# Next SLR camera is there an alternative to the Nikon D7100 for me?



## tank121 (Apr 3, 2014)

Currently i have a Nikon D5100 and close to completing my college photography course. My biggest issue with the D5100 is the quality and size of the viewfinder compared to other SLR camera's I've tested. It's not the brightest and the focus points aren't the clearest and there is only one cross type. I do wear glasses too but try to take them off whilst shooting and adjust the diopter. In addition I can't use older Nikon lenses without the built in motor.

My *priority is image quality* and *I can't afford a FF body*, I've currently got 3 DX lenses - Sigma 17-50 2.8, Nikon 35mm 1.8 and 55-200mm (soon to be sold) and be replaced with Sigma 10-20mm or Nikon 14-24.I *don't *use the SLR for any video work.

I think the D7100 will suit my purposes for the next few years and then money permitting allow me to purchase a D800, bypassing the entry level FF D610.

I reckon I can sell my d5100 body only, with the Lowepro backpack and other accessories boxed for £250.00. D7100 £839 less the £100.00 cashback. Difference of £489

Your thoughts please?


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 3, 2014)

I'm guessing everyone's first question is what will you be shooting. I own a 7100, and I am head over heels for it. I have owned several others and a FF at one point. I shoot macro, portraits and landscapes, and it has served me well thus far. If your priority is image quality, I think the 5300 can rival the flagship asp-c cameras if you want to save a bit more.

The d7100 is good for most everything the general photographer will shoot. It gets noisy at high ISOs, however. I don't think I've ever went pass 1250 and have been happy with the noise.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 3, 2014)

I would go for the d7000 if the image quality of your d5100 suffices, allowing you buy the wide angle now. If you need an upgraded af and mp the d7100 is your better choice.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 3, 2014)

If you wanted to save a bit of money you could get a refurb'd /used d7000 - 16mp.   You will notice a large difference in functionality to your 5100 - focus points, tracking etc (found that out from another thread and reading the 5100 manual).  I think the 5100 is also a 16mp camera like the d7000.

You have some nice DX lenses.

fyi, I have a d7000 and d600
I also wear glasses but use the diopter control so I don't with the camera.


----------



## ruifo (Apr 3, 2014)

For DxOMark website, the D5200 continues to have the best IQ among all crop sensors cameras.

An alternative too is waiting for the Nikon rumored new releases.
D7200 and D9300 have been rumored.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon/351122-nikon-rumors-d7200-30-jan-2014-a.html
Nikon D7200 | Nikon Rumors

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon/356032-d9300-real.html
Breaking: Nikon D9300 DSLR camera on the horizon | Nikon Rumors


----------



## tank121 (Apr 3, 2014)

Sorry forgot that vital information. At the moment I'm shooting everything that doesn't move! I've got to decide on my nice I know but I've done some brief studio work on my course but love shooting outdoors, buildings and landscapes etc. No sport currently.


----------



## tank121 (Apr 3, 2014)

Ruifo thanks for that, I was aware of the impending releases. However, if you want next gen you pay for it. A good camera to me is all about image quality not the extras it comes with E.G. gps, wirleless etc. Like my phone choices the priority is about clear phone calls and it working with hands free. The fact that I can access email etc etc is an added bonus. If I want to watch moves I'll watch them on a 50" TV not a 5" inch phone.


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 3, 2014)

jaomul said:


> I would go for the d7000 if the image quality of your d5100 suffices, allowing you buy the wide angle now. If you need an upgraded af and mp the d7100 is your better choice.



+1


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 3, 2014)

tank121 said:


> Sorry forgot that vital information. At the moment I'm shooting everything that doesn't move! I've got to decide on my nice I know but I've done some brief studio work on my course but love shooting outdoors, buildings and landscapes etc. No sport currently.



I don't think you have to decide on a niche unless you're going pro. Life's too short for unnecessary limitations. If you're shooting all still life, you have a lot to choose from. The D7000 refurb is $600 and new is $699, which is under the 5300 and will allow you to get into faster movement shooting if you ever get into that.


----------



## ruifo (Apr 3, 2014)

tank121 said:


> Ruifo thanks for that, I was aware of the impending releases. However, if you want next gen you pay for it. A good camera to me is all about image quality not the extras it comes with E.G. gps, wirleless etc. Like my phone choices the priority is about clear phone calls and it working with hands free. The fact that I can access email etc etc is an added bonus. If I want to watch moves I'll watch them on a 50" TV not a 5" inch phone.



Fair enough.
think of the D5200 (scored 84 by DxOMark for image quality) or the D7100 (scored 83 by DxOMark for image quality).


----------



## tank121 (Apr 3, 2014)

Thanks everyone for your input so far, still looking at the 7100 the site below is great.

Nikon D5300 vs D7100 - Our Analysis

Nikon D7100 vs D7000 - Our Analysis


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 3, 2014)

Well for the D5200 viewfinder is a big step up from the 5100, much larger and easier to see focus points.  If budget is the key factor and you don't mind giving up some of the external controls and the built in autofocus motor it is a great choice.  The image quality is first rate.

You also can't go wrong with the 7100, it has a lot of advantages over the 5200 so if it's within your budget I'd seriously consider going that route

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## goodguy (Apr 3, 2014)

Personally I wouldn't choose the D7000 over the D7100
While for some this isnt a big deal I found stepping from my old D7000 to the 24MP D7100 a big step up and a great help when cropping, 24MP vs 16MP does make a big difference to me.
IQ and low light performance between the 2 cameras is very close but for me its a no brainer I would get the D7100 over the D7000 in a heart beat, I personally think the D7100 really is worth the money difference and to be honest I don't like buying yesterdays model but of course that's just me.

One more point to mention is that I had back focusing issues with my D7000 and that's an issue with some D7000 (not very often but from reading feedback of D7000 owners on Nikon's site I saw I wasnt the only one who suffered from this problem) while as far as I know the D7100 doesn't have any specific repeating problems as the D7000 does with its back focusing issues did, just another piece of info to consider.
If you had a D7000 and was happy with I wouldn't recommend to upgrade to the D7100 but if you have the D5100 then absolutely go with the D7100

Getting the D5200 is a possibility but I think for someone who is serious about photography the D7100 is worth the extra cash, also no doubt the D5300 is a pretty impressive tool but its price is so close to the D7100 that I don't see any real reason to get it over the better body D7100


----------



## Braineack (Apr 3, 2014)

Wait for the D7200 and don't even worry about going to FF?


----------



## jaomul (Apr 3, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Wait for the D7200 and don't even worry about going to FF?



Do you intentionally try to be unhelpful or funny. You succeed in one


----------



## Braineack (Apr 3, 2014)

The D7200 will be better than the D7100 and the need to go FF will be greatly reduced.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 3, 2014)

D7000 and D7100 both have a pentaprism viewfinder, not a pentamirror type, so the view through the eyepiece is a bit better with both cameras. I'd rather own a D7100 if I had GOOD lenses to leverage the higher megapixel sensor and no AA filter. The price on the D7000 is lower than that of the D7100, but then the camera is older and lower in MP count.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 3, 2014)

Goes back to the OPs budget too ....


----------



## KmH (Apr 3, 2014)

tank121 said:


> My *priority is image quality* and *I can't afford a FF body. . . *


The quickest and least expensive way to improve image quality is to upgrade the photographer's skill and knowledge. Understanding photographic lighting is usually a key factor.

What's Your Biggest Problem? | byThom | Thom Hogan

Lots of people spend money to upgrade equipment as a way to get better IQ and see no significant IQ improvement with the new gear.


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Apr 3, 2014)

Braineack said:


> The D7200 will be better than the D7100 and the need to go FF will be greatly reduced.




Not really, Full Frame sensors have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they can produce the highest image quality, the disparity will always be there and will actually grow as both technologies continue to improve. Derrel recently stated very correctly I might add that there are obvious advantages and equally obvious disadvantages to both sensor formats.  The biggest disadvantage to Full Frame sensors though is the cost of the camera, I am still shooting old crop sensor cameras and they work fine.  If I had the cash though I would not upgrade to yet another dx sensor, I would go straight into full frame.


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Apr 3, 2014)

KmH said:


> tank121 said:
> 
> 
> > My *priority is image quality* and *I can't afford a FF body. . . *
> ...




I agree with this, I find my obsolete cameras produce great image quality, the largest hinderance to getting awesome images is me.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 3, 2014)

You probably can't learn to like a small viewfinder better though no matter what skills you learn. The small viewfinder is one of the OPs major gripes with their camera


----------



## KmH (Apr 3, 2014)

jaomul said:


> You probably can't learn to like a small viewfinder better though no matter what skills you learn. The small viewfinder is one of the OPs major gripes with their camera


For me that has never been an issue, and to tell the truth I cannot fathom how it could be for anyone else from a practical perspective.
It is just so easy to account/allow for the fact the viewfinder is a tad less than 100%.


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 3, 2014)

KmH said:


> For me that has never been an issue, and to tell the truth I cannot fathom how it could be for anyone else from a practical perspective. It is just so easy to account/allow for the fact the viewfinder is a tad less than 100%.



Maybe the size itself? Like my d40 view finder is tiny and dim. My d90 is much nicer and the d700 is better than both. Brighter and larger


----------



## tank121 (Apr 3, 2014)

Mach0 is spot on, it's not the coverage the viewfinder provides but as I originally stated its dim and focusing points are too. The D5100 is a good camera but it's what ever suits the shooter best. The size of the body too felt a bit small so I bought a 3rd party grip - big difference for me. I know a better camera doesn't make you a better photographer you've still got to have an eye for an image.


----------



## bigal1000 (Apr 3, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Wait for the D7200 and don't even worry about going to FF?



Your kidding right !!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 3, 2014)

KmH said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > You probably can't learn to like a small viewfinder better though no matter what skills you learn. The small viewfinder is one of the OPs major gripes with their camera
> ...



I do not think what is being discussed here is 95% viewfinder coverage versus 100%, but rather the ACTUAL, physically "smaller" viewfinder area that the pentamirror cameras from all the manufacturers have, as opposed to larger, clearer, sharper, higher-contrast, higher-magnifaction, and just simply BETTER viewfinders that the *pentaprism* cameras have.

For me, looking through a Nikon D3200 or a Canon Rebel or the newest miniature Canon body (their really tiny one...forget the model) the view through the camera's eyepiece...is small, and poor, and basically sucks. A couple months ago I went down to Best Buy and picked up and handled a bunch of d-slrs and some compacts. These cameras use cheaper lower-grade pentamirror cameras to save money and save weight. The pentamirror type entry level cameras are cheaper, not "better" than their more-expensive stable-mates for a reason.

The Canon 70D for example has a BRIGHT, CLEAR, SHARP viewfinder image that's decently-sized. For a crop-body the new Canon 70D has a wonderful viewfinder; yet still, a 5D Mark III has an even BIGGER, better, and more-easily seen through viewfinder. The pentamirror equipped Canon EOS d-slr, their miniaturized model, has a tiny, sucky viewfinder. For me, an eyeglass wearer, middle-aged, and a very picky user, the viewfinder image through basically ALL of the lowest-end d-slr cameras is just almost unusable...it's a decided hindrance. The magnification is low, the physical size is small, the image is not as bright, nor as crisp as it could be, and the eye relief is poor, so I cannot see out to the corners of the frame.

The development and refinement of Live View has mitigated the penalty against pentamirrors, at least for shooting that can be done in Live View mode and for users who use Live View a lot.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 3, 2014)

KmH said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > You probably can't learn to like a small viewfinder better though no matter what skills you learn. The small viewfinder is one of the OPs major gripes with their camera
> ...



Well actually having owned a D5100 it wasn't so much the less than 100% coverage that made it difficult to use, it as the fact that the focus points were very small and rather dark so they were a bit difficult to work with at times especially for an eyeglass wearer who is - well not to sugar coat it but blind as a bat.

For me the 5200 was a huge step up in this regard, the focus points were much bigger and easy to see, highlighted very well, really stood out from the subject and just made the whole experience using the viewfinder so much nicer.  I assume the viewfinders on the 7x series are as nice if not nicer than the D5200, but one of my major gripes back when I had the D5100 was the viewfinder as well so I can feel the OP's pain there.. lol


----------



## bigal1000 (Apr 17, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Wait for the D7200 and don't even worry about going to FF?



Where did you get that info on a D7200 Why not go FF if you can afford it,no DX can compete with a FF on an IQ stand point. I see you own the D600 why tell others not to go FF?? Just asking.


----------



## ruifo (Apr 17, 2014)

bigal1000 said:


> Where did you get that info on a D7200




Check out here:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon/351122-nikon-rumors-d7200-30-jan-2014-a.html


----------



## Braineack (Apr 17, 2014)

bigal1000 said:


> Where did you get that info on a D7200


 
the internet.



> Why not go FF if you can afford it,no DX can compete with a FF on an IQ stand point.



under most normal lighting conditions, they certainly can.

It what ways does the picture from the D7100 in this shot cannot compete with this shot from a D600 from an IQ standpoint?




> I see you own the D600 why tell others not to go FF?? Just asking.



I didn't necessarily say don't get FF.  But considering the price barrier, one should probably have a reason to go FF for better reasons than: the IQ is better.  Because honestly, the IQ isn't even _that_ bad on a D5100, what the OP currently shoots and said he had issue with.

The OP also alluded that after the purchase of the D7100, he would save up for the next year or so and jump straight into a D800, which is a great camera.  Currently, he would have not a single lens to shoot on it with.  If the latest D7000 series camera was purchased, assuming an even better specsheet over the D7100, that there might not be the need to go FF. So really I was merely suggesting, that if you get the latest D7000 series, if it ever does have a release date, it will be an improvement over the D7100, which is already a stellar camera with one of the best crop-sensors on the market.

When I wrote that post, I was under the assumption the D7200 was something actually coming to fruition, but I haven't heard anything new about it. Ignoring the D7200 for now, I can list plenty of reasons to get a D7100 over a D600.  Likewise, I can list plenty of reasons to get a D600 over a D7100; IQ not really being one of them.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 18, 2014)

The ff/crop debate usually at some stage ends up in an argument, in fact this one has been quite informative and pleasant. I (and I am far from pro/expert or even very knowledgeable) will say that having owned and used micro 4/3rds, crop and fullframe Canon and crop nikon cameras, that image quality in normal day to day scenarios where someone is not printing massively is not as big an issue as a few years ago. Even the m4/3 cameras with their sensors 1/4 the size of fullframe can compete at low iso.

Some Users though get a better experience or see a quality or property in different types of cameras that others don't see. This is user preferences and cannot be explained in a post. Likely one has to use all types and see for themselves.


----------



## Solarflare (Apr 24, 2014)

With Nikon, the advantage of full frame is obvious enough: much better choices when it comes to lenses. There is simply no DX equivalent to 3 of the 4 FX lenses I use. The only exception is the 50mm f1.8, since the 35mm f1.8 for DX is just as good.

Nikon DX is of course really good if you like superzooms (18-200mm f3.5-5.6, 18-300mm f3.5-5.6, 18-300mm f3.5-6.3, I wonder when they will stop) or really need extreme telephoto (since then you get 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 and all that jazz). Otherwise the Nikon DX lens selection is IMHO already worse than what for example Fuji X has to offer.


----------



## bigal1000 (Apr 24, 2014)

Braineack said:


> bigal1000 said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you get that info on a D7200
> ...



Oh yea I forgot about that TV commercial if you see it on the internet it must be true.


----------



## bc_steve (Apr 24, 2014)

But you can use FX lenses on DX so it's not really a big deal.  At the wide end it is advantageous to use a DX specific lens since they are generally faster or smaller than the equivalent FX lens.

DX has several advantages too.  It's better for wildlife shooting (higher pixel density).  And it is significantly cheaper.

It really depends what kind of shooting you're into.  If you find yourself shooting a lot a high ISO and using thin DoF a lot, full frame is probably for you.  If you're into shooting small birds, it probably isn't.


----------



## daviddein (Apr 29, 2014)

tank121 said:


> Currently i have a Nikon D5100 and close to completing my college photography course. My biggest issue with the D5100 is the quality and size of the viewfinder compared to other SLR camera's I've tested. It's not the brightest and the focus points aren't the clearest and there is only one cross type. I do wear glasses too but try to take them off whilst shooting and adjust the diopter. In addition I can't use older Nikon lenses without the built in motor.
> 
> My *priority is image quality* and *I can't afford a FF body*, I've currently got 3 DX lenses - Sigma 17-50 2.8, Nikon 35mm 1.8 and 55-200mm (soon to be sold) and be replaced with Sigma 10-20mm or Nikon 14-24.I *don't *use the SLR for any video work.
> 
> ...


I felt very please with D7100


----------



## sonicbuffalo (May 10, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> I'm guessing everyone's first question is what will you be shooting. I own a 7100, and I am head over heels for it. I have owned several others and a FF at one point. I shoot macro, portraits and landscapes, and it has served me well thus far. If your priority is image quality, I think the 5300 can rival the flagship asp-c cameras if you want to save a bit more.
> 
> The d7100 is good for most everything the general photographer will shoot. It gets noisy at high ISOs, however. I don't think I've ever went pass 1250 and have been happy with the noise.



low light is also a lens issue....get better glass!


----------



## tank121 (May 10, 2014)

Just picked up the 7100. Anyone ever had a one side of their box scratched like this with Nikon, should i take it back?


----------



## sonicbuffalo (May 10, 2014)

Just take it back and tell them you want a new box.  I don't blame you.  Think of resale value with a beatup box!


----------



## hamlet (May 10, 2014)

What about the extra stop of light full frame provides? Is that not important in making an evaluation?


----------



## tank121 (May 11, 2014)

Took it back and got a full refund the only other one in stock was fine, however the d610 and d800's were fine. Placing an order with LCS tomorrow. For once I'm glad the weather was rubbish this weekend in the UK!


----------



## bigal1000 (May 11, 2014)

tank121 said:


> Just picked up the 7100. Anyone ever had a one side of their box scratched like this with Nikon, should i take it back?View attachment 73523



Yes and the camera was fine new and unused your box is scuffed but that does not mean there is anything wrong with the camera !!


----------



## bigal1000 (May 11, 2014)

jaomul said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Wait for the D7200 and don't even worry about going to FF?
> ...



Don't waste your time it always the same !!


----------



## tank121 (May 11, 2014)

Each to their own, glad I got a refund as they were not very helpful and tried to send me to the technical support queue. Imagine if there had been and issue with camera.


----------

