# HELP: D7100 OR D610 OR Keep Waiting ?



## piaopiao (Nov 19, 2013)

I bought D90 at Apr.2010...Now more than 3 three years had passed. Absolutely D90 is a good camera and so shamed that I had only a little bit more than ten thousand shots on it. But I gradually got dissatisfied with its focus system---with only 11 foucs points and especailly one 1 cross foucs, as well as ISO quality---a pure picture quality can not be beyond ISO400 utmost (ISO 800 can only be acceptable on screen but not full sieze) and its WB for skin color is not favourable when taking picture for girls (I am not shooting birds or sports, but mainly portait).

I had planned to be waiting for D400, but D7100 got released instead of it, which seemed to be with gorgeous body functions. And meanwhile, D600 and D610 are becoming hot for its cheap FX body and wonderful picture quality.


Unfortunately I find myself in a situation of "choose nothing"----which is mainly contributed by my possessing of 17-55/2.8, the only DX pro lens. If without it, it would be much easier for me to consider D610, but now, I feel reluctantly to sacrifice this excellent lens after having it only one year, plus I am such an beginner in photographying. 

While the rumors about the incomparable excellence in high ISO and picture quality of FX camera is playing a dose of hallucinogenic for me. I don't know if I should persuade myself to forget FX and to be stick on DX and to use 17-55 to its maximum extend or try double cameras with D90 and D610 both. 

PS: Temporarily I do not want to invest more on FX lens such as 24-70; If I will buy D610, I will use my current FX lens 85/1.8, 50/18 and 35/2D, or at most i will add another 24-120/F4. 

I wish any of you could give me good advice and I am open to any of your ideas.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm somewhat stuck in the same situation you are, but slightly different.

I have a d7000, so upgrade to a d7100 or a d600/610.

For me the difference is not as great as yours.

One thing to keep in mind, your DX lens will work with the d610 in DX mode.  So you don't have to sell it

The price of a 24-70/2.8 is a big $tep.  
I went the route of the 35-70/2.8 AF-D.
But the 24-70 eliminates my next question to myself .. should I also get the 20-35/2.8 AF-D.
The 24-70 nearly eliminates 2 AF-D lenses

but if low light is a primary concern, the issue is the ISO ability of hte d7100 (which is great) enough compared to the d610.
You would already get a big improvement from your d90.

So I don't really have an answer, other than if you have the money to get a d610, then get it.  
Otherwise the d7100 wouldn't make you look back at the 7100/610 decision.


----------



## TheLost (Nov 19, 2013)

piaopiao said:


> a pure picture quality can not be beyond ISO400 utmost (ISO 800 can only be acceptable on screen but not full sieze) and its WB for skin color is not favourable when taking picture for girls (I am not shooting birds or sports, *but mainly portait*).


Why do you need a D400 then?  

Sounds like the D610 (or D800) is exactly what you are looking for.


----------



## piaopiao (Nov 19, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> I'm somewhat stuck in the same situation you are, but slightly different.
> 
> I have a d7000, so upgrade to a d7100 or a d600/610.
> 
> ...



Thank you so much for sharing me with your consideration.
I am not unaffordable to D610, while the main concern is that how should i persuade myself to give up or to "castrate" 17-55? I will feel bad to use 17-55 on FX although i know it is still workable----since this both castrate the full function of D610 and 1755, it is no more than a sort of humiliation for both excellent tools. I can even be affordable to D800----but i have try to grasp it in my hand for many time at the Nikon store, I feel it is too big for me and it is inconvenient to bring for travelling, especially I am not a professional photography but an amateur. 

If the high ISO and the total picture quality of D7100 is not far less than that of D610, I would prefer to go to D7100 first and wait for FX in a later time. But the "rumor" says that even the worst FX is far more excellent in both aspect than best DX....


----------



## piaopiao (Nov 19, 2013)

Why do you need a D400 then? 

Sounds like the D610 (or D800) is exactly what you are looking for.[/QUOTE]

Yes, sounds FX (D610 or D800) is more suited to my demand. But I have had 1755 in hand, I do not want to leave it unused so quickly...and I prefer a smaller size of the camera body, that's why DX still has its advantages for me (the D610 is the biggest size i can accept but not D800).


----------



## Derrel (Nov 19, 2013)

Scott Kelby feels that the D7100 is pretty solid right up to and including ISO 4,000. I think staying with the D7100 would be an okay choice for you.


----------



## TheLost (Nov 19, 2013)

piaopiao said:


> Yes, sounds FX (D610 or D800) is more suited to my demand. But I have had 1755 in hand, I do not want to leave it unused so quickly...and I prefer a smaller size of the camera body, that's why DX still has its advantages for me (the D610 is the biggest size i can accept but not D800).



Nikon Refurbished D600 = $1400

Just FYI...  The majority of the people that want the D400 want a LARGER body and are unhappy with how small the D7100 is.


----------



## piaopiao (Nov 19, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Scott Kelby feels that the D7100 is pretty solid right up to and including ISO 4,000. I think staying with the D7100 would be an okay choice for you.



Thank you so much for your advices and that is what also I hope to be.
But I am a littlbe bit astounished by D7100 could go up so hige to ISO4000, many reported that ISO 1600 is its extreme.


----------



## piaopiao (Nov 19, 2013)

TheLost said:


> piaopiao said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, sounds FX (D610 or D800) is more suited to my demand. But I have had 1755 in hand, I do not want to leave it unused so quickly...and I prefer a smaller size of the camera body, that's why DX still has its advantages for me (the D610 is the biggest size i can accept but not D800).
> ...



Yes, you are right. If Nikon will actually release D400 with the size as big as D800, that is not I want. What want is a smaller DX body with excellent high ISO and picture quality.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 19, 2013)

by the way, since small size is important to you - have you considered the d5300 ?

you still get 24mp resolution like the d7100
supposedly better light sensitivity
40% lighter
and no issue with your 1755 (like the d7100)

Nikon D5300 vs D7100 - Our Analysis

but a d90 body is more similar to the d7100 than the d5300, if I recall - here's a short review of multiple considerations.
http://www.adorama.com/alc/0014164/article/The-Revolutionary-Nikon-D90-How-Does-It-Compare-Today


I thought I would just throw a d5300 out there for consideration due to body size.


----------



## Tailgunner (Nov 19, 2013)

It really depends on what you're looking for in a camera body but you can pick up a refurbished D800 for the cost of a D610. I'm actually thinking about selling my D7100 and buying a refurbed D800.


----------



## piaopiao (Nov 19, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> by the way, since small size is important to you - have you considered the d5300 ?
> 
> you still get 24mp resolution like the d7100
> supposedly better light sensitivity
> ...



Many thanks! A small size dose not mean the smaller the better. A better professional control is still important for me, i cannot tolerate reading and changing the info only on Live Screen. Sorry for my critical deamnd, maybe it is an impossible one So, D90 is the bottom line i can accept.


----------



## piaopiao (Nov 19, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> It really depends on what you're looking for in a camera body but you can pick up a refurbished D800 for the cost of a D610. I'm actually thinking about selling my D7100 and buying a refurbed D800.



Could you please share me with you feeling that what D7100 had frustrated you?


----------



## Tailgunner (Nov 19, 2013)

piaopiao said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > It really depends on what you're looking for in a camera body but you can pick up a refurbished D800 for the cost of a D610. I'm actually thinking about selling my D7100 and buying a refurbed D800.
> ...



I really don't have any frustrations or complaints with the D7100, it's a solid camera in my opinion and would recommend it to anyone. My reasons for considering selling my D7100 is I'm getting the urge to try out Full Frame cameras and higher ISO settings. I want completely move away from DX, I will still have my D300.


----------



## piaopiao (Nov 19, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> piaopiao said:
> 
> 
> > Tailgunner said:
> ...



Thanks! BTW, how high can the D7100 ISO goes according to you? 1600 or even higher? And, besides, do you think there is any noticeable impovement of the picture quality of D7100 compared to that of your D300?


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 19, 2013)

the d7000 and d7100 are the same with a maximum ISO of 25,600 extended which is "Hi 2"  But normally to 6400 "standard".


----------



## coastalconn (Nov 19, 2013)

piaopiao said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Kelby feels that the D7100 is pretty solid right up to and including ISO 4,000. I think staying with the D7100 would be an okay choice for you.
> ...



I'm a little confused why you would be waiting for a D400.  I think a refurb D600 would actually be pretty good for you since it sounds like you mostly do portraits..  I would love a D400 since I'm a bird photography but I have lost all hope.  I purchased a D7100 a few weeks ago and the sensor to be lightyears ahead of the D90/D5000/D300 generation (I've owned all three).  ISO 1600 is comparable to ISO 400 from the 12 MP sensors.  This was more of a test shot than anything, but I was shocked at how this looked for ISO 6400...

I'm sure I could have gotten rid of the BG noise if I spent some time processing it a little...



ISO 6400! Seriously by krisinct, on Flickr

This is ISO 1600 and a pretty good sized crop..



Golden Crowned Kinglet by krisinct, on Flickr


----------



## Tailgunner (Nov 19, 2013)

coastalconn said:


> piaopiao said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...




Oh wow, those look really nice! 

I'm glad you opted for the D7100. If anyone can put the D7100 to the test it has to be you.


----------



## coastalconn (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm not really a people person, but we had an impromptu going away party for someone at work and there was a "cabaret" type thing.  I only had my Sigma 120-300, which isn't exactly a person lens.  OS was very helpful...  As you can see lighting was HORRIBLE..  But these are pretty good samples of high ISO on the D7100...  I'm not saying they are great by any means...

ISO 6400, F2.8, 1/80 @ 120mm




ISO 6400, F3.2 1/200 @300mm




ISO 4000, f3.5 1/250th @300mm


----------



## Tailgunner (Nov 19, 2013)

coastalconn said:


> I'm not really a people person, but we had an impromptu going away party for someone at work and there was a "cabaret" type thing.  I only had my Sigma 120-300, which isn't exactly a person lens.  OS was very helpful...  As you can see lighting was HORRIBLE..  But these are pretty good samples of high ISO on the D7100...  I'm not saying they are great by any means...
> 
> ISO 6400, F2.8, 1/80 @ 120mm
> 
> ...




I'm not a people person either and your low light attempts with the D7100 put my attempts at people to shameespecially the first couple photos @ ISO 6400.


----------



## deschnell (Nov 19, 2013)

That looks nice for ISO 6400... about as good as my D3100 at ISO800, maybe 1200.

If I were you, I'd go for the Refurbed D600 which is $1400 at B&H. The advantage over the DX is slight, but worth it in the end, I think - especially in landscape/low light. This has been my debate over the last few weeks - 7100 or D600/610, so I'm glad I stumbled on this thread. But comparing color and tonal dynamic range, I think FX wins in this debate, especially since you're doing portraiture. The oil/dust on the sensor of the D600 is easy enough to clean yourself. But refurbs have lesser warranty... Not sure if that's an issue with these worth considering. 

Sucks that FX lenses are so much more $... but I guess if you're making money with it, it's just a business investment that will pay itself off, and potentially increase in value if taken care of.


----------



## piaopiao (Nov 20, 2013)

deschnell said:


> That looks nice for ISO 6400... about as good as my D3100 at ISO800, maybe 1200.
> 
> If I were you, I'd go for the Refurbed D600 which is $1400 at B&H. The advantage over the DX is slight, but worth it in the end, I think - especially in landscape/low light. This has been my debate over the last few weeks - 7100 or D600/610, so I'm glad I stumbled on this thread. But comparing color and tonal dynamic range, I think FX wins in this debate, especially since you're doing portraiture. The oil/dust on the sensor of the D600 is easy enough to clean yourself. But refurbs have lesser warranty... Not sure if that's an issue with these worth considering.
> 
> Sucks that FX lenses are so much more $... but I guess if you're making money with it, it's just a business investment that will pay itself off, and potentially increase in value if taken care of.



Thank you for your suggestion for me. Yes, I know that FX has its advantages over DX, expecially in portaits photographying.  But Dx also has its adveantages of better convenience and less spendins on lens.  With the rapid development of digital technique, the picture quality of DX has been very much close to FX. 
As to my situation, I had mentioned above that i will not hestitate to get to D610 if without 17-55, but now, I will not think of selling 17-55 even if I would decide to buy D610 instead of D7100.  If I choose D610, 17-55 will still serve for my D90; If I choose D7100, 17-55 can serve for both cameras, and I would like to wait until a better FX than D610.
I don't know if 17-55 does require the best DX body to play its extremety? In my imagination, 17-55 plus D7100, the best DX len shot on the best DX camera would be the best for both sides, and its picture quality will not be worse than that of FX, despite their hige ISO difference.


----------



## deschnell (Nov 20, 2013)

The 17-55 lens will work on FX, in full frame mode (there's an option in the menu to disable the auto crop mode with DX lens (in the shooting menu)) - but you might suffer from more vignetting due to lens construction. Maybe take your lens and a memory card down to a camera store to play for a few pictures to see.


----------



## piaopiao (Nov 20, 2013)

deschnell said:


> The 17-55 lens will work on FX, in full frame mode (there's an option in the menu to disable the auto crop mode with DX lens (in the shooting menu)) - but you might suffer from more vignetting due to lens construction. Maybe take your lens and a memory card down to a camera store to play for a few pictures to see.



Yes, that what i do not want....just as I've said above...it sounds a humilation to both such a good len and good camare.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 20, 2013)

The "one" major thing that pushes me to FX versus DX is lenses.  

You can opt to get a 17-xx DX lens for approximate 25mm field of view
But on a FX when you buy a 20mm lens, it has the field of view of a 20mm lens.

So my 20-35 lens is 20-35, and the 35-70 is 35-70
Thus on the short end my AF-D lenses are great for FX

on the long end, my DX is better.  as my 80-200 is more like a 120-300
and my 500 is like a 750.
and I think my telescope - base of 2000 is more like a 3000 ?  before eyepiece magnification.

My problem is I'm on both ends of the focal length where each one has the advantage over the other.

So, depending where you want to work, may make one camera better than the other.
That has been the confusing part of the equation for me.  But since I already have a d7000, I'll just add a d600 sooner or later.


----------



## piaopiao (Nov 20, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> The "one" major thing that pushes me to FX versus DX is lenses.
> 
> You can opt to get a 17-xx DX lens for approximate 25mm field of view
> But on a FX when you buy a 20mm lens, it has the field of view of a 20mm lens.
> ...



What makes you still think of D600?


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 20, 2013)

piaopiao said:


> What makes you still think of D600?


Sorry .. or 610

For me - the main issue between a d600 and a d610 is price

and also the dust issue.  But the later d600s don't seem to have that dust issue, or the one's that were Nikon Refurbished.

Thus my only concern between the d600 and d610 is available price.


----------



## Tailgunner (Nov 20, 2013)

I was at Best Buy today picking up an TV stand and while they was hunting it down in the back room, I took that opportunity to go fondle a D610. I must admit, it's a nice camera. I cranked it up to ISO 6400 and played with the white balance etc etc. I realize I was only previewing my shots through the LCD screen but everything looked good. They also had a D800 but no lens&#8230;the guys said he could put one on real quick but I was afraid I would end up buying the thing lol 

Anyhow, the D 610 is real tempting. I'm really considering selling my D7100 w/17-55mm 2.8 and using that to fund it. That or maybe a refurbished D800. Man D800 is really sweet&#8230;what to do lol


----------



## piaopiao (Nov 20, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> I was at Best Buy today picking up an TV stand and while they was hunting it down in the back room, I took that opportunity to go fondle a D610. I must admit, it's a nice camera. I cranked it up to ISO 6400 and played with the white balance etc etc. I realize I was only previewing my shots through the LCD screen but everything looked good. They also had a D800 but no lens&#8230;the guys said he could put one on real quick but I was afraid I would end up buying the thing lol
> 
> Anyhow, the D 610 is real tempting. I'm really considering selling my D7100 w/17-55mm 2.8 and using that to fund it. That or maybe a refurbished D800. Man D800 is really sweet&#8230;what to do lol



Oh, seems you are in the same boat with me.  How long had you shot with 17-55/2.8 and D7100, what is your impression about this combination?  What made you feel muct better about D610 than D7100? These are all I eager to know. Thanks!


----------



## Tailgunner (Nov 20, 2013)

piaopiao said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > I was at Best Buy today picking up an TV stand and while they was hunting it down in the back room, I took that opportunity to go fondle a D610. I must admit, it's a nice camera. I cranked it up to ISO 6400 and played with the white balance etc etc. I realize I was only previewing my shots through the LCD screen but everything looked good. They also had a D800 but no lensthe guys said he could put one on real quick but I was afraid I would end up buying the thing lol
> ...



My D7100 is about 7-8 months old but my primary lens for it is a Nikon 28-70mm 2.8. The Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 is really more for my D300 but tend to switch off sometimes since the 17-55mm 2.8 is wider. I just figured the D7100 w/17-55mm 2.8 combo would get me close to a FX body.


Anyhow, me thinking about switching to a D610 or D800 body has nothing to do with any short fall or disappointments with the D7100. I have been very happy and pleased with my D7100. I'm simply looking to try out a Full Frame camera body. The D600 was too problematic for my taste and why I haven't bought one before now. Nikon corrected these issues with the D610 which is why I'm interested since it's an affordable entry level FX camera body.


----------

