Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7100
D7000 vs D7100
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 230929" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>There are many lenses out there "worthy of" the D7100. While many can see the difference between glass that costs 4-figures and those that cost a couple hundred dollars that doesn't mean that amazing photos can't be taken with the less expensive lenses (I didn't use "cheaper" because that implies lack of quality, and that's often not the case). I use a 24-85mm lens that can be had for about $400 on my D800 and unless I'm shooting wide open and praying for bokeh I would challenge folks blind to the EXIF data to know that the shot taken at f8 wasn't taken with the 24-70mm f/2.8. Don't listen to ridiculous the "you bought a race car, why put cheap tires on it" analogies - they are born out of talking and not shooting. There's good glass and great glass, and unless you have a specific need, like bokeh at low apertures and razor sharp and thin depth of field, you're likely better off with a couple good lenses than one great (and expensive) one. I shoot with what I call the "unholy trinity", a grouping of f/4 zooms that I bought for a little more than one of the f/2.8 lenses. That saved me a lot of money, which I can spend on other equipment, or trips to go somewhere worth shooting.</p><p></p><p>As a former D7000 owner I would recommend keeping the D7100 if you have both and can afford it once you figure out how you're splitting things up. The improvements in high ISO noise reduction alone are worth the price. The D7000 is a fine camera, but at ISO 1600 and above the noise becomes an issue. The 24MP sensor means that when your lens reach still isn't enough you will have better resolution after cropping, so if you shoot wildlife you're getting more pixels per critter, and that's important to both the amateur and the pro. </p><p></p><p>As for your lenses, without using some critical piece of measurement software, such as the Dx0Mark stuff, you won't find any degradation in image quality with those lenses from camera to camera. And the software is merely spitting out critical numbers and looking across the extremes of the equipment. I venture to guess that most of us do the large majority of our shooting somewhere in the sweet spot range of our equipment, so the numbers mean very little - or nothing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 230929, member: 9240"] There are many lenses out there "worthy of" the D7100. While many can see the difference between glass that costs 4-figures and those that cost a couple hundred dollars that doesn't mean that amazing photos can't be taken with the less expensive lenses (I didn't use "cheaper" because that implies lack of quality, and that's often not the case). I use a 24-85mm lens that can be had for about $400 on my D800 and unless I'm shooting wide open and praying for bokeh I would challenge folks blind to the EXIF data to know that the shot taken at f8 wasn't taken with the 24-70mm f/2.8. Don't listen to ridiculous the "you bought a race car, why put cheap tires on it" analogies - they are born out of talking and not shooting. There's good glass and great glass, and unless you have a specific need, like bokeh at low apertures and razor sharp and thin depth of field, you're likely better off with a couple good lenses than one great (and expensive) one. I shoot with what I call the "unholy trinity", a grouping of f/4 zooms that I bought for a little more than one of the f/2.8 lenses. That saved me a lot of money, which I can spend on other equipment, or trips to go somewhere worth shooting. As a former D7000 owner I would recommend keeping the D7100 if you have both and can afford it once you figure out how you're splitting things up. The improvements in high ISO noise reduction alone are worth the price. The D7000 is a fine camera, but at ISO 1600 and above the noise becomes an issue. The 24MP sensor means that when your lens reach still isn't enough you will have better resolution after cropping, so if you shoot wildlife you're getting more pixels per critter, and that's important to both the amateur and the pro. As for your lenses, without using some critical piece of measurement software, such as the Dx0Mark stuff, you won't find any degradation in image quality with those lenses from camera to camera. And the software is merely spitting out critical numbers and looking across the extremes of the equipment. I venture to guess that most of us do the large majority of our shooting somewhere in the sweet spot range of our equipment, so the numbers mean very little - or nothing. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7100
D7000 vs D7100
Top