion offering both resolution and speed in an FX body. The D800 is a nice camera no doubt but I'm holding out for either a D400 or D700. Who knows, the D400 could be an FX body?


----------



## TheLost (Aug 7, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> Yes sir, I've read that article. Good article for sure. The Nikon D700 mentioned in that article is a good balance in my opinion offering both resolution and speed in an FX body. The D800 is a nice camera no doubt but I'm holding out for either a D400 or D700. Who knows, the D400 could be an FX body?



I've given up on the D400..  Im just going to wait for the D800 replacement and go with that


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 7, 2013)

Id love the D600. But Im using a 200mm lens on DX. That gives me 300mm. And that just doesnt cut it for taking pictures of birds! The 300mm on DX would be an upgrade, but a 300mm on FX will not show any difference. I just need that extra reach!


----------



## SCraig (Aug 7, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> Id love the D600. But Im using a 200mm lens on DX. That gives me 300mm. And that just doesnt cut it for taking pictures of birds! The 300mm on DX would be an upgrade, but a 300mm on FX will not show any difference. I just need that extra reach!



Use the D600 in DX Crop Mode.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 7, 2013)

SCraig said:


> timarp000 said:
> 
> 
> > Id love the D600. But Im using a 200mm lens on DX. That gives me 300mm. And that just doesnt cut it for taking pictures of birds! The 300mm on DX would be an upgrade, but a 300mm on FX will not show any difference. I just need that extra reach!
> ...


That would be a 16mp image not 24mp. So more noise will be seen!

My options are the D600 and the D7100. I need to choose between them.

I can grab a NEW D7100 for $900
I can grap a NEW D600 for $1450


----------



## SCraig (Aug 7, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> That would be a 16mp image not 24mp. So more noise will be seen!
> 
> My options are the D600 and the D7100. I need to choose between them.
> 
> ...



It would certainly be a 16mp image however no additional noise would be seen since the pixel density does not change.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 7, 2013)

What lenses would you recommend with the D600? I need 1 macro, 1 telephoto and 1 standard zoom


----------



## SCraig (Aug 7, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> What lenses would you recommend with the D600? I need 1 macro, 1 telephoto and 1 standard zoom



All I can tell you is what I have and like.  I have a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 macro lens that I like very well however it is DX format, I have a Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 that I probably use more than all my other lenses combined, and I have a Sigma 150-500 f/5.6-6.3 for birds and wildlife.  I have a few other lenses but those are the three that I use 99% of the time.


----------



## goodguy (Aug 7, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> What lenses would you recommend with the D600? I need 1 macro, 1 telephoto and 1 standard zoom


I am assuming money is an issue so I will not recommend the pro lenses.

I recomend the lenses I use.
From my experience these lenses are very good and very sharp, not the fastest in the market but then they are much, much cheapper and I highly recommend them.
These are FX lenses designed for full frame but work just as good on DX crop sensor cameras.

For moderate zoom
24-85mm VR-Very sharp lens, resonably fast and VR is pretty effective, this is the D600 kit lens and I can tell you this lens really doesnt get the respect it deserve. Its my go to lens and I do 95% of my shooting with it. It didnt fail me yet.
Cost me 325$ used

For long zoom 
70-300mm VR, excellent lens, very sharp, very effective VR, simply excellent value
Cost me 280$ used

Sorry I cant recommend a macro lens, I dont own one and dont want to recommend a lens I didnt use.


----------



## manicmike (Aug 7, 2013)

My Nikon 70-300 gets more use than anything in my bag. I add vivitar extension tubes and then I use it for macro too.


----------



## raventepes (Aug 7, 2013)

Ok. This is actually pretty simple. Nikon D7100, Nikon (DX) 16-85, Nikon (FX) 70-300, and 105mm macro, if budget allows. That gives you an effective DX range of 16-450, or 16-585, using the D7100's 1.3 crop.


----------



## goodguy (Aug 7, 2013)

raventepes said:


> Ok. This is actually pretty simple. Nikon D7100, Nikon (DX) 16-85, Nikon (FX) 70-300, and 105mm macro, if budget allows. That gives you an effective DX range of 16-450, or 16-585, using the D7100's 1.3 crop.


Yeh that 1.3 crop mode is pretty crazy, regular zoom turns to tele zoom and tele zoom is becoming seriously long.
Still didn't try it but I will when I am out in nature.


----------



## raventepes (Aug 8, 2013)

I don't use the 1.3 crop a lot, but it's a nifty little tool when I just need that little bit extra...


----------



## manicmike (Aug 8, 2013)

This may be a dumb question, but does the minimum focus distance of a specific lens stay the same even with the 1.3 crop or does that change?


----------



## MeddlinG (Aug 8, 2013)

I heard some D7000's have problems with backfocusing. Not mine, but I know people who had that problem. D7100 doesn't have these problems, or I don't know about it.


----------



## raventepes (Aug 8, 2013)

manicmike said:


> This may be a dumb question, but does the minimum focus distance of a specific lens stay the same even with the 1.3 crop or does that change?



The best way I can really answer that is that the 1.3 crop mode acts as a digital crop. When you look through the viewfinder and you activate crop mode, a square appears, showing what you're currently zoomed at. What's inside the square is what's recorded, and anything left in the frame is simply discarded.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 8, 2013)

manicmike said:


> This may be a dumb question, but does the minimum focus distance of a specific lens stay the same even with the 1.3 crop or does that change?



Minimum Focus Distance (MFD) of a lens is the same on all formats of Nikon bodies, so if a lens goes down to say 1.2 meters on a D3s, it'll be 1.2 meters MFD at ALL aspect ratios: Full-field FX, or the 5.4 aspect AKA the "8x10" format, or the DX-crop that uses the just center area of the 24x36mm sensor.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 8, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> I need to Make a Quick decision between the D7000 and the D7100. What is the difference in image quality between the two. I was looking forward to the D7100 but a bad buffer is pushing me away from it. Which one do i buy? There is also a significant price difference between the two as you can get the D7000 on sale for $620!
> 
> This is what I plan to buy -
> Nikon D7000 - $619.99
> ...



Good question, really. You get the higher MP count sensor, AND the newer, more-sophisticated AF system in the D7100. I personally think for the $279 extra, the D7100 is a nice camera, but the buffer is only like 6 shots in RAW mode; the write-to-card parts Nikon uses are low-spec, according to Thom Hogan's D7100 review, so in RAW mode the D7100 fills the buffer in ONE second at high frame rate...

Not sure if that's a deal-breaker or not.


----------



## manicmike (Aug 8, 2013)

Derrel said:


> manicmike said:
> 
> 
> > This may be a dumb question, but does the minimum focus distance of a specific lens stay the same even with the 1.3 crop or does that change?
> ...



That's what I thought. I was just making sure there wasn't something odd about the 7100 that maybe affected how close the MFD would be on each lens.


----------



## goodguy (Aug 8, 2013)

MeddlinG said:


> I heard some D7000's have problems with backfocusing. Not mine, but I know people who had that problem. D7100 doesn't have these problems, or I don't know about it.


Thats very true, I had back focusing problems with my D7000 which were never fully resolved, main reason why I upgraded to the D7100.
So far I cant see any focusing issues with the D7100, camera working like a charm or may I say as it should.


----------



## KmH (Aug 8, 2013)

Canon's, Pentax, and lots of other camera makes have had front/back focusing issues.
Nikon's higher grade cameras have a focus tuning function.

It's all mass produced, consumer electronics and there is always some amount of variation because of the way tolerances add up, +, 0, or -.


----------

