# Nikon D7100 or Nikon D7000



## JackPhotography1998 (Apr 30, 2013)

Hi everyone 

I am upgrading cameras from my D3100 to a more advanced camera and I was looking at the D7000 series I was wondering if it is worth the extra money for the D7100 or should I just get a older D7000? 

I know the subject is about the D7000/7100
But if anyone has any other suggestions for a camera at a medium level they would be welcome and appreciated 

Thanks 
Jack M'crystal Photography


----------



## apvm (Apr 30, 2013)

If budget allows, get the D7100.  Yours is a very subjective question.  Only you can decide if the extra of the D7100 is worth it or not. Do Your Own Due Diligence and make decision.


----------



## JackPhotography1998 (Apr 30, 2013)

apvm said:


> If budget allows, get the D7100.  Yours is a very subjective question.  Only you can decide if the extra of the D7100 is worth it or not. Do Your Own Due Diligence and make decision.



What extra do you get with a d7100 compared to a d7000 that's better (other than the megapixels and newer camera).


----------



## brunerww (Apr 30, 2013)

Jack - this brand new DPReview comparison of the two cameras may help with your decision.  Personally, the D7000 is a great camera, but I would spend the extra $300 for the D7100 (if it fits your budget) for the higher res sensor, lack of anti aliasing filter, increased number of focus points, wi-fi option and higher res LCD.

As a hybrid still/video shooter, I also prefer the D7100's significantly improved video over the D7000.  No more ugly moire!  See the rooflines here.  The D7000 would have covered them with shot-ruining colored stripes (see example in next post - TPF only allows one video per post).

[video=vimeo;62104512]http://vimeo.com/62104512[/video]

Cheers,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution


----------



## brunerww (Apr 30, 2013)

Here is the example of the D7000's moire challenge referred to in the previous post.  Note the shimmering colored stripes on the shingled roof at 0:21 in this video (please watch at 720p):






If you plan to shoot any video at all with Nikon DSLRs, I strongly recommend the new D5200 or the D7100.  These are Nikon's best hybrid still/video cameras to date, even better than the moire-prone D600 and D800.

Good luck with your decision!

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution


----------



## JackPhotography1998 (Apr 30, 2013)

brunerww said:


> Jack - this brand new DPReview comparison of the two cameras may help with your decision.  Personally, the D7000 is a great camera, but I would spend the extra $300 for the D7100 (if it fits your budget) for the higher res sensor, lack of anti aliasing filter, increased number of focus points, wi-fi option and higher res LCD.
> 
> As a hybrid still/video shooter, I also prefer the D7100's significantly improved video over the D7000.  No more ugly moire!  See the rooflines here.  The D7000 would have covered them with shot-ruining colored stripes (see example in next post - TPF only allows one video per post).
> 
> ...



Thanks bull but I am not taking video with my camera 
With the wifi you said in the quote above is that an option or is it standard with the d7100?

Jack M'crystal Photography


----------



## TheLost (Apr 30, 2013)

D7100 has..
51point Autofocus system
Autofocus Logic from the D4
Better Weather Sealing
3.2" 1229k-dot RGBW LCD
OLED Viewfinder Display
Larger Grip

And... a 24mp sensor.

The D7100 is just like the D7000 the same way the D7000 is just like the D600....  They look the same.. but all 3 are different cameras.


----------



## TJC (Apr 30, 2013)

Jack, you are getting some good advice here. That said, the 7100 is more of minorly revised mousetrap rather than a better mousetrap. It is not a revolutionary camera. It is a slot filler. Nikon finds itself in a market cycle product war with it's major competitors. This requires NIkon, as it does Canon and the others to bring out new models to remain relevant. The camera market has become just like the car market. Slight changes for several years and then a total redo every four or five years. The 7100 is not the total redo. Just as the 2012 Accord is not better than the 2011, the 2013 Accord is a major step forward. The 7100 while offering some things the 7000 doesn't, not a major step forward. 

All that to say if the modest changes to the new 7000, officially dubbed the 7100 are important to you it will be worth every cent of the extra money spent. Otherwise, the 7000 is one great camera. And, spending less, hey who can argue with that?


----------



## tenthumbs (Apr 30, 2013)

If you can honestly say your photography will be noticeably better by utilizing the features that only the D7100 can offer, your choice is easy. Otherwise it would seem wiser to buy the still excellent D7000 and use the savings toward a great lens.


----------



## apvm (Apr 30, 2013)

If you are upgrading from a D7000, there is really little or no point, you should at least wait for the next generation or go FF.  Since you are upgrading from a D3100, D7100 is the way imo and if budget allows.

Bear in mind this comes from a newbie with a D3100.  This is what I'd upgrade to if I have the budget and the need to.


----------



## KmH (Apr 30, 2013)

The "Advanced, Multi-CAM 3500DX, 51 focus point, auto focus module" the D7100 has is alone worth the extra cost.


----------



## TheLost (Apr 30, 2013)

apvm said:


> If you are upgrading from a D7000, there is really little or no point, you should at least wait for the next generation or go FF.



I upgraded from the D7000 to the D7100... mostly for...



KmH said:


> The "Advanced, Multi-CAM 3500DX, 51 focus point, auto focus module" the D7100 has is alone worth the extra cost.



.. and you couldn't pay me to use a D7000 now


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 30, 2013)

KmH said:


> The "Advanced, Multi-CAM 3500DX, 51 focus point, auto focus module" the D7100 has is alone worth the extra cost.



If its the same as the 3500FX- it's awesome lol.


----------



## JackPhotography1998 (Apr 30, 2013)

Thanks all for helping me make a choice I really appreciate it! Defiantly getting the 7100 I will let you all know how it goes

Jack M'crystal Photography


----------



## cgw (Apr 30, 2013)

KmH said:


> The "Advanced, Multi-CAM 3500DX, 51 focus point, auto focus module" the D7100 has is alone worth the extra cost.



Provided you need it. Otherwise, the IQ difference and feature upgrades aren't exactly jaw-dropping for almost a 50% price hike. What we're they thinking?


----------



## gryffinwings (Apr 30, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The "Advanced, Multi-CAM 3500DX, 51 focus point, auto focus module" the D7100 has is alone worth the extra cost.
> ...



I've heard that this AF module Multi-CAM 3500DX is pretty amazing, even works in very low light, I look forward to getting this camera in the next few months.


----------



## KmH (Apr 30, 2013)

Nikon improved (Advanced) the Multi-CAM 3500DX/FX module that appeared in the D3/D700/D300 and is now in the D4/D800/D7100.


----------



## TheLost (May 1, 2013)

cgw said:


> Provided you need it. Otherwise, the IQ difference and feature upgrades aren't exactly jaw-dropping for almost a 50% price hike. What we're they thinking?



Then you should get a D3000... you can pick one up from B&H or Adorama for ~$200.


----------



## apvm (May 1, 2013)

TheLost said:


> apvm said:
> 
> 
> > If you are upgrading from a D7000, there is really little or no point, you should at least wait for the next generation or go FF.
> ...



It all depends on your wallet and your needs.  I know someone who upgrade his cpu once a year.  Like I said before, OP's question is very subjective.


----------



## TJC (May 1, 2013)

The new model wasn't here 6 months ago. Way back then the old model was all the rave!!!! Thread after thread of which one should I buy questions all with the same answer, buy this one! Now that "One" is such a POS that posters couldn't be paid to pick it up. 

Really? C'mon!

7100 looks to be a great camera. And it better be because it's got big shoes to fill! 

Subjective indeed!


----------



## TheLost (May 1, 2013)

All of my comments are do to the "You'd be stupid to upgrade" comments...



apvm said:


> If you are upgrading from a D7000, there is really little or no point


That's an opinion not a fact.. There are plenty of reasons to upgrade from the D7000 to the D7100 (and lots of people have).



apvm said:


> you should at least wait for the next generation or go FF.


Yet another opinion... Not everybody needs or wants to go FF.



TJC said:


> Now that "One" is such a POS that posters couldn't be paid to pick it up.


I owned a D7000 for over 2 years... I've also owned the D7100 since the day it came out.  For me, the Auto Focus on the D7000 was always lacking.  I use the D7100 to shoot sporting events at least twice a week and it impresses me more each day.  So, it is my opinion that i will not purchase a D7000... even if you paid me 

You can buy a D5200 and get a sensor with a slightly better DxOMark score.  You can buy a D7000 for 1/2 the price. You can buy a D5100 for even less. A Camera is a tool...  And until Nikon releases the mythical D400 the D7100 is the current top-of-the-line DX body.


----------



## greybeard (May 1, 2013)

I have the D7000 and I wouldn't bother upgrading it to a D7100 however, if I was coming from a D3100 I'd definitely go for the D7100.  Latest generation sensor and software, etc.


----------



## TJC (May 2, 2013)

Lost, point is you did own it for two years. And you put up with it's "lacking auto focus "for that time when you could have resolved that issue by either buying up or down within Nikon's line up. Either direction would have gotten you what you now have. That you didn't, maybe the 7000 not quite so useless. 

That said, while there is nothing wrong with getting the new new thing, there was nothing wrong with the old thing. My point about NIkon bringing out this camera to remain relevant in the market is the point. They didn't bring it out because the 7000 was flawed. Quite the contrary, the 7000 will be a tough act to follow. 

Is there an upgrade or two from the old to the new, sure! Does it make it a better choice? For some yes, for some no! 

That one of those upgrades hit the nail on the head for you doesn's mean the old camera is useless.

But since you aren't using it, and think so little of it, I'll give you $25 for it. I'll even pay for shipping. Shoot me a PM.


----------



## Derrel (May 2, 2013)

I see the D7100 as a worthy competitor against anything Canon or Sony has in their mid-level models. The D7100 now has the HIGH-end AF module that the D4 uses! The D7100 has moved up to the 24MP size sensor that the majority of the Nikon DX line now has. I see the D7000 however as a great VALUE for dollars spent, but it is a bit less-capable.

The D7100 has one interesting feature according to the SLR Lounge review: 100 percent, 1-touch zoom-in on review on the LCD....that's really handy. It's a great way to check focus accuracy/camera shake FAST, with one,single click. SHooting at 24 MP is more-demanding than some people might imagine; camera shake, and mirror slap, tripod vibration, subject motion, slight blurring due to shutter speed--ALL of those things, and I mean ALL of them, are factors when shooting at 24MP resolution. 24 MP is high-rez imaging...it's 50% more pixels than the D7000 has...it is DOUBLE the 12 megapixels many Nikon users are used to.

I was not interested in the D7000, but the D7100 I admit, is intriguing...a small, light, high-density 24MP sensor with wide dynamic range and excellent high-ISO capabilities...man...I kinda want a D7100...


----------



## cgw (May 2, 2013)

TheLost said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > Provided you need it. Otherwise, the IQ difference and feature upgrades aren't exactly jaw-dropping for almost a 50% price hike. What we're they thinking?
> ...



Like I'm asking for advice? If you dig the D7100's AF, cool. But don't oversell its feature upgrades relative to its IQ that's no better than some of Nikon's downmarket DX bodies. It's your $. Wait, it's Nikon's $ now.


----------



## TheLost (May 3, 2013)

TheLost said:


> All of my comments are do to the "You'd be stupid to upgrade" comments...


I never once said the D7000 was a bad camera.. I am REPLYING TO THE COMMENTS that say the D7100 isn't a worthy upgrade to the D7000. 

Have any of the following people used a D7100?


TJC said:


> the 7100 is more of minorly revised mousetrap rather than a better mousetrap. It is not a revolutionary camera. It is a slot filler.





apvm said:


> If you are upgrading from a D7000, there is really little or no point, you should at least wait for the next generation or go FF.





cgw said:


> ... Otherwise, the IQ difference and feature upgrades aren't exactly jaw-dropping for almost a 50% price hike. What we're they thinking?


...  Or are they just repeating internet drabble? 



cgw said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > cgw said:
> ...


You just stated the IQ difference between the D7100 and the D7000 isn't worth the upgrade. (i will point out however that the D7100 costs the exact amount the D7000 did when it was released).  I was just using your logic to point out the IQ between the D3000 and D3100 isn't that huge..  The difference between the D3100 and D5100 is marginal... The D7000 uses the same sensor as the D5100.. ergo.. Why not just get a D3000?  

At what point did nikon make a huge IQ and Feature upgrade between the D70, D80, D90, D7000 or D7100?  How different in IQ where they from the D50, D3000, D3100 or D5100?  

You might not be asking for my advice... but you are giving your advice to not buy a camera that nikon didn't get your approval to release... yet you have never used it.

It is fact however that the D7100 is not just a re-hashed D7000.. It uses a different sensor, it has a completely different body and it uses different logic boards.  The only thing the D7000 and D7100 share is a battery and a common look.

For the record (and you can scan my post history on this forum) i absolutely loved my D7000.  It had the features i needed that allowed me to get the images i wanted. I have shot with Canon's 7D, Nikon D300s, Nikon D3s and a short stint with the D4.. For the $$ i had to spend, the D7000 was amazing.  It is also my opinion that the D7100 fixes some of the issues i had with the D7000.



cgw said:


> It's your $. Wait, it's Nikon's $ now.


You seem to have some serious issues with nikon..  I'd hate to see how you respond to people that like the D800.


----------



## dwswager (May 3, 2013)

cgw said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The "Advanced, Multi-CAM 3500DX, 51 focus point, auto focus module" the D7100 has is alone worth the extra cost.
> ...



D7100 - $1199
D7000-$999

Though you can get the D7000 Factory Refurbished for around $775 right now.


----------



## cgw (May 3, 2013)

dwswager said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



You can get a new D7000 in Toronto this aft. for C$ 799. D7100? C$ 1199-ish.


----------



## cgw (May 3, 2013)

TheLost said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > All of my comments are do to the "You'd be stupid to upgrade" comments...
> ...



I think you're really just talking to yourself here to justify your purchase. _That's_ what I call internet drivel.


----------



## TheLost (May 3, 2013)

cgw said:


> I think you're really just talking to yourself here to justify your purchase. _That's_ what I call internet drivel.



Your right... Nikon should have just stopped making cameras after the D7000....  You win the internet.


----------



## PolishMan (May 21, 2013)

lol, oh man, I'm going to enjoy this forum..


----------



## LeftCoast (May 21, 2013)

TheLost is correct, the D7100 is a superior cam in every way. All you need to know is that it has the AF module of the $6,000 D4.  Everything else is just a bonus.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 21, 2013)

I'm on the fence with this one as well. The D7100 is very tempting, especially being able to AF FX lenses.


----------



## wes1007 (May 22, 2013)

I was stuck on this too and im now opting for the D7000 as its a fair amount cheaper and it means better glass for me, However in your case you already have glass. Its just a matter of can you afford the extra?


----------



## Gary_A (May 22, 2013)

cgw said:


> I think you're really just talking to yourself here to justify your purchase. _That's_ what I call internet drivel.



I think you really don't have any facts to back up your previous claims and have been called on it. _That's _what everyone else calls internet drivel.


----------



## personalt (May 22, 2013)

If you going new then the D7100 leap is not that much different.  Cameta, KEH, B&H seem to have used models in the $650-$700 range.  I just picked up a used one from Cameta with less then 3K shots take for $650.  To me that make sense.  but if I was looking at new D7000s I would have done all the way.


----------



## PolishMan (May 22, 2013)

I just got mine on sale for 1399$ with a kit lens, I am sure if people wait a month or so it will go on sale for cheaper.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 22, 2013)

Well, I went back and forth a little but finally decided on a new D7100 body. I haven't had time to power it up yet but hopefully I can mess with the settings after dinner. I will say my first impressions is that it's a solid feeling camera compared to my D3100. 

My next goal is a 17-55mm f/2.8 and a 18-200mm for my D3100.


----------



## dandyandy (May 22, 2013)

I think the D7100 is worth investing in, especially because of the 51-point AF and the removed OLPF, the images are very sharp and I'm impressed by the detail in them, I think that's a reasonable upgrade.

Check out this specs and price comparison chart, maybe that'll clear things up.


----------



## PolishMan (May 22, 2013)

good choice, down the line you would probably of regret not getting the 7100. Start snapping some pics and let us know how you like it.. I love mine, been experimenting loads.


----------



## cgw (May 22, 2013)

Gary_A said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > I think you're really just talking to yourself here to justify your purchase. _That's_ what I call internet drivel.
> ...



Really? Tell me about the astounding IQ difference between the D7100 and the D5200. Objective reviews--not rehashes of Nikon press releases-of the D7100 haven't been overwhelmed its upgrade features. I'm looking for some serious summertime discounts on the D7100.


----------



## greybeard (May 22, 2013)

I have the D7000 and I see no need for me to upgrade to the d7100 however, in your case I would go with the 7100.  It has a few neat features over the D7000 and since you are upgrading, you might as well go as far as you can if you are staying with crop frame.


----------



## TheLost (May 23, 2013)

cgw said:


> Really? Tell me about the astounding IQ difference between the D7100 and the D5200. Objective reviews--not rehashes of Nikon press releases-of the D7100 haven't been overwhelmed its upgrade features. I'm looking for some serious summertime discounts on the D7100.



I stand by my other comments then... Using your logic, You shouldn't get a used D7000 for $650.  You should get a refurb D5100 for $450 ($200 cheaper!!).  The D5100 has the same sensor as the D7000... $200 cheaper and the same IQ as the D7000!


----------



## bigal1000 (May 23, 2013)

My pick the D7100 the 7000 is not even close to it. You will pay a little less for a 7000,but you will get a lot less of a camera. Only my opinion.


----------



## Lenny (Jun 2, 2013)

I think the D7000 or the D7100 would both be good choices. I chose the D7100 because of the build quality, superior low light performance and the weather resistant body. It is a very fast camera. But be aware that the files will be larger if you choose the highest resolution or RAW. This will extend the amount of time it takes it to write to the SD card. I heard that this body burns up battery faster than the D7000. I photograph weddings so those issues are not a problem for me.


----------



## Richichi (Jun 2, 2013)

OK here's my 2 cents - I have a D7000 that I purchased in January and love it - a few days ago I purchased the D7100 and just within that first day of shooting I knew I made the right decision, 4 days later and I'm still totally convinced I made the right decision. To me it's a different and better camera to me. It clearly focuses better & quieter, I love the internal OED instead of the LED, it's better in low light without a doubt, the higher res gives me a better crop when I compose poorly , the screen is bigger & brighter, I like HDR & 5 frames vs. 3 is a big improvement ...... So after a few days I'm very happy - I loved my D7000 very much and now I love my D7100 .... will my photo's be better ??????

I agree there was a lot of dribble on these 3 pages, but a few people gave you good hands on advice and thelost was one of them.

So if money is no issue than I think it's a silly question - get the D7100 but  if money is an issue than you should just buy the best you could afford whether it's a D7000 or something else and not worry if the D7100 is better, there is always better.

I think a better question should be .... What's the best Nikon camera  can I buy new/used for less than ?$$$$?

on a side note, just to give you an idea of pricing.   .... I'm selling my kit D7000 w/4650 clicks with the 18-105mm and a MB-D11 all in really mint condition, physically & mechanically, with all OEM accessories & boxes for $1000 to your door - I pick up ship/insur/paypal fees

Good Luck !!


----------

